MILITARYANDANTIQUEKNIVES.CO.UK
KNIFE HISTORY & DISCUSSIONS
This page is dedicated to showng various knives that a worthy of discussion along with article applicable to knife history etc.
New items will be added at the top of the section so scrolldown to see older post.
-------------------------------------------
Posted 27th July 2026
FS SHEATH ODDITIES
The standard FS sheaths are well known to collectors but there are a few variants that are odd in terms of their design and in some cases usage. What follows is a few of these thatI know of and if anyone has any other please contact me and the article could potentially be updated.
A handful of this 1st Pattern FS sheath are known and they carry similarities to the sheath that sometimes accompanies the so called Lovat Knife. But why was it used, did it predate the usual style sheath or was it an alternative that could be supplied as requested by the purchaser. We shall never know.
This all metal sheath has some odd features. It will only accept knives with a certain blade taper, there are no signs of any belt fixings ever being present but there is a stick tab at the bottom of the body and the markings of FPH over 1943 are of unknown meaning. This aside a very small number of examples have been noted so what does it represent. The construction does not allow for any form of silent draw of the knife yet it would fully protect the wearer from any accidental stabbing. Is it experimental or a fantasy?
This tan leather sheath id of high quality but again has odd features. There is no belt slot and the strap is not of sufficient length to go around the leg at either ankle or calf. Although the buckle is missing there arena signs of the strap being shortened. It certain fits something like a 3rd pattern knife so why and for whom was it made.
__________________________-
Posted July 2026
THE MYSTERY OF BRUCE HAND & JOHN PAISLEY
This is a reduced version of an article I produced for KNIFE magazine, it has been edited down to save space but the thrust of the article remains the same. In doing so I would place a challenge to the believers in Hand and Paisley to provide real proof e.g. historical records etc that these two actually existed.
In the specialist collecting field of clandestine edged weapons there is generally very little information around regarding the makers of such items but back in the late 1980‘s early 1990’s the names of Bruce Hand of Melbourne, and John Paisley of Glasgow started to appear in correspondence I had with collectors in North America, the names where also associated with items that appeared in some auctions along with them being mentioned in a number of publications. Both these makers were recorded as operating during WW2 with Hand apparently working on into the post war years and both are noted as makers of clandestine blades, with Hand also making SOG style knives for the Australian Special Forces along with hunting and skinning knives. However both were something of an enigma as no supporting information could be found about them despite what had been written.
In 2003 I wrote a short article about these two which appeared on Frank Trzaska’s US Military Knives website (see http://www.usmilitaryknives.com/flook.htm) which highlighted a number of anomalies in the story and there the story laid with no new information or claims appearing. However in the last couple of years or so the names have reappeared along with a number of knives bearing their markings. Some of these knives appear to be some of the same ones that surfaced during the 1990‘s. With this reappearance there were doubts raised by some of the new owners about the thrust of my 2003 article, which in reality raised many unanswered questions rather than providing firm conclusions. So I decided it was time to re-visit the issue along with the also sometimes reported link of these two with the Melbourne firm of Alcock and Pierce. The one major advantage that we have now is the availability of many more records online, not only family and census records but also trade directories etc. Some records are of course not always available via the world wide web thus I enlisted the help of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Family History Society to physically check local records in the search for John Paisley.
Before proceeding it is worth mentioning that the statements quoted in this article about these two makers have been taken from correspondence and published sources including some auction catalogues.
BRUCE HAND
The bulk of what has been written about Hand comes from a paper that originated in Canada and is one that has been used in other articles to support knives recorded as being made by Hand, this paper also included an image of Hand. The story is that Bruce was born in Pimlico London in 1903 as Walter Bruce Hand. He left school age 12 to work in a small foundry and when his father was killed on the western front Bruce was left to support his mother and five brothers and sisters. In 1920 he emigrated to Australia.
