RNCVR Posted 19 July , 2020 Share Posted 19 July , 2020 22 minutes ago, johntanner said: I think the roll entry in two different hands suggests reissue but interpreting these isn’t my forte. On the right side of this form it says - IV B/1147, d/25.1.28. I am not any kind of expert in reading & interpreting this form but might that be - Issue Voucher dated 25 Jan 1928? Could that be the reissue date of his B War & Victory medals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headgardener Posted 19 July , 2020 Share Posted 19 July , 2020 3 minutes ago, RNCVR said: On the right side of this form it says - IV B/1147, d/25.1.28. I am not any kind of expert in reading & interpreting this form but might that be - Issue Voucher dated 25 Jan 1928? Could that be the reissue date of his B War & Victory medals? Yes, that’s exactly what it is! The original return is noted on the left (dated 1923) and they were reissued in 1928 without any note being made on the MIC. That’s why the BW&VM looked right, with the gilt still intact on the rim. It helps clear up the previously unanswered question of why some apparently ‘destroyed’ medals have subsequently re-emerged intact. Thank you everyone (Chaz, johntanner, Russ), I found that very interesting! (Yes, I appreciate that this may make me sound like a total nerd.....). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin RussT Posted 19 July , 2020 Author Admin Share Posted 19 July , 2020 I think the general conclusion is that this man was not entitled to the 1914 star - I have written a summary on the other linked thread here: Thanks for the discussion Regards Russ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Owl Posted 19 July , 2020 Share Posted 19 July , 2020 Apologies for dropping in on this thread a little late in the day, but having collected WW1 period medals for around 40 years I am 110% certain that the star in question is a machine engraved, self awarded, medal. There can be no argument about this whatsoever. The naming is completely wrong for several reasons, the details of which are hardly worth mentioning due to their extent and because they have already been pointed out by others. Clearly he was not entitled to either the 1914 or the 1914/15 Star and it also seems that his BWM/VM were returned and re-issued at a later date. Whether or not the naming of this 'star' was instigated by the recipient or by some later owner we shall never know, but I doubt that it was done with any thought of gain, simply because it is so poorly executed. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Strawbridge Posted 20 July , 2020 Share Posted 20 July , 2020 I would put my pension on this being a wrong 'un. Not even a late issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now