Some Officers of Kitchener's New Armies

[adrian 1008]

56 minutes ago, PRC said:

Wonder if there is enough detail in the original to be able to make a decent stab at identifying him? I've pulled something together but the resolution isn't really high enough.

From whats been posted so far I believe the candidates for Durham Light Infantry Officers in the Photo, (either numbering) are 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 17, 30, 36, 37, 43

4 identified as George Stuart Reay via a picture from the Durham County Archives
37 identified as Alexandar Ferguson, as he was believed to be the sole DLI Pioneer present.

And for the other 8 DLI men there are currently 7 candidates:-

William Dunbar Anderson
Alan Wynne Anderson
Vere Leopold Dunstan Beart
John Stuart Chalmers
John Cook
Maurice Elliff
John Williams

So either too many DLI men in the picture or not enough DLI candidates identified so far.

Cheers,
Peter

another Positive identification 12 is John Stuart Henderson Chalmers, confirmed by photo of JSHC in a group of Officers of 4th Btn taken at Seaham ? August 1914 JSHC went on to become Battalion Adjutant. I have written to the Durham County Archivist for permission to share on this for...

 

I think JSH Chalmers is number 12 as identified bt DLI Museum, thats reminded me I ve asked permission to show the image but not had a response

[PRC]

16 minutes ago, adrian 1008 said:

I think JSH Chalmers is number 12 as identified bt DLI Museum, thats reminded me I ve asked permission to show the image but not had a response

Did you query Elliff \ Eliff as well?

Cheers,
Peter

[adrian 1008]

13 hours ago, PRC said:

Did you query Elliff \ Eliff as well?

Cheers,
Peter

Yes, no response will chase with an email today

[PRC]

For my own sanity – always a rather tenuous thing  – I’ve attempted a summary of where I think we are. Corrections welcome.

Group photograph ID’s – revised numbering.

1          2nd Lieutenant Durham Light Infantry       
2          2nd Lieutenant Vernon Holden, 10th Bn. Queens Own (Royal West Kent Regiment)
3          2nd Lieutenant Durham Light Infantry
4          2nd Lieutenant George Stuart Reay, 22nd Bn. Durham Light Infantry.
5          2nd Lieutenant George McMasters Betty, 3rd Bn Bedfordshire Regiment
6          2nd Lieutenant Durham Light Infantry
7          2nd Lieutenant Samuel William Cherry, 3rd Bn Kings Own (Royal Lancaster Regiment)
8          2nd Lieutenant William Brown Paterson, 3rd Bn. Essex Regiment
9          2nd Lieutenant Thomas Archibald Hall, 3rd Bn. Royal Berkshire Regiment
10        2nd Lieutenant George Penna, 20th (Pioneer), Bn. K.R.R.C.
11        2nd Lieutenant Rifle Brigade
12        2nd Lieutenant John Stuart Henderson Chalmers, 4th Bn Durham Light Infantry
13        2nd Lieutenant Arthur Graham William Browne, Shropshire Light Infantry
14        2nd Lieutenant Paul Dominic Wilmot, 3rd Bn. Royal Sussex Regiment
15        2nd Lieutenant Sylvester Lee, 25th (Reserve) Bn., Middlesex Regiment
16        2nd Lieutenant Albert John Francis Osborne, 3rd Bn. The Queens (Royal West Surrey Regiment)
17        2nd Lieutenant Durham Light Infantry
18        2nd Lieutenant Basil Milner Kelk, 2/3rd Bn., Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Regiment
19        2nd Lieutenant Malcolm Murray Lyon, Highland Light Infantry
20        2nd Lieutenant William Wallace, 16th Bn. Cheshire Regiment
21        2nd Lieutenant Arthur Winch, 3rd Bn. Devonshire Regiment ex Rifle Brigade
22        2nd Lieutenant Duke of Cornwalls' Light Infantry
23        2nd Lieutenant Alfred Lawrence Keep, The Queens (Royal West Surrey Regiment)
24        2nd Lieutenant Harold Cecil Round, 6th Bn. Rifle Brigade
25        2nd Lieutenant George Wheeler, 3rd Bn. Essex Regiment
26        2nd Lieutenant Lawrence Arthur Westmore, 13th Bn. Hampshire Regiment.
27        2nd Lieutenant Vernon Robertson Lipp, 5th Bn. Royal Fusiliers
28        2nd Lieutenant Northumberland Fusiliers
29        2nd Lieutenant Rifle Brigade
30        2nd Lieutenant Durham Light Infantry
31        2nd Lieutenant Stanley Curley James Martin, 15th Bn. Hampshire Regiment
32        2nd Lieutenant Frank Penly Cooper 17th Bn. Royal Warwickshire Regiment
33        2nd Lieutenant William Clayton Harvey, 20th (Pioneer) Bn, KRRC
34        2nd Lieutenant Rifle Brigade
35        2nd Lieutenant Thomas Sidney Athron, 21st Bn West Yorkshire Regiment & 34th Bn Royal Fusiliers
36        2nd Lieutenant Durham Light Infantry
37        2nd Lieutenant Alexander Ferguson,3 Pioneer Company, 22nd Bn. Durham Light Infantry
38        2nd Lieutenant Samuel William Jackson, Manchester Regiment.
39        2nd Lieutenant Arnold William Laver, 32nd Bn London Regiment \ Royal Fusiliers
40        2nd Lieutenant James Ambrose Thompson, Wiltshire Regiment
41        2nd Lieutenant Raymond Stuart Tanner Kings Own (Royal Lancaster Regiment) Edit William Slade Vincent - see posts 22/11/2022.
42        2nd Lieutenant Matthew John Vincent Blood Smyth, Royal Irish Rifles
43        2nd Lieutenant Durham Light Infantry
44        2nd Lieutenant Alfred Herbert Naish, 20th (Pioneer) Bn. K.R.R.C.
45        2nd Lieutenant Raymond Stuart Tanner, Kings Own (Royal Lancaster Regiment)
46        2nd Lieutenant Richard Henry Vernon, Dorsetshire Regiment
47        2nd Lieutenant Albert Lewin King, 3rd Bn., Royal Sussex Regiment
48        2nd Lieutenant Thomas Hughs Jenkin, 17th Bn., KRRC

