Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Uniform I.D


s.hibbitt
 Share

Recommended Posts

Definitely the same couple- could it possibly be the same head used on the wedding shot (nice spotting!)? The quality is so poor its impossible to tell.

Getting decent quality out of your scans/ photos of photos.

Check your settings- turn your camera/scanner settings up to the highest NON DIGITAL resolution that you can. Do not use interpolation or digital zoom modes.

If your camera/phone only has low quality pixel definition available without interpolation then take a series of close ups at the highest non digital setting and stitch the pictures back together (you can also do this with high resolution scans for higher resolutions). 

You can get away with a lower resolution for colour pictures than for grey scale.

The smaller the original image the higher the dpi/megapixel setting you will need to use.

Try not to save in .jpg if you can. Jpg is a lossy format- the information is compressed thereby losing information - hence the blocky look seen above. EVERY time you resave the file you lose information, eg you save it from your camera, then you save THAT copy of the camera original to another file, then you save it to somewhere else from the second copy- etc etc, you are losing definition each time- even at the highest quality settings.

Pop into your settings on your scanner, pc photo editing software and if you have to use .jpg to save files find the compression settings and set them to as high as possible (do this on your camera as well). Your camera may have .raw file format but you will need specialised software to read the file, .raw is not a standard format across the different camera manfacturers unfortunately. Every camera I have ever come across saves files in .jpg as standard. Ensuring that you use the highest quality available at point of photo will save issues down the line. Note that just upping the pixel count (eg 3megapixel as opposed to 5mp does not change the .jpg compression settings!- look for "fine" or "high" vs "normal".) There may be a percentage slider - even at 100% the file will still be compressed if it is a .jpg.

If you can pick a non lossy file format to save your images from a scanner or on your PC (.tif is good). This will create a bigger file- because it isn't compressed. I'm not sure if you can upload .tif files to GWF or not but .png or .bmp shouldn't compress either- upload will take longer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doing some background...

John Thomas Hibbitt married Louisa  MAY [surname is May] in Qtr. 4 1877.
Next census gives her place of birth as Middlesex, her name as Louisa Hibbitt. [no middle name], age 25.
1911 Census,she is now Louisa Jane Hibbitt age 54, born Middlesex.
A Louisa J. Hibbitt dies in Oakham during the same June quarter of 1911 as the census.
All these facts corroborate.

Therefore the lady in the shot is not Louisa (Jane) [nee. May] Hibbitt in 1917 or later.

Edited by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

The photo shows a sergeant of the Leicestershire Regiment with two wound stripes on his left lower sleeve (one awarded for each occasion awarded not for individual wounds).

Not sure where this fits in the timeline. The Medal Index Card shows him landing in France as a Private with the Leicestershire Regiment, finishing the war with the Machine Gun Corps, and the highest rank he reached was Lance-Corporal. There is also a separate MiC for his Territorial Efficiency Medal, issued in February 1922, to Private 1425 A.E. Hibbett, 4th Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment, latterly 159534 M.G.C.

Of course he could have been promoted acting unpaid Sergeant and then had his photograph taken, but was never confirmed in rank and either lost it, reverted at his own choice, or changed unit and reverted to his underlying substantive rank - but that wouldn't automatically be Lance-Corporal !

And of course neither man in the picture is weariing rank stripes.

I can see another rabbit hole opening up for me to disappear down:)

Cheers,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PRC said:

Not sure where this fits in the timeline. The Medal Index Card shows him landing in France as a Private with the Leicestershire Regiment, finishing the war with the Machine Gun Corps, and the highest rank he reached was Lance-Corporal. There is also a separate MiC for his Territorial Efficiency Medal, issued in February 1922, to Private 1425 A.E. Hibbett, 4th Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment, latterly 159534 M.G.C.

Of course he could have been promoted acting unpaid Sergeant and then had his photograph taken, but was never confirmed in rank and either lost it, reverted at his own choice, or changed unit and reverted to his underlying substantive rank - but that wouldn't automatically be Lance-Corporal !

And of course neither man in the picture is weariing rank stripes.

