Tartan chevrons?

[RobL]

Came across this photo on here http://www.fairmile.fsbusiness.co.uk/signals.htm and noticed that the Corporal's chevrons appear to be made out of tartan - any examples of this seen before?

[Andrew Upton]

Last post before off to the Hovis filming!

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...t=0&start=0

[Muerrisch]

No, they are not tartan: I believe [have no evidence] that they were a wartime improvisation, they crop up all over.

Cannot find a R Army Clothing Department reference.

Try involving the expert, Joe Sweeney, a member of the Forum.

[Chris_Baker]

They do indeed crop up all over. They are very commonly seen in 1918-19 pics.

[Muerrisch]

I have photos in wear Cavalry, RFA and the Corps, in addition to infantry.

Wonder what Joe has to say?

[Joe Sweeney]

A common variation, but I have no idea if officially sanctioned via sealed pattern.

Joe Sweeney

[FROGSMILE]

A common variation, but I have no idea if officially sanctioned via sealed pattern.

Joe Sweeney

Has anyone tried the National Army Museum? It would be a shame to give up on this.

[squirrel]

Frogsmile,

you could try the NAM but this has cropped up numerous times on the Forum and there has never been a definitive answer.

[Grovetown]

Has anyone tried the National Army Museum? It would be a shame to give up on this.

With respect to that august institution, my experience is that they are far from the font of all knowledge on such matters. One example, among others: before knowing that 1914 Ptn equipment was intially to be stained green, I took such a (green) pouch to them for assistance. They (some very senior people) told me it was an Australian (!) made item, that had been 'camouflaged'!!

Nice folk mind.

I would hazard that if Joe, Tocemma and Grumpy don't know; then no-one does.

Best wishes,

GT.

[FROGSMILE]

With respect to that august institution, my experience is that they are far from the font of all knowledge on such matters. One example, among others: before knowing that 1914 Ptn equipment was intially to be stained green, I took such a (green) pouch to them for assistance. They (some very senior people) told me it was an Australian (!) made item, that had been 'camouflaged'!!

Nice folk mind.

I would hazard that if Joe, Tocemma and Grumpy don't know; then no-one does.

Best wishes,

GT.

I take your point GT and I have had similar experiences. What I don't believe is that with an item so omnipresent in different Arms and Services within the Army (ostensibly even as early as 1910) there is not 'somewhere' a surviving reference within clothing patterns et al. It seems to me it is just a question of finding it.

[squirrel]

Good luck with your quest but nobody has yet found anything definitive despite numerous attempts.

[Muerrisch]

Has anyone tried the National Army Museum? It would be a shame to give up on this.

I just MIGHT have missed it when combing through the RACD ledgers, but 'badges' tunics' 'RWF' are key words that jump out at me [likely naughty words in a book or newspaper], and, in addition, I speed-read all the indices.

I have 1500 digi images of pages or part pages, almost all now transcribed into a very long table.

The design of chevrons for SD after 1902 seems not to have been discussed. Joe Sweeney has also devoured the ledgers, and found no reference.

I am intrigued by the reference to 1910 and would be very grateful to pick up on that: I have always believed that they were a war-time expedient.

As for the NAM, well, I would rather not comment publicly. Suffice to say, I am less than favourably impressed.

[tocemma]

Hello all,

This is a bit of a tricky one.

I agree with what GT says about the National museums. The problem there is that their brief is huge. In the case of the IWM only about a third of their collection is on display. They cover such a spread of history that the sort of specialist 'picking flies eyes out' stuff that we do on the forum is beyond their remit and capability. Unless you have a very interested and commited member of staff who has made it his business to research or catalogue exactly what is held in their archives, then the 'official' answers are often understandably generalised or vague.

Like a lot of members of the forum I have spent many years (37 in my case) collecting and researching WW1 British uniforms and equipment. I pass this knowledge on here because I no longer actively collect militaria of this period. When I was actively collecting this stuff I was far more circumspect with that information! I put an awful lot of effort into original research of documents relating to this subject and travelled far and wide, both to trade and acquire items, but also to look at collections both large and small which always had something different to look at.

The main problem here is the way that the source material has been handled over the years. The records relating to clothing and equipment are good but a little dispersed and due to relocation over the years have become splintered. The same applies to the sealed patterns. Many were disposed of and there is a crossover in what was given to the National museums. A lot of sealed pattern examples have ended up in the hands of private collectors so you can see how these records often have significant gaps.

The subject of this thread is a case in point. As Joe has pointed out the records may well contain all the information re this type of chevron, but until someone can link the actual item to the reference then it is informed guesswork by some of us here.

All I can say from observation is that these 'appear' to originate in the early war period and seem to have been worn without significance side by side with the 'normal' pattern. Just the manner of construction leads me to think that they were an economy measure as I would have thought they were cheaper to produce.

