Gaunt MMs

[Jelly Terror]

Hail Forum,

Could anyone please tell me if these two Gaunt MMs were used simultaneously or successively?

12820C14-0B55-4503-95CE-6CE4826911F2.jpg

F5625571-7FB4-4968-9917-06C3A4FF8098.jpg

With thanks,

JT

[Alan O]

They can only be dated by the badge that they are on.

[Jelly Terror]

Originally Posted by Alan O

They can only be dated by the badge that they are on.

The badges in this instance are identical, hence the reason I wondered if there may have been a timeline with respect to the usage of these two marks. Worth a try.

Thank you.

[magpie]

You may find it's as simples one person had a straight punch and another had curved or wasn't too bothered which punch he picked up as long as it fitted on the badge.

[Jelly Terror]

Originally Posted by magpie

You may find it's as simples one person had a straight punch and another had curved or wasn't too bothered which punch he picked up as long as it fitted on the badge.

That’s a pretty common-sense theory. Sometimes I think it’s easy to overthink these things and assume rigid, by-the-book processes were in place, when the truth may be far less hard-and-fast. After all, these are really nothing more than simple, factory-produced items being knocked out to meet quotas and deadlines.

Thanks Andy.

JT

['Ticker' Riley]

Hello JT

I don’t know if you’ve seen my recent postings here about the fact I’ve been told ‘die cast’ officers’ badges are actually ‘die struck’! Anyhow, the gentleman who’s informed me of this also talks about something called a “Naming Force”; the ‘force’, apparently, being what, I think, some call the ‘male’ die (or the ‘punch’, but not in the sense of a hand-held punch). It seems this “Naming Force” was such that “The manufacturers name or identity can be cut into or relieved from the face of the force leaving this impression on the reverse of the stamped metal.”

As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t have any personal knowledge of the badge making process, and am merely going by what my informant says, so, whilst the suggestion that ‘magpie’ puts forward could well be feasible, if the maker’s mark was from a “Naming Force” then I would have thought you could well be looking at a chronological change. Though how you would determine this I don’t know, other than trying to find the same marks on other badges which, hopefully, you can date. Sorry if this has just thrown a spanner in the works!

Kind regards

Martin

[Jelly Terror]

Originally Posted by 'Ticker' Riley

Hello JT

I don’t know if you’ve seen my recent postings here about the fact I’ve been told ‘die cast’ officers’ badges are actually ‘die struck’! Anyhow, the gentleman who’s informed me of this also talks about something called a “Naming Force”; the ‘force’, apparently, being what, I think, some call the ‘male’ die (or the ‘punch’, but not in the sense of a hand-held punch). It seems this “Naming Force” was such that “The manufacturers name or identity can be cut into or relieved from the face of the force leaving this impression on the reverse of the stamped metal.”

As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t have any personal knowledge of the badge making process, and am merely going by what my informant says, so, whilst the suggestion that ‘magpie’ puts forward could well be feasible, if the maker’s mark was from a “Naming Force” then I would have thought you could well be looking at a chronological change. Though how you would determine this I don’t know, other than trying to find the same marks on other badges which, hopefully, you can date. Sorry if this has just thrown a spanner in the works!

Kind regards

Martin

Hello Martin,

Point taken though I suppose if the maker’s name was part of the die, the resulting mark would appear in exactly the same spot on the badge each and every time. I’m not sure this is the case (though it may be). Perhaps a small study would reveal the answer?

Thanks for your post.

JT

[magpie]

He's talking about a fly press with a name punch in, it the way sliders would have been named back then, a guide to the back and one side or a recessed to put the blank slider in then pull the handle so it gets down to a set depth, push the handle remove the slider and do it again, we used to do that 40 years ago making tags and labels for our various products before buying self adhesive labels.
I'd still go for hand punch ginen the low numbers for officer's badges.

[Jelly Terror]

Originally Posted by magpie

He's talking about a fly press with a name punch in, it the way sliders would have been named back then, a guide to the back and one side or a recessed to put the blank slider in then pull the handle so it gets down to a set depth, push the handle remove the slider and do it again, we used to do that 40 years ago making tags and labels for our various products before buying self adhesive labels.
I'd still go for hand punch ginen the low numbers for officer's badges.

Cheers Andy.

JT

['Ticker' Riley]

You make a good point about how the maker’s mark should be in the same place on the badge when a “Naming Force” is used JT, and, as far as my Leicesters badges are concerned, this is something I will definitely have to consider. However I suppose another way to look at things would be to think about how long a “Naming Force” would last, before it needed to be replaced, and then when this was renewed if the naming element could alter position? I’m assuming here that as the maker’s mark wouldn’t be an intrinsic part of the badge design, when the “Naming Force” is created, and such is added there is a potential for it to go in a different place to how it might have been on a previous one?

If there was such variation, then that could still be a chronological change. But to be honest until my informant told me about such things I’d never heard of a “Naming Force”, and as I’ve never worked in the badge making industry my thoughts on any change in position of a maker’s mark as part of such a process can only be speculation. Another possibility might be something similar to what ‘magpie’ suggested, only not quite as random as one person picking up one kind of hand-punch as opposed to someone else, and that could have been two stamping presses working, maybe even side by side, where the maker’s mark had been applied to each “Naming Force” in a different place; a similar scenario might exist if production was carried out at different localities. I think Gaunts did undertake manufacturing in London as well as Birmingham, though the details of this are still not clear to me, and my understanding was that many of their badges marked “London” were because this is where they were retailed and not necessarily made.

As to your comments, ‘magpie’, about “a fly press with a name punch in”, the chap who told me about the use of a “Naming Force” was definitely referring to the stamping of the badges themselves, and moreover officers’ ones, rather than the marking of sliders/vertical shanks. He clearly described a “Force” as being that which is “struck into the face of the hardened die between which the 'stamping' metal part to be stamped is placed”, and that where this was a “Naming Force” this was one where the “manufacturers name or identity can be cut into or relieved from the face of the force leaving this impression on the reverse of the stamped metal”, i.e. on the badge itself.

I dare say that the process you describe could well have been the one used to put makers’ marks onto sliders/vertical shanks, but I’m sorry that isn’t what my correspondent was talking about. With more than twenty years experience of working in the industry, I can only accept what he tells me, and, to be frank, it makes sense to me that you would add the name as part of the actual stamping process, when it comes to such on a badge, rather than punching this into it afterwards. Maybe some firms did do it like that, but as far as JT’s badges are concerned perhaps the most relevant thing is that this chap actually worked for J. R. Gaunt & Son!

Regards

Martin

[Frank Kelley]

I believe that they were used during the same time frame.

Originally Posted by Jelly Terror

Hail Forum,

Could anyone please tell me if these two Gaunt MMs were used simultaneously or successively?

Attachment 265127

Attachment 265128

With thanks,

JT