British Uniforms & Equipment of The Great War 1914-18

[Muerrisch]

I do sincerely hope that my contributions are not seen as sniping.

There is a perfectly viable option, in that I could just annotate my own copy.

And where would that get the study of this our fascinating subject?

Another option is to submit suggestions only to the publisher ......... so that those who have bought/ are about to buy the book have to wait indefinitely until corrigenda are issued.

Interestingly, none of my five comments so far have drawn cries of 'cobblers!', which is reassuring!

Now to the more general point: a dialogue with a real publisher! Superb!

Would it not be nice if the author joined the discussion ...... he might agree with every word we write, he might sue, he might refute every criticism totally successfully.

Who knows?

Finally, I know what being an author feels like. British Army Proficiency Badges, Blast of War, Duty Done, the modern editions of Frank Richards's two classics, and more magazine articles than the editors care to think about. And yes, every one was meant to be perfect, every one was not perfect, the world keeps rotating, and most people are well-meaning, decent and honest about the whole problem of 'publish and be damned!'

[Muerrisch]

Sixth comment.

Pioneer Battalion collar badge. p6 figure 13.

worth making the point that the badge was also made mirror-image, so that a matched pair could be worn.

[Muerrisch]

Seventh comment

'Trade and Qualification badges' he calls them. p61 and 62.

Says this is a fairly complex area.

So it is, but he has 'Edwards and Langley' in his bibliography so has not done the hard yards reading it properly.

I doubt if the illustrations are to a consistent scale, so will pass that point over. They are excellently produced.

His description of crossed rifles for best shot in Company etc. is incorrect: it was for a Marksman.

Whereas he is correct to state that there was a move to gilding metal badges from about 1905, this move omitted what we might call broadly the skill-at-arms badges, which remained worsted according to Clothing Regs. PVCN, and the RACD ledgers. That is not to say that GM versions do not abound, and crop up in period photos. It may even be that GM versions were introduced officially at some point, but I have seen no evidence. I consider it likely that many GM skill-at-arms badges were private purchase. [as an aside, "crossed-anything" badges have nasty sticky-out bits, decidedly unhandy in a trench].

Reccommendation: amend crossed rifles, add a note re. the skill-at-arms material.

[wainfleet]

I have provided a "peer review" on one book and some detailed articles. It did not take me anything like three years! IIRC I did the articles in an hour or two each and the book in about ten days, going through it in the evenings as time permitted. I am not saying that this book could have been reviewed in ten days, especially as more than one person would probably have had to be involved, but I find it hard to believe peer review was not a viable option.

The Steve Chambers book on Uniforms and Equipment (not the one I reviewed btw) was a classic example of how to get it right. The author stuck to what he knew, clearly did extensive additional research, and covered the subject comprehensively and without any mistakes that I noticed, plus the quality of the book production was excellent in every way. I haven't seen the book under discussion here so can't comment on it, but my point is that it can be, and has been, done properly.

[SteveMarsdin]

Good afternoon All,

I have no real interests in uniforms, insignia etc. and have only just come across this thread. I would like to echo Andrew's and others' comments, how very refreshing for the publisher to join in the thread and take the praise and constructive criticism as it is intended. I will keep an eye open for their name in future.

[Muerrisch]

I have provided a "peer review" on one book and some detailed articles. It did not take me anything like three years! IIRC I did the articles in an hour or two each and the book in about ten days, going through it in the evenings as time permitted. I am not saying that this book could have been reviewed in ten days, especially as more than one person would probably have had to be involved, but I find it hard to believe peer review was not a viable option.

The Steve Chambers book on Uniforms and Equipment (not the one I reviewed btw) was a classic example of how to get it right. The author stuck to what he knew, clearly did extensive additional research, and covered the subject comprehensively and without any mistakes that I noticed, plus the quality of the book production was excellent in every way. I haven't seen the book under discussion here so can't comment on it, but my point is that it can be, and has been, done properly.