When World War 2 started he enlisted and after 10 weeks training was shipped out to Singapore, then India and lastly Egypt. When the Germans started their push towards the Suez Canal Hand was wounded on his birthday i.e. May 10th. Sent via various transit hospitals he ended up in Malta and being found unfit to return to his unit asked to be discharged to the UK.
He then reportedly worked in a munitions factory in the dock area of London, but subsequently worked his passage back to Australia where he went to work in the Government factory at Bathhurst. He then returned to Melbourne taking up a position with Alcock and Pierce in their experimental shop. Whilst there he contracted to supply on a cottage industry basis small clandestine blades, lapel blades, thumb knives etc. In 1943 he engaged two men full time supplying clandestine blades to S.O.E directly.
After the war he rented a small shop in the shanty town district of Melbourne producing skinning and hunting knives. In the early 1960’s the Department of National Defence on behalf of the Special Forces asked Hand to reproduce two patterns of sterile battle blades in the style of the US “SOG” knives. Hand is reported to have made an initial batch of 30.
Hand is said to have died in his 86th year (i.e. 1989) and his blades carry his trademark of a “&”.
There are a number of issues with Bruce Hand’s reputed life story. There is no trace in the birth records of a Walter Bruce Hand being born in London in 1903, neither does any person that matches the profile appear in the 1911 census returns. In respect to his emigration to Australia in the 1920’s there are again no records in the passenger shipping list that records any such passenger, and there is no record of any Australian Army soldier called Walter Bruce Hand. No Walter Bruce Hand, Walter Hand, Bruce Hand or Wally Hand had a registered death in Australia in 1989.
Some have said the reason for this lack of evidence is because the records are incomplete or that Hand used an alias when he joined the Army, but this does not account for the other errors in the story such as those mentioned below.
The mention of him working in a munition factory in the docks area of London again does not align with the facts about the UK’s munitions production during WW2. The docks area of London is generally regarded as those dock complexes on the north side of the River Thames. Although some Royal Ordnance Factories were located around the outskirts of London none were located within the docks area.
Hand’s knife making activities also need review. Keith Spencer who ran the Australian Knife Collectors Club noted when the Hand name came up on an internet forum that:
During the life of the Australasian Knife Collectors (AKC) Club, which accommodated almost 10,000 financial members over 21 years (1990-2011), no knife historians, collectors/custodians or aficionados have ever reported seeing or hearing neither hide nor hair of Bruce Hand or an ampersand trademark in this country.
The mention of the Department of National Defence is also incorrect, the Australian Defence Department is known as the Department of Defence, yet some knives reputed to be Hand’s work are marked DND. Images of the so called Australian SOG are shown at Photos 2 and 3.
The dating of the Australian SOG knives is also worthy of mention. We are told that Hand’s involvement in this was the early 1960’s thus let us assume that this was a period from 1960 to 1965. Yet the history of the SOG knife as recounted by its designer Ben Baker indicates that the knife was not put to production in Japan until June 1964. This makes it theoretically possible for the Australians to have gotten their hands on samples of the knives within the timescale mentioned, but does not account for errors in the markings.
JOHN PAISLEY of GLASGOW
John Paisley has been mentioned far more frequently than Hand but there is a common link which will be mentioned later. In terms of who Paisley was supposed to be we have little biographical information, only that which is contained in some statements made about him and his wares taken from various sources.
"Located in a narrow street near the railway station in Glasgow was the small shop of the master Cutler John Paisley maker of traditional Scottish Dirks, Skean Dhu's and other fine quality weapons." [Authors Note _ In the same item from which this is taken there is reference to Paisley's use of a thistle trademark or the initials JP on his products.]
"Who actually designed the Smatchet is not recorded though prototypes were reportedly made by John Paisley the Scottish bladesmith who produced many clandestine weapons for the Commandos and SOE. Though extremely rare, Paisley Smatchet's marked with either a thistle or the letters JP are indicative of his work."
