Memorial Scrolls

[SPotter]

Pals,

Seeing David Bluesteins fantastic new additions set me thinking. I have several scrolls to soldiers of the Dorsetshire Regiment and in each one the Regiment is given simply as "Dorsetshire Regt", i.e. no Battalion is specified. Is this unusual, as I have often seen examples to other Regiments where the Bn has been given, such as in David's lot. Was there a directive as to how this should have been done, or was it left to the 'whim' of the calligrapher who wrote out the scroll? I attach a scan of one as an example. I am certain too that they are all genuine.

Steve

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

What you have looks pretty normal to me!

[SPotter]

Ah, but his QSA, 1914 star and bar trio and memorial plaque make it rather special!!

I was just wondering why it didn't show 1st Bn Dorsetshire Regt. I guess I just haven't seen enough to get a proper 'feel' for it, but the non-specific ones do seem to be in the minority.

Any sign of that photo yet Ian?

Cheers!

Steve

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Bro,

Its in the box beside me as I type!

Ian

[SPotter]

I'm back in the UK next week. Are you still able to drop in and deliver?

[birkettm]

I have been having a similar problem recently. I have a scroll to the nth Btn A.I.F and one that is simply mad eout to the 'Durham L.I.'. I have also seen canadian scrolls which include the Btn and the initials for regiment. There doesnt seem to be any consistancy!

[Guest Pete Wood]

All I can say is that the majority of UK regiments don't show the battalion number. But many of the Commonwealth regiments do show a battalion number (especially the Australian scrolls).

I have plenty of notes on how the scribes should form the letters, but nothing about what the 'numbering' system should be.

However, it does look as though, in the example shown, the calligrapher left his options open. There seems to be a noticeable 'gap' before the Dorsetshire Regt.

The scribes were meant to make both lines appear equal. So the scribe should, before dipping his pen into ink, have counted the number of letters in the first line (say 30 for example) and then counted the number of the second line (say 24). You then subtract the smaller number from the largest (30-24=6) and divide that by 2. So 6/2 equals 3.

Therefore, the second (smaller) line should start three letters in from the top line. If the scribe doesn't quite get the lines equal, you will often find he will use an extra 'flourish' to extend the line.

Of course, every scribe's style was slightly different. In this case, he liked to use long descenders (the letter goes a long way below the line base). So he may have wanted to shift the seond line along, slightly, as he was worried about a descender over-lapping an ascender on the capital letter in the second line.

Phew. I hope this makes sense.

There is more to this than meets the eye.

[Guest Pete Wood]

The scribes were also meant to use official abbreviations:

Regt.

Pte.

L.Cpl

etc etc.

But I have seen a few examples where Regiment (instead of Regt. ) was used, especially if it improved the look of the scroll - eg a very long name on the top line and a short unit/regiment citation.

[Paul Reed]

I have never seen a British infantry regiment scroll that shows battalion; even London Regiment casualties don't have the battalion shown (although I have seen one to '14th London Regiment'). All of the Canadian ones I have just read 'Canadian Infantry' from memory, although the AIF examples do show exact unit.

Incidentally I base this on having collected such scrolls prior to the 1990s, in the days when not even medal collectors wanted them and you could buy them even at medal fairs for £1 - so long before people began faking them. In recent years I have seen some very dodgy examples, of the like which I am sure members of the forum have seen as well.

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

I'm back in the UK next week. Are you still able to drop in and deliver?

Yes - can do that perhaps Saturday?

[SPotter]

I have never seen a British infantry regiment scroll that shows battalion;

Paul,

You have now! The attached picture comes from David Bluestein's thread on his latest addition(s).

Regards

Steve