S.o.e.

[SiPo]

"Clandestine" equipment. Called that and manufactured for a reason. Not meant to be displayed or compared with by "collectors" many years down the line. Some of these weapons were period manufactured by companies such as HG Long and Mappin and Webb but were also probably made by a plethora of others. Some were also hand made locally by the owners or for the owners. Whatever the case, there are known originals that do compare to others and some that don't compare to others.

Since one of the pieces was compared with the HG Long post war type, lets have a look. Pay attention to the ringed area.

[SiPo]

As for the tyre slasher, you can in fact get a surprisingly good purchase if you maintain a firm grip.

Have I tried to use one on a tyre? No, but I know someone who has and they told me it achieved its aim but it was an incredibly difficult thing to do.

However, that was on a modern tyre.

Would it have worked on a wartime tyre? Don't know, I do not have one to try it with but I very much doubt the wartime tyre was made as strongly as a modern day tyre?

[lyness]

I seem to have stirred something-up but I reason that if something is posted as original and it is not, it is open to fair debate. My mention of Long said that the piece was somewhat akin to those made by that firm, but they will not necessarily be 100% identical. However in pointing to the pommel area the correct shape for a real one is as per those the one shown in this image. And before anyone comments the blade of this piece it has been slightly sharpened.

[SiPo]

Thank you for showing your example.

if something is posted as original and it is not, it is open to fair debate.

Your opinion. I say it is, you say it isnt. You have only shown an example of a different style. This does not make yours any better than mine.

My mention of Long said that the piece was somewhat akin to those made by that firm, but they will not necessarily be 100% identical.

And neither will the originals either. These did not have blueprints from which several manufacturers worked to exactly, which is why there are original examples out there that are each slightly different.

in pointing to the pommel area the correct shape for a real one is as per those the one shown in this image.

And yet the pommel area on yours looks different to the known Mappin and Webb originals?

Again, as I have said earlier, I am happy with these and I feel very priveleged to be the new custodian of them.

[lyness]

And yet the pommel area on yours looks different to the known Mappin and Webb originals?

Without dragging this saga out who says Mappin and Webb made these? Where is the evidence? As far as I am aware there are no historical records to confirm who made them, the only published sources being by the likes of Windrum whose books on clandestine weapons are totally unreliable.

[SiPo]

Totally agree with your assessment of Windrum' s work but I do believe the odd nugget of truth can be found in his work.

My source is actually personal correspondence from Keith Melton in or around the late 80's early 90's, which I believe pre dated Windrums report of these facts by several years. It is my understanding that Melton does have documentary evidence regarding M&W' s involvement with clandestine weapon manufacture.

It is entirely possible that Melton also gave Windy Bill the info on the meeting between Sinclair and M&W in '42, which is why it ended up in his work several years later.

[lyness]

I am afraid to say this gets us back to a name mentioned previously. Keith had a long assocoiation with peter mason and bought a lot of stuff from but in more recent years he is very reluctant to talk about it. With many of the stories about these sort of knives being planted by mason on then unsuspecting collectors. Thus these sort of stories need talking with a very large pinch of salt.

[SiPo]

Ordinarily I would agree with you up to a point. But do we actually know where Melton got the M&W information and original drawings from? You are presuming it came from Mason and just because Mason is dodgy your automatically dismissing it? But there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the M&W info came from Mason so I'm afraid I don't take the story with a pinch of salt at all.

There is no doubting Mason' s involvement with Melton but we also shouldn't doubt Meltons access to all things clandestine, be it gadgets or personnel, so why should we frown upon some of the information he provides?

Let's face it, whether we like Melton or not, we have to accept that anyone who personally knows the heads of several clandestine services as well as a great number of serving and retired spooks, may have access to information that you and I most certainly wouldn't.

We all know that Keith has got one unbelievable collection and I refuse to accept for one single minute that it ALL came from Mason and again, there is no evidence that proves it did.