Can I add that the Steve Chambers book attracted a substantial amount of comment from me, taken in good part, and we are still talking [electronically, that is]. The book is extremely well thumbed and handled and is still nearly in mint condition. As afurther praise, it is one of the few books I can always lay my hands on.

[Chief_Chum]

"His description of crossed rifles for best shot in Company etc. is incorrect: it was for a Marksman.

Whereas he is correct to state that there was a move to gilding metal badges from about 1905, this move omitted what we might call broadly the skill-at-arms badges, which remained worsted according to Clothing Regs. PVCN, and the RACD ledgers. That is not to say that GM versions do not abound, and crop up in period photos. It may even be that GM versions were introduced officially at some point, but I have seen no evidence. I consider it likely that many GM skill-at-arms badges were private purchase. [as an aside, "crossed-anything" badges have nasty sticky-out bits, decidedly unhandy in a trench]."

I thought the attached might be of interest Grump. It's a photograph of a frame in the Suffolk Regiment Museum entitled "Badges and Devices as worn by All Ranks of The Suffolk Regiment 1914". The frame was presented by Major Parry-Crooke to the Officers Mess of The Depot in 1914 so one has to assume that it was accurate. Skill-at-Arms badges in cloth as you said.

It gives a pretty good snapshot of what was being worn just before the outbreak of war.

Cheers,

Taff

.

[Muerrisch]

Thank you Taff: a treasure trove. However, the display lacks the worsted SD skill-at-arms badges [and at least three for the scarlet full dress]. Doesn't help my case!

[Muerrisch]

Eighth comment

Rank badges p 56 etc.

Beautifully illustrated.

There is much to be desired in this section. John does not have Dawnay's magisterial work in his bibliography, which is a pity, because the subject is complicated.

For starters, there is no mention of any of the peculiarities abundant in the one, two and three chevron area. Large numbers so badged and ranked served and died in the Great War, and I can find no mention.

So we have Lance-Sergeant, we have Bombardier, we have 2nd Corporal, we have the strangely badged Guards Lance-Corporals ........

This is a big area to omit.

I will, however, provide an in-depth on this section when I can.

Finally for today, a straightforward typo. The ref [p55] to Fig. 26 should read Fig. 34.

[Muerrisch]

Before I do a fair bit of hard work on the 'ranks and badges' section, is anyone reading/ using these comments, please?

[Grovetown]

Before I do a fair bit of hard work on the 'ranks and badges' section, is anyone reading/ using these comments, please?

Yep!

[squirrel]

Certainly am.

[Peter Doyle]

Hmm, well....

I do hope that John, if he's out there, is not demoralised by the level of detail...

[Grovetown]

Hmm, well....

I do hope that John, if he's out there, is not demoralised by the level of detail...

I agree Peter, as he has no doubt done us all a service with it. The problem lies perhaps with the temptation for marketing claims. David has above pointed out that the laudatory review they are using was from The Armourer. But hasn't fought shy of using it to promote the book as an endorsement on his Web site etc.

Just one example, to put Grumpy's comments in context...

Whatever titles on uniforms - that the reader already has on his bookshelf - are effectively redundant. In over 400 pages, this title describes more than the sum total of all titles yet seen

Not, it seems, if you've got Edwards and Langley's British Army Proficiency Badges for instance.

I think what Grumpy is driving at is that certain sections - at least within his area of expertise - should bear riders. That seems right and proper, given the cost.

I'm still keen to see it, but no endeavour paid for by the customer should be exempt from observation because of the best intentions of author and/ or publisher.

Best wishes,

GT.

[Peter Doyle]

Sure, GT, but the claims of the publisher may not necessarily chime with any made by John himself - who is clearly not available for comment (i.e. is probably not a member of the Forum). I know that David's ('Grumpy's') book is a good one, but like all volumes (mine included), there are things that one would like to have seen done differently (as David acknowledges himself).

I perhaps feel that the public peeling apart, layer-by-layer, of John's book (whatever the claim of the publishers) is a little painful to see. Just my view, of course. (I'm used to peer review in my day-to-day working life; however, it's usually done on a perhaps less public forum - maybe that's it).

