A Tale of 5 Tins

 My 2014 Fortnum and Mason’s Tommy Tin arrived today which means I have now collected all that I wanted to collect after my brother bought me an original Princess Mary Tin for Christmas.

In case you missed my earlier posts on the subject, in 1914 Princess Mary, daughter of King George V and Queen Mary, decided that she wanted to send a Christmas gift to all British troops on active service on the Western Front. When it was shown to her that she couldn’t afford it, the idea was to have a publicly funded appeal to raise the money to do so which was so successful that, eventually, the gift was given to everyone in the British and Empire armed forces, including nurses. The gifts were presented in a very fetching brass tin and these tins eventually became known as Mary tins.

Now, through a combination of things I have developed an interest in the First World War. For Christmas 2025 my younger brother bought me a Mary tin. I absolutely love it. Even without the history behind it I think it is a lovely object.

Being the kind of person that I am, if I’m interested in something I want to know more about it. So I found out that, in the 1920s variations of the tins were made commercially available. Being as the Royal Family objected to their image being used for commercial purposes in this way, the cameo head of Princess Mary was replaced by the date 1914. Copies of this ‘commemorative tin’ are available today and I bought this one, pictured with my original tin :-

Top - original Mary Tin. Bottom - Reproduction 1914 Commemorative tin

The lettering is the same as the original with one exception. The words in the top central plaque – Imperium Britannicum (British Empire) – are omitted. The lid is slightly larger than the original, and the brass effect is much darker.

In 2014, to commemorate the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War, the Daily Mail newspaper offered readers a replica Mary tin as part of a promotional offer. These are much easier to obtain than the replica commemorative tins.

My two Daily Mail 2014 reproduction Mary Tins

I ended up buying two of these. In terms of dimensions and details they’re a pretty decent replica. However the modelling and embossing on the lid is noticeably cruder than the original, and they’re much, much lighter than the original as well. The lids don’t open as far as the original, and to be honest I can’t see that you would ever mistake either of these for an original.

After I’d bought these replica’s I then discovered that these were not the only tins inspired by the original Mary tin to be produced in 2014. Posh London grocers, Fortnum and Mason’s, made their own version of the Mary tin to commemorate the centenary and as with the original, they gave the tins, containing chocolate and mini playing cards, to members of the Armed Forces. That was well done. I wanted one. There did not seem to be anything like as many of these on the market as the replica or indeed the original Mary tins, but patience brought its reward and I was able to buy an empty tin for about the same price as I paid for the first Daily Mail replica.

2014 Fortnum and Mason's Tommy's Tin - inspired by the Mary Tin

It’s fair to say that the Fortnum and Mason’s Tommy Tin is a homage to the Mary tin rather than a reproduction like the Daily Mail tin. The design is obviously inspired by the original – with the border work, and the circular motif surrounded by laurels. Instead of the profile of Princess Mary, or the date, the circular motif shows a helmeted head, possibly Britannia. I’m not sure if this is  specifically Fortnum’s logo or not. This motif is flanked not by two capital M’s, but rather an F and an M, as in Fortnum and Mason’s. There is no other writing on the tin where the original said Imperium Britannica and the names of the UK’s allies. However, where the original tin says ‘Christmas 1914’ the Fortnum and Mason’s tin says, in very small writing ‘Tommy’s Tin 1914 – 2014’.Unlike the original or the Daily Mail reproductions, the lid removes and isn't hinged, and you can see the embossing from the back.

The size of the tin is similar in length to the original, but it’s noticeably thinner. It is also much, much lighter, possibly even a bit lighter than the Daily Mail replica. That’s not the only similarity between them. The quality of the modelling and embossing on the Fortnum tin is comparable to the Daily Mail tin and not as fine as the original. Well, Fortnum and Mason’s were giving them to the Armed Forces so let’s not moan too much about that.

Comparison - Top - F and M Tommy's tin 2014 - bottom - Daily Mail reproduction Mary Tin 2014

Well, I am very fond of my little tin collection, anyway. Here’s some photographs comparing them.

 

Top - F and M 2014 Tommy's Tin - bottom - original Mary Tin

Top F and M 2014 Tommy's Tin - bottom - Original Mary Tin

top - reproduction commemorative tin - Middle - F and M 2014 Tommy's tin -
bottom - original Mary Tin

Top - F and M 2014 Tommy's tin - middle - Daily Mail 2014 replica Mary tin
bottom - original Mary tin

New Sketching Journal - Leuchtturm 1917

 Well, I have now made over 40 pictures in my Leuchtturm 1917 sketching journal, so I think I’m in a position to make some more observations.

I began the sketchbook on the 8^th February, the same day I finished filling my Derwent Academy A5 sketchbook. Being as it was on sale the Derwent, with 128 pages, cost less than £5. The Leuchtturm with 112 pages cost more than £20. At that price you might well say that it’s writing a cheque that a sketching journal can’t cash. Well, look. I didn’t buy it with a view to making it my sketching journal brand of choice that I will loyally buy for the rest of my life. No, I bought it out of curiosity, really wanting to see what I might get for my money.

So let’s look at what exactly it is that I’ve got for my money. Durability-wise I’m not all that impressed. The Leuchtturm gives you 112 pages of 150 gsm paper. You get all the features of the ‘moleskine style’ journal that you might expect – elastic fastening, a document pocket attached to the inside back cover and an integral ribbon bookmark. In fact you get two bookmarks with Leuchtturm. I’m not entirely sure why you’d want two and if this is one of the reasons for the expensive cost then they could take it away as soon as they like. The covers are a matt black and similar to a Moleskine, although they are a bit thinner than a typical journal of this style, and do seem to me to be bowing just a little outwards – not as much as the Amazon Basics, but still something I would not have expected. So far it has not shown noticeable ill effects from living in my backpack.

As regards use I would say that there is a particular problem with this particular sketching journal. Most of the sketching journals I’ve used, not just the best ones, open and sit nicely flat, wherever you are in the journal. Leuchtturm does not. It’s a really strange oversight on the part of the manufacturers because it makes it harder to use all of the pages than it is in competitors like Moleskine and Seawhite.

Being more positive I would say that the paper works very nicely for fineliner – it’s up there with Moleskine and Seawhite. 

It’s certainly amongst the very best I’ve used with coloured fineliners. There’s no show through and the marks are every bit as clear and crisp as they are in Moleskine and Seawhite. There’s no show through at all either.

I’ve also used watercolour. The colours are pretty vivid, maybe a little more so than Moleskine and up with Seawhite. However the paper does waffle which the Seawhite doesn’t. When the book is closed you can clearly see the pages where you’ve used watercolour and in this respect it’s very like the Moleskine and inferior to the Seawhite.

In just over a week’s time I’m heading off on the first sketching trip of 2026, to Tallinn in Estonia. This will provide a good test of the journal. Basically, if I can’t take a journal and use it well on a sketchpedition then it’s no real use to me. In the past I’ve used Wilkinson’s own brand, Moleskine, Seawhite and Royal Talens for sketchpeditions and I’m sure that the Leuchtturm will cope well.  

The Continuing story of the Mary Tin Replicas

Several weeks ago I wrote a couple of posts about Mary tins. Basically, in 1914 Princess Mary, daughter of King George V and Queen Mary, decided that she wanted to send a Christmas gift to all British troops on active service on the Western Front. When it was shown to her that she couldn’t afford it, the idea was to have a publicly funded appeal to raise the money to do so which was so successful that, eventually, the gift was given to everyone in the British and Empire armed forces, including nurses. The gifts were presented in a very fetching brass tin and these tins eventually became known as Mary tins.

Now, through a combination of things I have developed an interest in the First World War. For Christmas 2025 my younger brother bought me a Mary tin. I absolutely love it. Even without the history behind it I think it is a lovely object.

So, if you read my earlier posts you’ll know that I did a bit of research and found out that in 2014 the Daily Mail newspaper did a promotional offer whereby readers could save tokens to claim a reproduction Mary tin. I bought two from ebay. There’s still a large number of original tins out there. I think that lost of people kept them even after the contents were gone, but obviously they don’t have the same emotional value to the descendant of the recipients. There’s also quite a large number of the Daily Mail reproductions out there as well. I don’t think that you’d ever be able to pass these off as originals. The quality of the embossing on the design is much cruder. The tin is much lighter and feels more like coated tin than real brass.

Well, there we are, original and replica. I thought that was it. Only it wasn’t. You see, in the course of my research I found out about a variation. This was clearly a reproduction, but instead of having the head of Princess Mary embossed upon it, there is the date, 1914. I felt that this was strange, but eventually I found a post on a forum that explained it. It said that tins with 1914 were made as souvenirs of the Great War in the 1920s. The change in the design was because the Crown forbade the use of the image of a member of the Royal Family for commercial purposes. These were sold under the name commemorative tins.

The 1914 tin I had seen was not from the 1920s, but essentially a reproduction of one. So a reproduction of a reproduction. I wouldn’t say that it was difficult to get hold of, but I could only find one supplier. None to be found on ebay. Yes, of  course I bought one. It’s an interesting piece. I mean it’s clearly based on the design of the original Mary tin. However some of the embossed writing is not there. Only the lid seems to be barred, and it has a darker colour than the originals or the Dily Mail reproductions. The lid is not attached by a hinge and its dimensions are slightly larger than the others I have. The body of the tin has some kind of matt black coating. It’s quite tactile actually, and it’s pretty heavy. If anything I’d say it’s heavier than the original.

So there we are. Or are we?

Well not quite. In the course of finding out about the reproduction Mary tins I came upon a post that mentioned replicas made by the Daily Mail and Fortnum and Masons. I dived down this particular rabit hole and found out that in 2014 Fortnum and Mason’s in London had produced what I believe is called a Tommy’s tin to commemorate the centenary of the original Mary tins. Tins were gifted to all members of the Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan. Based on photographs I found, the tin was very clearly based on the Mary tin. It seems to have a helmeted head where Princess Mary’s was, and instead of being flanked by two Ms, the head is flanked by F and M. I did find one on ebay. This had the original contents, a mini pack of playing cards and as a result the price was rather more than I was prepared to pay.

Come this morning, I found another, empty F and M tin on ebay for a much more acceptable price. So I’ve bought it. Watch this space.

Derwent Academy A5 casebound hardback sketching journal - Completed. Verdict

As I write this it is 14:26 on Sunday 8^th February and I have just finished the last sketch in my Derwent Academy A5 sketchbook. Now, I did make a sketch in it back in August when I bought it, so in the interests of accuracy I must record that I have made 127 sketches to complete it. That’s 3.62 sketches per day on average. It also means that I’ve finished two sketchbooks since the start of the year, and 6 since beginning the sketchbook challenge in July.

So what can we say about the Derwent Academy A5?

Value – Well, mine was incredibly good value because Amazon were selling off their stock and I got it for a remarkable sale price of £4.99. That’s a ppp (price per page) of 3.89p. That’s extremely cheap. However, Amazon have not stocked this item since and on average other stockers ask an average of £9.99. That’s 7.89ppp. It’s okay but not outstanding, and comparable with the Seawhite, which is my favourite ‘jack of all trades’ sketching journal.

Durability – Throughout the 35 days it took to fill the sketchbook it lived in my rucksack, which I use daily, and suffered no noticeable ill effects. This is good because it’s cloth bound rather than vinyl/faux leather. The Canson and the Amazon Basics were also cloth bound, and the Canson showed wear and tear on the edges of the cover, while the Amazon basics covers began bowing outwards.