The candidates for the 7 unindentified Durham Light Infantry Officers, (1,3,6,17,30,36 and 43) are:-

2nd Lieutenant Alan Wynne Apperley, 21st Bn., Durham Light Infantry
2nd Lieutenant John Cook, 22nd Bn. Durham Light Infantry
2nd Lieutenant John Williams, 22nd Bn (3rd County Pioneers) Durham Light Infantry
2nd Lieutenant Vere Leopold Dunstan Beart, 4th Bn. Durham Light Infantry
2nd Lieutenant William Dunbar Anderson, 21st Bn., Durham Light Infantry
A.N. Other
A.N. Other

The candidates for the 3 unidentified Rifle Brigade Officers, (11,29 & 34), are:-

2nd Lieutenant Arthur Augustus Kirkham, 16th Bn., Rifle Brigade
2nd Lieutenant Reginald Page, 16th Bn. Rifle Brigade
2nd Lieutenant Charles Eveleigh Wyndham, 6th Bn. Rifle Brigade

The candidates for the 1 unidentified Duke of Cornwalls Light Infantry Officer, (22) is either:-
2nd Lieutenant John Balhatchet Slee, 3rd Bn. Duke of Cornwalls' Light Infantry: or
2nd Lieutenant Harcourt Charles Turner, Duke of Cornwalls' Light Infantry

The candidates for the 1 unidentified Northumberland Fusiliers Officer, (28), is:-
None - Brian Hugh Morgan Tuite was commissioned from the ranks of the Northumberland Fusiliers into the London Regiment.

Officers known to have been accepted on to the course but for whom there is no obvious candidate on the photograph.

2nd Lieutenant Charles James Drury, Devonshire Regiment - no show
2nd Lieutenant John Henry Noel Kearns, Somerset Light Infantry
2nd Lieutenant Walter Hamilton Maxwell, 3rd Bn. Queens Own (Royal West Kent Regiment)
2nd Lieutenant Brian Hugh Morgan Tuite, Queen Victoria Rifles, London Regiment
either:-
2nd Lieutenant John Balhatchet Slee, 3rd Bn. Duke of Cornwalls' Light Infantry: or
2nd Lieutenant Harcourt Charles Turner, Duke of Cornwalls' Light Infantry

Can I suggest the next step would be to focus on those unidentified officers - 1,3,6, 11,17,22,28,29,30,34,36 and 43 – and just do a double check that the right regiments have been identified.

