Pre-War Cloth Shoulder Titles, Rank and Insignia photos.

[Andrew Upton]

2 hours ago, headgardener said:

One chap in the Coy had at least 18 years Good Conduct

 

 

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

More like 12 I think, but impressive nonetheless.  The more minor aspects of discipline were so strict and susceptible to breach that it wasn’t easy to stay out of trouble for that long. It’s notable that he has not been promoted.

 

HG was correct - in the period four Good Conduct Badges equated to 18 years service, albeit with the possibility of 18 being reduced to only 16 for "continuous good conduct" according to Muerrisch in:

 

 

[Dragoon]

1 minute ago, FROGSMILE said:

The old pattern stripes were comprised of broad tape upon a felt backing with only a narrow ‘light’ (as it’s called) in between.  The later pattern was designed specifically for the SD and comprised herring bone tape formed from mini-chevrons stitched onto drab worsted felt with a much wider light between each stripe.

Thank you FROGSMILE👍🏻

7 minutes ago, headgardener said:

 

Yes, they look broader don’t they? And there’s the hint of that criss-cross pattern that you can sometimes see on rank chevrons around the same era.

Looks like a KSA to the R, so probably QSA as well.

 

The photo is named, but no initials and lots of spelling mistakes. I’ve researched some of it. The 1st man, Cpl with the musketry prize badge - he made it through to the Armistice, got a DCM & MM along the way. Still only ended the war as a Sgt.

I  like the fact you've researched some of these chaps.

Good he got through it!

Chris

[headgardener]

Since you’re both interested, here are the 2 trophies on display with the Coy. Not sure which one actually is the ‘Shooting Shield’.

[PRC]

23 minutes ago, headgardener said:

The photo is named, but no initials and lots of spelling mistakes. I’ve researched some of it.

 

If you have surnames then worth checking out the Norfolk County Picture Archive. A number of parishes went to great lengths to gather pictures of the war dead and in the immediate post-war period there was a massive exhibition in Norwich. Many of the pictures ended up with the County Archive. A search for "1st Norfolk" brings up 240 matches.

https://norfolk.spydus.co.uk/cgi-bin/spydus.exe/MSGTRN/PICNOR/HOME

 

I'm sure I've seen mentioned on the forum before that the Regular Army had moved over to a 4 Company structure before the outbreak of the war, so presumably "E" company would have been amalgamated.

 

Cheers,

Peter

[FROGSMILE]

2 hours ago, Andrew Upton said:

 

 

HG was correct - in the period four Good Conduct Badges equated to 18 years service, albeit with the possibility of 18 being reduced to only 16 for "continuous good conduct" according to Muerrisch in:

 

 

Thanks Andrew, and apologies to HG.  The fewer stripes are a bit easier to calculate, they don’t have the same caveats.

 

P.S.  If he’d served a blemish free 18-years he’d have the long service and good conduct medal so I guess he must have been still a tad short of 18 at the time of the photo. Perhaps he was awaiting the presentation, or had the 16-years continuous, that seems the most likely.

Edited 13 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

30 minutes ago, headgardener said:

Since you’re both interested, here are the 2 trophies on display with the Coy. Not sure which one actually is the ‘Shooting Shield’.

Thanks HG.  I imagine that they might both be shooting shields.  One was usually for the winning company and had scrolls so that the company and date could be inscribed.  Others might be for best section, or individual shot.  There were various categories.  The competitions used to be very much a part of the battalion calendar and eagerly looked forward to.

Edited 13 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

13 minutes ago, PRC said:

I'm sure I've seen mentioned on the forum before that the Regular Army had moved over to a 4 Company structure before the outbreak of the war, so presumably "E" company would have been amalgamated.

 

Cheers,

Peter

Yes, that’s right Peter, the regular battalions had changed to the 4-company organisation just before the war and the TF followed suit in 1915.  The companies were paired into so-called double companies at first (previously something that sometimes occurred tactically anyway) but there was so set arrangement as to who should merge with who and battalions did it their own way.  Resulting companies were usually lettered conventionally, but some regiments chose numbers.

