Mystery tunic WW1 or 1922 Pattern?

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Rob,

Here is the link to an interesting web site, with a lot of information on Canadian uniforms :-

www.canadiansoldiers.com/uniforms/uniform.htm

Regards,

LF

[wainfleet]

To reiterate, there’s no mystery about this tunic. The vast majority of surviving WW1 OR service dress jackets are of the white-lined, unfaced closure and pocket flaps type, with some later examples having pockets of dark brown or green material. Stitched labels are never found on any wartime or near-postwar jacket – they were not introduced until about 1930. As for jackets only lasting a month, that might have been true if they were constantly worn in action and ripped or otherwise damaged as a result, but the vast majority of a frontline soldier’s time was spent in and behind the lines, which the service dress was plenty hardwearing enough to stand for a long time. Incidentally I used to own an issue tunic which I knew to have been worn in a particular action, and apart from waterstained pocket linings it was in excellent condition.

I believe I read somewhere on this forum that the peacetime issue standard of jackets was one a year and this was doubled in wartime [Joe S?], though obviously damaged clothing would be replaced as the need arose. Numerous wartime examples exist with wear patterns and dirty interiors that are clearly the result of months of wear rather than brief, intensive wear. It is however true that returning men were frequently issued new service dress for smartness, to get rid of lice, etc. so that more “demob” than “frontline” jackets survive, which is perhaps where the misconception of their short service life comes from.

The 1917 jacket GT refers to is one I posted ebay pics of a while ago and I’ll repost now. This was sold by Jeff Shrader who is about as honest as you can get. Interestingly, it is to a Canadian unit and was made by Moore, Taggart and Co. What was said about them equipping the Canadians makes sense, as it would indicate a lining made to Canadian specifications rather than a trials item that just happened to go to a Canadian soldier.

[Grovetown]

Don't doubt Jeff's bona fides for an instant, yet I'm still not 100% behind that label.

Out of curiosity, do we know whether it was one pleat or two under the collar?

Cheers,

GT.

[wainfleet]

These photos were all the info I ever had. There might be the end of a second pleat emerging from the near rifle patch, but it's not possible to say for sure.

I see no reason to question this label. I like the folded-over corners, the age spot on the left, and the yellowing glue on the folded corners. Also, disregarding the label, it's clearly an early tunic. There is no collar lining, and the drill lining is of three different colours and the tunic is of two (see RH vent), a typical wartime expedient. You'd expect to see a fake label in a later, more common tunic, but one so early is a rarity in its own right. Plus the WD looks ok too (I'm uploading a photo that wouldn't fit onto the last post).

Of course it pays to be wary, and we know that there are plenty of villains about, but I have no doubt that all is 100% correct here. However, each to their own opinion!

[Sean_Featherstone]

In relation to the tunic pictured in the first post. Sabre Sales are selling 1950's/60's dated SD. The labels are a good match.

Have a look at the link: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/310823398502?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

[Andrew Upton]

In relation to the tunic pictured in the first post. Sabre Sales are selling 1950's/60's dated SD. The labels are a good match.

Have a look at the link: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/310823398502?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

I saw those as well - there is actually one with an identical Taggart label (even down to the bad printing of certain letters, filled in loops of others, etc) - except this one is very clearly 1958 dated. Also note on the OP's label the only spot of fraying on the entire label perfectly coincides with where this date is stamped on the Ebay example:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Original-WW1-1950s-British-Army-Other-Ranks-Service-Dress-SD-Wool-Tunic-/310823394178?pt=UK_Collectables_Militaria_LE&hash=item485e849b82#ht_380wt_

[wainfleet]

On 13/12/2013 at 20:48, thejavelinman said:

Late war tunics and Canadian tunics did have khaki liners and late war ones also had stitched labels. When troops returned home their old war worn uniforms (which only survived about 1 month of front line wear) were taken off and destroyed, new ones were issued so the troops looked good when they disembarked in Folkestone, Dover etc. For these reasons most surviving genuine WW1 O.R. uniforms will be late war productions and could therefore have tanned liners and stitched labels. Indeed I would be far more wary if I saw a tunic with white liner and remains of a paper label. The misunderstanding that all WW1 liners were white with paper labels is quite common. Although in this case it appears to be a post war tunic which has been made to look like a WW1 example, from some other tunics I have seen it is really almost identical to the genuine example.

