Naval medal query - RET on 1914/15 Star

[seaJane]

From an acquaintance: "I have recently acquired the medals to Maurice Sydney Moore who joined [the R.N.] 3 April 1914 ... his naming on the medals was followed by “RET” which I have never seen on a naval surgeon's 1914/15 Star ... He went on to be a medical officer for Plymouth Division of the RMLI."

 

Anybody any ideas about RET?

 

Thanks,

 

seaJane

[Sepoy]

Hi Sea Jane

Please find attached a copy of the medal roll showing the issue of Maurice Sydney Moore's WW1 Medals. There is nothing shown on the roll to explain the RET.
I would suggest obtaining a photograph of the naming to see if it has been named (impressed) correctly, rather than engraved, and post it here.

Best wishes
Sepoy

[Coldstreamer]

Is it possible medals returned and a "ret" stamped in error when reissued?

[TullochArd]

Ret ..... Retd. ..... Retired.  Could he have been a former RN Surgeon on the Retired List and was taken on again in 1914 and thus served on in a professional capacity in his former (now Retired) rank?  

 

Debrett's (my highlight follows) helpfully tells us: "The word ‘retired’ (abbreviated to ‘ret’ or ‘retd’) should not be added after an officer’s name in ordinary correspondence, or in lists, but only when it is specifically necessary to indicate that an officer is on the retired list."

 

Edited 18 August , 2020 by TullochArd

[Sepoy]

I did wonder if the Star was a replacement but it would have been most likely marked with an "R". I did consider "Retired" but the Officer appears in the Naval Lists well into the mid 1920s (Although, I did not look at the entries.).
I still think it would be useful to see a scan/photograph of the naming to be able to make a real comment, if Sea Jane can arrange that.

Sepoy

[headgardener]

59 minutes ago, Sepoy said:

I did wonder if the Star was a replacement but it would have been most likely marked with an "R". I did consider "Retired" but the Officer appears in the Naval Lists well into the mid 1920s (Although, I did not look at the entries.).
I still think it would be useful to see a scan/photograph of the naming to be able to make a real comment, if Sea Jane can arrange that.

Sepoy

 

I doubt that ‘retired’ would be added to someone’s rank in this way on a campaign medal, it should just show the rank he served as during the war or, if retired, possibly no rank at all - I don’t think there’s scope for anything in between. Judging by the medal roll entry his medals should be named “SURG. LT. M.S. MOORE R.N.” in impressed capitals. Like many of us here on the forum, I’ve looked at a lot of medals in my time and have never seen “RET” as a rank or unit or prefix or suffix. It’s either something incredibly rare, or it might simply have been misread. Best to get a photo, I 

Edited 18 August , 2020 by headgardener

[RNCVR]

Perhaps Howard Williamson's "1WW Medal Companion" might shed some light on this naming?

 

Not certain if he is a member here.

[Sepoy]

4 hours ago, headgardener said:

 

I doubt that ‘retired’ would be added to someone’s rank in this way on a campaign medal, it should just show the rank he served as during the war or, if retired, possibly no rank at all - I don’t think there’s scope for anything in between. Judging by the medal roll entry his medals should be named “SURG. LT. M.S. MOORE R.N.” in impressed capitals. Like many of us here on the forum, I’ve looked at a lot of medals in my time and have never seen “RET” as a rank or unit or prefix or suffix. It’s either something incredibly rare, or it might simply have been misread. Best to get a photo, I 

I absolutely agree with you. That's why I suggested going down the photo route in my first response.

[headgardener]

15 minutes ago, Sepoy said:

I absolutely agree with you. That's why I suggested going down the photo route in my first response.

 

Understood...! I was re-emphasising your point so that people don't waste time speculating about something that may not even be correct....! 

[collectorsguide]

The photos and informed discussion pertaining to this query, appear in a recent  post on the BMF WEBSITE. It is certainly an extremely unusual abbreviation.

-RET- would normally indicate retired.It might possibly mean "retained" or something similar ?

Whatever; it is correctly impressed in official Style 2 as are the majority of Naval 15/ stars  (Made by Vaughtons ) It appears there is some evidence to suggest that Naval Surgeons had dispensations to have post nominal qualifications added to their stars eg MB;MA;BA and FRCS ;to name but a few ,all observed correctly stamped on Surgeons 14/15 stars.

                         best w, Howard

[headgardener]

5 hours ago, collectorsguide said:

It appears there is some evidence to suggest that Naval Surgeons had dispensations to have post nominal qualifications added to their stars eg MB;MA;BA and FRCS ;to name but a few ,all observed correctly stamped on Surgeons 14/15 stars.

 

Was there any discussion as to whether such post-nominals would appear on the medal rolls? My understanding is that they would, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. 

 

Also, was there any indication of how and where the letters "RET" appear in relation to the other details? (i.e. "R.N., RET" or "RET, R.N.", or "R.E.T.", etc) 

[collectorsguide]

-RET- SEEMS TO HAVE DEFEATED EVERYONE.

Some of the post nominals are noted in various documents including the medal rolls. My view is that most qualifications allowed inform the expertise of the recipient,in his military service ie that he was a doctor ,surgeon,.Fellow of the R .C. of Surgeons etc

Doctors have been noted with MD on their stars.

                  best w, Howard

[headgardener]

6 hours ago, collectorsguide said:

-RET- SEEMS TO HAVE DEFEATED EVERYONE.

 

I wouldn't give up just yet. I feel that it's only possible to pass meaningful comment once we know how this lettering appears on the star (and other medals?). I'm still not clear whether it's "RET." or "RET" or "R.E.T." (or "- RET -"), or whether it comes after his name but before "R. N.", or after "R. N.", or is completely separate from everything else on the back of the star.

