Should I add a clasp to these medals

[mrfish]

I recently purchased a 1914 Star trio to 11519 Private Henry Whaite Morris, 2nd Battalion Scots Guards. His medal index card shows he was issued with the three medals but not the clasp for the 1914 star.

I was lucky enough to find Henry's papers online which showed that he was wounded in action on the 16th November 1914 whilst his unit were in trenches near Armentières.

He recovered from his wounds and went back to France in 1916. He was finally discharged to Class Z Army Reserve on the 16th April 1919, before the clasp was sanctioned and so would have had to apply for it.

My question is, he was obviously entitled to the clasp for the 1914 Star, but evidently did not apply for it. Should I add a clasp as per his full entitlement or leave them as he would have worn them?

This is not the only case I have of a man entitled to the clasp, but no clasp was issued, including a chap who died in 1916, who I would have thought would have got the clasp automatically?

What are Pals' thoughts on adding clasps to groups where there is clear entitlement but the clasp was, for whatever reason, never issued to the man?

><(((((*>

[auchonvillerssomme]

This is easy, if the information above is correct then yes he was entitled to it but he didn't apply for it so it wasn't officially issued. As it wasn't issued then you can't add it.

[dycer]

mrfish,

Clasps were not automatically issued to the Families of Casualties.

I have two Family Trios, one killed 1915 and the other 1918.Their Battalion is one recognised as being entitled to the C&R and surviving members of the Battalion did claim them, per the Battalion Medal Roll.Clasps were not issued automatically in my Uncles cases and the Family did not claim them on their behalf.I should add that their Brother-in-Law as a member of the MMP did claim his Clasp and Roses post War.

I agree with AC if not claimed there is no entitlement to them now being displayed with the Medal.

George

[Guest BrettC]

So can next of kin make a claim for this clasp?

[dycer]

Brett,

The operative word is "could".

The time limit for next of kin claiming the Clasp has long expired.

George

[Old Owl]

I do not agree that you should not add the clasp to his trio because it was not issued.

Basically if you can prove that he is entitled, which he is automatically because he was wounded in action prior to 22/11/14, then it is of little significance that he did not apply for the clasp. Obviously if you wish to keep his trio exactly as he wore it, then that is a different matter, but I personally would add the clasp because it is an important addition and signifies

that he was in the thick of it during the early part of WW1.

Robert

[dycer]

Robert,

For personal pleasure I agree although I choose not to.

However,what would happen if a Trio with an "unofficially" awarded Clasp was ever sold,thus gaining a premium,and the new owner found,through research the error?

George

[Old Owl]

George,

It's back to 'Caveat Emptor' in such a case

Anyway, it is probably debatable as to how much the addition of the bar would add to the value of the trio other than the value of a genuine clasp(£40) say?

Robert

[auchonvillerssomme]

No no no, we are re-writing history again, he did not apply for the clasp therefore no clasp exists for that medal. The only possible reason why anyone would want to add the clasp is to deceive, whether that is themselves or others.

[Jim Strawbridge]

No no no, we are re-writing history again, he did not apply for the clasp therefore no clasp exists for that medal. The only possible reason why anyone would want to add the clasp is to deceive, whether that is themselves or others.

I have to agree. If one was not issued then you cannot pretend that it was.

[Old Owl]

I think that you are both missing the point here. If the man is entitled then he is entitled to have the bar on his trio, the fact that it was neither applied for nor issued is rather irrelevant, he is still entitled!!!

As for rewriting history--this is hardly going to make any difference to history in any shape or form that matters!! Adding a clasp that is not entitled would be rewriting history!!

The man is entitled to the clasp and nobody can argue otherwise!!

Robert

[Old Owl]

The only possible reason why anyone would want to add the clasp is to deceive, whether that is themselves or others.

Deceit means: " An act of deceiving; misrepresentation; deception."

How can adding something which has been proven beyond doubt be a deception or misrepresentation!!!

[dycer]

Robert,

As I understand the system.