 

This ridiculous nonsense is now being quoted by a dealer on his site as chapter and verse. Thus do collector myths get perpetuated!

[Grovetown]

18 hours ago, wainfleet said:

 

This ridiculous nonsense is now being quoted by a dealer on his site as chapter and verse. Thus do collector myths get perpetuated!

 

Haven't seen it, yet it doesn't surprise me.

 

There's another very established dealer selling a jacket at the moment, with a quite mangled and garbled (and wrong) description of the evolution of service dress appended.

 

Knowing the bloke as we do, there's no intention to misrepresent the item (which is 'honest', if so so), more him just trying to appear expert. He also talks some tosh about gift tins too.

 

Not to run the chap down too much, yet the striking thing is, given how long he has been trading (many, many) WW1 items, he plainly has no more idea about them now than he could have when he started, 30+ years ago.

 

To remain in such bliss must have taken an immense effort of will.

 

Cheers,

 

GT.

[Chasemuseum]

Regards stitched and sewn labels, I have had for over 30 years a very nice, unissued khakee cotton OR tunic, still with the original paper card label, dated 1901. This label is machine sewn across the top of the label. Only the single line of stitching. The very first wash would have destroyed the label. The tunic came with Tasmanian buttons and badges which were correct for the Boer War contingent. The quality of the provenance was inadequate. All the items are definitely original, but had they belonged as a complete unit to  a veteran or been assembled by a collector ? I suspect the latter. The last Boer War veteran I knew died about 1979, four years before I first saw the uniform.

 

And even here in Oz, by the mid 70s the market was flooded with post 1922 SD tunics with WW1 dates stamped into them with a big rubber stamp. I still have one of those tucked away.

 

Cheers

RT 

[Robert Rytir]

3 hours ago, Chasemuseum said:

Regards stitched and sewn labels, I have had for over 30 years a very nice, unissued khakee cotton OR tunic, still with the original paper card label, dated 1901. This label is machine sewn across the top of the label. Only the single line of stitching. The very first wash would have destroyed the label. The tunic came with Tasmanian buttons and badges which were correct for the Boer War contingent. The quality of the provenance was inadequate. All the items are definitely original, but had they belonged as a complete unit to  a veteran or been assembled by a collector ? I suspect the latter. The last Boer War veteran I knew died about 1979, four years before I first saw the uniform.

 

And even here in Oz, by the mid 70s the market was flooded with post 1922 SD tunics with WW1 dates stamped into them with a big rubber stamp. I still have one of those tucked away.

 

Cheers

RT 

Any chance of seeing this tunic that has the WW1 date stamp , photos of the outside and internal shots??

 

Cheers Rob

[Chris Burton]

On 16/12/2013 at 01:34, Grovetown said:

Apologies if I was being a bit forthright, as thought you were being a bit dismissive of white-lined and labelled survivors, of which there are plenty. Apologies again - could have been more temperate.

One thing to note: 1922 pattern is a collectors' thing. The pattern was actually 1921. Not that I'm pedantic or anything....

I've checked Peter's text. I accept there may be khaki linings in some very late tunics. What I would dispute is the extent of the lining: in terms of button fly, pockets etc.

Some very reliable sources relate a single 1917 dated tunic, and a Canadian one, that show signs of the 1921 pattern features. I have been sent photos of the Canadian one, and I'm not convinced of the genuineness of the label, nor the WD stamp.

As for the British one of lore, I believe the person who told me - yet it is one and only one. And so it is assumed this was a prototype or a trial jacket. Just one though...

However, when it comes to labels, Peter's text on p.55 is at best ambiguous, or - heresy here - plain wrong. My reading is that he's saying that war time labels were stitched, and that the 1921s were stitched but differed by having cloth ones instead of paper. That is not the case: war time ones were never stitched.

Hopefully, he can pop up here and clarify whether it's perhaps just the way it's edited or my thick interpretation of the paragraph.

If looking at (or to buy) late war tunics, khaki linings may be just about OK - but I'd steer clear of fully lined ones and avoid stitched labels like the plague.

Cheers,

GT.

 Hi Grovetown got this  obviously 1922 jacket is this one of the dodgy Aussie rubber tamps from the seventies...? many thanks Chris

 

 

 

[Grovetown]

Hi Chris

 

Not a genuine date stamp I'm afraid. 

 

Cheers,

 

GT.