Peter

[Muerrisch]

OK, this is what I will do:

unless others with different expertises make comment, I will wind my neck in, and just prepare a few more comments but not upload them for the time being.

[davidflies]

"The problem lies perhaps with the temptation for marketing claims. David has above pointed out that the laudatory review they are using was from The Armourer. But hasn't fought shy of using it to promote the book as an endorsement on his Web site "

Any publisher is going to promote a book to his best ability, and when he has an unsolicited review he is going to use it - just economic sense.

David

[Grovetown]

Any publisher is going to promote a book to his best ability, and when he has an unsolicited review he is going to use it - just economic sense.

David

Agree David: it's a no-brainer.

The difficulty arises when said review - freely deployed by MLRS - is somewhat over-excited or inaccurate through hyperbole.

The publisher then has to take any criticism arising thereafter - as a consequence of using the overclaim - on the chin. Which, to be fair, you - after the initial spat - have done.

Anyhow, I'm due a copy imminently and will report back when I have had a chance to peruse.

Best wishes,

GT.

[Muerrisch]

then you can start the annotations, corrections .......!

[Grovetown]

Any publisher is going to promote a book to his best ability, and when he has an unsolicited review he is going to use it - just economic sense.

OK: having now received a copy; I'm a bit annoyed about this.

The reviewer in question receives a significant credit in the acknowledgements, to the extent where - for all intents and purposes - he could conceivably even be thought of as an editor. He also receives credits in respect of a number of illustrations.

While the review may have, therefore, indeed been "unsolicited", it can in no way be considered disinterested.

That said, at first glance, it is in many ways a better book than I was anticipating (will address production values later). Although, again at first glance, there are a number of mistakes and omissions - and not just in Grumpy's fields - which preclude it being described as definitive. Elements of it are also highly asymmetrical with - as one deleted reviewer here pointed out - some areas, of perhaps secondary and peripheral interest, being addressed in very great detail while others, of central importance, receive scant attention.

It is, again, better than I was expecting; but not as described in the "unsolicited review". Am under pressure of time right now, but will report more comprehensively later.

Best wishes,

GT.

[Muerrisch]

GT: please do be sure to post detailed comment/ errata in your areas of nolledge.

[Grovetown]

Before I start, I have a few declarations. First, I am in a possession of a 'faulty' copy of this book, as the publisher has admitted exists. It has been kindly supplied by a Pal here, who has been sent a new, 'good' copy by the publisher and at the publisher's expense.

Second, I have worked in the media for 21 years. The majority of those were in magazines; nine of which as a magazine editor. I today occasionally buy print too. Therefore, I would therefore like to think I have some insight into the vagaries of the production and print processes.

Third, I have not come here to be unduly critical, believing that the author has done us a great service in compiling much disparate and arcane information into one tome. It is indeed the most comprehensive single volume on the topic as a whole. As the author honestly points out, there are much more detailed books on specific areas available; yet – nonetheless – he deserves much credit for the obvious, considerable effort to which he has gone in collating this material.

Part I: Production

So: production values. As stated, I have a faulty copy so will leave comment on the colour reproduction, particularly, and paper weights etc; to others with better ones.

The quality of the mono images is very variable – but, possibly, that is a function of the originals. Some are very crisp, while others are blurry – scans of scans of scans perhaps – to the point whereby one can say nothing other than "that is a Great War soldier". They're almost pointless. That said, some of the less distinct images – the Training Reserve section is one example – do show rare and unusual insignia being worn, and are well worthy of inclusion regardless.

There are two ways in which I think one can address the overall quality: first, for itself alone, and, second, in the context of its price.

For those who hold copies, one can say that the overall quality is on a par with, for example, N&M's reprint of Colin Churchill's History of the British Army Infantry Collar Badge, and Edwards & Langley's British Army Proficiency Badges. It is not, obviously, within a country mile of Schiffer's Uniforms & Equipment of the British Army in World War I by Steve Chambers, nor Haselgrove & Radovic's History of the Steel Helmet in the First World War.