Edited 13 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[headgardener]

10 minutes ago, PRC said:

 

If you have surnames then worth checking out the Norfolk County Picture Archive. A number of parishes went to great lengths to gather pictures of the war dead and in the immediate post-war period there was a massive exhibition in Norwich. Many of the pictures ended up with the County Archive. A search for "1st Norfolk" brings up 240 matches.

https://norfolk.spydus.co.uk/cgi-bin/spydus.exe/MSGTRN/PICNOR/HOME

 

I'm sure I've seen mentioned on the forum before that the Regular Army had moved over to a 4 Company structure before the outbreak of the war, so presumably "E" company would have been amalgamated.

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

Many thanks Peter, I’ll take a longer look at that site as I have quite a few casualties with links to Norfolk.

[headgardener]

43 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

The old pattern stripes were comprised of broad tape upon a felt backing with only a narrow ‘light’ (as it’s called) in between.  The later pattern was designed specifically for the SD and comprised herring bone tape formed from mini-chevrons stitched onto drab worsted felt with a much wider light between each stripe.

 

Yes, I think i recognise what you mean. I associate the broad tape with Victorian uniforms. I was th8nk8ng of something else, though. There’s a style of chevron which has a sort of net of cross-cross stitching, I have some photos somewhere, will try to dig one up.

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, headgardener said:

 

Yes, I think i recognise what you mean. I associate the broad tape with Victorian uniforms. I was th8nk8ng of something else, though. There’s a style of chevron which has a sort of net of cross-cross stitching, I have some photos somewhere, will try to dig one up.

Yes, the broad tape spanned the Victorian-Edward VII period.  I know exactly what you mean concerning the cross-hatched stripes.  There have been lots of threads where they were mentioned.  I think that the late Joe Sweeney was able to specify the “lists of changes” that introduced them if I recall correctly.  They were simply a variant for SD, of which there were a few.  The enclosed image shows reproductions.

Edited 13 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[headgardener]

Yes, that’s exactly what I was thinking of.

[headgardener]

Here’s some men from 88 Bty, RFA, dating from Feb 1912. 

Trumpeter(?) sitting on the R, but what about the tall chap with the QSA/KSA sitting on the L? Looks like he may have a Layer’s badge above his chevrons on his upper R arm, but what about the badge on his lower L sleeve?

 

[FROGSMILE]

17 minutes ago, headgardener said:

Yes, that’s exactly what I was thinking of.

This shows the previous tape pattern, alongside the herringbone that replaced it.  Smaller image courtesy of Bosley’s auction.

 

Edited 13 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

13 minutes ago, headgardener said:

Here’s some men from 88 Bty, RFA, dating from Feb 1912. 

Trumpeter(?) sitting on the R, but what about the tall chap with the QSA/KSA sitting on the L? Looks like he may have a Layer’s badge above his chevrons on his upper R arm, but what about the badge on his lower L sleeve?

 

 

Yes, he’s a layer and the other badge is a gunnery prize badge of G in wreath that replaced the crossed gun barrels style, which then became exclusive for instructors of the gunnery staff.  He has the crown over which is 1st Prize - most efficient gunner in battery.

 

Edited 13 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[headgardener]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

....the other badge is a gunnery prize badge of G in wreath that replaced the crossed gun barrels style, which then became exclusive for instructors of the gunnery staff.  He has the crown over which is 1st Prize - most efficient gunner in battery.

 

 

Ah.... yes, I can see it now. I thought it was some strange elongated badge that I’d never seen before. Thanks again!

[headgardener]

Now, I think I’m on pretty safe ground by saying this fellow has a bandsman badge on his lower sleeve, and I think he was in the yeomanry. Overall, a very attractive uniform. He’s wearing a 3-bar QSA, so I’m guessing that he was probably in the IY. It’s a Newcastle photographer if that helps.

 

Edited 13 July , 2020 by headgardener

[RNCVR]

That is a really nice image!! 

 

Please tell us why a Bandsman is wearing Aigulettes pls?

