Printable View
Have any of you ever seen a genuine No32 sight that appears to have never had an os number or ID number. I am highly suspicious of a sight I have been offered as it appears to have crisp marking, including broad arrow water resistance and blooming, but no numbers?
I am unsure how to add photo or I would.
There is an article regarding posting pictures but if you send it to me I'll post it for you.
Thanks for the assorted help, I will now add some photos... hopefully
I think your give-away here is the word "MODEL"
It seems an oddly accurate model with the Taylor-Hobson makers mark, and their distinctive curved step from 1inch to ocular bell, as well as apparently being optically clear and functional. Is there any likelihood a manufacturer would make and retain a complete specimen? As you can no doubt tell I am clutching at straws a bit. Anyhow seller is sending free of charge for inspection so il take a closer look in a couple of days. Just thought I’d get the general thoughts.
It appears to be a "Taylor Hobson & Co", possibly a "pilot" or "Model" if you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micheal Doyne
Are there any known Taylor Hobson fakes out there?
I currently only own an RSM No32 Mk2 copy with which to compare it too, so bar checking approximate functionality, external materials used and looking for a higher quality of finish than rsm (not too hard) I’m not sure what I can check for. I have Peter Laidler’s book but wouldn’t feel comfortable dissembling it my self unless it was,
A) paid for
B) proved to have been a useless (as a sight) fake
So not really an option. I could send it for a service but once again only once paid for.
Are there any non invasive tests I could reasonably carry out that would enable me to make an educated decision about paying for it or not?
For instance I understand blooming is visually discernible, on I believe the objective lens, but never having seen it not sure what to look for?
This was on ebay and has been ended early. Is that because you've agreed a price?
Very sparse description online, but lots more photos
Vintage Rifle Scope TEL.STG. NO32 MK3 MODEL | eBay
It ended because the description online had a few inaccuracies, like the manufacturer being listed as weaver.
He has a large stock of unknown and unwanted objects and is keen to be rid of them ASAP. We have agreed a rage of prices dependent on condition, the guy has been extremely trusting basically saying pay want you think t is worth from zero up. Given he is being extremely trusting I am keen not to knowingly or accidentally abuse that.
It LOOKS pretty kosher to me but having said that, it looks tooooooo good! I would take the desiccation screw out and test the thread against a 2BA and the segment cover screws against 8BA's. If you have a Mk3 alongside you could test the lead screw locking nuts against the model. That's all you can really do externally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Thanks Peter, glad your “looks Kosha but a tad too good” with your significant experience conures with my extremely limited knowledge.
Thank very much for advice for screws to check, I am however not 100% sure which is the desiccation screw you are referring too, on the exploded diagram in your book would this be item no. Plate reference 11, screw machine BA steel slot drive no.2 x 0.187 in. lg.
If these screws match diameter and length would it be reasonable to assume this is at lease period built by TH&C?
The desiccation screw is the red painted screw with either a rusty coloured or black fibre sealing washer underneath.
The Seller just replied to the questions I had asked about it. He said he thinks its a reproduction and it's going in the bin ..............
Our agreement was that if it was worthless eg a repro that was unusable as sight it would be sent back. If if not id pay him its value. Until Peter’s comment of it looks kosha i was very much expecting to paying for an expensive paper weight. If it is a kosha No32 I very much intend to pay him going rate for a serviced No32 Mk3 less service costQuote:
Originally Posted by Roy W
I've worked on all 4 models of the repro scopes that appear to be on the market and I am quite sure it is not a repro.
Also, being a Mk. III, as all repro's so far, are Mk.1/2 configuration.
There is a repro dealer with a CNC engraving machine and could have done the logo but the scope just does not have the features of a repro scope or not those of the ones I have worked on.
Considering the number of lunch bucket 32 scopes I have worked on over the years, you would have to tear it down to be 100% sure.
Probably the best way is to have the owner remove the erector cell adjusting cover and see what is under there.
All the repro's so far, did not have a zamac or brass segment.
No harm done to the scope and a way to check.
cheers,
So going back to this looks real and assuming it is, any one got any ideas why it has no OS numbers or scope id?
Has any one seen one marked modle before?
Additionally the turrets are immovable, is this a common failing and if so is it fixable?
Finally given I’ve committed to paying going rate to a properly operational No32 Mk3 (if it can become one) what is that, I had assumed about £1,350: but if it as pristine as it looks and has an interesting story I presume it might be a tad more.
Seized turrets are a common fault on the Mk. 3 scope.
Of the scopes I get in for repairs I'd say 75% are seized turrets and subsequent damage from someone trying to fix them with a pocket knife.
The old "spray it with WD 40 and hair drier" does not work and makes one hell of a mess when you do get into it to do the repairs.
I would also agree that it's unlikely to be a fake. It just has the aged look of period production. I wonder if it could have been a test piece or pre-production instrument? It looks externally to be a typical THCo Mk3 in every way apart from the markings. I have a 1946 dated incomplete Kershaw Mk3 that bears the typical markings save for the scope serial number. I have had it for years & just assumed that it was a lunch box special. It appears never to have borne a serial number, rather than having had one erased. The 6 of the date 1946 is also marked by hand.
