Seaforth Highlander's Cap

[MikeS000]

I have a Seaforth Highlander's Cap. Unfortunately that is about all I know of it. Is there a way to tell the date or period of these caps? Attached are a couple of photos of the cap, inside and out. Unfortunately one of the antlers is snapped. There is what appears to be a serial or service number on the inside. Not sure if it would be Great War era later or earlier.

Any help appreciated!

Thanks and Best Regards, MikeS

[MikeS000]

Serial/service Number...

[MikeS000]

and finally, the attachments...

[Rob B]

The Seaforths were still alive and well up till 1969 when they were merged in with the Camerons to become the Queens own Highlanders so this Glengarry could be as late as 1969 -if the badge was original to the hat, but it is a common style within the Scottish Division. This type was worn by the RHF, KOSB, and Royal Scots-the Cap badge I would hazard a guess at 30s-40s.

It is always hard to date an item when you can do a mix and match with things like badges.

Cheers,

Rob

[7t2ndswinger]

-->

QUOTE(Rob B @ Jul 27 2006, 07:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is always hard to date an item when you can do a mix and match with things like badges.

Cheers,

Rob

The badge is definently genuine, one lug on each antler and one at the bottom.

Keith

[MikeS000]

Thanks Rob, Keith -

If it is WW2 era, it is a bit out of my (WW1) collecting era. Hoped to find one to mate up with Belgian and French sidecaps, they are marked to the 1st Carabineers and 101st Infantry, respectively.

I wonder if the owner of this cap could be tracked by the service number? From what I can tell, it looks like it was painted(?) in the cap. Looks to be 8928059, or 892.8059. Can't tell if the dot is just an errant mark.

Just as an aside, following is a photo of the Belgian cap. The insignia is brass, but has been washed (most likely post-war) with a silver.

- Best Regards, Mike

[Graham Stewart]

Mike,

The post-WWI regimental numbers for the Seaforths Highlanders were 2809001 - 2865000 and the number 8928059 falls into an "unused number block" i.e. the Royal Armoured Corps are the final series numbered 7891869 - 8230000. No numbers were used after that until the introduction of the pre-WWII Militia, which were numbered 10000001 - 10350000.

Is there a possibility it may be actually Canadian, although I'm not sure what their post-WWI & WWII numbers ran too.

Graham.

[MikeS000]

Mike,

The post-WWI regimental numbers for the Seaforths Highlanders were 2809001 - 2865000 and the number 8928059 falls into an "unused number block" i.e. the Royal Armoured Corps are the final series numbered 7891869 - 8230000. No numbers were used after that until the introduction of the pre-WWII Militia, which were numbered 10000001 - 10350000.

Is there a possibility it may be actually Canadian, although I'm not sure what their post-WWI & WWII numbers ran too.

Graham.

Hello Graham -

Thanks very much for the information. Yes, there is a very good possibility it may be Canadian. It was found in a shop in upstate New York, just a stone's throw (well not quite...) from the border. you will have to pardon my ignorance on this topic, as I am not that familiar with the regimentals.

One other question. Knowing now that these were used over a long timespan, would this example be similar to the WW1 Glengarry? Differences in the badge?

- Thanks and best regards! Mike

[ian turner]

Here's one from 1918 vintage

Ian

[MikeS000]

Here's one from 1918 vintage

Ian

Ian -

Thank you very much. A great photo! Other than the color and possibly the badge material they appear very similar.

- Best regards, Mike

[wainfleet]

Every glengarry dated or otherwise known to be of the Great War period that I've ever seen has had a leather trim, and over the past 25 years I've seen quite a few, so I'm fairly confident this is a reliable rule of thumb, though the best person to ask is probably Joe. You can see in the portrait photo posted above that the trim is leather. Yours seems to have a fabric trim. My guess is it's WW2.

[Joe Sweeney]

I think Wainfleet is correct.

Glengarry's approved by the WO for British use had the trim made in black calfskin (1904 through 1908 pattern dates). In 1914, prior to the war, the trim was changed to chromed leather brown calf skin. I find that this 1914 pattern type to be far less common than the black calf skin.

The only exception being in a simplication of the Glenagrry's in the fall of 1914 to three types. Blue with blue tuft, blue with red tuft and plain green. These were supposed to replace all other types of glen's (no dicing on any of these), the only allowance for regimental distinction was red tufts went to regiments that had red tufts--blue to blue and green glens to those that already had them. These three patterns had, or were allowed, cloth trim.

Not sure, these pattern distinctions governed Canadian made examples but ones I've examined that I know the provenance usually do adhere to the pattern rules above.

If your trim is cloth I too would say it is post WWI.

Joe Sweeney

[MikeS000]

I think Wainfleet is correct.

Glengarry's approved by the WO for British use had the trim made in black calfskin (1904 through 1908 pattern dates). In 1914, prior to the war, the trim was changed to chromed leather brown calf skin. I find that this 1914 pattern type to be far less common than the black calf skin.

The only exception being in a simplication of the Glenagrry's in the fall of 1914 to three types. Blue with blue tuft, blue with red tuft and plain green. These were supposed to replace all other types of glen's (no dicing on any of these), the only allowance for regimental distinction was red tufts went to regiments that had red tufts--blue to blue and green glens to those that already had them. These three patterns had, or were allowed, cloth trim.

Not sure, these pattern distinctions governed Canadian made examples but ones I've examined that I know the provenance usually do adhere to the pattern rules above.

If your trim is cloth I too would say it is post WWI.

Joe Sweeney

Thanks very much Joe. I am going to have to have the wife look at it. I don't think it is leather. It is somewhat shiny, ribbed and it "squeaks" when you rub it. I know that sounds strange, must be pigskin!!

Never thought I wouldn't be able to distinguish leather from material, but this is a bit baffling. Not like the wool or liner material or usual leather one might expect.

- Mike