Service Number on 1914 Trio

[verdun]

RE: 1697 Pte. George POTTS, 1/6th Cheshire Regt.

49019 L/Cpl. George POTTS, 9th Cheshire Regt.(DofW 05/11/17)

I am researching this soldier and have his MIC and Service Record, which show that he is entitled to the 1914 Star. He went to France in November 1914 with a territorial battalion, probably participated in the Christmas Truce and returned to England after Christmas, suffering from frostbite. He went back to France in 1916, by which time his service number had changed and he had been promoted to L/Cpl.

My question is: How would his medals have been marked - all the same and, if so, which number and rank, or the Star reflecting his territorial number and the Pair his later number? and which rank?

Many thanks if you can advise.

[BillyH]

His 1914 Star should be numbered 1697, and the other two as 49019.

He was posted overseas with 6th Bn. and later transferred as a L/Cpl to the 1st Bn.

DoW with the 9th Bn.

BillyH.

[verdun]

Many thanks - and what rank...? Pte. on Star and L/Cpl on the Pair?

[BillyH]

I think Pte. on the Star and L/Cpl on the BWM + VM, but i'm not certain about that one.

An expert on this may be along shortly!

BillyH.

[Andrew Upton]

His 1914 Star should be numbered 1697, and the other two as 49019.

He was posted overseas with 6th Bn. and later transferred as a L/Cpl to the 1st Bn.

DoW with the 9th Bn.

BillyH.

This is incorrect - in theory (there are exceptions) "the regimental particulars inscribed on British War and Victory Medals are those held on first disembarkation in a Theatre of War. The rank is highest attained provided it was held in a Theatre of War or overseas Prior to 11-11-18." (emphasis as on original). Rank on the Star would also have been as on first disembarkation (hence the BWM and VM can often be found inscribed with rank/regimental details that were never used by the recipient at the same time).

[verdun]

So to be clear..

STAR 1697 Pte.

PAIR 1697 L/Cpl.

Yes?

[Andrew Upton]

So to be clear..

STAR 1697 Pte.

PAIR 1697 L/Cpl.

Yes?

That sounds right - if you have his MIC as you say, given the somewhat confusing situation this could create it was common to use little symbols on the card to correlate the details of naming to the relevant medals.

[Coldstreamer]

So to be clear..

STAR 1697 Pte.

PAIR 1697 L/Cpl.

Yes?

other way round surely - if he want overseas as l/cpl that is - if as pte then impressed pte on all 3

l/cpl isnt a rank its an appointment

[Andrew Upton]

other way round surely - if he want overseas as l/cpl that is - if as pte then impressed pte on all 3

l/cpl isnt a rank its an appointment

No and Yes - the Star carries rank first held on Disembarkation, the BWM and VM show any later promotions subject to the above conditions. The OP said he started as a Private and was only later promoted L/Cpl. However, the same source on naming states "Appointments such as L/Cpl, L/Sergt, etc; are not inscribed on medals", in which case they should indeed all have had Pte inscribed. Rank though always seems to be the one with the most exceptions in my experience.

[BillyH]

This is incorrect - in theory (there are exceptions) "the regimental particulars inscribed on British War and Victory Medals are those held on first disembarkation in a Theatre of War. The rank is highest attained provided it was held in a Theatre of War or overseas Prior to 11-11-18." (emphasis as on original). Rank on the Star would also have been as on first disembarkation (hence the BWM and VM can often be found inscribed with rank/regimental details that were never used by the recipient at the same time).

Thanks Andrew, I obviously got this one wrong - but I cannot find anything written down confirming the official line. I have looked on the Long Long Trail, National Archives, Google etc.

I can understand the case with a 1914 Star. However, I can't see the logic for a man who disembarked as a Private but was soon promoted to Corporal or Sergeant being named as a Private on the BWM or VM. So, if as you say, they correct the rank on the BWM + VM why don't they use the new number?

BillyH.

(edited slightly at 1.30 to clarify what I am getting at - hopefully!)

[Blackblue]

I'm pretty sure I have examples of L.CPL on all three. Certainly on both the 14 and 15 Star.

Rgds

Tim D

[verdun]

So just to be even more clear...

STAR 1697 Pte.

PAIR 1697 Pte.

I assume this is what people have now agreed? (On all three medals it remains Ches. Regt.)

[Andrew Upton]

Thanks Andrew, I obviously got this one wrong - but I cannot find anything written down confirming the official line. I have looked on the Long Long Trail, National Archives, Google etc.

I can understand the case with a 1914 Star. However, I can't see the logic for a man who disembarked as a Private but was soon promoted to Corporal or Sergeant being named as a Private on the BWM or VM. So, if as you say, they correct the rank on the BWM + VM why don't they use the new number?

What's the saying, I don't make the rules... . The information I'm quoting comes from one of the instruction slips issued with the BWM and VM which I have an image of (might have been sourced on the GWF but I can't recall, apologies if someone recognizes it!), image below:

http://postimg.org/image/hh833eivf/full/

[BillyH]

Excellent! - can't argue with that then.

BillyH.

