Photos of two different soldiers in exactly the same place - what sort of coincidence?

[Bean tool]

If you take the standing position of the man in the second picture and replace it with the man in the first you can see the vastly differing camera angle. There is also a contrast issue on the first picture, the camera is struggling to pick up anything dark or shaded so detail is lost. The lack of detail and difference in angle could possibly mean those cordate leaves don't seem to be there. Especially, as the second picture suggests, they are proud of the rock. 

 

But I agree, after a good while looking, this might be an indicator that it was taken in differing years. The same week of different years, but different years none the less!

[Kiwi47]

14 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

The photo could be 1918 I suppose if taken at home and assuming that he did not qualify for the 1914-15 star.  Do you know when he was appointed Lance Corporal?  The odd aspect is that if he was Labour Corps then he would not be wearing full Black Watch uniform as he is in the photo.  Perhaps it was taken after his recovery and just before he was medically boarded and transferred to the Labour Corps.

A casualty list dated 11/10/17 reports him as L/C (also confirms his Black Watch battalion as 4/5, describes his wound and names the hospital he's admitted to).

However, his MIC and Medal Roll have him as a private both in the Black Watch and the Labour Corps.

[FROGSMILE]

8 hours ago, Kiwi47 said:

A casualty list dated 11/10/17 reports him as L/C (also confirms his Black Watch battalion as 4/5, describes his wound and names the hospital he's admitted to).

However, his MIC and Medal Roll have him as a private both in the Black Watch and the Labour Corps.

That makes sense in most respects, the field ambulance would have reported him in his appointment as seen, whereas the medal indexing normally lists him in his substantive rank, which was private.

 If he was transferred to the Labour Corps in 1917, it implies that the photo of him in Black Watch uniform was from a time before he transferred.  The Labour Corps had their own cap badge usage.  Initially a general service badge (coat of arms) changing in 1918 to the discrete badge of piled rifle, shovel and pick conjoined with laurels, surmounted by a crown and set upon a motto scroll inscribed LABOR OMNIA VINCIT. 

Edited 6 September , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Kiwi47]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

That makes sense in most respects, the field ambulance would have reported him in his appointment as seen, whereas the medal indexing normally lists him in his substantive rank, which was private.

 If he was transferred to the Labour Corps in 1917, it implies that the photo of him in Black Watch uniform was from a time before he transferred.  The Labour Corps had their own cap badge usage.  Initially a general service badge (cost of arms) changing in 1918 to the discrete badge of piled rifle, shovel and pick conjoined with laurels, surmounted by a crown and set upon a motto scroll inscribed LABOR OMNIA VINCIT. 

 

Frogsmile, thank you for the clarification.

 

And to the others that have responded - many thanks - more to ponder on.

However, I think the mystery of "two soldiers in the same garden" (not necessarily at the same time) will remain just that.

[FROGSMILE]

21 hours ago, Kiwi47 said:

 

Frogsmile, thank you for the clarification.

 

And to the others that have responded - many thanks - more to ponder on.

However, I think the mystery of "two soldiers in the same garden" (not necessarily at the same time) will remain just that.

 

Just as a final aside from me on the matter of the photo, we sometimes forget nowadays how common the concept of civilian billets was for troops.  It was especially prevalent during the Winters of 1914 and 1915 and special billeting officers, often previously retired from the army, worked hard through local authorities to find suitable billets for troops.  Once offered they were inspected to see how many soldiers they could accommodate and often a section or platoon of men might be found lodging in a single street.  Apart from any patriotic motive this was lucrative for the property owners, as the war department paid a good rate reliably.  There was a mixture of typical suburban homes, boarding houses, and at seaside locations small hotels who found the business very useful out of season.  Once summer arrived troops were usually moved to tented camps, but by 1916 the large hutted encampments had been completed right across Britain and Ireland and civilian billeting declined.  In the first two winters of the war many soldiers formed amiable relationships with private landladies and their families that had thrown open their doors and in several cases continued to communicate with individual soldiers long after they had left.  I suspect that the venue of the photos that have so intrigued you was perhaps one of these private homes.

Edited 7 September , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Kiwi47]

16 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

 

Just as a final aside from me on the matter of the photo, we sometimes forget nowadays how common the concept of civilian billets was for troops.  It was especially rife during the Winters of 1914 and 1915 and special billeting officers, often previously retired from the army, worked hard through local authorities to find suitable billets for troops.  Once offered they were inspected to see how many soldiers they could accommodate and often a section or platoon of men might be found lodging in a single street.  Apart from any patriotic motive this was lucrative for the property owners, as the war department paid a good rate reliably.  There was a mixture of typical suburban homes, boarding houses, and at seaside locations small hotels who found the business very useful out of season.  Once summer arrived troops were usually moved to tented camps, but by 1916 the large hutted encampments had been completed right across Britain and Ireland and civilian billeting declined.  In the first two winters of the war many soldiers formed amiable relationships with many of the private landladies and their families that had thrown open their doors and in several cases continued to communicate with individual soldiers long after they had left.  I suspect that the venue of the photos that have so intrigued you was perhaps one of these private homes.

 

 

Thanks Frogsmile - thinking a little more about it, with the benefit of your comments, there are probably some similar examples amongst the posts and/or blog of rgalley with his research in to the Bedford Highlanders.

[FROGSMILE]

4 hours ago, Kiwi47 said:

 

 

Thanks Frogsmile - thinking a little more about it, with the benefit of your comments, there are probably some similar examples amongst the posts and/or blog of rgalley with his research in to the Bedford Highlanders.

Yes, now you mention it I recall that something similar occurred for Royal Welsh Fusiliers billeted in Rushden, Northamptonshire.

Edited 7 September , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Madmeg]

On 06/09/2020 at 00:48, Bean tool said:

Just to counter that Dai- the grass could have been flattened by walking on it. The angle of the picture could account for the foliage difference on the rock. The foliage is indeed there. 

I think its the angle and two different cameras, looking at the other photo there is a pale vertical stripe down the (our) left side which is also visible in the first photo (but not in the second. The Lower part of the photo is blurred - which I suspect to be the lens, similar (although not identical) in the third shot. The second is much clearer throughout. I think the differences in the background are down to different angles, different cameras with different lens characteristics and probably different film types emphasing different colours.