To be entitled to the Clasp and Roses the man had to have his entitlement confirmed by a Senior Member of his Unit.

Clearly in the case of the original post,this would have been done,but for whatever reason he chose not to apply and there is,therefore, no "official" entitlement to the Clasp being displayed with his Medals.

In my Uncles cases,their service papers have been destroyed.All the secondary evidence e.g.Battalion Movements,from War Diary,their date of landing in France,from MIC's, suggests that they were entitled to the Clasp.

However,in the absence of their service papers I can never be 100% certain that they "served in or near the front line before the cut-off date".

I,therefore,choose not to belief or deceive.

George

[Old Owl]

George,

With respect.

Private Morris was wounded in action on 16/11/14. This alone entitles him to the clasp--regardless as to whether or not a senior officer confirmed his entitlement.

I fail to understand why anyone would have a problem with a clasp being added to his trio--I am almost speechless!!!

I also fail to understand the term "no official entitlement"---what more could a man do other than be wounded or killed to prove beyond doubt that he was officially entitled to the bar.

The fact that he neither applied for nor received the bar is irrelevant--he is still entitled to it!!!

Robert

[auchonvillerssomme]

Entitled to, no argument, but it was never officially issued so there isn't a bar to go with it, the only bar and star would be one issued specifically to him or the next of kin on application. Like I said, a deception.

[Old Owl]

Entitled to, no argument, but it was never officially issued so there isn't a bar to go with it, the only bar and star would be one issued specifically to him or the next of kin on application. Like I said, a deception.

What is your problem? Deception it cannot possibly be, unless of course he was not entitled!!

[dycer]

Robert,

That is the point as Pte. Morris did not claim and receive his Clasp he was not entitled to wear it.

Had he worn one,without ever claiming it,he would have been deceiving.

Daft as it may sound.

George

[auchonvillerssomme]

I don't think it sounds daft at all, it is common sense.

[dycer]

AC,

Very true.

But we are entering the realms of the Medal collector,coveter, displayer,etc.

George

[Old Owl]

George,

I am afraid that I cannot follow your logic--he is either entitled or he is not--as to whether or not he claimed the clasp is irrelevant!! Had the clasp been individually marked or named to each recipient, then on that basis he would be creating a deception by wearing one named to another man. As it is, it is not possible to differentiate between any genuine clasp (or rose for that matter) so how can wearing one create a deception, when the wearer is entitled to wear one!!!??

If I bought a Mons Trio to a man who was either killed or wounded prior to the cut off date, then I would feel totally justified in adding a clasp to the trio regardless of whether or not the clasp had been previously claimed. The reason that many were not claimed is simply because many did not realise that they could claim one or they just didn't bother for whatever reason, and I cannot see for the life of me how a collector adding one to a trio some 90 years later can possibly deceive anyone, if the recipient is proven to be entitled.

Robert

[Old Owl]

AC,

Very true.

But we are entering the realms of the Medal collector,coveter, displayer,etc.

George

George,

On that basis, I shall withdraw from this discussion, as I should have realised earlier that we are not on a level playing field here

Happy Hunting,

Robert

[dycer]

George,

I am afraid that I cannot follow your logic

If I bought a Mons Trio to a man who was either killed or wounded prior to the cut off date, then I would feel totally justified in adding a clasp to the trio regardless of whether or not the clasp had been previously claimed. The reason that many were not claimed is simply because many did not realise that they could claim one or they just didn't bother for whatever reason, and I cannot see for the life of me how a collector adding one to a trio some 90 years later can possibly deceive anyone, if the recipient is proven to be entitled.

Robert

I'll try to answer your two posts in one.

I feel I carry a lot of baggage being the Nephew of two WW1 casualties,one of whom I was named after.