Paper Quality/ Versatility. The paper is very white, and amongst the smoothest of any paper that I’ve used. It is only 135 gsm which beings its own problems. When you use it for ink sketches you do get a very clear contrast between the marks and the paper background, and because the testure is smoother there’s no real resistance to the pen, which means it seems to skate across the page, and I like this. The sketchbook is clearly labelled as being for dry media and makes no claim to being any good for wet media, and this is just as well. I made a pretty OK watercolour sketch in it, but the paper pilled very badly and the waffling made the other side of the page a very difficult and unpleasant surface to work on. With coloured fineliners the dark blue bled right through the page.

Overall Verdict

I would be tempted to buy another of these and put it to oneside purely for ink, graphite or charcoal sketching, but only if I found it on offer again. For the money I think you’re probably much better off buying the versatile Seawhite journal.

This is one of the better sketches I made in the Derwent Academy and it shows that you can get pretty good results in it using dry media like fineliner.

Sketchbook Challenge Update

 Right then, I began sketching in the Derwent Academy A5 sketching journal on Sunday 4th January. By today 31st January I have completed 95 pages of sketches. If I'd started on the first I reckon I'd have managed 100. Nonetheless, considering that I've sketched every day since then, making at least 2 sketches on every day, I reckon that's pretty good going. After all that's an average of just over 3 and a half sketches by day.

By that reckoning I could finish in 11 days. Well, my target is actually just two pictures per day. Now, the fact is that I've exceeded this on each of the last 23 days, but what the hell, it's been working well with a target of two per day so what the hell. Here's a selection of the 95 that I haven't posted before

A few more pages from the Derwent Academy Sketching Journal

 

New Budget Sketching Journal - Shore and Marsh A5 hardback

Yeah, I’ve been buying again. It’s another A5 sketching journal. Well, look, I had to reward myself for finishing the Seawhite journal a couple of weeks ago.

So what is it? It is an A5 sketching journal by Shore and Marsh. Shore and Marsh. Shore and Marsh are a brand exclusively sold by Hobbycraft. Not surprising since Hobbycraft own the brand. I guess that they maybe think that Shore and Marsh sounds a little more exclusive and Arty than Hobbycraft does. But is the name the classiest thing about it?

Well, it’s a cloth bound hard backed casebound journal. It is a true A5 size. There’s no elastic fastening, no document wallet and no integral bookmark so if those are essentials as far as you’re concerned then this is not a sketching journal for you. The paper is 140gsm and there are – get this – 92 sheets which is 184 sides of paper for drawing on. So, on paper (should you pardon the pun) this looks like incredible value. Hobbycraft currently sell this at £6 a pop, although I have seen it said that this is a sale price , and the usual price is £8. Well, my calculations are based on the £6 I paid. This means that each side of paper costs you about 30p. Which is incredibly cheap.

Well, all I can give you are my first impressions. As has become my custom, I’ve christened the first page with a drawing. 

It’s ink fineliner – 0.1mm and 0.5mm. Bear in mind that for the last couple of weeks I’ve been pretty much exclusively drawing in my Derwent Academy journal. In that journal the paper is pretty smooth. The paper in this Shore and Marsh journal is a real contrast. It has a rougher texture, and I did find quite a bit of resistance to the pen, especially when I was using the 0.1mm pen. I don’t mind a little bit of resistance, but this seemed excessive to me and it meant that I didn’t enjoy making the drawing as much as I’ve enjoyed using the Derwent, When I finished the drawing  turned over the page and could clearly see some dots where the fineliner had come through. This is disappointing considering that both Seawhite and Derwent use paper that is no heavier than this journal, but neither of the has this problem. I will when I get a chance test coloured fineliner and watercolours, but I’m not hopeful that this journal will be able to cope.

It is a shame, because I do most of my drawing in fineliner. I would recommend this above the Crawford and Black (The Works’ own brand) journal, but that really isn’t saying much. Even if you’re only planning to use dry media and cost is an issue for you, I would still recommend spending a little bit more and buying something a little more forgiving and a little more easy on the pen.