[Blackblue]

Example off the net....

[Andrew Upton]

Example off the net....

Indeed, a good example of when I said "Rank though always seems to be the one with the most exceptions in my experience" - I myself have a Victory Medal to an Upton inscribed A/Sgt which would seem to defy the official line.

[Muerrisch]

His service numbers are intriguing.

1697 is fine for a TF battalion, probably a substantially pre-war engagement.

I deduce that his new number, 49019 in the regular series, was as a result of Termination of Engagement as a TF soldier, and re-engagement as a "regular", where "regular" includes service battalions.

Regimental expert required!

[kenf48]

I was intrigued too, fortunately his service record survives:-

1697 allocated on enlistment to the 6th Bn Cheshires on the 8th April 1914 at Stockport

Embodied 5 August and overseas as above and repatriated with frostbite, posted to 3/6 6th April 1915

On recovery posted to the 2/6th on 1st August 1916, made up to L/Cpl on 8th March 1916

On 30th August 1916 posted to France and No 4 IBD Rouen

On 7 September 1916 posted to 1st Battalion under AO 204 and ACI 1499 of 1916 (I'm guessing you have those, though I suspect it's the usual trawl to find men fit enough for active service if you do have it be interesting to see what it says) and allocated new Regimental number.

[Then back to the UK in December 1916 and on 3rd Bn strength February 1917 out again on 24th April and posted to the 9th Cheshires on 18th May.]

So he was allocated his new number on transfer to a regular Bn (retaining his rate of pay), prior to renumbering of the TF. It seems, given his subsequent postings he was treated as a 'regular' or 'service' enlistment not returning to a TF Battalion.

Ken

[Muerrisch]

Thank you very much. I have 1499 herewith attached.

[AO 204 is "Compulsory Transfers", which I have but not readily accessible].

Army Circular Instruction (ACI) 1499 of 31^st July 1916 dealt with the numbering aspects:

“1. Owing to the change in the system of transferring and posting of infantry drafts on arrival in France, the following procedure will be adopted and carried out forthwith: -

1.Each Regular Infantry Record Office, and each TF Record Office will issue to the Officer i/c Base Records, through the DAG 3^rd Echelon, blocks of regimental numbers in extension of the present series, in the case of regulars 5000 for each regiment, and in the case of TF 1000 for each TF battalion (including 2^nd and 3^rd Lines) affiliated to TF Record Office, further blocks being issued as required.

2. Under arrangements to be made by the DAG 3^rd Echelon, these numbers will be allotted by the OC Base Depot to regular soldiers transferred to other corps, or to TF soldiers who are posted to other regular or TF units of their own corps, or who are transferred to regular or TF units of other corps. ……………”

This was not the best drafted Instruction of the war, but its import is clear: a TF man could be sent anywhere, and he would, if sent away from his unit, receive a new number, either in his own regiment’s regular series, or that of another regiment, or a new number in a TF battalion of his own regiment, or in that of another. Examples of this process from the East Yorkshire (EY) regiment include: 4/5483 became 13^th battalion EY 28065, 4/6629 became 8^th EY 28253, 4/5227 became 7^th EY 30841, 4/5172 became 7^th EY 30923, 4/5133 became 7^th EY 30863 etc. It should go without saying that these changes impacted on the regular numbering series, and caused a lot of ‘scatter’ in the distribution. Another example was in the Sherwood Foresters, the renumbering of 4-digit TF men with 'new' 4-digit numbers which took place when the (3/5th - 3/6^th) & (3/7th - 3/8^th) battalions merged to form 5th Reserve and 7th Reserve respectively in June 1916.

[kenf48]

That's brilliant, thank you I'll add it as an appendix to your book!

Ken

[Muerrisch]

its in the book .......... where I found it!

[kenf48]

Of course it is!

[verdun]

A further query... The CWGC website records George Potts' rank as Private, but his service record shows he was a Lance Corporal at the time of his death. Can someone please explain this discrepancy, too?

(and, maybe, also give me a definitive answer to my intital enquiry about what should be impressed on the three medals?)

Many thanks to all who have replied so far!

[Derek Black]

Lance Corporal was often, but not always treated as, an appointment. So in his records he should be a Private.

Andrews posts #5 and #9 are as definitive as you're likely to get:

Number and rank at time of disembarkation on star/

Highest rank acheived by end of war with whatever number he was recorded as by then too on BV&WM.

[Andrew Upton]

Lance Corporal was often, but not always treated as, an appointment. So in his records he should be a Private.

Andrews posts #5 and #9 are as definitive as you're likely to get:

Number and rank at time of disembarkation on star/

Highest rank acheived by end of war with whatever number he was recorded as by then too on BV&WM.

No, still not quite right - BWM and VM should be named with highest overseas rank, BUT original number and regiment, hence sometimes ending up with details recorded on them that never held at the same time by the receipient.

L/Cpl shouldn't be on BWM's or VM's, but examples can be found, as illustrated above.

Showing the MIC would help immensely - as I said they are usually annotated to show what was intended to be impressed on the medals, right or wrong, and that is probably the best indicator of what was done.