Both received their 1914 Trios,having been killed in 1915 and 1918 respectively.I've even still got the envelopes,the Medals were delivered in,and an accompanying 1914 Star issue letter with torn-off returned receipt.All contained within an "original" Princess Mary Box(well,I stretch a point there .The second Trio is somewhere around the house),contents consumed,but containing the original Christmas Card and envelope.Whether my Uncles participated,in the 1914 Truce,is open to conjecture,their Battalion is recognised as one that did and I do possess a Field Post Card,which was sent a few days before Christmas 1914,and bears the magical BEF Postmark "25 Dec 14".

So my Uncles Clasps were not claimed on their behalf,but in their legacy they were devils. .That statement is difficult to explain but I have found nice places to eat for both myself and my Family,when in France,near their resting place or place of commemoration.

George

[mrfish]

Thanks to everyone that has posted so far, I feel this is a really important debate and one which I suspect will have no one consistent or right answer.

To add to the mix, I received Howard Williamson’s new book “The Great War Medal Collectors Companion” in the post today and in that he gives some very interesting information regarding the issue of the clasp and the finding trios with clasps that men are seemingly not entitled to…

“The commonest query regarding the clasp is: If the issue of the clasp is not recorded on the MIC, does this mean he is not entitled to it?

The answer is absolutely NO. It only means it was not claimed or issued…the clasp was only approved on 16th October 19191, when most men had been demobilised and it was a lot easier to buy a bar than apply on the official post office form.

Original bars were acquired by military outfitters from the MOD and were sold over the counter to ex service men.

Given the inconsistencies in noting the award of the clasp; the MICs and 1914 Star Rolls will only indicate ISSUE of the clasp and NOT ENTITLEMENT TO the clasp.”

If a man was entitled to the clasp but it wasn’t issued, is it deceit to add it to the trio? Howard doesn’t offer any advice or opinion, but seems simply to distinguish between entitlement and issue. My chap certainly was entitled to the clasp but didn’t get one through official channels. I wonder if this is the only such example for medal collectors of the difference between entitlement and issue?

I’ve seen examples for sale of double issues of medals (Efficiency Medals, IGS, GSMs etc, even a ‘native troop’ who was issued with a Bronze BWM and a silver BWM and VM pair!) where clearly a second medal has been issued rather than just another clasp etc, probably due to clerical error. In this case despite the ISSUE of the medal there was NO ENTITLEMENT to wear a second same medal. So what should happen in such cases? Is it ok to wear the second medal because it came to you officially?

Is it ISSUE or ENTITLEMENT that is the over-riding factor?

><(((((*>

[Old Owl]

"The commonest query regarding the clasp is: If the issue of the clasp is not recorded on the MIC, does this mean he is not entitled to it?

--- it was a lot easier to buy a bar than apply on the official post office form.

Original bars were acquired by military outfitters from the MOD and were sold over the counter to ex service men.

Is it ISSUE or ENTITLEMENT that is the over-riding factor?

><(((((*>

This says it all, it has to be entitlement everytime!! Issue in this case is clearly not an issue, because you could buy one without it being issued!!

Robert

[AdrianBruce]

This says it all, it has to be entitlement everytime!!

For what it's worth, my view on this comes from logic... What would anyone be saying that the medals with clasp represent? Would they be claiming that these were the medals he wore? If so, that's deception as it's plainly untrue. Would they claim that these were the medals someone was entitled to? If so, that's OK, surely, so long as it's always made perfectly clear to anyone that these are not actually the medals that he held personally.

Personally, I'm dubious about the ethics of adding the clasp, even if it's said clearly to everyone that these are not his actual medals, just his entitled medals. Firstly, the provenance of the clasp is liable to be lost, creating potential confusion for any future owner. Secondly the set will not match the MIC - and to a collector, if that's wrong, what else might be wrong? Thirdly, what's the difference between adding a clasp and taking some blanks and engraving them with a soldier's name to replace lost medals? Everything matches entitlement, but nothing matches possession in the latter case - I'd pay a lot for my granddad's real medals but what would I pay for some engraved blanks? Nothing. They're not his. Ditto, I'm afraid, the clasp. Yes, he was entitled - but you don't need the clasp - you've got the documentation to show what he did.