Of course during the War there were probably those that hated the 'bling' look of some versions of these, but equally there were just as likely those that sought out this type for just that reason!

Does anyone have a copy of 'The Devil's Paintbrush' by Dolf Goldsmith? Andrew Upton has mentioned a photo dated to 1910, which apparently show this type of cross hatch chevron being worn. From Andrew's previous post it is page 119, photo 117. Could somebody scan this and post. It would be useful to confirm whether these do pre date the War.

If all else fails at least we can agree that they were extremely commonplace and worn without significance.

Regards

Tocemma

Below the offending chevron as worn on a simplified tunic by Pte C J Bilton, 1st Battalion, The Cheshire Regiment.

[Muerrisch]

I totally agree with TocEmma EXCEPT that his illustration appears to be a sub-species of the one that started the thread! It may be an artefact of the extreme close-up, but the distinctive X shapes are not apparent.

Attached I hope is the x chevron, worn by Bdr. Edwards MM, father of the famous Denis Edwards of Proficiency Badge book fame.

[tocemma]

Hello Grumpy,

The xxxx pattern is there but these are a tad faded. I've increased the contrast to highlight this.

This is nothing more than manufacturers variation. The point is that unlike the standard pattern which are expensively embroidered in melton, these are a woven tape with the interlaced xxx pattern which is then sewn to a backing felt. The colour of this tape varies from the faded buff here, to a more pronounced orange brown. The xxxx's are just more pronounced on some of those shown in the other photographs, but still present on Pte Bilton's jacket.

TM

[tocemma]

And the original colour view again, which I seem to have deleted from my previous post......

[Muerrisch]

Gotcha!

[Muerrisch]

Hadn't seen that variety.

My notebooks have an RFC [sic] sergeant wearing the X variety, c. 1916.

Also Y & L sergeants, four of, 1915, at Ypres.

[squirrel]

Sorry to interrupt, but while described as "an economy measure" could these chevrons not also have been made this way just to speed up production and/or give the contracts to producers who were not geared up for the "regulation" chevrons but could produce something acceptable on the equipment they had?

[Chief_Chum]

I have always thought that these tapes were a commercially available style, designed specifically to be low-visibility, to make NCOs more difficult to spot from a distance.

I have two types in my own collection; the straightforward XXXXX type and the other as shown above by TM where the Xs overlap each other. These are even harder to see from a distance and may have been a later improvement on the original cross-hatch design.

I doubt that cost would be a factor in the production. I have recently been quoted to make runs of both cross-hatch and conventional chevron tape and the prices, even 90 years on, are the same for each.

Cheers,

Taff

[Muerrisch]

Very nice RWF shot.

I am very sceptical about low-visibility chevrons: firstly, look at post of Bdr Edwards MM: hardly low-vis, and would a gunner bother?

Secondly, in a war where artillery, MGs and grenades played such a part, attempting to suppress chevrons [as opposed to changing the silhouette of officers by wearing OR SD] seems a bit fatuous.

I have several manufacturers illustrated price lists of badges and none are flogging X chevrons. Gamages sold chevrons, but no description given.

As an aside, should not/do not a few of the Chums sport these chevrons, as we know the chevrons were worn!?

[Muerrisch]

I am very sceptical about low-visibility chevrons: firstly, look at post of Bdr Edwards MM: hardly low-vis, and would a gunner bother?

Secondly, in a war where artillery, MGs and grenades played such a part, attempting to suppress chevrons [as opposed to changing the silhouette of officers by wearing OR SD] seems a bit fatuous.

I have several manufacturers illustrated price lists of badges and none are flogging X chevrons. Gamages sold chevrons, but no description given.

As an aside, should not/do not a few of the Chums sport these chevrons, as we know the chevrons were worn!?

[truthergw]

Pity that there are no tartan chevrons. I think it is a great idea. Royal Stewart would have been particularly attractive.

[squirrel]

And presumably Hunting Stewart for the low visibility version?

[swellal]

I hate to over simplify things here, but couldn't it be just a case of getting kit from where ever it could be had, regardless of current King's Regs? I mean just think about the huge task of providing kit for hundreds of thousands of men, and then replacing it on a regular basis as it gets worn out out at the front. It wouldn't do to have Cpls and Sgts wandering around with no stripes would it?

As an expample, the Canadians were initially issued with 7 button tunics, but the standard was later changed to 5 button tunics. I have read war diary entries from 1918 where they were issued with British uniforms because no Canadian kit was available.

Much like some of the Canadians using Lee Enfields while the standard issue was still the Ross Rifle, and the Enfield was specificaly prohibited, but a soldier needs a weapon at the front no matter where it comes from.