BTW - considering we started with no names at all, that' s already quite an achievement !

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 24 April by PRC
24/04/2024 - Re-instate image

[adrian 1008]

Peter, Thank you . That sets the project out really clearly. I agree we should focus on the numbers listed as unidentified Officers

I m not sure if this helps or hinders, but an image of Newton Wynne Apperley, (Younger ?) brother to Alan Wynne Apperley

Newton Wynne Apperley.pdf

[FROGSMILE]

I agree that’s a more coherent layout and the kind of sequential serial numbered list that I’m personally used to and recommended earlier in the thread (although my explanation of it was poor).  As regards checking the regiments, Adrian sent me via PM the best resolution images that could be achieved and I went through them exhaustively, as he will no doubt remember, cross referencing cap insignia with collar insignia, which was crucial.  That exercise was repeated and triple checked let alone double checked, and the regiment’s were not settled upon until the identification was as close to 100% certainty as possible.  I am content that they are correct and fairly sure that others would have commented if they weren’t.  The only error was the duplication of one officer, which Peter subsequently corrected with his slight revision of the serial numbering.

Edited 27 May , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

5 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

and the regiment’s were not settled upon until the identification was as close to 100% certainty as possible.

Not doubted for a moment that regiment identification was done with a very high degree of accuracy.

But taking a step back the issue as I see it is:-

Picture with 48 individuals, all junior officers, attending a course at Wadham College.
It is believed the actual course has been identified, and from that a pool of 51 individuals has been identified thanks to @Charles Fair
One was a no show, leaving a pool of 50 names, and a photograph with 48 faces = 2 of the names are absent.

However the regiment to face exercise has given us two more DLI officers than can be accounted from the verified pool of names.
Ane we have a Northumberland Fusiliers officer, but no candidate who attended. We do have a man who served in the ranks with the Northumberland Fusiliers, but was commissioned into the London Regiment. So unless he was wearing his NF capbadge while waiting for his London capbadge to turn up, he is not a match.

The other side of the coin is that we are at least one Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry officer, one Somerset Light Infantry officer, one London officer and one Queens Own (Royal West Kent Regiment) short of the known attendees. Now given the arithmetic, two of them could be missing, but not all four.

The alternative is that the pool of potential attendees has not been fully identified - but if we open that pandora's box then all the identifications made so far go out the window. A side by side comparison may look like a good match when there is a very limited choice of alternatives - but the face on the course photo may be an even better match for an A.N. Other that hasn't even been taken into consideration yet. Same with those identified by a process of elimination.

I think what stands out for me is that we had potentially identified two Durham Light Infantry Officers too many in the photograph while we are short two Light Infantry Officers, (one Somerset, one Cornwall). Is it possible that the DLI cap badges could be confused with the capbadges of either of those two regiments, particularly as detail gets lost in the rows towards the top and thus further away from the camera?

Cheers,
Peter

[FROGSMILE]

Unfortunately I can’t help you with who is missing, or too many of this, or that.  I’m also very conscious that what you and Adrian are attempting to do in matching faces, and ages, and other factors to identify the officers in the photo, is far more difficult than what I’ve done in identifying insignia.  I was very much aided by Adrian sending me by PM far better resolution close ups focusing on cap and collar badges, than seen in this thread.  Unfortunately you’re not seeing that quality of image as I did.  Matching the two types of insignia, headdress and collar is crucial, particularly because old rifle regiments wore no collar badges, but London regiment battalions with very similar cap insignia, did wear collar badges.  To answer your question I can only say that I felt confident by the time I’d finished, after a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, that there was no mix up between regiments.  The outlines are quite different, especially those with scrolls.  To show you the differences, I will post the badges to demonstrate the differences.  Here first is the benchmark Durham Light Infantry.

Now the Prince Albert’s Somerset Light Infantry.

Edited 27 May , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry.

[PRC]

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

I was very much aided by Adrian sending me by PM far better resolution close ups focusing on cap and collar badges, than seen in this thread.  Unfortunately you’re not seeing that quality of image as I did.

Adrian had kindly sent me the high quality image a few weeks back and that is what I've been using for the renumbering, and the crops for the side by side comparison.

At this point I'm more bothered than the whole exercise of putting names to faces may have been a waste of time, particularly when it seemed we had a 75% match rate.