I can see another rabbit hole opening up for me to disappear down:)

Cheers,
Peter

Are we talking about the same man Peter?  I confess I’ve become a bit confused.  I thought that your earlier profile referred to the soldier badged Leicestershire Regiment, stood at the rear of the OP wedding photo and, going by facial likeness, perhaps related to the elderly couple and the bride.  This sergeant chap looks more like the groom (although I’m not positive it’s him) and so presumably with a different surname.  This sergeant seems to be some other soldier of the Leicestershire Regiment.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Are we talking about the same man Peter?  I confess I’ve become a bit confused.

Apologies - I'm confused and I'm only adding to your confusion :)

Will await clarification from @s.hibbitt as to who the Leicestershire Regiment sergeant is.

Cheers,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, PRC said:

Apologies - I'm confused and I'm only adding to your confusion :)

No problems, we can form a club :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, the last photo is my Great Grandad, it was merely posted as s likeness to the seated soldier thinking they could be related. I've been researching "Bert" for several years he's a 1/5th and was definitely an unpaid Sgt. 

I had a conversation with a lady a few years ago who said she had a photo of Bert's brother in uniform on horseback, given the comments on here of that uniform I'm tracking threw my ancestry to make some connections.  The lady hasn't logged in for over a year herself otherwise I would have sent it so, if it amounts to nothing I've learnt along the way from the detailed help on that uniform alone and the group photo being a double wedding.  Sorry for any confusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/08/2021 at 21:44, s.hibbitt said:

1497894582_PossiblyaHibbittwedding(2).jpg.a0e2ca7f54c57f9f058f202c0ceff2a4.jpg

Since we now have this better quality photo I’m hoping that @CorporalPunishmentand @Michelle Youngwill chip in with what cap badge they think the seated man is wearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Maybe Cheshires? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michelle Young said:

Maybe Cheshires? 

It does look like a star shape to me too, but the Cheshire’s had a scroll beneath and I can’t see any sign of that, not even tucked behind the chin strap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit more definition on the cap badges

 

 

Screenshot 2021-08-27 19.16.28.png

Screenshot 2021-08-27 19.16.50.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, s.hibbitt said:

Sorry, the last photo is my Great Grandad, it was merely posted as s likeness to the seated soldier thinking they could be related. I've been researching "Bert" for several years he's a 1/5th and was definitely an unpaid Sgt. 

After you posted that I thought I was having a senior moment and had to walk away.

Tried reading the whole thread through again this morning and I’m still confused.

You introduced us to Albert Ernest Hibbitt, Leicestershire Regiment and subsequently MGC, as the the soldier standing at the back of a group photograph. That individual was a Private in the Leicestershire Regiment, wearing a 1917 pattern cap and 1914 pattern belt.  ( @Pete_C )

I speculated that it was a wedding group photograph. If so that would most likely make the soldier seated the Groom.  Looking like they are possibly wearing the cap badge of the Army Service Corps as suggested by @FROGSMILE .

I believe Albert was in the the Leicestershire Regiment until the 7th June 1918.

You said the older couple in the picture were the aunt and uncle of your Great Grandad, Bert, who raised him after he was orphaned aged 11. His aunt is believed to have died in 1911.

I agree that Bert looks more like the Groom rather than the soldier standing. And for what it is worth, to me the soldier standing appears to have more in common facially with the bride and most of the other persons present – effectively the grooms in-laws.

So doesn’t that make it more likely that the groom is a Hibbett, and that all all the other individuals, including the Leicestershire Regiment man, were members of the other family? But that would make the identification of the family in your other pictures incorrect . However the upside of that would be an explanation for the presence of a woman that on your current identification would have died in 1911.

Apologies if I have mis-understood something, and hoping you can unconfuse me :)

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children of John Thomas and Louisa Hibbitt of Oakham Rutlandshire, John R 1880, Adeline L 1882, Reuben 1888, Amy 1892, Annie Elizabeth 1895, In 1901 they have HERBERT b 1890, Barleythorpe Rutlandshire great nephew with them.

If it's a marriage with family (they don't look that happy do they!) the man in the back row looks very like the older man in the front. Reuben would have been 23, 1901 he and John R are in Headingly YRK, Reuben emigrated USA 1920. There are too many daughters for the Hibbitts though.

I'm confused as well.