"_ _ _ _ _ made by John Paisley of Glasgow. Both blades are fabricated from British pattern 1903 bayonet blades, and have Paisley's wartime code number 1 on the ricasso."
"Blued grip marked JP with thistle armourers stamp."
"Knife, rare 1941 British Commando Utility Pattern by WE Fairbairn, Officers model by John Paisley of Glasgow. Blued grip area stamped JP with 1 wartime code. Brown leather sheath. Stamped with Paisley's thistle stamp and 41 near throat.
"Paisley suffered from glaucoma and gave up knife making in 1946 emigrating to Australia. His son John Jnr. carried on the business into the 1950's when he closed the business".
"This blade was obtained from John Paisley's son, John Jnr. with the remaining stock after the old shop closed down in the 1950's. The blade bears the daffodil stamp and the number 8."
First we look at the claims about Paisley’s trade mark. He is reported as using a thistle trade mark although one source said he used a daffodil. A photograph showing 4 lapel knives reputed to be Paisley’s work, has the knives contained within a frame which is marked LAMES REVERS along with JOHN PAISLEY & SON GLASGOW. Three of the knives carry a mark and these trademarks are not complete being partially erased by either incomplete application or wear but no two stampings appear to be the same and none appear to resemble a thistle.
It is also curious that one mark is the same as one that appeared on the guard of a reputed Shanghai knife which appeared on a well known auction site some years ago but there the mark is attributed to being a Shanghai Municipal Police armoury mark! So how can these marks be truly attributed to Paisley? A second similar example is known but is contained in a sheath marked GIEVES & HAWKES SAVILLE ROW LONDON. As mentioned in my October 2014 article such a sheath is clearly incorrect in terms of any dating as these two firms did not join until the 1970’s and in addition Savile is spelt incorrectly.
An aspect of Paisley's work that is mentioned in a number of the sources is the use of the code number 1, though a number 8 is mentioned in one source. The use of code numbers on British military knives during World War 2 is an involved subject. Typically encountered are the broad arrow number or letter marks. These are not manufacturers codes but are inspectors marks which give no clue to the maker. However also used during WW2 were the manufacturers codes which consisted of a letter N, M or S along with a number. Such codes are noted on some British bayonets patterns, but it hasn't been noted on any British issue Military Knife e.g. the Commando Knife. The 3 prefix letters indicate S for South, M for Midlands, and N for North, being the general geographical location in which the manufacturer was based. A full list of codes was published by Ian Skennerton, and with Glasgow being located in the Northern part of the country an N prefix would be anticipated against the Paisley mark. However N1 is allocated to a Albion Motors Ltd of Glasgow, and N8 to Beardshaw and Son Ltd Sheffield.
It should be noted that Skennerton’s listing was drawn from records that dated from around 1943 early 1944 and may thus post date some of the JP marked pieces. Yet it must also be noted that no confirmed records of the British using single number codes such as the number 1 have been heard of or published.
So what about Paisley’s the person? We have no age or place of birth but his location is given as Glasgow. The only reference found in the Glasgow directories that may provide a link to the John Paisley we seek was one who was listed as a partner in the jewellers Lindsay and Paisley who were located at Royal Exchange Square, Glasgow. In the jewellery section Lindsay and Paisley have 2 entries one under Jewellers the other under Silversmiths-Wholesale and Manufacturing.
One of the claims about Paisley is that his shop was located in a narrow street near the railway station. It will be noted that Lindsay and Paisley was located at Royal Exchange Square. Whilst this address is near Queens Street Station, which is one of 4 stations in Glasgow, it is not a narrow street but a substantial city square. John Paisley the jeweller did reside at Central Avenue, Cambuslang which is within a quarter of a mile of the local railway station, however his residential address is in a leafy suburban road and not a narrow street and certainly not one that would accommodate a shop or the forge shown in the image.