For avoidance of doubt the 7 officers identified currently as Durham Light Infantry are:-

Number 1

Number 3.

Number 6

Number 17

Number 30

Number 36

Number 43

Of them all, and it may just be angle and lighting. I'm having the biggest problem with 1 and 43.

Cheers,
Peter

[FROGSMILE]

31 minutes ago, PRC said:

Adrian had kindly sent me the high quality image a few weeks back and that is what I've been using for the renumbering, and the crops for the side by side comparison.

At this point I'm more bothered than the whole exercise of putting names to faces may have been a waste of time, particularly when it seemed we had a 75% match rate.

For avoidance of doubt the 7 officers identified currently as Durham Light Infantry are:-

Number 1

Number 3.

Number 6

Number 17

Number 30

Number 36

Number 43

Of them all, and it may just be angle and lighting. I'm having the biggest problem with 1 and 43.

Cheers,
Peter

The great thing about the DLI regiment’s badge is the imperial crown at its top.  None of the other LI regiments had that.  I agree that the view of 43’s cap insignia is inferior, but I believe the crown can be seen on his collar badge and that’s what I based my ID on (and on a far less blurred image to boot).  I don’t believe you have seen the exact same images as me.  Adrian cropped them from the best possible resolution photograph, which I selected myself from those he sent me via PM.  I am confident of the regimental IDs as explained.  If I wasn’t I would have made a point of saying so.

Edited 27 May , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

Then all bets are off as far as the identifications are concerned.

We have 48 faces and 50 names. If the course has been identified correctly and the attendees have been identified correctly, then Regiments present should match those represented by the attendee's. The only leeway is the two absentees, who at worst reduce the number of regiments present by two.

Note this has nothing to do with who each person is, it's more fundamental than that.

If we exceed the maximun number of possible attendees from a particular regiment, or introduce regiments for which there is no known attendee then either:-

 - the wrong course has been identified; or
 - the correct total number of attendees on the course has been incorrectly identified; or
- the regiments represented have been incorrectly captured, either in the original paperwork or as part of this exercise; or
 - a small error has crept in to the regimental identification

I don't know which it is, but the last one is the least likely to be fatal, which is why I started with it first.

Peter

[FROGSMILE]

Just now, PRC said:

Then all bets are off as far as the identifications are concerned.

We have 48 faces and 50 names. If the course has been identified correctly and the attendees have been identified correctly, then Regiments present should match those represented by the attendee's. The only leeway is the two absentees, who at worst reduce the number of regiments present by two.

Note this has nothing to do with who each person is, it's more fundamental than that.

If we exceed the maximun number of possible attendees from a particular regiment, or introduce regiments for which there is no known attendee then either:-

 - the wrong course has been identified; or
 - the correct total number of attendees on the course has been incorrectly identified; or
- the regiments represented have been incorrectly captured, either in the original paperwork or as part of this exercise; or
 - a small error has crept in to the regimental identification

I don't know which it is, but the last one is the least likely to be fatal, which is why I started with it first.

Peter

Yes clearly there is something not matching up, but I mentioned earlier in the thread that there can be all kinds of reason why those present in a photo don’t match perfectly with other data.  The human factor always plays a part, individuals going sick that day, someone summoned by a senior officer, a family emergency, an officer dropped from another course.  These are just odd examples and we cannot know over a century later what caused every inconsistency or the unexplained.  I would be extremely surprised if every single officer was identified.  It would be unlikely.

[PRC]

1 minute ago, FROGSMILE said:

The human factor always plays a part, individuals going sick that day, someone summoned by a senior officer, a family emergency, an officer dropped from another course.  These are just odd examples and we cannot know over a century later what caused every inconsistency or the unexplained.  I would be extremely surprised if every single officer was identified.

Accept the reasons why some individuals on the course might not be present, but introduce a mechanism by which others might be present, (individuals dropped from another course for example), and it calls into question all the identifications, including whether the right course has been identified.

At the end of the day that's just my personal belief, and it's up to Adrian how he wants to progress with this.

Something I did mean to post earlier about Wadham College in the Great War which I came across while looking for whether there were any photographic studios associated with the College, also has a certain relevance when it comes to numbers on the course.

Wadham's war diary

Follow the progress of WW1 through extracts from the Wadham College Gazette, written by Warden Joseph Wells.

