Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

L m Sloan

memorial plaque ww1

Recommended Posts

L m Sloan

I have my grandfathers memorial plaque ..at least I always assumed it was his ,but on closer examination recently it is stamped with the name John Ayre and not Joseph Ayre. My grandfather was joseph on his birth and marriage certs, and on his army admission documents.He had no middle name.He was killed in sept 1914 and his 'penny' is one of the earlier ones produced .It seems awful that the war office would make such a fundamental mistake when a man has died for his country ...so my question is _: Did this often happen ? Are there other instances? I have even searched for a John Ayre who died in 1914/1918 and can find only two....one in a devonshire regiment and one in the Northumberland fusiliers.My Grandfather was in the Queens own Cameron Highlanders. Is it likely they were mixed up??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chaz
Posted (edited)

Joseph's MIC has him 5578 , 1st Cameronians KIA 25/9/14 , entitled to a 14star trio. this being early medal is supported by his entry of 14.8.14 and was a pre war regular having served in the second Boer War, same number and regiment. Looks like he deserted in Nov 1900 but must have returned for the Boer war.

none of the John;s registered as died in Sept 14 were in the Cameronians.

 

you say it is stamped with his name, it should be cast on, the stamped ones are later repros.

 

there is a John Joseph , normally would have both names, 

the other is a John but Naval, If I recall the size of the H of He is wider on Naval ones, can you compare?

 

one of 21 other ranks killed on the day instantaneously while being heavily shelled between 7.15 and 12.00 , one shell landed on the command post entombing 6 officers, an RSM and a clerk with the OR's

Edited by chaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303man
Posted (edited)

Naval plaques have a Narrow H in most cases, it is not a set in stone rule but the vast majority have.  The names on plaques are often wrong.  I have in my collection Johh as a first name should be John.  And 2 plaques to the same man Ernest Williams Soal and corrected Ernest William Soal, A RFC Officer Theodre Dowson Adams but spelt Theodre Dawson Adams.

016.JPG

Edited by 303man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ilbury Welsh

I am sure I read somewhere the family could elect to choose what name they wanted on the plaque. Was he known as John and this is the name they selected. John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L m Sloan
38 minutes ago, chaz said:

Joseph's MIC has him 5578 , 1st Cameronians KIA 25/9/14 , entitled to a 14star trio. this being early medal is supported by his entry of 14.8.14 and was a pre war regular having served in the second Boer War, same number and regiment. Looks like he deserted in Nov 1900 but must have returned for the Boer war.

none of the John;s registered as died in Sept 14 were in the Cameronians.

 

you say it is stamped with his name, it should be cast on, the stamped ones are later repros.

 

there is a John Joseph , normally would have both names, 

the other is a John but Naval, If I recall the size of the H of He is wider on Naval ones, can you compare?

 

one of 21 other ranks killed on the day instantaneously while being heavily shelled between 7.15 and 12.00 , one shell landed on the command post entombing 6 officers, an RSM and a clerk with the OR's

Thankyou.That is my grandad...I have his reg number and record of 'desertion' though i havent found out much about that.Ive got his medals and the death penny is an original.I did some investigation on it once and it is an early one cast at Acton according to the detail. It's still in its cardboard envelope!

Oh..the idea that they could choose the name hadn't occurred to me...does anyone else have more info on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303man

They could not choose the name the Regulations regarding issue were very specific extract below:

 

III, PARTICULARS TO BE INSCRIBED ON THE PLAQUE AND SCROLL

7. On the Plaque and Scroll:-

(i) Names.- The names as given on attestation will be strictly adhered to. The plaque and scroll are intended to commemorate the deceased's services in the Army, and the name under which he fought and died must be inscribed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L m Sloan

Thankyou for that clarification.It certainly seemed highly unlikely the family could choose..you would get all sorts of strange nicknames coming through!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303man

A picture from the plaque factory production, it would be easy to transcribe a mistake from the nominal rolls, the names were embossed on a small steel plate which was held in place by small magnets, the picture shows a blank plaque and the small magnet marks visible. The plaques were produced on the rotating table. Acton used a different binder in the sand compared to later production at Woolwich Arsenal, and in a lot of cases Acton plaques have a lot finer finish. However production at the outset was beset with problems in finish etc and some 18,000 plaques bearing early reference numbers were defective. by Jul 1921 production had reached 410,000 plaques about 10,000 a week and it was hoped to increase to 15,000 per week.  My research then states assuming the highest plaque reference number in any corps was 920,230 then production will be complete in 51 weeks at a rate of 10,000 per week. However if 15,000 per week only 34 weeks to complete production.  plaques with reference numbers higher than that quoted above were posted out from Woolwich in Jun 1922 