I used to collect WW1 groups and singles to Surgeons, so I have some knowledge of the the naming of these medals. I tend to doubt that it's a medical post-nominal, but it's hard to say more without knowing exactly how it appears on the medal(s) . 

3 minutes ago, headgardener said:

 

 

Edited 21 August , 2020 by headgardener

[TullochArd]

 ........ RET for Retired seems rather unlikely if this is the same Maurice Sydney Moore later mentioned on Navy List 1939 p.261 now as Surgeon Captain, M.D., B.Ch., D.P.H.

[headgardener]

7 minutes ago, TullochArd said:

 ........ RET for Retired seems rather unlikely if this is the same Maurice Sydney Moore later mentioned on Navy List 1939 p.261 now as Surgeon Captain, M.D., B.Ch., D.P.H.

It is the same man, and he was only 28 when war broke out. In respect of this particular man, ‘RET’ (or ‘RET.’, or ‘- RET -‘, or ‘R.E.T’, or whatever it is, which we don’t yet know for certain) definitely can’t be Retired’ or ‘Retained’.

Edited 22 August , 2020 by headgardener

[TullochArd]

........ the lettering on the Star in question reads:

 

SURG. -RET-

M. S. MOORE.

M.D. BA R.N.

 

Detail courtesy of the British Medal Forum - who incidentally also offer no plausible explanation of "-RET-"

 

Moving on I think ...........

 

Edited 23 August , 2020 by TullochArd

[horatio2]

The ADM 171 medal roll shows his medals awarded in the rank of Surg. Lt. I think the chap using the hammer and punch mis-read the rank (probably hand-written) as Surg. Ret. and struck accordingly. Cock-up (a.k.a. human error) is often the best explanation..

[headgardener]

1 hour ago, horatio2 said:

The ADM 171 medal roll shows his medals awarded in the rank of Surg. Lt. I think the chap using the hammer and punch mis-read the rank (probably hand-written) as Surg. Ret. and struck accordingly. Cock-up (a.k.a. human error) is often the best explanation..

 

Like you, i think this '- RET -' is an error of some sort. However, I doubt that it's a misreading of his rank as he only became 'SURG. LT.' in 1918, and the apparent error on his 15 star doesn't appear to have been carried over onto his BW&VM.

Out of interest, have you ever seen any naval medal with the rank (or anything else for that matter) bracketed by hyphens in the way that is depicted here? (i.e. '- RET -'). I haven't, which I think confirms that it doesn't relate to any rank or unit or qualification. 

And if it does appear in the manner set out by TullochArd (above) then it clearly isn't a post nominal as some have suggested.

[seaJane]

Thanks everyone! I forgot to set up to get reminders for this thread, but did not intentionally ignore you.

 

I will check with my enquirer in the light of your most helpful posts.

[horatio2]

9 hours ago, headgardener said:

he only became 'SURG. LT.' in 1918,

Nevertheless, despite the re-naming of his rank only taking place in late 1918 (but with the same seniority) his medals were issued in the rank of SURG LT, not SURG.

The RET mystery continues.

[headgardener]

5 minutes ago, horatio2 said:

Nevertheless, despite the re-naming of his rank only taking place in late 1918 (but with the same seniority) his medals were issued in the rank of SURG LT, not SURG.

The RET mystery continues.

 

True.

Have you ever seen any annotation of any kind on a medal which is bracketed by hyphens on the way this one is? If reports are correct it's impressed on the medal as  - RET - 

And do you have any idea why he was awarded the 15 star? He was on the Edgar in late 1913 or early 14, and then I can follow him on the Navy List up to the middle of 1915 as being at RM Barracks at Plymouth for which he wouldn't have received a star. His name doesn't appear in the RND service records. I don't have access to a classified List for late 1915 so can't tell where he was. 

[TullochArd]

Regarding the above posts ........... "If reports are correct it's impressed on the medal as  - RET -" and  "if it does appear in the manner set out by TullochArd (above) then it clearly isn't a post nominal as some have suggested." ........ here's the image credited to "SimonE" and used by the BMF in their earlier worthy considerations ...........

 

 

 

 

Edited 24 August , 2020 by TullochArd

[Jim Strawbridge]

My two pennyworth is that this was a late claim, possibly in the 1960s, when the recipient was well and truly retired. The person impressing the medal was not aware of the precedent used in the early 1920s. I have several late claims that do not meet the naming requirements of earlier times.

[horatio2]

1 hour ago, headgardener said:

And do you have any idea why he was awarded the 15 star? He was on the Edgar in late 1913 or early 14,

Navy List December1914 shows him as Surgeon in HMS EDGAR w.e.f. 1 August 1914. so that appointment qualified him.

 

3 minutes ago, Jim Strawbridge said:

this was a late claim, possibly in the 1960s,

But the medal roll shows that his medals were issued to him post-war when he was servng on the books of HMS PRESIDENT VII. There is no notation of a subsequent late issue.

[headgardener]

4 hours ago, horatio2 said:

despite the re-naming of his rank only taking place in late 1918 (but with the same seniority) his medals were issued in the rank of SURG LT, not SURG.

 

A quick question regarding this point - do the naval officers' medal rolls indicate differences between a lower rank on a 15 star and a senior rank on the BW&VM? I only ask as I have a couple of 15 star groups to RN Surgeons - both were 'SURG.' on their stars, while the BW&VM's were named 'SURG. LT.' on one and 'SURG. LT. CDR.' on the other, but I recall the rolls simply listing them according to their final ranks. If I'm wrong on that point it would be a very persuasive argument in favour of your thoughts about - RET- being a mis-rendering of 'LT.'