Wadham College Gazette, No.55, October term, 1915

“Wadham has been since last June, through term and vacation alike, full of officers receiving military instruction under Colonel Stenning. At present we are fuller than ever, with 50 officers in residence…
https://www.wadham.ox.ac.uk/about/first-world-war-wadham

So sounds like only one course at a time in residence.

Cheers,
Peter

[FROGSMILE]

6 minutes ago, PRC said:

Accept the reasons why some individuals on the course might not be present, but introduce a mechanism by which others might be present, (individuals dropped from another course for example), and it calls into question all the identifications, including whether the right course has been identified.

At the end of the day that's just my personal belief, and it's up to Adrian how he wants to progress with this.

Something I did mean to post earlier about Wadham College in the Great War which I came across while looking for whether there were any photographic studios associated with the College, also has a certain relevance when it comes to numbers on the course.

Wadham's war diary

Follow the progress of WW1 through extracts from the Wadham College Gazette, written by Warden Joseph Wells.

Wadham College Gazette, No.55, October term, 1915

“Wadham has been since last June, through term and vacation alike, full of officers receiving military instruction under Colonel Stenning. At present we are fuller than ever, with 50 officers in residence…
https://www.wadham.ox.ac.uk/about/first-world-war-wadham

So sounds like only one course at a time in residence.

Cheers,
Peter

Yes I agree with the slant of what you say.  I think it’s unrealistic to imagine that every single officer can be matched up and identified, partly because of the time that’s passed, but also because there are inevitably holes in our information.

Edited 27 May , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[adrian 1008]

On 27/05/2022 at 22:43, PRC said:

Then all bets are off as far as the identifications are concerned.

We have 48 faces and 50 names. If the course has been identified correctly and the attendees have been identified correctly, then Regiments present should match those represented by the attendee's. The only leeway is the two absentees, who at worst reduce the number of regiments present by two.

Note this has nothing to do with who each person is, it's more fundamental than that.

If we exceed the maximun number of possible attendees from a particular regiment, or introduce regiments for which there is no known attendee then either:-

 - the wrong course has been identified; or
 - the correct total number of attendees on the course has been incorrectly identified; or
- the regiments represented have been incorrectly captured, either in the original paperwork or as part of this exercise; or
 - a small error has crept in to the regimental identification

I don't know which it is, but the last one is the least likely to be fatal, which is why I started with it first.

Peter

The initial form submitted by Charles shows 51 names as one "Westmore L A " has been added by hand 

It also shows Sick 7 days against J H Kearns and sick against Browne AGW. Drury CJ we believe was a non attender. That would match the numbers in the picture

[PRC]

2 hours ago, adrian 1008 said:

The initial form submitted by Charles shows 51 names as one "Westmore L A " has been added by hand 

It also shows Sick 7 days against J H Kearns and sick against Browne AGW. Drury CJ we believe was a non attender. That would match the numbers in the picture

If we had a list of just 51 names and all those 48 faces had to be present on that list, then in theory relatively straight foward - just hard work
But if the list of 51 names still doesn't include all the regiments present in the course photograph, then for me there is a fundamental problem - but others may not see it that way.

If some of those present were there because they had been held back from other previous courses, or had been added in for some unknown reason, then we do not have a complete list pf potential attendees, and so no longer have a fixed pool of names to match to faces.

To use the example of the two Essex Regiment officers in the course picture, their regiment was identified by @FROGSMILE, and I for one have no cause to doubt it. We also have only two Essex Regiment officers on the attendees list identified by @Charles Fair - so far, so good. One could be individually identified by facial similarity to a known picture of the officer concerned, and so by a process of elimination we know who the other officer. If the process was the same across the piste then the same methodology would apply, and it's what we have been using.

But if we remove one of the constraints and say other officers could have joined the course, how do we know it doesn't include one, two or more Essex Regiment officers. They, including one who has a passing resemblance to the officer identified by the named picture, were then included in the photograph, while our two known Essex Regiment Officers were absent for some unknown reason. Because we can't be certain whether or not other officers joined the course, and if they did, what Regiment they came from, this calls into question the certainty of any of the officers identified.

One possible way to reduce the uncertainty would be if it's possible to identify the officers held back from previous courses, and I suspect the one that is likely to be most relevant is the previous one at Wadham. @Charles Fair may have a view, but I'm working on the basis that if a newly commissioned officer was sick long enough to have his attendance deferred for two courses, or failed the course twice, he probably wouldn't get a third go at it as other processes would have kicked in.