Perhaps the main problem in this context is that the softback format, given the generous 445pp size, doesn't lend itself to durability. Churchill and Langley's works do not suffer in this respect, given that they are (only) 332pp and 148pp respectively. And with respect to those authors, they are not likely to get handled anything like as much as this. This book would benefit greatly from being stitched and hardbound, like the Schiffer books. But that, of course, is a function of cost, so let's consider it in that context.

The Churchill and Langley books – again at 332pp and 148pp – are no better than this, but cost £36 and around £20 respectively (albeit without the benefit of colour). This book is £60 (inc. P&P) direct, £66 from Amazon and £68 from dealers. While Churchill and Langley are obviously slimmer (and mono), twice as thick – in publishing – does not mean twice as dear, nor does the inclusion of four-colour sections; and this could/ should have been less expensive, from the material/ mechanical perspective alone.

So what about the very high-quality hardbacked, stitched Schiffers? Chambers is currently £52.25 on Amazon, while Haselgrove (Vol. 2, 2006) is £59.95. Folios are 318pp and 736pp (!) respectively.

It has been said by Andrew Hesketh that this book will hardly "trouble the bestseller list", and by the publisher that, "If we were Schiffer or another house we could have 2,000 copies printed in China or elsewhere and be quite happy to remainder the book after six months". The way this book has been produced has been described in almost cottage industry terms, and that it would be uneconomic to produce it otherwise.

I would reckon that this book will almost certainly outsell both the Schiffers, which show no signs of being remaindered.

A modernisation of process would, it seems, reduce its unit costs, enhance its quality and provide for much better value – in terms of production values – for the reader.

Constructively, to improve quality and value: I would suggest that all the content on officers be broken out into a separate, welcome, volume; ditch the (brief) element on the dominions and take a hard look at the need for covering, say, the VTC, women (sorry) and insignia of any kinds in any depth at all.

All of which would reduce pagination, lower the cost and improve longevity.

Part II on content to follow shortly.

[davidflies]

GT (and others)

"The publisher then has to take any criticism arising thereafter - as a consequence of using the overclaim - on the chin. Which, to be fair, you - after the initial spat - have done."

My responsibility as a publisher is to ensure that a book is worth publishing. At no time did I ever consider the book not worth doing - and the fact that it is not in my field of personal expertise/knowledge is not a reason for not publishing it. If that were a criterion our list would be a short one.

If you look at our web site you will see that we publish reprints of well over 600 book titles, of which only a few titles are what might be said to be within my field. It is rather like saying Bloomsbury should not publish Harry Potter because they have no experience of magic, or Blackwells should not publish medical and legal texts because they do not practise medicine or law.

My responsibility is, I regret to say, not solely to the reader, but to my staff (whose wages I pay), my fellow directors, the author and, to an extent, to the reader. As far as readers are concerned it is their choice whether to buy the book or not, and if, having read the book and checked their arguments against other reputable sources (book, museums, articles etc) they have a correction to make then they are free these days so to do. No book is without errors, whether merely simply typos to the worst kind of book which is totally misleading and yet purports to be authoritative - such as some of the more politicised texts that appear from time to time (especially from fundamentalists). Errors do not necessarily mean to deceive or mislead - they are simply errors which are believed true until proved otherwise. Omissions can only be remarked on surely; criticism that an an author did not delve even deeper than he has are somewhat naive.

The claim of the article in The Armourer was taken by me at face value - why did The Armourer publish it if they did not trust the author of the review? I certainly cannot call the editorial and review policy of The Armourer into question, and I am not taking criticism of my editorial choice in this case lying down. If I had merely published and then picked out a few phrases from this web site I would still have had a few good sentences to quote which would have said much the same as the original (take a look above).