 

Best...Bryan

[FROGSMILE]

16 hours ago, headgardener said:

Now, I think I’m on pretty safe ground by saying this fellow has a bandsman badge on his lower sleeve, and I think he was in the yeomanry. Overall, a very attractive uniform. He’s wearing a 3-bar QSA, so I’m guessing that he was probably in the IY. It’s a Newcastle photographer if that helps.

 

That is an extremely unusual uniform.  Tracing auxiliary forces bands is especially difficult, as they could and did tend to do their own thing in accordance with available funding, which often came from wealthy members of the local society.  There is a website here: http://www.ibew.org.uk/vbbp-uk.htm

I don't recognise the uniform at all, but the white banded pill box cap does fit with the Northumberland Hussars Yeomanry.  

As Bryan has pointed out, the Aiguillettes are not common outside the Household Cavalry regiments and the striped waist belt, known as a ‘girdle’ and in terms of colouration a precursor to the stable belt, was in the regular army only worn by the Royal Artillery and the Army Service Corps.  The special decorative features on the collar and tunic skirt corners also appear unique.  I will do some research and see what I can find out.  The band badge is also non-standard, but similar to that used at the time by the Royal Artillery.

Edited 14 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[RNCVR]

Thnks Froggie, they certainly look like an expensive set of aigulettes, if they are gold wire.

 

I wonder if the embroidered "dodad" on the lower left (his left) of his tunic might be a clue?

Edited 13 July , 2020 by RNCVR

[headgardener]

13 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

 

That is an extremely unusual uniform.  Tracing auxiliary forces bands is especially difficult, as they could and did tend to do their own thing in accordance with available funding, which often came from wealthy members of the local society.  

11 hours ago, RNCVR said:

Thnks Froggie, they certainly look like an expensive set of aigulettes, if they are gold wire.

 

I wonder if the embroidered "dodad" on the lower left (his left) of his tunic might be a clue?

 

Thank you both for your interest. I’m now fascinated to know what you think. My untrained eye was drawn to the decoration at the lower corner of his tunic as I’d never seen anything like it before. Seems I’m not alone!

 

In case it’s of any help, it is postmarked Newcastle-on-Tyne, October 1906. The message is fairly generic for the period, something along the lines of “Here’s another photo for the collection. What do you think of it?”. The complete image is of 2 families (possibly 2 brothers and their wives) together with their children. The other man looks very much like a prosperous middle class type - I wonder if that may be relevant to Frogsmile’s comment about the funding sources for uniforms. There doesn’t appear to be anything theatrical about the image, and the bandsman’s(?) uniform seems to be ‘styled’ in the manner of someone who knows how to wear it. It certainly looks military rather than a civilian band.

[FROGSMILE]

On 14/07/2020 at 10:45, headgardener said:

 

Thank you both for your interest. I’m now fascinated to know what you think. My untrained eye was drawn to the decoration at the lower corner of his tunic as I’d never seen anything like it before. Seems I’m not alone!

 

In case it’s of any help, it is postmarked Newcastle-on-Tyne, October 1906. The message is fairly generic for the period, something along the lines of “Here’s another photo for the collection. What do you think of it?”. The complete image is of 2 families (possibly 2 brothers and their wives) together with their children. The other man looks very much like a prosperous middle class type - I wonder if that may be relevant to Frogsmile’s comment about the funding sources for uniforms. There doesn’t appear to be anything theatrical about the image, and the bandsman’s(?) uniform seems to be ‘styled’ in the manner of someone who knows how to wear it. It certainly looks military rather than a civilian band.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that it’s an auxiliary forces military band, very probably of Yeomanry, but not I think the Northumberland Hussars.  I have drawn the attention of a friend who has great knowledge of Yeomanry uniform and await his response.  It’s especially interesting because period wise it marks the twilight of expensively equipped military bands that in their day played pop music at public venues, at a time when every town or borough park and seafront had a circular bandstand.  They were where people flocked in the Summer especially but also other parts of the year to listen to trending music hall hits as well as traditional classical tunes.  A regiment’s band always represented its front-of-house (style and social status) and to emphasise its standing the individual bandsmen would invariably wear ‘sergeants quality’ clothing, and the bandmaster would be dressed in quasi-officer uniform, but with warrant officer rank.  Many bandmasters still came from countries with renowned musical prowess like Austria, Italy, Germany and France.  Auxiliary forces bands of the Yeomanry and VF went a step further and created unique uniforms with an irregular mixture of features in ways that regular forces could not.  Your photo epitomises this with its unusual decoration to the front corners of the tunic and its collar.  After WW1 the contraction of funding in the 1920s and the Great Depression in the 1930s greatly reduced the number of bands and also the elaborate nature of their uniforms.  Although things improved a little over time, changing technology and musical tastes meant that the popularity of military bands inevitably entered a decline and the great glory days of pre-WW1 never returned.

