WD stamp significance?

[dutchbarge]

Hello, The photo below is from the lining of a British made Canadian service jacket. Can anyone tell me the the significance, if any, (ie. date, maker, ect.) of the numerals and letters above and below the broad arrow stamp? Can any one shed light on the abbreviation "1-C.M.R."? Cheers, BIll

[scottmarchand]

Hi,

not sure about the codes, I recall some discussion that they were related to factories and depots, but I am probably muddling things.

1 CMR is the First Canadian Mounted Rifles, an erstwhile Cavalry unit that grew legs and fought as Infantry as part of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in France.

from the LAC:

The 1st Canadian Mounted Rifle Battalion was organized in December 1914 under General Order 36 of 15 March 1915. The battalion was mobilized in Brandon, Yorkton (A Squadron), Brandon (B Squadron), and Saskatoon (C Squadron) and was recruited from nine mounted regiments in Military District 10. The battalion was under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel H.I. Stevenson.

The battalion left Montreal on 12 June 1915 aboard MEGANTIC, arriving in England on 21 June 1915. Its strength was 28 officers and 602 other ranks. The battalion arrived in France on 22 September 1915, becoming part of the 1st Brigade Canadian Mounted Rifles. Its designation was changed from regiment to battalion with the formation of the 8th Canadian Infantry Brigade on 1 January 1916. The battalion returned to Canada on 20 March 1919, was demobilized at Brandon on 24 March 1919, and was disbanded by General Order 207 of 15 November 1920.

The battalion supported a brass and pipe band. The battalion colours were presented at Bramshott in March 1919 by Brigadier General D.C. Draper.

The 1st Canadian Mounted Rifle Battalion was perpetuated by The Manitoba Mounted Rifles which converted to artillery in 1946. It was also perpetuated by The Saskatchewan Mounted Rifles which, in 1936, amalgamated with the 16th Canadian Light Horse to form The 16th\22nd Saskatchewan Horse.

Battle Honours:

Mount Sorrel; Somme 1916; Flers-Courcelette; Ancre Heights; Arras 1917, 1918; Vimy 1917; Hill 70; Ypres 1917; Passchendaele; Amiens, Scarpe 1918; Hindenburg Line; Canal du Nord; Cambrai 1918; Valenciennes.

Formation patch is a red circle over a french grey rectangle

Colwell's attestation papers are here:

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/cef/001042-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=111312&interval=20&&PHPSESSID=b6jvlh2h3scqi34g74ad5kmbq0

[Joe Sweeney]

Bill,

This type of WD stamp started to be used after June of 1915 thruogh 1918/19 or there abouts.

Each stamp actually would identify a specific inspector---hence the number.

The letter is a bit of a mystery.

During this period my guess might be a commodty but I have no actual eveidence except some inconclusive observations.

L,M,N seem to be found on articles of SD clothing.

P for caps O is seen on caps in 1915 and 1916.

O seems to be common on waterproof clothing.

E seems to be common on articles of WD accepted clothing for other armies (suchj as uniforms made for the US Army).

This is not hard and fast as there are exception to everyone of the above.

Joe Sweeney

[auchonvillerssomme]

It seems odd that a soldier would write all of those details in his jacket, why not just name and number?

[dutchbarge]

Thanks, Scott, for the history of the 1st Canadian Mounted rifles and thanks, Joe, for the information on the WD stamps. I really appreciate your help! Cheers, Bill

[dutchbarge]

It seems odd that a soldier would write all of those details in his jacket, why not just name and number?

Perhaps he was proud of being a member of the organization? Or perhaps because there was at least one other H.H. Colwell and several other H. Colwells in the C.E.F? Who knows? I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking anyone would be paying any attention to it almost a century later. I've several U.S. Army coats with liners displaying rank, name and unitswritten in ink and even one with a home address! Cheers, Bill

[Grovetown]

It seems odd that a soldier would write all of those details in his jacket, why not just name and number?

Names, numbers and units were stamped into tunics pre- and early war by the army itself; so seems logical that men might follow suit later on.

Cheers,

GT.

[dutchbarge]

Names, numbers and units were stamped into tunics pre- and early war by the army itself; so seems logical that men might follow suit later on.

Cheers,

GT.

Thanks, GT! Cheers, Bill

[auchonvillerssomme]

Just a seed of doubt is all, I get that when objects are overcooked. I agree that there may have been more than one H.H Colwell but for them all to have the same number would be a bit more of a coincidence.

[Grovetown]

Just a seed of doubt is all, I get that when objects are overcooked. I agree that there may have been more than one H.H Colwell but for them all to have the same number would be a bit more of a coincidence.

There is actually more than one H HColwell (and half-a-dozen H Colwells); so the number and/ or unit would be necessary if seeking to return the jacket to its rightful.

