User avatar
Fredental
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 18:47
Location: France

Item 1203990

Tue Nov 20, 2012 22:03

Hi all,

As mentioned in my introductory message here is the first of my question about items that causes me, if not headaches, some questioning.

Item 1203990 does not exists in my “medical supply catalog” (March, 1st, 1944) but is mentioned in “Med-Dept” as “Foot Powder, 1 oz, with 5 Package, 1/5-oz”.

I look at my items and find one that matches with the item in “Med-Dept” database, box of 5 x 1/5-oz small bags totaling 1 oz… great!
Image

And here comes my second item 1203990, that one is a single bag of 1 oz foot powder.
Image

Is my second item a change in packaging during war?
Did my first item exist prior or after March, 1st, 1944 when my catalog was issued?
Did my second item exist prior or after March, 1st, 1944 when my catalog was issued?
On which catalog your reference “Foot Powder, 1 oz, with 5 Package, 1/5-oz” was mentioned?

Many thanks in advance for your answers or remarks.
Fred

LOSMP
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 19:50
Location: USA
Contact: Website

Re: Item 1203990

Thu Nov 22, 2012 07:37

No answer to your questions about 1944, but a remark. The form of address "Baltimore 1, Maryland" which appears on some of your wrappers, didn't exist until 1943. Prior to that year, the address would have been simply "Baltimore, Maryland", without a number. Single or double digits were added to the addresses in larger cities during the war, in 1943, to help diminished ranks of experienced postal workers to better sort the mail.

User avatar
Fredental
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 18:47
Location: France

Re: Item 1203990

Thu Nov 22, 2012 18:53

Many thanks for your answer LOSMP :D

Your information leads me to what should have been my first observation :oops: ... 7 digits :!: So both items are situated between March 1944 (5 to 7 digits) and July 1947 (7 digit hyphenated sequence) renumbering.

Remains to discover which was the first of them or if they coexisted. Could it be the result of modified specifications?

Scholl Co. is not a manufacturer listed here:
Did I discovered an additional one?
Or could it be possible (by an extraordinary coincidence) the Scholl's foot powder item is numbered just like for Army Medical Department?

Fred

Andrewb
Technical Sergeant
Technical Sergeant
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 07:43
Real Name: Andrew

Re: Item 1203990

Fri Nov 23, 2012 17:37

I was aware of the change in stock numbers from 5 to 7 digits for late war items, but what were the changes made to stock numbers in 1947?

I have some of the same1/5oz HW&D foot powder sachets but was told they were Vietnam war era items (I don't have the box).

Andrew

User avatar
Fredental
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 18:47
Location: France

Re: Item 1203990

Sat Nov 24, 2012 19:13

Hi Andrew,

The various numbering of medical items are well explained in this (http://www.med-dept.com/itemno_bg.php#classes ) section of “med-dept. A “foot powder, 1 ounce” item is even demonstrated as an example of 7 digits numbering.

Let’s summarizing:
1) Before March 1944...........................5 digit number (92040)
2) Between March 1944 and July 1947........7 digit number (1203990)
3) Between July 1947 and early 1950.........7 digit hyphenated number (1-098-483)
4) After 1950...................................11 digit hyphenated number (6545-920-4750)

I can’t tell about your sachets but if the box was from Vietnam era numbering would have been constituted with 11 digits hyphenated.

Fred

milsurvive
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 01:10

Re: Item 1203990

Mon Nov 26, 2012 05:41

I don't have a definite answer either but I would think a 1/5th ounce of foot powder would barely be adequate for one toe let alone a whole pair of feet. I don't think the 1/5th ounce packets were used during Vietnam unless they were old stock and sent over to use them up. I wouldn't think a paper envelope would be a appropriate container for the 1 oz foot powder in the field, even if it originally had a cellophane wrapper

User avatar
Fredental
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 18:47
Location: France

Re: Item 1203990

Mon Nov 26, 2012 22:42

milsurvive wrote:I wouldn't think a paper envelope would be a appropriate container for the 1 oz foot powder in the field, even if it originally had a cellophane wrapper

The second item 1230990 is made of two envelopes of paper, the picture only shows the external one.
The total weight of item confirm the "sachet" contains 1 oz.
The paper envelope is surely neither sturdy enough to be use in the field nor a good protection against moisture (but the model N° 1 is not either to some extend).

Thanks for participating Milsurvive :D
Fred

Return to “Reference Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

 

cron