Cheers,
Peter

[FROGSMILE]

I understand the point you are making Peter and there isn’t really a solution to what we call course ‘churn’ (a timeless aspect), especially 100 years plus from the event and when we’re attempting to match an un-annotated photo with an old nominal roll.  All I can do is encourage and point out that you have done wonders by matching old school, and other photos of the officers named in the nominal roll, with the faces in the course photo.  My only suggestion is to keep painstakingly plugging away, if you’re willing, with that process until each tranche of cap badges is covered, or left with blanks marked as “unknown”.  Surely to have even a partially completed array is better than nothing.

Edited 1 June , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[adrian 1008]

Hi All Thanks for your inputs so far. Its been a great voyage of discovery.

I have written to all the photographic studios within Oxford who may have been asked to take the photo, most have checked their records for Dec15/Jan 16 and have no records of having been commissioned . I wrote to BBC Tees with a story concerning the DLI ..... no response as yet

I wrote to the DLI Museum offering to share the information we have in return for posting an image they have of one of the DLI Officers ....no response

The Durham Cathedral school have been really helpful and their archivist is continuing to look for images....

but I m running out of steam with the lack of responses ! have I gone to the wrong BBC radio for Durham, perhaps there is a commercial stn that I could contact... advice please, I m not giving up

[FROGSMILE]

15 minutes ago, adrian 1008 said:

Hi All Thanks for your inputs so far. Its been a great voyage of discovery.

I have written to all the photographic studios within Oxford who may have been asked to take the photo, most have checked their records for Dec15/Jan 16 and have no records of having been commissioned . I wrote to BBC Tees with a story concerning the DLI ..... no response as yet

I wrote to the DLI Museum offering to share the information we have in return for posting an image they have of one of the DLI Officers ....no response

The Durham Cathedral school have been really helpful and their archivist is continuing to look for images....

but I m running out of steam with the lack of responses ! have I gone to the wrong BBC radio for Durham, perhaps there is a commercial stn that I could contact... advice please, I m not giving up

I’m sorry Adrian, as I share your frustration and wish that I could offer something positive.  Your experience is all too common I’m afraid.  You and Peter, and I and many others in the GWF have a palpable enthusiasm for these things that I’m afraid often isn’t shared outside it.  Some would be far more exercised if it was a photo of footballers from the turn of the century, or even ecclesiastical functionaries, and we have to at least recognise that. I don’t know enough about TV Stations to comment on that aspect, but I’m sure there’ll be someone here in the forum who can. Beyond the insignia I cannot help and the rest is largely down to matching other photos connected with names on the nominal roll with the faces on the subject photo.  Some of them (a few) may well not fit.

Edited 14 June , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[adrian 1008]

Thank you Bob, its down to you, Peter and others that so much progress has been made.

I am going to keep at it, I must temper my frustration with the knowledge that for years I ve looked at the picture and thought who are you ?

Now we have over 50% identified and their story told

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, adrian 1008 said:

Thank you Bob, its down to you, Peter and others that so much progress has been made.

I am going to keep at it, I must temper my frustration with the knowledge that for years I ve looked at the picture and thought who are you ?

Now we have over 50% identified and their story told

You and Peter, and some others, have done a phenomenal job in getting thus far.  I had the easy part with the insignia thanks to your patience in getting me the best possible images.  It is very rare that I could be confident with so many individuals; but several were from the same regiment, both collar and cap badges could be viewed, with one apparent even if the other was not, and black buttons, or not, aided the corroboration.  For those reasons I was able to be 100% confident about the regimental IDs, with pioneer collars in some cases narrowing things down even to battalion.  I wish you well with your continued pursuit and can certainly help when comparing faces between images.

[PRC]

17 hours ago, adrian 1008 said:

The Durham Cathedral school have been really helpful and their archivist is continuing to look for images....

This is something we've touched on a number of times - given the likely date of the course most if not all of these men are likely to have attended either a public school or a grammar school. Some may even have gone on to University. Institutions of that period tend to be quite proud of their heritage - and I know from the situation here in Norwich even the grammar schools that were absorbed into the state run education system tend to emphasise that they "have history" and have the archives to prove it!

