RFA Signaller -blue cloth bands on tunic lapels?

[FROGSMILE]

20 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

 

I remain hugely sceptical of the merit of using the Frank Richards portrait as evidence of blue additions sewn on to jacket shoulder straps. Setting aside the magic of identifying colour blue on a black and white image, note that FR was a hard-bitten unsentimental ex-soldier who had been demobbed very soon after the war ended and at least two years before the clasp to his 1914 star came in the post. And he wears the clasp in the photo.

Could he have retained his jacket, and would he? Both unlikely in my opinion. Through editing his letters and editing OSND I feel that I have a claim to insight.

 

I theorise that, in the interval between the physical receipt of his clasp and the other campaign medals he was persuaded by somebody [perhaps his landlady] to "get his photo taken" and somewhat unwillingly turned up, was issued a prop, and pinned the medals on. It his very unlikely that the persuader was Graves, because OSND was merely jottings in a notebook until the early thirties, some ten years hence.

 

We will never know, but a properly briefed jury could well agree with me.

My post was two years ago.  Didn’t someone in the thread claim that there was an Army Order about the badges on shoulder straps.  I can’t comment at all on the veracity of Frank Richards, but I’ve never believed that photographers had Items of the sovereign’s uniform sitting in a dressing up box for use as so-called props, in particular early on in the war.  I think it’s an old wives tale.  Apart from anything else it was theft of government property at that time.

Edited 13 November , 2019 by FROGSMILE

[Muerrisch]

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

My post was two years ago.  Didn’t someone in the thread claim that there was an Army Order about the badges on shoulder straps.  I can’t comment at all on the veracity of Frank Richards, but I’ve never believed that photographers had Items of the sovereign’s uniform sitting in a dressing up box for use as so-called props, in particular early on in the war.  I think it’s an old wives tail.  Apart from anything else it was theft of government property at that time.

 

And of course if FR had kept the jacket, that too would be theft of Government property. On demob they were allowed to keep the Greatcoat against a token sum.

I certainly don't want to start an argument but I detected that the FR photo and its interpretation had become a given. I provide an alternative. 

[FROGSMILE]

12 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

 

And of course if FR had kept the jacket, that too would be theft of Government property. On demob they were allowed to keep the Greatcoat against a token sum.

I certainly don't want to start an argument but I detected that the FR photo and its interpretation had become a given. I provide an alternative. 

Perhaps the RFA NCO was merely a member of the 26th Division.

Edited 13 November , 2019 by FROGSMILE

[Andrew Upton]

7 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

 

And of course if FR had kept the jacket, that too would be theft of Government property. On demob they were allowed to keep the Greatcoat against a token sum.

I certainly don't want to start an argument but I detected that the FR photo and its interpretation had become a given. I provide an alternative. 

 

Why would it be theft of government property? Military issue clothing was divided into two categories - Personal and Public.

 

The field service Pocket Book for 1914 states Personal included "Ankle boots and shoes, caps, drawers, canvas suits, service dress suits, puttees, sashes, cardigan waistcoats, trousers, tunics, leather gloves, foreign service helmets, gauntlets, cotton drawers" and that "These become the property of the soldier and may be sold by permission of the O.C. the squadron, battery or company (in peace only)."

 

Public included "Greatcoats, full dress head-dresses, knees boots, leather breeches, jack spurs, leggings, waterproof capes, purses and belts for Highland regiments" and that "These must be returned to store, and are the property of the public".

 

This is why greatcoats had to be sold off as it was technically disposing of public property and therefore had to be properly accounted for.

 

[FROGSMILE]

7 hours ago, Andrew Upton said:

 

Why would it be theft of government property? Military issue clothing was divided into two categories - Personal and Public.

 

The field service Pocket Book for 1914 states Personal included "Ankle boots and shoes, caps, drawers, canvas suits, service dress suits, puttees, sashes, cardigan waistcoats, trousers, tunics, leather gloves, foreign service helmets, gauntlets, cotton drawers" and that "These become the property of the soldier and may be sold by permission of the O.C. the squadron, battery or company (in peace only)."

 

Public included "Greatcoats, full dress head-dresses, knees boots, leather breeches, jack spurs, leggings, waterproof capes, purses and belts for Highland regiments" and that "These must be returned to store, and are the property of the public".

 

This is why greatcoats had to be sold off as it was technically disposing of public property and therefore had to be properly accounted for.

 

That categorisation has existed since Victorian times and still does today, Andrew.  Nevertheless, at the beginning of the war there was such a shortage of SD uniform that production was eased by temporary modification of design and thousands of men wore blue and various other makeshift uniforms as you know well.  In those circumstances the calculated misuse of uniform would I’m sure have been penalised.  I don’t want to distract from the subject of this thread and my main point is that there’s absolutely no evidence that photographers had dressing up boxes of prop uniforms.  In the past I’ve lost count of the incidences in forum posts where the carriage of swagger sticks by soldiers has been put down to “photographers props” and yet they were commonly laid down in unit orders of the time.  The whole idea of such props is I believe a red herring.