967337 10 Jun 22

981012 26 Jun 22

 

this shows that production from Jul 21 - Jul 22 was about 11,000 per week. If we deduct Woolwich production 669,334 from my guess 990,000 made by 30 Jun 22 then Acton factory must have made in the region of 321,000 by the time it ceased production. remaining production was:

 

1.   01.7.22 - 30.06.24   31,244 plaques

2.   1.07.24 - 31.03.30   7,509 plaques

thumbnail.png

CART.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
depaor01
1 hour ago, 303man said:

A picture from the plaque factory production, it would be easy to transcribe a mistake from the nominal rolls, the names were embossed on a small steel plate which was held in place by small magnets, the picture shows a blank plaque and the small magnet marks visible. imageproxy.php?img=&key=a75c3ddbc9b8dfd4The plaques were produced on the rotating table. Acton used a different binder in the sand compared to later production at Woolwich Arsenal, and in a lot of cases Acton plaques have a lot finer finish. However production at the outset was beset with problems in finish etc and some 18,000 plaques bearing early reference numbers were defective. by Jul 1921 production had reached 410,000 plaques about 10,000 a week and it was hoped to increase to 15,000 per week.  My research then states assuming the highest plaque reference number in any corps was 920,230 then production will be complete in 51 weeks at a rate of 10,000 per week. However if 15,000 per week only 34 weeks to complete production.  plaques with reference numbers higher than that quoted above were posted out from Woolwich in Jun 1922 

967337 10 Jun 22

981012 26 Jun 22

 

this shows that production from Jul 21 - Jul 22 was about 11,000 per week. If we deduct Woolwich production 669,334 from my guess 990,000 made by 30 Jun 22 then Acton factory must have made in the region of 321,000 by the time it ceased production. remaining production was:

 

1.   01.7.22 - 30.06.24   31,244 plaques

2.   1.07.24 - 31.03.30   7,509 plaques

thumbnail.png

CART.jpg

Great to see the workers who did that massive body of work.  I've been searching for a long time for a similar image of medal impressing taking place. Haven't seen one yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L m Sloan

Thankyou so much for these replies,especially the information and pictures of production of the plaques.I have examined mine again.(.ill try and include an image ) and it has a number behind the lions left paw which some research i did said was a production number which 'some' plaques were given.Mine seems to say 21( or possibly 27?) I always thought it was the year it was cast but if it is a production number then i have a very early one .It is an Acton one ..there is no Woolwich stamp on the back. When did production move to Woolwich? 

20200330_110031.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GWF1967
30 minutes ago, L m Sloan said:

Mine seems to say 21( or possibly 27?) I always thought it was the year it was cast but if it is a production number then i have a very early one .

20200330_110031.jpg

The number should relate to a particular die used to cast the plaque, any mistakes in casting can then easily be tracked back to the correct die, or operator. 

 I used to cast  Landrover engine sumps; die no’s, date and my operator code were recorded on every one. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303man

L M Sloan,  you are correct Acton plaques are numberd on the outside of the rear leg or not at all the numbers run 1 - 50.  Woolwich Plaques are numbered between the back legs and number runs 1 - 99 with either Wide or Narrow H in He the Acton numbers are hand stamped into the plaque, Woolwich ones cast in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L m Sloan

again thankyou..my original research said that production numbers were stamped at the front of the rear leg and there is something there ..but its unreadable ..can you see ? But clearly there is a number at the back of rear leg.  So?? production number or die cast ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303man

Acton Plaque coincidentally 27 reference Number. Compared to a Woolwich Plaque

DSC_1781.JPG

wide h inside.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L m Sloan

So a production number....not the die cast? Mine could be 27....or 21....what do you think? Definitely a wide H...so before the adjusted H casting to allow for S to be added...so pretty early in production 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303man

More like the mould number, so if there was a defect it can be narrowed down to a specific mould.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GWF1967
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 303man said:

More like the mould number, so if there was a defect it can be narrowed down to a specific mould.

I’m pretty sure that’s what I said in post #11. The detail would be provided by a pattern, impressed into a sand mould. As detail is also added to the rear of the Woolwich plaques, a two part (cope and drag) sand mould would be required. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_casting

 

Edited by GWF1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303man

The only detail on the rear of a Woolwich plaque was the hand stamped WA Monogramme. The picture I posted of the Factory shows the mould and moulding table middle picture mould open, right picture folded down and the girl with a small sieve for the sand mixture. 