In the case of the British, duplication of numbers was rampant and among men with the same name. As mentioned above, SD was stamped up at unit level with all manner of identifiers early on. The practice seems to have died out officially, probably as a consequence of sheer volume, later on - but many men carried it on with anything from simply number to chapter and verse name, rank, number and unit etc.

I don't see anything overcooked about this at all. Not atypical style of writing, pencil colour, and entirely consistent with plenty of other examples.

Cheers,

GT.

[auchonvillerssomme]

In the case of the British, duplication of numbers was rampant and among men with the same name. As mentioned above, SD was stamped up at unit level with all manner of identifiers early on. The practice seems to have died out officially, probably as a consequence of sheer volume, later on - but many men carried it on with anything from simply number to chapter and verse name, rank, number and unit etc.

GT.

GT. sorry but I must add something else, are you saying that a name and number are commonly duplicated in the British Army, what examples do you have of that occurring? There might a be a very rare one off with a very common name but rampant?

The writing isn't pencil its ink, you can see the slight blot at the top of the letters and numbers.

[Grovetown]

GT. sorry but I must add something else, are you saying that a name and number are commonly duplicated in the British Army, what examples do you have of that occurring?

Hi Mick

In the British Army of the Great War: yes. As you are no doubt aware, numbering was done at battalion and regimental level, and initially (at least) there was no exclusivity of number blocks to any given unit. I.e. Bloggs's Horse would start at 1; as would Jones's Foot. Consequently, there was massive number duplication.

It even occurred within single corps: for example, one randomly selected number (1027) is assigned dozens of times within the RFA alone; while it was used a total of 279 times throughout the army.

Then stir common names into the mix across the army.

There are, across all regiments and corps, five 1027 Smith; three 1027 Brown; two 1027 Jones; two 1027 Williams and so on. Have to say, haven't drilled into the initials.

Alternatively, there are seven 1964 Jones; four of whom are T and two of those, at least, are Thomas.

So numbers and names have their doppelgangers. Examples are legion - in fact, I'd say that for very many early/ low numbers, you'll find at least two, and commonly three, men of the same surname with it (albeit with differing first initials). Hence, if you were going to go to the time and trouble of identifying tunics - as the army plainly thought worth doing, at least pre-war and in the early stages – using name and/or number and/or unit etc etc would be appropriate.

To be honest though, this is a slightly silly point we're debating as we're dancing on the head of a pin here regarding the need to mark these tunics. The original issue raised was "It seems odd that a soldier would write all of those details in his jacket, why not just name and number?"

It may be odd, but it's a fact that the army did it (whether the name and/ or number were duplicated, but regardless); and it's a fact that men did.

Consequently, there is no way that this kind of marking can be considered an embellishment simply because it's there. The existence of marking is not suspicious in itself. I'm sure there are tunics out there with spurious biographies attached; but that's not the point.

The discussion should not be 'is it odd?', 'should it be there?', or 'is that a bit good to be true?'; but 'this kind of marking was applied, but is it genuine in this case'?

And to my eye, it looks spot on.

The writing isn't pencil its ink, you can see the slight blot at the top of the letters and numbers.

My screen/ peepers aren't up to that: looks like indelible blue pencil to me, albeit heavily applied.

Cheers,

GT.

[dutchbarge]

My screen/ peepers aren't up to that: looks like indelible blue pencil to me, albeit heavily applied.

Cheers,

GT.

Hello GT, To dispell any confusion, the following:

An indelible pencil is a pencil with a type of lead which cannot be erased. Classically, indelible pencils are made with silver nitrate, although other materials may be used as well, and sometimes graphite is mixed into the lead for a familiar look and feel. A closely related pencil, the copying pencil, is a form of indelible pencil with an aniline dye embedded in the lead.

Indelible pencils were introduced in the early 1800s, as an alternative to the cumbersome and sometimes expensive pens of the era. Prior to the introduction of the indelible pencil, documents with any sense of permanence had to be written with fountain or quill pens. Indelible pencils created the desired lasting print, without the associated difficulties; markings made in indelible pencil would stay put if someone tried to erase the document, or if it was dropped into water or a solvent.

Most of the uniforms in my collection which are so marked seem to favor a purple-ish hue, although this and a few others tend more towards royal blue.

Cheers, Bill

[scottmarchand]

Hi,

What about the outside of the tunic? And badges, buttons or formation badges? No Name in it but Mine looks like this:

[dutchbarge]

Hello Scott,

Thanks for the great photos. I'll try to get my jacket exterior photographed and onto the Forum this weekend. I have a question regarding the collar badges. Are they both identical or is there a 'right' and 'left' badge? Cheers, Bill

[dutchbarge]

Hello Scott, As both of our 1st CMR jackets were originally British -made M1907 service dress jackets, and both of our jackets have had the stand/fall collars converted to standing, I'm wondering if yours has had underarm darts added like mine. Cheers, Bill