If the soldiers in the photo have been identified as wearing items of uniform not issued until 1917 (or even 1914) then the lady in the photo cannot be Louisa (May ) Hibbett- mother of Jack (John R, Reuben, Amy and Annie) 

The older couple on the separate photo (despite the terrible quality- could we have a better copy of that posted please!) certainly appear to be the couple in the "wedding" shot. I suspect the head on the "wedding" shot that has been pasted in may well be from the couple photo (difficult to tell from quality but looks similar) . BUT are they the same couple as in the labelled photo? He looks like the younger man but I'm not completely convinced by the lady. Could John T have remarried?

I can't find any marriages in Rutlandshire for John T Hib* between 1911-1922 but there are some possibles in other areas.

Alternatively could we be wrong in identifying them as Hibbitt/ett/erts and they are on the bride's side and the photo is misleading? 

I can't see how to reconcile Louisa having died in 1911 and this photo having been taken post 1917 if we accept the older couple as the same as the labelled photo of JT and Louisa 

NB- Alfred Ernest is someone else- b 1896 probably the son of Alfred and Eliza (other option is Alfred 1895 son William and Susan- both are with their parents in 1901). The great nephew of John Thomas and Louisa is HERBERT b c 1889 son of Harry (d 1896) and Sophia (Taylor) d 1900 (Hibbits per 1891 census) there are several siblings but no Alfred (there is a Fred but I note the poster refers to gt grandad as Bert.) Herbert is with John Thomas and Louisa in 1901, Fred is with grandparents William and Charlotte in 1901, George Henry is with an older cousin George in 1911. Maud Margaret married 1906, working as servant in 1901, Betsy Ann 1908- she is a servant in 1901.

Herbert Hibbitt Leicester Regt 2045 pte  and 240370 cpl , France 1915 seems the most likely for great great grandad.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Madmeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Madmeg said:

 

Sorry, could you run through that again?

Slowly?

Seriously, good work MM.

I too am puzzled by the early and later photos of the couple. The man seems to be the same, but the lady has changed a lot, facially and abdominally over the intervening years.

I am also puzzled by the Cut & Paste job. She is the same lady that appears in the later couple photo, which seems to be of a similar vintage to the first group. The pasted head is the head of the man in the same photo.

But you can see a rim or halo around the cutout, suggesting the underlying man was either balding or with white hair, clearly not the man who appears in 'Elderly Couple 2'. Why was he absent from the wedding?

Lots of unknown variables here, so much depends on facts that are contradictory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the collar and cuffs don't match either :-D - seriously- look at his collar that's the real give away- good spotting from whoever noticed it though. Could have been nothing more sinister than he moved during the shot so someone has done an edwardian photoshop on it to tidy up.

I'm not convinced that younger Louisa is older lady in the couple is older lady in the group (well she can't be- she's been dead several years!) The second photo set shown above is not cohesive- ie there is the labelled photo stuck to a piece of paper and the other three photos laid on it and copied- they don't have to be all of the same people. Gawd help anyone who looks at my digital copies of the hundreds of family photos which I have taken- laid out to roughly fit the same space and quickly snapped . There is no particular order to them just how I took them out of the envelopes they were stored in and how they fitted into the space available- ie I would hate to draw too many conclusions about their relationship without knowing more context.

But a good quality set of those second photos would help!

Not convinced myself that the photo identified as being of great great gd HERBERT looks much like either of the soldiers in the group TBH. To me there are some similarities between older lady and "bride" - and younger lady far right at back. I didn't get as far as working out when Herbert married - there are a couple of other Herberts from Rutland.... (that sounds like a TV comedy series title from the 70's) and I was getting even more confused with them. Note that his sisters married before WW1. I think the oldest brother William was married by 1901 and I think brother Fred married 1909. George Henry is not married in 1911. 

What can be confirmed is that (as told by OP ) Herbert Hibbitt (or Hibbits) parents Henry and Sophia died when he was a child and he was brought up by his great aunt and uncle (per census) John Thomas and Louisa Hibbitt.The rest of his siblings got split up among other family. I haven't checked to see if they were actually his great aunt and uncle (or some other relatives) as yet. A Herbert Hibbitt was in the Leicestershire Regt per MIC by 1915. The Alfred Ernest identified above is someone else entirely (but probably related)

This doesn't get us much further with that photo! There are a number of (presumably related) Hibbitt/ Hibbett families in Rutland having interchageably named children around about then who could supply family members for that group- but I'm not convinced that it is necessarily of Herbert and his adoptive parents.