 

SAND

The Acton factory took some 18 months to perfect their sand 'mixture.' It's a fine balance between the size of the sand grain, and also the binder (which holds the sand together, and therefore affects the detail). 

At Acton, the plaque factory used a combination of two specially selected sands and flour as the binder. Woolwich used (cheaper) sand that was most commonly used for making steel (not bronze/brass) castings and used linseed oil as a binder. 

The Woolwich Arsenal later admitted to making hundreds of experiments, with different sands and binders, at the beginning of its production. Manning Pike (who developed the plaque process) was brought in to sort out the Woolwich problem. He persuaded the Woolwich Arsenal to go back to 'his' sand mixture. This allowed the gases to escape as the molten metal cooled, and give a better finish. However, the Woolwich used a different method of drying their moulds (I won't bore you with the technical details) and insisted on using Linseed oil. This is why the Acton and Woolwich mainstream production plaques will always be slightly different. 

 

woolwich arsenal monogramme.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GWF1967
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 303man said:

The only detail on the rear of a Woolwich plaque was the hand stamped WA Monogramme. The picture I posted of the Factory shows the mould and moulding table middle picture mould open, right picture folded down and the girl with a small sieve for the sand mixture. 

 

SAND

The Acton factory took some 18 months to perfect their sand 'mixture.' It's a fine balance between the size of the sand grain, and also the binder (which holds the sand together, and therefore affects the detail). 

At Acton, the plaque factory used a combination of two specially selected sands and flour as the binder. Woolwich used (cheaper) sand that was most commonly used for making steel (not bronze/brass) castings and used linseed oil as a binder. 

The Woolwich Arsenal later admitted to making hundreds of experiments, with different sands and binders, at the beginning of its production. Manning Pike (who developed the plaque process) was brought in to sort out the Woolwich problem. He persuaded the Woolwich Arsenal to go back to 'his' sand mixture. This allowed the gases to escape as the molten metal cooled, and give a better finish. However, the Woolwich used a different method of drying their moulds (I won't bore you with the technical details) and insisted on using Linseed oil. This is why the Acton and Woolwich mainstream production plaques will always be slightly different. 

 

woolwich arsenal monogramme.jpg

Thanks for the added detail.  I've noticed inclusions caused by air bubbles in some Woolwich plaques. 

 I was "bored" by the technical details of sand(core) casting, by my casting instructor. 

4D2A2694-BA2A-458A-BF0A-852C7FB87351.jpeg

Edited by GWF1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303man

The evidence is when you look at the finish between Acton and Woolwich,  George Partridge Acton Made, Ernest William Soal Woolwich made.

010.JPG

009.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Strawbridge
On 27/06/2020 at 22:24, L m Sloan said:

Thankyou.That is my grandad...I have his reg number and record of 'desertion' though i havent found out much about that.Ive got his medals and the death penny is an original.I did some investigation on it once and it is an early one cast at Acton according to the detail. It's still in its cardboard envelope!

Oh..the idea that they could choose the name hadn't occurred to me...does anyone else have more info on this?

 

You say that it is still in the cardboard envelope. I don't suppose that the registered envelope (with an address) that it was sent out in is still with you. That would have provided some evidence that you have the right one. My own thoughts is that it doesn't relate to your grandfather but to another relative. So many single lads died during the War that it could have passed to an uncle or cousin and come down through the family that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303man

This is what Jim is on about the original postal envelope with the plaque reference number on it.  It will also match the reference number on the Scroll Tube.

707636765_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L m Sloan

Sadly not ..I do not have original envelope. However my first thought was the same as you ...a family member named John but cannot find one .. I tried the other end and researched john ayre who had died in ww1 and would have earned a plaque and absolutely no connection ,geographically or family connection . I think i said in an earlier post...only one john ayre in a devonshire regiment...so why his plaque should be in my attic box for 50 years ive no idea!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chaz

There are a few threads on here regarding names.

my uncle John James known to all as Jack. Uncle Harry was actually Henry Charles. Don't start on Bert options. Oh, ok just the one, I work with a Royston Leonard always known as Bert ! 

Theoretically, John is John unless Jon, Jonathan, Johnathon, Joseph  is or Joe . I've a couple of uncles and the wife's grandfather always known by their second name not first. May have to look deeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L m Sloan

yes i agree ..names are a pain.He didnt ever register a 'middle name ' on any document and none of his siblings had one .A previous reply to my query said that a form was sent out before the plaque was made to confirm detail but that they had to have the name on their army papers ..this sounds likely.

Share this post


Link to post
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...