Edited 13 November , 2019 by FROGSMILE

[elliot#1]

16 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

My post was two years ago.  Didn’t someone in the thread claim that there was an Army Order about the badges on shoulder straps.  I can’t comment at all on the veracity of Frank Richards, but I’ve never believed that photographers had Items of the sovereign’s uniform sitting in a dressing up box for use as so-called props, in particular early on in the war.  I think it’s an old wives tail.  Apart from anything else it was theft of government property at that time.

 

It may have been me as I have mentioned these on a previous thread -

 

"Only RE signallers with the Signal Service were to wear the Blue and White armband, this was made quite clear through various orders (including Army Orders) throughout the war. All other Artillery and Battalion Signallers were to wear a Blue patch on the shoulder straps and sometimes instead wore a Blue slip on patch on the shoulder strap (different units adopted different methods and interpretations). These were in addition to the crossed flags trade badge as so often seen."

 

In addition to this - some divisions adopted a blue band round the cuff of the jacket to denote battalion signallers, in the same way other colours were used for runners etc.

 

As I've recently moved house, I don't have the copies of the orders to hand, but I've seen them in several places. 

 

Hope that clears things up a bit!

 

Best,

 

Elliot

[elliot#1]

Just now, elliot#1 said:

 

It may have been me as I have mentioned these on a previous thread -

 

"Only RE signallers with the Signal Service were to wear the Blue and White armband, this was made quite clear through various orders (including Army Orders) throughout the war. All other Artillery and Battalion Signallers were to wear a Blue patch on the shoulder straps and sometimes instead wore a Blue slip on patch on the shoulder strap (different units adopted different methods and interpretations). These were in addition to the crossed flags trade badge as so often seen."

 

In addition to this - some divisions adopted a blue band round the cuff of the jacket to denote battalion signallers, in the same way other colours were used for runners etc.

 

As I've recently moved house, I don't have the copies of the orders to hand, but I've seen them in several places. 

 

Hope that clears things up a bit!

 

Best,

 

Elliot

 

I should have also mentioned, I have several picture postcards of signallers wearing various blue strips and bands on the shoulder straps, as well as on the cuff.In almost every case, they also have the signallers crossed flags badge too.

 

Best,

 

Elliot

[Muerrisch]

I was certainly wrong about retention of jackets; I should not have worked from memory.

 

 

[FROGSMILE]

5 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

I was certainly wrong about retention of jackets; I should not have worked from memory.

 

 

Even today, soldiers on discharge are permitted to keep personal clothing categories if they wish, along with a pair of boots, although very few opt to do so.  As a quartermaster for a two-year tour (not something I especially enjoyed), I was still following the official policy of selling off bales of used clothing via backloading to ordnance depots (mainly at Bicester, but also Dulmen).  The process was carefully regulated and bulk purchasers were warned that they should retain the sales receipt until all their stock was disposed of.  In theory this was because of long-standing statutory law that it is an offence to wear the Queen’s or King’s uniform if not entitled to do so (i.e. masquerading), although this is one of those offences that is very rarely pursued in today’s environment. It was different back then, as examination of court records will show.

Edited 13 November , 2019 by FROGSMILE

[charlie962]

I'm sure I was never notified of those 2019 responses to my old thread. A very belated thanks!

Charlie

[David Porter]

On 15/01/2017 at 17:13, FROGSMILE said:

 I imagine that there was probably an Army Administrative Order decreeing the flashes some time between 1916-18

There certainly was, GRO 2185 - see item 3 below - a republish of same dated March 18, 1917.

Image courtesy The Ogilby Muster - AMOT039_WW1_MD.1889_0162 

Edited 5 October , 2022 by David Porter

[FROGSMILE]

32 minutes ago, David Porter said:

There certainly was, GRO 2185 - see item 3 below - a republish of same dated March 18, 1917.

Image courtesy The Ogilby Muster - AMOT039_WW1_MD.1889_0162 

Thank you David, that is very helpful and confirms the comments by @elliot#1 above.

[elliot#1]

I’d long since forgotten about this post, but I did write a blog post sometime back detailing the insignia worn by Signallers during the war (including the info from the GRO) which can be read here - https://metcalfemilitaryhistory.co.uk/2020/07/18/distinguishing-marks-of-the-great-war-signallers-of-the-british-army-an-illustrated-guide/

[WhiteStarLine]

5 hours ago, elliot#1 said:

detailing the insignia worn by Signallers during the war

Very comprehensive and useful web page - thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention.

[charlie962]

Yes. Some interesting articles there.

[KENDO]

Hi

Heavy and Siege Artillery and Battalion Signaliers.

To identify signallers, especially when employed in the repair of telegraph lines at the front, blue cloth strips were worn on the shoulder straps.

Approval given by GRO 2185 dated 12 March 1917 and amended by GRO 2266 of 20 April 1917.

Kendo

 

 

[MrEd]

On 05/10/2022 at 15:29, David Porter said:

There certainly was, GRO 2185 - see item 3 below - a republish of same dated March 18, 1917.

Image courtesy The Ogilby Muster - AMOT039_WW1_MD.1889_0162 

@David Porter do you have this image to repost please? Seems the forum has broken the link, thank you in advance!

ed

[David Porter]

Here is the missing image.

[MrEd]

32 minutes ago, David Porter said:

Here is the missing image.

Wonderful thank you very much for taking the time so do that

 

ed