David Wilson
Contributor
This thread will focus on the production of diving masks in Russia when the country was a constituent republic of the USSR. I am aware that my research findings rest on less solid foundations that those I reported in the threads about Soviet fins, as the latter models were much more easily identifiable by their name and shape. Soviet diving masks often came without names, only identified in the diving literature by the factory where they were made and a simple "Type 1", "Type 2" and "Type 3" used to establish a distinction among them. Unlike fins, many masks had little or nothing in the way of markings on them that might help in identiying even the name of the manufacturer.
Having started a little negatively, I'd like to redress the balance by expressing my admiration at the way some Soviet diving book authors have devised methods for comparative evaluation of diving masks. The following is a fine example, which I've translated from the original Russian:
The offerings above come from a Russian diving book I purchased recently on eBay entitled "Underwater sports equipment" (my translation) by a P. P. Serebrinitsky. They are very remarkable, considering how the book was published back in 1969. There can be few better examples of an 8-model mask round-up, covering as it does not only mask and lens dimensions but also angles of horizontal and vertical fields of vision. Here in the west, we bandy around terms such as "low-volume" without supplying for comparative purposes the exact cubic capacity of the mask interior, while our mask manufacturers neglect to provide even the most basic skirt measurements that would help us have an inkling at least whether a particular mask is likely to match the profiles of our faces or not.
I'll end with a description of one Soviet-era mask of Russian provenance. My first Soviet fin thread was about "Models 1-8" manufactured by the Moscow No. 4 Rubber Goods Plant known as "Mosrezina" (Мосрезина), a convolution of the Russian words for "Moscow" and "rubber". This mask thread will begin with the same factory in the Russian capital and with mask models simply known as "Type I" and "Type II":
Note the complete absence of markings on the mask. I identified it from the unusual head strap, the lack of metal rim and the lines on the skirt. For quantitative information about these two masks, which resembled one another in every way except size, see the table earlier in this posting. Here is a review of the masks:
The Type I and Type II semi face masks from the Moscow Number 4 (‘Mosrezina’) rubber goods plant are circular in shape. The body of the semi face mask retains the silicate-glass lens without a metal rim to secure it. The types of semi face mask manufactured (I and II) differ only in their dimensions. Together with the small field of vision, the large facial area makes this design of semi face mask rather cumbersome. There has been some successful use of the semi face mask in the early stages of training divers unconnected with deep sea diving.
I'll move on to the Mosrezina Type III mask next. Hope the above has been of some interest, particularly if you share my belief that all diving masks need to be better labelled with dimensions and angles of vision.
Having started a little negatively, I'd like to redress the balance by expressing my admiration at the way some Soviet diving book authors have devised methods for comparative evaluation of diving masks. The following is a fine example, which I've translated from the original Russian:
The offerings above come from a Russian diving book I purchased recently on eBay entitled "Underwater sports equipment" (my translation) by a P. P. Serebrinitsky. They are very remarkable, considering how the book was published back in 1969. There can be few better examples of an 8-model mask round-up, covering as it does not only mask and lens dimensions but also angles of horizontal and vertical fields of vision. Here in the west, we bandy around terms such as "low-volume" without supplying for comparative purposes the exact cubic capacity of the mask interior, while our mask manufacturers neglect to provide even the most basic skirt measurements that would help us have an inkling at least whether a particular mask is likely to match the profiles of our faces or not.
I'll end with a description of one Soviet-era mask of Russian provenance. My first Soviet fin thread was about "Models 1-8" manufactured by the Moscow No. 4 Rubber Goods Plant known as "Mosrezina" (Мосрезина), a convolution of the Russian words for "Moscow" and "rubber". This mask thread will begin with the same factory in the Russian capital and with mask models simply known as "Type I" and "Type II":
Note the complete absence of markings on the mask. I identified it from the unusual head strap, the lack of metal rim and the lines on the skirt. For quantitative information about these two masks, which resembled one another in every way except size, see the table earlier in this posting. Here is a review of the masks:
The Type I and Type II semi face masks from the Moscow Number 4 (‘Mosrezina’) rubber goods plant are circular in shape. The body of the semi face mask retains the silicate-glass lens without a metal rim to secure it. The types of semi face mask manufactured (I and II) differ only in their dimensions. Together with the small field of vision, the large facial area makes this design of semi face mask rather cumbersome. There has been some successful use of the semi face mask in the early stages of training divers unconnected with deep sea diving.
I'll move on to the Mosrezina Type III mask next. Hope the above has been of some interest, particularly if you share my belief that all diving masks need to be better labelled with dimensions and angles of vision.