So we can confirm some of the details supplied but not match all atm.

It's 20 past 1 in the morning here so I'm off to bed- but I'll leave everyone with this- 

Dec 1917- marriage in Oakham of Annie E Hibbitt to George Coniam and Francis H Hibbitt to Annie King- these marriages are on the same page suggesting a possible double wedding. Annie E could well be Annie Elizabeth JT and Louisa's daughter, she could also be the daughter of William and Susan Hibbitt and probably younger sister of their son Francis H (1891 census).

Perhaps someone wants to follow up the records for those two grooms to see what regt's they were in?

 

Edited by Madmeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one George Coniam that shows up in the UK Military collection on Ancestry, and that is the George Coniam who started out as a territorial soldier with the 15th Battalion of the London Regiment, service number 2296, being embodied on 30 August 1914, and then qualifying for the 1914-15 Star on 18 March 1915 with entry to a theatre of war in France. He then transferred to the Army Service Corps as service number M2/164300, and was transferred to the Army Reserve Class Z on 18 June 1919. The date of 3 March 1916 is also mentioned, and I wonder whether this is the date that he transferred to the Army Service Corps.

No guarantees that this is the right man of course, but he's the only one with that name, the next closest match being a George Conium who was killed in action in March 1918, but he can be discounted because the woman named on his pension index cards is not Annie. It does, however, look as though George Coniam's regiment fits with Frogsmile's identification of the badge as an Army Service Corps badge if the marriage took place in late 1917.

Images sourced from Ancestry:

41629_625537_9853-00049.jpg

41804_626640_12125-00107.jpg

Edited by Tawhiri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1939 England and Wales Register has a George Coniam, born on 19 June 1891, living at 4 Gertrude Street, Chelsea, London, with his wife, Annie, born on 4 February 1891. Ancestry has transcribed Annie's middle initial as C, but looking at how the enumerator has formed their E's for other names on the page, I think that she is actually Annie E Coniam. George is employed as a chauffeur/mechanic, while Annie is an unpaid domestic. There are no children living with them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis H Hibbitt is proving to be rather more elusive unfortunately. I can find a Francis Herbert Hibbitt in the 1939 England and Wales Register, born on 12 March 1887, living with Annie Thompson Hibbitt, born on 16 December 1890, in Bakewell, Derbyshire, and two other household members, one of who's record is closed, the other being 9-year old Joyce Pragott. The name Alice J Haughton has at some point been written above Joyce's entry, although it could just as easily be linked to the closed record above Joyce's entry. The death and burial of a Francis Herbert Hibbitt was recorded in the burial register for the parish of Rowsley, Derbyshire in May 1959, his age being recorded as 74 years, which fits with the Bakewell, Derbyshire location in 1939. Other's have already found him in the 1891 and 1901 England censuses, I can find William and Susan in the 1911 census, with the two youngest children in the 1901 census living with them, but the older children are once again elusive.

I cannot find any trace of a service history for a Francis H Hibbitt, let alone one that fits with the surmised regiment in the photograph. Is it possible that he never served overseas, so there would no trace of him even in the medal rolls?

Looking at the ages of Francis and Annie in the 1891 and 1901 England censuses, and the self-declared birth date of Annie E Coniam in the 1939 England and Wales Register, I'm inclined to go with the second of Madmeg's suggestions, which was that the photo shows the double wedding of brother and sister in 1917. 

Edited to add that John and Louisa's daughter, Annie Elizabeth is younger, with the 1901 census suggesting a birth year of 1894/95. There is the death of an Annie Elizabeth Hibbitt registered in the last quarter of 1983 in Nottingham with a birth date of 14 June 1894. I can also find an Annie Elizabeth Hibbitt living in Nottingham in the 1939 England and Wales Register, with the same birth date, who is widowed and working as a daily house keeper. Living with her is a 15-year old Barbara Joan Hibbitt, born on 1 September 1924, working as a confectioner's shop assistant. Barbara's birth was registered in Nottingham in the last quarter of 1924. A look at the online GRO Indexes shows that no mother's maiden name is recorded, which is usually the case when a birth is illegitimate, so I'd be inclined to take the statement in the 1939 Register that Annie is a widow with a rather large grain of salt.  