Edited 15 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[headgardener]

8 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that it’s an auxiliary forces military band, very probably of Yeomanry, but not I think the Northumberland Hussars.  I have drawn the attention of a friend who has great knowledge of Yeomanry uniform and await his response.

 

In case it’s of interest, I just took a look at his legs (just about visible behind the small boy’s) and he seems to be wearing the style of trousers I’d expect from a mounted regiment in this period, but worn over what *might* be lace up shoes or perhaps short boots. I’ve examined the image under a glass, and it’s very hard to be certain, but they look like they have laces. I’ve attached the best image I could get.

 

Edited 14 July , 2020 by headgardener

[FROGSMILE]

Yes they are pantaloons, which were close  fitting trousers with leather straps and buckles at the bottom for fastening underneath the instep of the footwear, thus holding the bottoms down and giving a smart appearance.  Regulars would have worn short boots, but your man does seem to be wearing laced shoes.

Edited 14 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[headgardener]

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes they are pantaloons, which were close  fitting trousers with leather straps and buckles at the bottom for fastening underneath the instep of the footwear, thus holding the bottoms down and giving a smart appearance.  Regulars would have worn short boots, but your man does seem to be wearing laced shoes.

 

I have a theory..... I wonder whether what we’re seeing here is a bandsman in a commercial ‘military’-styled band. Everything about the uniform looks so good - the QSA, the aigulettes, bullion epaulettes, girdle, embellishments to collar and tunic, pill box hat - it seems almost too good. But then there’s the shoes - that just doesn’t seem right. The guy clearly isn’t just dressing up, his uniform fits him and he knows how to wear it. I wonder whether we’re not seeing the overall ‘look’ of this uniform because the constituent parts are all so familiar and are so correctly worn?

I think around the time of the Boer War there was a great interest in all things Military, and that inevitably seeped into popular culture leading to lots of performances and recordings of martial music by commercially constructed ‘military bands’ comprised of Ex-Army musicians. Maybe that’s what we’re seeing here?

Edited 14 July , 2020 by headgardener

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, headgardener said:

 

I have a theory..... I wonder whether what we’re seeing here is a bandsman in a commercial ‘military’-styled band. Everything about the uniform looks so good - the QSA, the aigulettes, bullion epaulettes, girdle, embellishments to collar and tunic, pill box hat - it seems almost too good. But then there’s the shoes - that just doesn’t seem right. The guy clearly isn’t just dressing up, his uniform fits him and he knows how to wear it. I wonder whether we’re not seeing the overall ‘look’ of this uniform because the constituent parts are all so familiar and are so correctly worn?

I think around the time of the Boer War there was a great interest in all things Military, and that inevitably seeped into popular culture leading to lots of performances and recordings of martial music by commercially constructed ‘military bands’ comprised of Ex-Army musicians. Maybe that’s what we’re seeing here?

I don’t think so.  I know the sort of bands you mean, in fact ironically there are far too many of them today, several of which have been given semi-official status by the MOD.

The man in your photo looks every inch the auxiliary soldier bandsman that he appears to be.  He knows how to wear the uniform and simply using laced shoes doesn’t preclude him being genuine.  I’m hoping to hear back from the specialist I mentioned tomorrow.

Edited 14 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE