Jim Strawbridge Posted 30 November , 2011 Share Posted 30 November , 2011 I have no connection to this eBay posting. BUT it is a BWM/victory pair which the seller simply describes as "WW1 British War Medals. 233 . CPL . F . S . WHITE . LINC . REG . Original ribbons These medals have been in my possession for 40 years and are completely genuine". Current bid £304.99 (13 bids). I am guessing an act of gallantry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 30 November , 2011 Share Posted 30 November , 2011 WHITE, FRANCIS SYDNEY Initials: F S Nationality: United Kingdom Rank: Corporal Regiment/Service: Lincolnshire Regiment Unit Text: "A" Coy. 10th Bn. Age: 26 Date of Death: 01/07/1916 Service No: 233 Additional information: Son of Charles White, of 10, Marlbro' Terrace, Blenheim Rd., Barnsley, Yorks. Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead Grave/Memorial Reference: Pier and Face 1 C. Memorial: THIEPVAL Say no more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 30 November , 2011 Share Posted 30 November , 2011 Still a tad high for a 1st July soldier on Thiepval Memorial, I might expect that for a burial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 30 November , 2011 Share Posted 30 November , 2011 I understand how the medals of a soldier who died on the Somme can command a higher price than those of a soldier who died on a less momentuous date. But I didn't realise that there were further levels of value within the 1.7.16 category. What makes a 'known burial' group more valuable than a 'no known grave' group? And would the cemetery in which the soldier is buried make a further difference to value? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 30 November , 2011 Share Posted 30 November , 2011 Tom, yes, burials in the areas of Beaumont Hamel, Redan Ridge, Hawthorn Ridge (specifically Hawthorn Ridge No1) Waggon Road all command a very high premium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bingo794 Posted 30 November , 2011 Share Posted 30 November , 2011 The last 10th Grimsby Chums pair, also badly listed, went for £370ish, to No.44 Pte. John William Campling. No known grave job, too. They certainly do command high prices, £500 upwards is not unusual. dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 30 November , 2011 Share Posted 30 November , 2011 Tom, yes, burials in the areas of Beaumont Hamel, Redan Ridge, Hawthorn Ridge (specifically Hawthorn Ridge No1) Waggon Road all command a very high premium. Any idea why this is so, compared to a man still "out there somewhere"? I would have thought the NKG would be somewhat more poignant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joanbelge Posted 30 November , 2011 Share Posted 30 November , 2011 Sorry for asking but here goes......do previous posts imply some deaths more " worthy" than others, I for one hope not. Joan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 30 November , 2011 Share Posted 30 November , 2011 As delicate as I can be, yes some are 'worth' more in pound notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depaor01 Posted 30 November , 2011 Share Posted 30 November , 2011 Joanbeige: Although I don't understand the 'premium' attached to 1st July casualties, similar scarcity makes medals to Irish regiments cost more. It's simple supply and demand in a market where a hero's belongings are, on many occasions, unwanted by their families and sold on. The value thereafter, I believe, has no correlation to the deceased. May they all R.I.P. -Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Owl Posted 30 November , 2011 Share Posted 30 November , 2011 Grimsby Chums original member--well collected. The final price may well be much higher!! I'm afraid that I too cannot quite grasp why a 1/7/16 casualty commands such a high price(buried or unburied!!? they all met the same fate after all!!), but if the market demands the price, then who are we to disagree? I have no connection, in any shape or form, with this item but good luck to the vendor!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 1 December , 2011 Share Posted 1 December , 2011 Auch and Dick - thank you for your informative replies. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bingo794 Posted 1 December , 2011 Share Posted 1 December , 2011 Well, £465ish isnt to bad, looking at the rest of the ones seen up for sale. Had a look on ancestry to see what there is on him. No. 233 Rank Cpl Born Philidelphia, USA Lived Rotherham Enlisted Grimsby To France 09/01/1916 and as you say, an original member of the Grimsby Chums. I'm sure this has been asked before, 'Original'........ is that the first contingent sent out January, 1916. Those who were present for the FDoS, the first 1000 men, only served with the 10th, or anyone who went with the 10th. Where do we/you draw the line. I have a cracking set to a lad who joined the 10th GC's in 1917, the 10th being his only unit, from Lancashire and a 425** number. Is he a Grimsby Chum? DW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Strawbridge Posted 1 December , 2011 Author Share Posted 1 December , 2011 Thank you all for your comments. Most interesting. The vendor should be well pleased as he obviously had no idea what he had in his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutton-in-craven Posted 1 December , 2011 Share Posted 1 December , 2011 I think it's the notoriety factor that commands the high prices. The Battle of the Somme being best remembered for its first day, 1st July 1916 on which the British suffered 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 dead - the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army Hence, the price of medals to Somme casualties from day 2 onwards command much less. Similarly casualty medals to ANZAC forces on the 25th April 1915 command staggering prices, whereas Gallipoli casualty medals to Anzacs for other dates are significantly less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutton-in-craven Posted 1 December , 2011 Share Posted 1 December , 2011 One of the ironies (for me) when it comes to the high collectability of medals to 1st Day of the Somme and 1st Day of Gallipoli casualties is the fact that many of these fallen soldiers would not have fired a shot in anger during the Great War. Thousands of them were mowed down as the landing craft doors were lowered at Gallipoli on Day 1 and as they clambered 'over the top' at the Somme on Day 1. Primarily new recruits from Kitcheners 'New Army' of Pals battalions and Anzac troops who were yet to face the enemy for the first time, cut down from the off. In mentioning this I am in no way minimising or trivialising the role that these incredibly brave men played during the Great War and their untimely deaths. It just seems a bit ironic that medals to a WW1 soldier who never got chance to fire his rifle at the enemy could command such high prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Owl Posted 1 December , 2011 Share Posted 1 December , 2011 To France 09/01/1916 and as you say, an original member of the Grimsby Chums. I'm sure this has been asked before, 'Original'........ is that the first contingent sent out January, 1916. Those who were present for the FDoS, the first 1000 men, only served with the 10th, or anyone who went with the 10th. Where do we/you draw the line. I have a cracking set to a lad who joined the 10th GC's in 1917, the 10th being his only unit, from Lancashire and a 425** number. Is he a Grimsby Chum? DW Hi Dick, His number 233 suggests beyond doubt that he was one of those who enlisted for the 10th Bn on the first day of enlisting--circa Sept,1914? Not sure of the exact date. He obviously proceeded to France with the 10th Bn on 9/1/16 and as such was one of the Grimsby Chums who enlisted into, trained, served and was killed with this battalion--so yes he was a true Grimsby Chum through and through--apart from the fact that he was not a Grimsby man, born and bred!! Your man on the other hand was definitely not a G.C., but was merely a soldier who served with the battalion from sometime in 1917. Equally any soldier who joined this battalion in France and who had not originally enlisted into this battalion would not be classed as a G.C. even if he was killed on 1/7/16!! Some may argue otherwise, but to a purist G.C. collector this would not pass muster. The man's service number is the main criteria Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bingo794 Posted 7 December , 2011 Share Posted 7 December , 2011 DW I see your point........I tend to look at the 'Originals as the first numbered upto 1600 or so who were with the unit during the FDoS effort . So, a later soldier or another Lincolns man who transferred in at a later date, should have the quote 'served with the Grimsby Chums' not being an 'Original Grimsby Chum.' As you say it is down to the purist or your preference. The soldier I mentioned started out with one of the young mens battalions for training and went direct to the 10th, until wounded and then to the Labour Corps where he finished his war, being able to return home. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Droocoo Posted 9 January , 2012 Share Posted 9 January , 2012 There is a Manchester Regiment 1914-1915 star and Victory that is currently at 380 quid listed on e**y I think. Not common for broken groups to go for 500 though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 9 January , 2012 Share Posted 9 January , 2012 Aren't we allowed to say Ebay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Droocoo Posted 9 January , 2012 Share Posted 9 January , 2012 I err on the side of caution. Certainly on the British Medals Forum we tend not to to avoid unnecessary issues etc. Especially if someone spots a fake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 9 January , 2012 Share Posted 9 January , 2012 Aren't we allowed to say Ebay? Your question crops up quite often. And I've never seen any answer that explains why it is OK to write E**y but not Ebay. Similarly, you also see folk write An**stry. Jo*n Ha**tley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 9 January , 2012 Share Posted 9 January , 2012 So far as I am aware, although such trade names are obviously registered as trademarks, there is no reason why the sites/companies cannot be mentioned and spelled out in full. The concern of the GWF is that expressed in the rules: You will not make any statements that could be construed as defamatory of an individual, group or business. Comments about items offered for sale, or previously sold must be made in that context, and the Forum could be held legally liable for permitting comment that fell into the area above. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 9 January , 2012 Share Posted 9 January , 2012 Thousands of them were mowed down as the landing craft doors were lowered at Gallipoli That is not entirely accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 9 January , 2012 Share Posted 9 January , 2012 That is not entirely accurate. That's a very diplomatic response Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now