[ Back to the listing ]
[ Post Reply ]
[ Help ]
[ Search ]
[ List All Forums ]
Posted By: Walt Mathers on: 05/11/2003 09:18:39 EDT|
Subject: 3 Ans to Yr 2 Qusts
Your points are well rec'd. Please allow me answer them a bit out of order.
(2) Are you considering the added weight of flying torch as a factor (in setting aside the lower/larger
Subsequentally, the torch would have been fix'd upon the second or middle joint in a three section service kit compliment. (I'd like to know if the bottom of the first joint in a service kit was capped over, or made with a receiving sleeve as the second joint of a regulation section may have been.)
(1) I'd be inclined to be patient a while longer, to see if we can locate original(s), before cranking up production line.
My true thought would be to go with what we know already to be (the physical dimensions of each of the sections) and then retrofit later down the road. To explain this further I'd say make the taper'd hickory or ash poles to known specifications and then change the brass ferrules at a later time should we find that the orignals differed from what we have develop. That way we'd still have the poles and only have to change the fittings. The alternative would be to continue using cut saplings and save our monies until we know for sure how the sections were joined to one another. Not a bad idea either.
I suspect that we have the potential of uncovering an entire study devoted to brass ferrules and have to follow Les Jensen approach to depot uniform jackets by naming our ferrules type 'two' or Condict grade '63' or something of the sort. Trouble is I don't think we'll find many sets that can actually be documented to the War period but I hope I'm big-time wrong on this claim.
What do other cyber viewers think we should do? You're welcome to join in (even if you are not a re-enactor), we look forward to reading your input here on the forum.
Signal Corps Association Re-enactors' Division (SCARD)