Interestingly, there is an earlier marriage of an Annie Hibbitt to a Francis Philip Williamson in Oakham, Rutland in the second quarter of 1915. Francis dies on 23 September 1925 at the Rutland Memorial Cottage Hospital with probate going to William Williamson and Frederick Walter Williamson, both of who are farmers. His birth was registered in the last quarter of 1883 in Oakham, so he would have been aged around 32 in 1915, so it's not clear if this Annie Hibbitt is John and Louisa's daughter, or a third Annie Hibbitt just to make things even more confusing. There is, however, a widowed Annie Williamson in the 1939 England and Wales Register living in Oakham with four children born between 1916 and 1924 living with her, so I'm going to say that this is yet another Annie Hibbitt.

Edited by Tawhiri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis HERBERT (again) bp 1885 Hambleton.  There is a birth for a Francis H in 1921 mother Miller in Lincolshire (dies 1925). No marriage for Francis H to any Miller though.

Francis HibbEtt has a military record as does F Hibbitt (several- including an MIC for Royal Tank Corp.) Francis Hibbits has a service record. There are some Hibberd records not listed here.

He could be lurking in one of those?

Coniam is interesting- from the birth records from 1870 the name is found in a fairly small area of Devon (explaining why most of the WW1 records are navy no doubt) spreading out to Surrey and Bristol with a family in Wiltshire. There is a birth in Newton Abbott in 1891 for a George , 1896 Plymouth for Stanley George J (Marries -Scott 1920 Blandford and therefore eliminated from further enquiry)

There is a birth for Francis G Coniam mother name Hibbett in Chelsea in 1920- so our George survived the War, Margaret b 1924 (mother's name Hibbitt) Chelsea, Francis G Coniam married in Wokingham in 1943 and from births is still there after WW2. I haven't found either a death or marriage for Margaret on a quick skim through.

There is a death for George b 19 June 1891 in Wokingham March 1974 There is a marriage to Wilkinson for a George in 1972 in Wokingham which I guess is a remarriage for George afyer the death in Wallingford of Annie Elizabeth b 4 feb 1890 .

As above (independently checked then referred back to above details ) G Coniam MIC London Regt 2296 and ASC M2/164300 looks likely? There were NO other George Coniam births other than those two above from 1870 through to 1900.  In France 1915, Class 2 1919.

 

IF that is the double marriage then that gives us one of the two grooms. 

I'll look a bit more on the Hibbitts- but if the couple in the groups are Francis H parents William and Susan he must be related to John Thomas which could explain the general similarity. Note the name of George Coniam's son- appears to be named after his mate? Does not explain how George met Annie of course... one mystery ? solved? another created !

Edited by Madmeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone has a FMP sub they could try the parish marriage records to see what it gives for Francis Herbert's occupation? Family search has an index listing only but indicates the image is at FMP. Annie King's residence is given as Perthshire!

Francis Herbert Married on the 26th November 1917 and George Coniam on the 15th November 1917- so not exactly a double wedding :-( although it wouldn't stop them from coming together for a photograph I suppose. Francis, George and Annie Elizabeth all have residences of Oakham.

Francis Herbert and Annie Elizabeth children of William Hibbitt and Susan (bardsley?) William b 1858 appears to be brother of Harry (both baptised to William and Emma at Edith Weston) Free Cen has them for 1871- Father William of North Luffenham b 1838, sons Harry b Edith Weston 1857 William b Edith weston 1858, George b Edith Weston 1861 , mother (William seniors mother that is) Ann b 1818 Nth Luffenham, son John Thomas b Oakham 1856 (nb the order is odd). So Harry and John T are very close in age- gives us a nice picture of a close knit family looking after each other.

I can't find Francis (as Francis, Frances, F or Frank ) with the Leicestershire Regt- but is that cap id certain if he is NOT the same man as in the more clear photo?

 

Quick (hopefully non confusing) recap on what we have to date.