My point therefore is that I am free to publish what I will, just as you are free to buy what you will. Errors of 'omission and commission' are found in virtually every book ever published which has a scope as broad as this, and I still maintain (and some others here seem to agree) that the book is a very valuable addition to information in a field of which I was totally unaware (but am growing rapidly to see is a minefield of animated discussion) and that the author deserves nothing but plaudits for having put so much into one book and stood up in front of the book buying public to be shot at. And shoot all you will, I am not going to recommend to the author that we change one bit of the book until I have a chapter and verse corrections list supported from authoritative sources which are accepted by JB. It is, when all is said and done, his book, his work and his contribution in this field even if it might be slightly erroneous in minutiae.

For those who buy the book and are not as well versed in the subject as those who are adding their criticisms to this list I can only say that I would have corrected errors had I been qualified so to do, but luckily the errors that may be in the book are in no way life threatening to the user! For those who are well versed I seem to have provided material upon which they can sharpen their critical abilities.

I might add that the MoD does not disagree with my previous choices, and they have just awarded us another contract, this time to reprint our selections of the Naval Historical Branch records. Perhaps however I should stay away from official accounts of Jutland or the Falklands? That might raise others hackles as much as this book seems to be doing.

This is going on rather too much, but although I have to admit ultimate responsibility for the production qualities gf the book ( and some failures in this respect initially), and I am responsible for the content of any book we publish, I cannot see that we as a publishing house need feel any shame for having published the book - rather we are ALL proud of it and I am sure will remain so. If JB has made a few errors in over 400 pages of text no one can make this a cause célebre to condemn the book as a whole. No one can take away from us the pleasure of dealing with the book or the author nor the pride with which we presented it to the reading public. It was and is a departure from our usual style, but - no regrets.

[davidflies]

GT

I appreciate your comments and apologise once more for the original faulty copy.

Just to fill you in on our production methods: we print and bind all our books in house, by hand. So, we are a 'cottage industry' in the true sense. We started out as reprinters just over five years ago binding our books with a multi punch. We later, and by stages, progressed to what we use now - high quality duplex colour laser printers, guillotine and a glue machine - but we still bind and laminate by hand. Our 'cottage' is just that - three rooms and a kitchen with no room (and we have not the money) for expensive process machinery that does everything in one run.

I agree that the book is a hefty tome, but to have divided it into two volumes initially seemed wrong to me at the time - it just seemed to hang together as one volume, and that is the decision I made. If I was wrong, mea culpa. Further if we had gone down the hardback road we could not produce the books in-house (we do not have the machinery or the expertise), and the cost would have been very high as we would have to hold stock which is always a risk (although not so much in this case). On the hardback issue I would add that we had a contract with a mainstream publisher for hardback production but after a year nothing had happened so I decided to go ahead with the softback edition, within the terms of the agreement.

Perhaps with your level of expertise you might like to come and see us and offer suggestions on how we can improve. This is NOT a sarcastic remark but a genuine invitation. I have had to learn everything as I went along, and the book as published is the best I can make it with the equipment we have.

Incidentally we print to order and every book is printed when we need to print it, saving us the enormous expense of holding 30 copies of every book on our list - which would be around 18,0000 books in the cottage which would leave no room even for the kettle!

We have, incidentally, had no adverse comments of our methods from our MoD contracted archives nor from other buyers with odd exceptions where an unspotted mistake has gone out - naturally replaced without cost to the reader.

David

[Muerrisch]

For those who hold copies, one can say that the overall quality is on a par with, for example, N&M's reprint of Colin Churchill's History of the British Army Infantry Collar Badge, and Edwards & Langley's British Army Proficiency Badges. It is not, obviously, within a country mile on Schiffer's Uniforms & Equipment of the British Army in World War I by Steve Chambers, nor Haselgrove & Radovic's History of the Steel Helmet in the First World War.

I wonder which edition of E&L is referred to?

The modern reprint [nothing to do with me, didn't know it was going to happen!] suffered a la Collar Badge book by being scanned in or whatever. The illustrations, which are all-important, are muddy. The initial 1984 edition [for which I am responsible] is much crisper, and, despite being in very very frequent use, is in remarkably good, unshaken condition. And there is one colour plate