Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Mons Star medal


ShtLE303

Recommended Posts

Hello all...I have a Mons Star medal that I'm hoping someone can help me with.

I've had this medal for about five years..it was in a pouch with a bag of Lee Enfield parts I purchased at a gun show. If my research is correct, this medal was awarded in 1914-1915. It is marked:

10521 (service number?)

Pte R. Durward

2/R SC FUS

I'm guessing 2nd Royal Scots Fusiliers?

The thing that kind of puzzles me is that the medal looks 'newer' than most Great War medals that I've seen. Would this be a 'reissue' medal?

Would love to know more about R. Durward..I'm in the US, where would be a good place to start looking?

0427180002a.jpg

0427180003.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ancestry is a good place.

 

The medal roll for the 14-star says he went to France 6/10/1914 and was discharged 24/11/1915.

 

It seems that fragments of a service record survive for him, but very damaged. Robert Durward.

 

Kind regards,

 

Lars

Edited by LarsA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a Silver War Badge record for 10521 Pte Durward 2/Royal Scots Fusiliers, which says he enlisted 02/01/1912 and gives the reason for his discharge as 'wounds'. If you have access to The Times archive you could search on his name and number to find him in the casualty lists; if you can find out his home town then the local newspaper archives might well have more info of course. 2/RSF were a Regular battalion recalled to the UK in September 1914 and on 06/10/1914 they landed Zebrugge as part of 7th Division. 

 

In terms of the physical provenance and condition of the medal, I'm definitely no expert! But to a layman's eye it does look very untarnished. The British & Commonwealth Military Badge forum  is where I'd go to find out more - would be worth joining and posting there to see what they think.

 

Cheers, Pat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He appears as wounded on a casualty list of 14 Nov 1914.

 

In Aug 1915 there was published correction to a LG entry which correct his entry from #10951 Durward J to #10521 Durward R. This corrected an entry from June 1915 where he was mentioned in dispatches.

 

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth the medal looks ok to me. As to it's brightness that is totally normal. It will depend on where it has been kept. If it has been kept anywhere away from moisture (and in particular the atmosphere) it will hardly tarnish at all. It has probably been kept in an airtight tin for most of it's existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really want to go against the opinion of such a person as JS. (Sorry!)

 

But... to my untrained eye...

 

The stamping of the design does not look quite crisp enough. It also does look like it is plated. And the condition and wear is a little at odds with the untarnished option.

 

Jim might be right. But Looks to me like a moulded medal?

 

Regards

 

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly...the one I have doesn't look old at all. So maybe a repro that was bought at some time to replace a missing one with the proper info stamped on back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, eairicbloodaxe said:

I don't really want to go against the opinion of such a person as JS. (Sorry!)

 

But... to my untrained eye...

 

The stamping of the design does not look quite crisp enough. It also does look like it is plated. And the condition and wear is a little at odds with the untarnished option.

 

Jim might be right. But Looks to me like a moulded medal?

 

Regards

 

 

Ian

 

Ok, Ian, we will agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks to me like it has been plated, the base metal appears to be showing on the star tips and this would also explain why the stamping on the back is less well defined. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What type of metal were these made of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it has been plated - I've a couple in my collection, genuine but plated after issue. I think some veterans had their medals privately plated due to the stars tarnishing easily, the medal probably looked a bit shoddy when next to the silver war medal and plating it made it easier to polish before wearing it. Naval stars are often very polished especially with men serving after the war, medals often being worn on full dress parades. I remember a WW2 veteran sea-daddy wearing his medals three times during a 12 month deployment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ShtLE303 said:

What type of metal were these made of?

 

They were made from Tombac Bronze. As others have already stated, the "new" look on your example is down to it having been plated.

A good sharp close up of the naming on the back may help us to determine if it follows the correct style of an original. It looks good from the images you have already posted, but it is difficult to judge conclusively. With good images like at #7 we could all better see what we were talking about.

 

Regards,

Mike

Edited by Medaler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...