No.32 mk3 maybe

[Micheal Doyne]

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.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[bigduke6]

There is an article regarding posting pictures but if you send it to me I'll post it for you.

[Micheal Doyne]

Thanks for the assorted help, I will now add some photos... hopefully

[Lee Enfield]

I think your give-away here is the word "MODEL"

[Micheal Doyne]

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.

[Lee Enfield]

It seems an oddly accurate model wither makers mark, that maker curved step from 1inch to ocular bell, as well as apparently 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.

[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?

[Roy W]

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

[Micheal Doyne]

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.

[Peter Laidler]

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.