Is this Spitfire fuel gauge face genuine?

I worked at Smiths for most of my working life and in the early days… the late 60’s; Radium 226 powder was still being used. The powder was mixed with distilled water and adhesive liquid and applied to the engraved, and already white-filled character with a fine camel-haired brush.
No matter how skilled you were, it was virtually impossible to follow the white outline without some minute spreading of the compound. That is why the Radium application is always very slightly uneven; (it also depended on the thickness of the mix.)
That is why the dread horror stories of licking the brush to get a fine point evolved.
Genuine dial characters are always uneven and the Radium has usually turned a biscuit colour due to ageing and reaction with the adhesive bonding agent.
So; If the calibrations on the dial look too good to be true; they are!… and the instrument in question is probably a screen-printed knock-off, or has been doctored with Letraset rub-down transfers stained to resemble the real thing.
Incidentally as of yet, I haven’t grown a third one and do not glow in the dark!

whilst on the subject of gauges .

A member on this forum was selling some very clearly described reproduction Spitfire undercarriag eindicators.
I have a need for one and I am blowed if I can remember who it was/is.

If he is viewing woud he be kind enough to pm me if he has one left and the usual please ?

Mike E

www.aircraftrestorationgroup.org

The secret 3

Smiths must appreciate the compliment paid by all this counterfeiting, and in the interests of extending the compliment I have thought about what could be done about the 60-63 gallon gauges for Hind-Demon that can’t be found. I have a lot of the potentiometer-rheostats that sat on top of the cork float sender, and I am wondering whether these were different for a 37 gallon or 63 gallon arrangement. I am now thinking that all the sender pot-rheostats were the same, which would make sense. The length of the shaft of the sender unit, and the length of the wire arm connecting the cork float would generate a mechanical lever movement that would result in the same movement of the pot-rheo arrangement. If this is true, then the gauge would also be identical in the guts irrespective of 37 -48 – 63 gallon. Therefore, all that would be different is really the face of the gauge. So, in possession of any gauge, it could be turned to any application by careful consideration of the sender geometry, which is what I think happened back then as the Smith fuel sender system was adapted from Hinds to Mosquitos and onwards.

I am thinking more in the sense of putting together an operating system, where the weakest link is the availability of the appropriate gauge face, because unloved senders can be found; worse, if the right gauge is available, the danger that it will irradiate my left kneecap, given its position on the panel.

It is not difficult to laser etch and screen print a gauge face, in fact a good copy is to be admired, for it takes more concentration than the original.
If anyone does turn an Anson into Angelina Jolie they should do a deal though : leave a telltale that will be obvious to all connoisseurs and disciples of the true art : perhaps the secret 3….

Nice 48 gal fuel gauge Mike. I’m looking for one if anyone has one.

Im agree with Peter on this one.

Seller is Corke Aero.

On a separate note and nothing to do with the above entry ,I also think Spitfire nose up/down gauges and also under carriage gauges are also replicated, again no doubt to them being extremely scarce.

I didn’t buy the gauge – it doesn’t look right to me.

This is the ebay listing:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ww2-spitfire-37-gallon-fuel-gauge-good-condition-/271439448175?nma=true&si=sjBcRllO5b8aY6pwCzEsfR%252FPhtU%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Looking at the items for sale I think I recognise this seller from Aerojumble events ie Shoreham / Newark etc. Certainly an experienced seller and I would be surprised if he wasn’t a forum member.

Attached is what i believe to be a CCF Hurricane fuel gauge. I have seen a few of these and all have Liquidometer Corp markings on the rear. [ATTACH=CONFIG]227408[/ATTACH] That said, i guess even these could have been faked/reproduced by someone who is determined enough.

This is the ebay listing:

The engine starting button flaps he is advertising are repro. too.

I didn’t buy the gauge – it doesn’t look right to me.

This is the ebay listing:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ww2-spitfire-37-gallon-fuel-gauge-good-condition-/271439448175?nma=true&si=sjBcRllO5b8aY6pwCzEsfR%252FPhtU%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Bruce – I would think the 400MPH ones are your best best. Why not just remove the face, turn it over and get the reverse engraved. They are fluorescent so low risk.

I must admit, I’ve considered getting a batch of 480 MPH faces made for Mk IX ASI’s, as they are pretty scarce now. I have many hundreds of Mk IX ASI’s reading in Knots, and it would be a simple job to swap over the face.

However, there would need to be a method of telling the real from the fake.

Bruce

This is the problem with repros over time diluting the pool of aviation artefacts. Where theres money there is a market. If we have to look twice at the instrument then perhaps the seller doesn’t realise that he is selling fakes. The issues of cost of these guages ( in the hundreds of pounds) the availability and the health issues of radium paint can make these guages quite attractive to collectors. In an ideal world if would be nice if the words “reproduction” were discretely etched on a small corner of the back case, hopefully not spoling the showing of the front. Out of interest how much did you purchase these for?

I’ll ask for a pic Ollie but I never heard of that before…

Although i would agree with the general consensus, before we can say with 100% certainty that it is spurious, could you take a photo of the rear of the case. The Americans produced instruments on behalf of the Air Ministry and i have seen seen Anson and Hurricane fuel gauges with the same font /number 3 as shown on your fuel gauge. Canadian Hurricane fuel gauges were generally produce by Liquidometer Corp and are usually marked with this. Could it have been possible that they also manufactured Spitfire fuel gauges?

Thanks Peter. I have a number of these old Smiths fuel gauges and in all of them, and in your picture the font is very different to the gauge I posted. It seems quite difficult to match wartime fonts precisely.

Two of these gauges were sold by the same seller on ebay so far this month. They are clearly advertised as Spitfire gauges which plainly isn’t the case. Looks to me as though they are deliberate fakes. I wonder who bought the other gauge?

Any comments?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]227389[/ATTACH]

Elliot, here is a picture of a real one.. notice the difference in font?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]227396[/ATTACH]

Although i would agree with the general consensus, before we can say with 100% certainty that it is spurious, could you take a photo of the rear of the case. The Americans produced instruments on behalf of the Air Ministry and i have seen seen Anson and Hurricane fuel gauges with the same font /number 3 as shown on your fuel gauge. Canadian Hurricane fuel gauges were generally produce by Liquidometer Corp and are usually marked with this. Could it have been possible that they also manufactured Spitfire fuel gauges?

Repro.

The “luminised” tank readings are simply a paint match for radium compound.* The markings would also be thicker and less precise, as FLY.BUY says. And as Ian_ says, the font is not accurate either.

Volume I of my books contains a photo of a genuine one which shows up all the differences.

*Know anyone with a geiger counter?

Technology is so good these days that its hard to tell which are originals and which are not. Items that are produced and sold in good fairh as reproductions pass through many hands and as time progresses they get lost in translation and sold as originals. From memory don’t the originals have raised paint (almost 3D effect) along the numbers 0-37 and the circular line (in essence the brown painted part at the bottom) as this part was hand painted?

My thoughts exactly Ian. Anyone else agree? Any pics of the genuine article at all please?