I also have the scope that Simon aired on this forum several years ago (I prized it out of him), that bears a different R&D adjustment mechanism but within the general profile of the Mk3 scope tube. It also bears typical British wartime style engraving, including 'No32 MkIII', yet appears as though it may have been made by William Watson (a known No32 manufacturer, but NOT of the Mk3). This one also lacks a serial number & the OS number, but is otherwise fairly typically engraved, with that rather shallow engraving seen on Watson scopes in the 1000 to high 2000s & c.14,000 serial range. I don't have a leg to stand on, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd go for it being Watson's design submission for the Mk3, losing out to the pattern we now know so well.
There's probably a perfectly sensible explanation for the markings on the OP's scope, but whether we will ever be able to prove what it is for sure is a different matter.
Yep, 'Model' is in a different font to the rest of the markings.............
The finish looks to be original, as Warren points out, the repro's are all based on Mk11's. Wonder if it was an Example of what the Mk3 was going to be like or what the finish needed to be etc? maybe a display peice for display cabinet etc.
A lot of companies took pride in what they produced and probably even more just after the war as they would of been touting for business..........
The best example I have seen in a while of the fact this if the best place to get expert advice on all things milsurp.
Cheers to all who contributed.
Well I should have it in my (admittedly not very experienced) hands next week. And I will certainly report back on any findings.
I presume rectifying stuck Mk3 drums isn’t a job an unskilled armature... ?
Incesntly as the firm is still in existence I have sent them an email asking if they can shed any light on a model No32 with there logo on it. But given it was a few years ago I’m doubtful of anything coming back. However should anything come of it il feed back to here!
Thanks for all the responses!
I was wondering in a similar vein,Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
Could the word 'model' actually be used to indicate a non-working piece to visually demonstrate something ? (like a 'model car')
It was marked prominently with "Model" to ensure it was never shipped out as a working 'scope.
Could in fact, the turrets NOT be seized, but actually not have any internals and just be there for 'display' ?
It is certainly a mystery item.
I am rather assuming this to be the case, if only as a way of managing my own expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
Someone in the know how far should a layman progress with stripping one of these without putting risking of breakage and or having to strip the whole thing to get it back together?
Some Mk3 telescopes are a total bastard to strip, even using heat and chemicals to break down the now dried out, rock hard and bitty bitumastic based sealant. Then there's the hidden grub screws threaded deep into the............. Don't even bother. In the days that I used to repair the odd one or two, I saw enough needless damage and butchery caused by bumbling enthusiastic amateurs to last a few lifetimes. I often think that I might write a sequel to the little No32 book, detailing the carnage I saw. A classic one was no clicks past 4 on the range drum. Clicker plate locator missing and plate replaced 1/3rd of a rotation out! Apparently it left the factory like that in 1944 because the owner told me that it was original.
I think that's a very likely explanation IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
Yep, quite possibly.
But how would you stop the turrets rotating? The only things I can think of is index plates rusted onto corroded/expanded old type fibre seals or someone super-glued it together!! Drill through and pin? I wonder if the slipping scales slip.
Maybe someone ought to loosen the range lead screw lock-nut out and...... read the 'thinking of buying a No32 scope ' thread to save me writing it all out again!!!!
Come to think of it, if it was just supposed to be a non-functional piece but of the correct dimensions, why put a set of expensive precision ground optical glass lenses lenses into it....?
As Peter hinted, it'll need partially stripping just to answer some of these questions......
Talking of precision ground optical glass lenses, last call for anyone needing a set of ocular lenses for the Aldis series ofWW1 tele sights?
I would be in, If you where also offering to supply the rest of the sighting system?
Well I have it in hand so to speak, it looks rather genuine from my inexpert point of view, but genuine what is the question. Turrets are locked solid, through age or design isn’t certain. However my guess is that someone went to the trouble of stamping model onto this for a reason. I am expecting there to be rather few internals. That said it will look good on display.
All that said I will be looking to run it past an expert, or as close to as I can find.
Possibly a factory version of a sealed pattern?Quote:
Originally Posted by Micheal Doyne
How does it looks if you look through it?
What is the price?
Maby it is Possible to rebuild it to working condition
I have build a no. 42 to a no. 32 mk 3 “clone”
And it works better than inspected.
In this case lots of the parts seems to be there.
Jsne
I don't intend any disrespect to jsne - I have seen his workmanship in other threads here, & he is extremely talented, but I suspect you have something that is probably quite unique & I wouldn't try to modify it to work if it was never intended to. You'll ruin what it is. Functional No32 Mk3's are expensive, but they're out there....
However, if it is supposed to be a working scope then that's a different matter, but it'll need partial disassembly to find out.
Just my .02..........
This is my feeling as well, I do not intend to bodge it into a sighting system. However if it was a fully functional No32 I will aim to get it restored to that state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
The manufactures have very kindly agreed to look back over there marking practices. So far it has been confirmed they made both non functional species for trailing fines and mocking up, however they also made control instruments for use as reference pieces in a quality control activity. They are not sure if these where fully functional in all regard though or just sufficient for the specific test being undertaken. So jury is still out.
So do I, but I suspect it means pre-production model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
It's not stamped, it's cut in with a pantograph engraver BTW.