Rough looking Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders Badge

[Mable1997]

Hello. I've a get question about a glengarry badge I've seen recently. I know that sometimes badges varied widely within units but also sometimes stayed the same for fifty years, making dating them difficult. Also, I know that cap badges are often faked with both excellent and terrible examples filling the market. This Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders badge looks about as unpolished and onesided as they come, differing widely from most other examples I've seen. But then there are many different badges for this one unit. What do you think? A blatant fake or the real deal? (Note that it is pinned to a leather trimmed ww1 glengarry which seems quite authentic.)

[TullochArd]

Rough is the word. Without seeing the back it's hard to comment on the badge. The Glengarry is certainly not A&SH as it lacks the simple red/white/red dicing unique to this unit.  The absence of a Glengarry rosette raises further suspicion of tampering as the badge is firmly fitted.  As you say there is no doubt it is an older Glengarry and the stamp appears good and "RS" suggests Royal Scot origin which matches the dicing. Civvy Pipe bands are a favourite for producing such Frankenstein finds.  The Argylls went through many minor changes on their cap badge - personally I'd resist the temptation to make a punt on this one.

[TullochArd]

Update ……...   Army Order 338 of 1920 allocated 3044001 to 3122000 to The Royal Scots which dates this 3050305 to a soldier in this unit 1920 - 1942 ….. certainly at the earlier end...…….. I reckon the Glengarry is more interesting than the badge - pity it's been ragged since it left the Army.

Edited 23 February , 2020 by TullochArd

[FROGSMILE]

I second TullochArd’s interest in the glengarry, the method of marking inside with an ink stamp is as laid down in the British Army “clothing regulations” that existed at the time of the cap’s issue.

It would be interesting to see the back of the badge.  It is definitely not an issue badge, but it’s not impossible that it might be a crudely made, “sand cast” badge that used to be sold in bazaars outside barracks/cantonments in far flung garrisons in places like India and Egypt.

[Mable1997]

 

7 hours ago, TullochArd said:

Update ……...   Army Order 338 of 1920 allocated 3044001 to 3122000 to The Royal Scots which dates this 3050305 to a soldier in this unit 1920 - 1942 ….. certainly at the earlier end...…….. I reckon the Glengarry is more interesting than the badge - pity it's been ragged since it left the Army.

 

7 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

I second TullochArd’s interest in the glengarry, the method of marking inside with an ink stamp is as laid down in the British Army “clothing regulations” that existed at the time of the cap’s issue.

It would be interesting to see the back of the badge.  It is definitely not an issue badge, but it’s not impossible that it might be a crudely made, “sand cast” badge that used to be sold in bazaars outside barracks/cantonments in far flung garrisons in places like India and Egypt.

 

Thank you for the quick and very informative replies. While the badge is still something of a mystery, it's good to know that it isn't original to the glen and that the glen itself dates to after the Great War. I was surprised at this in that the leather trim normally denotes pre to mid war caps, and the fact the tails have been removed then reattach seemed to reinforce this. Mysteries I guess. 🤔

 

I am currently attempting to get a photo of the reverse side of the badge.

[Mable1997]

8 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

I second TullochArd’s interest in the glengarry, the method of marking inside with an ink stamp is as laid down in the British Army “clothing regulations” that existed at the time of the cap’s issue.

It would be interesting to see the back of the badge.  It is definitely not an issue badge, but it’s not impossible that it might be a crudely made, “sand cast” badge that used to be sold in bazaars outside barracks/cantonments in far flung garrisons in places like India and Egypt.

 

[CorporalPunishment]

The badge looks genuine enough to me, just been highly polished in it's time.   Pete.

[FROGSMILE]

Having now seen the crisp impression left by the die that made the badge I agree with Pete’s observation.  A sand cast badge generally has a solid, flat back and thus has a heavier appearance.  It also doesn’t usually have the copper wire loops for a cotter pin, but instead flat tabs, which is why I asked to see the rear.  It has been heavily polished, but also I think deliberately rubbed down, I’ve seen soldiers’ do this in a variety of ways.  It has then aged and picked up verdigris that over time goes black.

Edited 23 February , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[TullochArd]

Frogsmile/CorporalPunishment  says it all regarding the A&SH badge construction.  Like Frogsmile I've seen many badges deliberately worn down deliberately simply to give a better shine so worn doesn't necessary mean old.  Swop it for a period RS badge!