Although the firm of Lindsay and Paisley did go into voluntary liquidation in 1935 it finally went out of business circa 1956 and this could be construed as very roughly tying in with the statement that "His son John Jnr. carried on the business into the 1950's when he closed the business". However the link with Lindsay can only be considered very tenuous noting the alleged location of Paisley's premises in comparison with that occupied by Lindsay and Paisley and the fact that no firm of John Paisley and Son has been located. There are also some strong indications that the son of John Paisley the jeweller was actually called Arthur, though this needs further exploration.
John Paisley partner in Lindsay and Paisley does however seem to be dismissed from the hunt because of inconsistencies in the records revolving around the statement that John Paisley gave up knife making in 1946 and emigrated to Australia. Amongst the consideration for emigration to Australia at that time was that you had to be in sound health and under 45. Paisley first appears as a partner with Lindsay and Paisley circa 1901/02. To be a partner we could safely assume he was at least the age of 21 if not older, this would have made him by 1946 at least 66 years of age which with his eye problems would have precluded him emigrating to Australia.
So if we dismiss John Paisley the jeweller are there other likely candidates? Research in the trade and street directories show there are in 1938/39 some 20 entries for anybody associated with the cutlery trade by 1942/43 this had dropped to 10 and none of these entries record a John Paisley. Two other John Paisley’s found in the telephone directories for 1935 had addresses at Toryglen Street and at Shieldhall Road, Govan. Neither of these are in a narrow street near a railway station and in 1936/37 Post Office Directory neither of these two appear and they do not appear in any subsequent editions.
So could he have been a small back street operation that apparently left no trace? If we believe what has been written there is one piece that should seal the story and this relates to his location, these statements saying that he had a forge and a shop along with guidance to its location.
"Lot includes reprint photo of JP at his forge in Glasgow."
“Located in a narrow street near the railway station in Glasgow.”
“This blade was obtained from John Paisley's son, John Jnr. with the remaining stock after the old shop closed down in the 1950's.”
The Mitchell Library in Glasgow holds the Voters (or electoral) rolls list for all those eligible to vote in local and general elections, and the Valuation rolls which contain lists of owners and the rateable value of commercial and domestic properties as well as the names of tenants and their occupations. It is in these valuation rolls that one would expect to find John Paisley’s shop and or forge. Although the statement that indicates that his shop was near the railway station is in error as there are four stations the records for all four wards that encompass the four Glasgow stations were searched but there are no records for John Paisley. As an example of the extent of this search in the 1943 rolls for the four Wards that cover the main stations i.e 11, 12, 13 and 17 there were 1,489 pages with an average of 22 occupants per page. That is about 32,750 names.
THE JOHN PAISLEY, ALCOCK & PIERCE LINK
One curious aspect of this story is the apparent link between Paisley and the firm of Alcock and Pierce. Alcock and Pearce are a sporting goods company founded in 1903 and based in Melbourne, Australia. We know that they did supply knives during WW2 as the wording of an advert from Dec 1942 shows:
However it is with these statement that the link become curious:
"Instep blade, maker John Paisley in packet marked A&P supplier."
"An S.O.E. knife made to be comfortably concealed in the sole of a shoe, by John Paisley. Also WD and A & P for Alcock and Pierce."
“A Commando 4 inch thumb knife curved to fit body. Double DD (Department of Defence) A1 for cutler John Paisley.”
“Agents knife made by John Paisley (Glasgow Cutler) for export contract to Alcock and Pierce in Australia. Marked A&P on ricasso and P on guard.”
But there are errors in the statements. The use of WD for War Department, this mark was dropped from British Military knives before WW2 and in any case where it was used consisted of WD. A similar error occurs in the use of the DD mark that too is missing the broad arrow mark.