[seebee1]

The background and the prolific nature of Mason's weaponry and spy-type gadgetry, also the writings of Windrum are "cloudy", but within this there certainly are materials that are original and authentic. Melton certainly has the finest collection and knowledge of clandestine equipment and weaponry, also some of the best connections possible. It is almost impossible to prove the authenticity and originality of clandestine equipment, after all it was never intended for public view or debate. The very best provenance and history comes from those who used and owned it, sadly, in the case of WW2, this will not be possible in the forthcoming years. Two books that I have referred to often are the "Secret Agents Handbook" (SOE) and "OSS Weapons" by John Brunner (OSS). Information in these publications is factual and in my view, without question or dispute. There are many copies, fakes and reproductions about and this will increase with the ability to find and source original items now becoming very difficult and in some instances impossible. Collectors today need far more proof and provenance than in the past, due to availability and sharing of information, in the main through the Internet and Forums such as this.

[lyness]

Well said seebee1.

As to the discussion on Mappin and Webb whilst no one is suggesting that keith got all his stuff from mason, the reference to this seems to come from melton, ladd and mason's clandestine warfare page 30. With the majority of the thumbb knives that are in the same picture being typical of mason's wares I treat the whole thing with some skeptisim. It being strange that the one supposed accepted for SOE use bears no resemblance to the one in the official SOE catalogue.

[seebee1]

A reference book I forgot to mention is "OSS Special Weapons and Equipment-Spy Devices of WW11". This is by Keith Melton, with a forward by William Colby, former director of the CIA. It should be noted that Mason also contributed. It has some very interesting images and articles, purported to be from Copy 40 of the Special Weapons and Devices Research and Development Branch Office of Strategic Services Washington June 1944. This catalog is the American equivalent to the British SOE's Secret Agents Handbook.

I believe it is difficult to prove the Mappin and Webb account of making the Sleeve Dagger. There may be evidence, but I have not seen it. The company is known mainly for Jewellery, also Cutlery.

I could not find my copy of the Clandestine warfare book mentioned, but attach an image of my example of the SOE Thumb Knife. This is to the top right of the image, my example is blackened and with chequering to the grip area. I believe it has a fair chance of being original, it came from a good source, but have no proof, provenance or history.

[lyness]

Melton's version of OSS Special Weapons and Equipment-Spy Devices of WW11 has been "seeded" with other pieces not in the original catalog those items being marked with an *. Whilst many of these are genuine items (mainly British) the small fighting knife on page 16 is a complete phoney.

[SiPo]

At the end of the day, I posted a dagger that I am fully happy with being original.

Someone else stated this was a fake but has not shown any firm evidence to prove this. Another style of the same type of dagger was posted with the statement that only this type was original, but again was not supported by evidence?

I think we need to clarify to people interested in this thread that it is extremely difficult to substantiate any clandestine related piece due to the very nature of the reasons they were manufactured. Certain publications such as "Descriptive Catalogue of Special Devices and Supplies" help to support certain items but we know that not everything available was in the catalogue?

Also, as stated in an earlier post even if an item was pictured and documented, there would have been differences between pieces due to differing manufacturers. This can be evidenced by the knife that Clive has posted. It is similar to the wartime piece yet different in parts. Is it real? Who knows? However, Clive is happy with it partly because of its source.

The problem is, anyone can now look in this thread, see that Clive's knife is not 100% the same as the one published so states it is fake and yet provides no evidence to support this! That same person can now post a different style of knife saying that only this type is original, again with no evidence to support this?

I do not disagree with anything regarding Mason or Melton, but there is no evidence that all information contained in books associated with these two has to be corrupt or "taken with a pinch of salt."

Again, I cannot see why the Mappin & Webb theory is being so readily dismissed just beacause it was mentioned by Melton?

As Clive has posted, M&W produced cutlery. In fact they started out as a cutlers before becoming jewellers. Also, lets not forget that during the war, Mappin & Webb's company factories were converted for the manufacture of armaments. Therefore, it is completely feasible that they were approached to make knives for clandestine purposes.

Melton alludes to M&W's involvement with clandestine weapons but because no other documentation, other than the pictures he has, have been forthcoming does not mean we should dismiss such information readily. In the absence of concrete evidence, I am very much keeping an open mind and am not dismissing it.

Whilst I am here, I would be very interested in members theories as to the purpose of the single or double hooks at the end of the "fish hook" daggers similar to the one I posted at the start of this thread and another example here (http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...13&postcount=1)?

[seebee1]

A Sleeve Dagger bought over 35 years ago directly from the veteran who owned it. I have two examples of this dagger, this one only with provenance.

[seebee1]

Images 3 & 4