Bren Pogo Stick: Real or Repro

[Lynn Eades]

Hi Rob, The spring is definitely a replacement.
I had 4 originals.
One i traded of to Nigel Ward in Australia. he made about 20 copies if I recall correctly. He took them to the U.K to sell.
Yes they have two pinning holes and above that is a smaller drain hole.
The original spring only has an air gap about the same size as the wire dia. (do you follow?} One I have appears to have a slightly lighter spring.
The inner tube is marked TL12433 FAACO 42
The tubes seem to be stainless and have no primer only an olivey green paint
In contast, he cast top is marked FMCo and has a smaller i.d. to the B.G. mounting hole, than your one pictured.
Your screw has probably been replaced. One i have is much shorter, but the same head style.
Of the four, the one Nigel had, had a pitted top casting. The three I kept being better. One I have has very faint markings.
The flange on the bottom is marked TL12429 around the big dia.
The outer tube is marked again with the FAACO (Ford Anti Aircraft Co?????)
but the part number is faint. One, I cannot find any markings.
Does that help?
I'd say the main bits you have are original, if you can forgive the hole size in the top casting and the keeper and screw.
The bottom bit looks rather new?
It is likely the keeper is hand finished, in keeping with British methodology

[rob love]

Thanks for your insight Lynn.

The three photos in the post above yours are of Kevin's repro along with one he had borrowed which was original. The one I have has a more proportional hole on the top casting very much like the repro from Rick. There is still paint in the hole. I'll try it out on a Bren tonight for fit.

The lack of part numbers and drain hole is worrisome to me.

Does anyone know when these were initially repro'd? I thought I had read about reproductions dating right back into the 80s in the old quad or cmp magazines.

[Jordan Baker]

I bought a repro years ago from a batch Dennis Walker had made.

[kevin powles]

The Original I borrowed was from Bruce Parker, I've since got part of an original which was ground dug but restorable. The one from Bruce was definitely an original.

Repro ones don't take to kindly to having gas operated Brens attached or driving them into low cover tent frames........ as I've found out.

[rob love]

I was contacted by another forum member who can ID himself if he likes. He made up some early copies back in the 80s, and in fact welded together most of the springs as shown in my photos. He is positive this was one of his creations.

So now I start the return process on ebay. It's hard on the seller, as he has to re-reimburse the shipping that I paid, as well as pay the return shipping (with insurance and signature) back to him. Since it's international, it takes a lot of meat off the bones. I don't think he intentionally mis-represented it, but it still falls on his responsibility in the end.

Oh well, with any luck I'll find an original at my favorite scrapyard yet.

[David Herbert]

Rob, I think that Ebay rules now more or less automaticaly give you your money back in cases of misreprisentation and it is up to the seller to pay for any costs involved in getting his item back. Obviously you need to use the Ebay due process and offer evidence but the one time it happened to me (I purchaced an "Army" jacket in "unissued condition" but it came with RAF and unit badges and a name in it!) I got my money back in full and got to keep the jacket. As you say, it was the sellers responsibility to give an accurate description and if not sure, to say so.

David

[rob love]

David
I am currently in the process now of requesting a refund. The seller has until the 11th to sort it with me, after which ebay will step in. From the point of my emailing him that I want to return it, he went into radio silence. Not sure how that tactic will work with the monstrosity called ebay.