Another error occurs with a similar example to the so called instep daggers this being in a packet clearly marked Allcock and Pierce Supplier (Photo 13), but note the incorrect spelling of Alcock. These mistakes aside we now have the curious position of a small back street cutler based in Glasgow is supplying a firm in Melbourne Australia with clandestine edged weapons during WW2. One must ask if this likely when according to the Bruce Hand story he was working for Alcock and Pierce and doing the same thing
BRUCE HAND, Alcock & pierce & THE EUROPEAN THEATRE OF WAR LINK.
There is also another odd link in this story and that is that of Hand, and Alcock and Pierce apparently making items for the European Theatre.
“An Australian SOE commando issue bond cutter coin, tempered steel hook blade riveted to NAZI silver 2 mark coin (1937). Marked & for Australian cutler Bruce Hand.”
“German Coin Tyre Ripper... German 200mark coin of 1923, blade marked A&P (Alcock and Pierce) The piece was most likely intended for the British SIS.”
“French Coin Escape Knife. The escape knives were designed to be concealed during a search. Mounted on a French 5 c coin dated 1910. The blade is marked A&P”
Why would an these Australian firms be making something that would only be suitable for the European Theatre of Operation? This makes little logistical sense when firms in the UK would be perfectly capable of manufacturing items such as this. It is also curious that if these items were as stated for the SOE or SIS why are they marked with a manufacturers mark, items for these organisations would have been sterile i.e. devoid of any marks to identify their origins.
SUMMARY
The search for Paisley’s forge/workshop in the Glasgow records provide no trace of such an establishment or any trace of the individual that fits the statements about him. A similar situation applies to Bruce Hand whose life story cannot be confirmed and Australian collectors and researchers are not familiar with his work.
Some believe that Paisley existed and that the lack of evidence for this can be put down to factors such as that he was indeed a back street operation. Or that he was the jeweller John Paisley but that he worked independently from his partner Lindsay, it not being unknown for some Scottish jewellers to produce skean dhu, dirks etc. However whilst one of referenced statements states that he made Scottish Dirks and Skean Dhu's no example of such a John Paisley made piece has been found or heard of. But speculation such as back street operation cannot explain the mass of inconsistencies, errors and mistakes in the story. In both cases these errors etc cannot be explained away by missing records, uses of aliases, secrecy acts etc as some would have us believe.
Many of the items have over the years passed through various collections and the stories about their makers have passed on with them. It could be argued that the stories are just an embellishment but why are collectors within the home ground of these two not familiar with their work. When this was discussed with one collector and supporter of the Paisley and Hand story he considered it possible that a source of the pieces had managed to collect all the items back in the post war years even to the extent of sweeping up all the pieces from a country some many thousands of miles away. Is this really a feasible explanation as to their origins and how does it explain the issue that the knives of both these so called makers have incorrect markings, varying stories about Paisley’s trade mark, and stated facts that cannot be verified.
This of course leaves us with the burning question about the objects themselves and I leave it to individual readers to make up their own minds about the knives. But to me it seems apparent that the lack of corroborating information and errors in the stories place a large question mark over the very existence of Hand and Paisley. As one very well respected collector and author who commented on the Hand and Paisley situation “I cannot think of a similar situation where the research of a maker or the history of a knife has been so fruitless in the verification of its very existence.”
References and Sources:
The Earliest Commando Knives - Dr William Windrum
Clandestine Edged Weapons - Dr William Windrum
Fairbairn - Sykes Commando Dagger - Leroy Thompson
The Miniature Fairbairn-Sykes : At Last, the True Story By Leroy Thompson
Tiny Terrors WW11 Thumb and Lapel Daggers.- Leroy Thompson
Romex International Catalogs
Weller and Duffy Auction Catalog
Mannion’s Auction Catalogs
Australian Blade Forum
Military Knives and Daggers of the World Forum
Official Assassin - Peter Mason
The saga of the CISO/RECON knife - Ben Baker, Fighting Knives Fall 1991
Australian SOG Knives - Mike Silvey Knife World January 1996
The Broad Arrow - Ian D SkennertonT
THE MYSTERY OF BRUCE HAND & JOHN PAISLEY