A photo of OP gtgt gd HERBERT Hibbit(ts) of the Leicestershire Regt in uniform (undated)

A photo of what MAY be a double wedding of two soldiers dated to the latter end of WW1

A connection of some sort between the Hibbitt family of Oakham in Rutland  and the double wedding photo evidenced by possession of the photo in OP's family and possible likeness to believed family members in another photo.

A photo believed to be of Gt gt Gd adoptive parents John Thomas and Louisa Hibbitt.

Two close (documented) weddings linking another (related?) Hibbitt family to a soldier in a Regiment compatible with one of the cap badges shown in the wedding photo. One of these soldiers and one of the brides are not locals.

The knowledge that the wedding photo CANNOT relate to OP's adoptive mother who is dead by then.

Everyone happy so far?

Further research needed- 

Evidence that Francis Herbert Hibbitt served in WW1 and would have been in uniform 1917.

A closer look at the cap badge for the rear soldier in the wedding photo.

A better copy of the family photos.

:-)

Edited by Madmeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

without trying to confuse or muddy the waters too much more there is one other Hibbitt marriage for the period- Amy (remember her- probably John Thomas daughter) married in June 1917 to Herbert Martin A Nice b 1891 Norfolk- MIC shows MGC and R Sussex Rgt but apart from 1901 census in Suffolk with his parents he is a little shy...). Just a thought given that the wedding photo doesn't look very English Novemberery! I can think of some other options to muddy the waters but will leave them to one side for now :-D

The next Hibbitt marriage in Rutland isn't until 1919 (Ada to Alfred Faulkes/Foulkes) also Oakham district.

Another thought (possibly confusing though :-) ) . Assuming (I know I now) that this is indeed a Hibbitt family group (context of photo would be appreciated here) and that it is the wedding of George Coniam to Annie Elizabeth Hibbitt on 15th November. The chap in uniform behind could well be Alfred Ernest Hibbitt- Annie and Francis younger brother who has already bee identified as being in the Leicesters. he could be the best man. One possible id for the photo would be- front row left to right- Susan Hibbitt (mum) George Coniam (groom), Annie Elizabeth Hibbitt (bride), William Hibbitt (dad). Middle of row behind Alfred Ernest (?best man? brother) , Unknown woman- could be one of the three other Hibbitt sisters, Francis herbert (brother- not in uniform- see below), unknown woman- could be- one of the Hibbitt sisters OR his fiance Annie King (she could also be the leading bridesmaid with AE . The remaining three ladies on the other side? unliekly to be relatives of George Coniam or Annie King as they are not locals. The one behind probably Susan looks a bit like her so could be a Hibbitt sister, the other two could be friends, cousins etc.  

My thinking here is- we known Annie Elizabeth had two (only two) brothers. The man standing behind probably William looks like him to me- but he is also not the tallest person there :-) Francis 1911 census entry shows him as a domestic gardener (like father William), not a reserved occupation,  but his small stature could indicate illness making him unfit for service. That would "work" - but obviously does rely on this actually being a family group of Hibbitts of Oakham not a completely different family :-D 

S.Hibbitt do you have any more details on the context of the photos you have posted? Their provenence, any stories associated with them? That could help.

Edited by Madmeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi all

i have the same image so I have added a couple of close ups, the soldiers badge at the front I’m sure you will agree is asc and the leic Reg soldier has a territorial shoulder title which ties in with the 5th battalion mentioned

0DF69B9D-7CD1-4773-8DB1-72183BD03012.png

0CFB2BB7-00E7-4014-A060-429EDA88A589.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant stuff, that certainly seems to confirm it.  Thank you for posting.  How did you come by such a good copy of the photo?

 

AFA070EB-2C4D-4E04-8670-E5149BB4913D.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Brilliant stuff, that certainly seems to confirm it.  Thank you for posting.  How did you come by such a good copy of the photo?

 

AFA070EB-2C4D-4E04-8670-E5149BB4913D.jpeg

A pleasure, I cannot remember where I picked this card up, it’s been in my collection for many years and unidentified, so it’s nice to have a family name now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, garfyboy said:

A pleasure, I cannot remember where I picked this card up, it’s been in my collection for many years and unidentified, so it’s nice to have a family name now

An extraordinary coincidence to put it mildly!  I’m sure that the OP will be amazed too.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...