Given the age of many on the couse, which I suspect falls into the 17-23 age bracket, schools attended can often be picked up from the 1911 Censuses four years earlier. And thats of course if all the required scholastic information isn't on the course paperwork supplied by @Charles Fair

So if it was my project, what I might think about doing is adding a couple of columns to my tracker to pick up school and university, and target the institutions initially where you have more than one course attendee. I'd do this even for those individuals where on the face of it we have established an identity. My concerns about the reduction of certainty once it became clear that other unknown individuals could have joined the course have already been aired. (And it's my own fault for coming to the thread so late and not picking up on it

One of my tasks in my last job was to rebuild broken and corrupted databases - initially for my employer but later for clients. I would have to interpolate and extrapolate to repopulate the missing data. As there was often tens of millions of pounds at stake, (on a couple of occasions hundreds of millions), not to mention reputational damage, I also had to indicate how certain I was of the data I'd "created" - my best professional guess - on an instance by instance basis, and what were the key assumptions that allowed the blanks to be filled in.

Using that modus of working, when I believed we had just 51 names and 48 faces and all the regiments the faces belonged to had been correctly identified by @FROGSMILE, for those individuals whose identity was identifed by comparison to additional images, then my certainty for those individuals would have been 95%.
For those identified by a process of elimination it would be 60-65%.

To get those identified by images to 100% would then have depended on the total number identified in this way - 80% of the faces in the picture would have upped the certainty that any one face had been correctly identified to 96%, 85% identified would up the certainty to 97%, etc, etc. The higher the certainty around those matched to other images then the certainty around those identified by a process of elimination also starts to creep up.

However what we have now is x number of names and 48 faces. And while I don't think x is 100,000 names, (and gut feel is below 60), it ups the uncertainty quotient.

It would take those identified by matching to other known images down below 50% certainty and wipe out any certainty as to those identified by a process of elimination.

So for me the question is whether "x" can be made into a fixed number.

• Can those held back from the previous course at Wadham be identified.
• Can officers long papers be checked to identify those who completed the course - the 51 known names and those held back from the previous course. I know one is noted that he didn't start, but of course that doesn't rule out him joining the course later.

Meanwhile those public schools and universities should be targetted, even more than you are already doing - not just directly, but facebook groups of old students as attendance at a particular educational establishment may be a multi-generational thing. As we saw with the Durham County Archive the tendency is not to think outside the box so you may need to do a bit of handholding - if you have cause to believe an individual was sporty and \or in the OTC, (and giving they went into the Army at this stage I suspect thats a given), don't just ask for a specific name but enquire who made up the 1st Eleven at Cricket, was there a school magazine with sports\ OTC reports etc between the dates your man was at the school. A team photo as we know can give another image.

So for me, and this is just my point of view, you don't have to give up entirely on trying to find additional images to match to the men in the photo. But you may have to accept that the exercise is flawed until the certainty is back about the total pool of names that must include your 48 faces.

Cheers,
Peter

[charlie962]

Well said, Peter.

Charlie

[PhilBuzz]

 

To: PRC

As I said below, I am knew to this site and didn't realise I could post to the topic (only thought I could message someone). However, now I'm here (speaking to all), I sent message below to PRC but see now that it would also be prudent to send it to "ALL" as being slightly advanced years, we might message someone who is no longer with us.

Here is my message to PRC: 

I am the half-great nephew of William Slade Vincent Jnr. I was responsible for posting the photo and some details on the VWMA.org website. He is buried in the same grave as my grandfather in Moora, Western Australia.

On the subject of the Wadham College OTC Photo 30/8/1915, I would confirm that No. 7 in the photo is that of William Slade Vincent Jnr (not to be confused with his father, Major William Slade Vincent).

This is my first time on this site so bear with me. A link to a photo of William Jnr is at:

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuuwxY6tilNfg556hN7cgCn0xxyC9A?e=jGb1tk

He is the cox at the front and the photo was taken in the Autumn of 1914. I'm in Australia, as William was at St Peter's in Adelaide, and newspaper clipping of the day says the race was carried on on 04-04-1914. I believe he is the same "boy" as No. 7.

Information I have gathered from St Peter's School he attended, says he left St Peter's at the end of second term 1915. I then have a passenger list where he sailed, on the "Persia", from Adelaide to London (at age 16), with his family, and arrived in London on 21/9/1915. On 4/12/1915 he was Gazetted as a 2nd Lieut. (on probation) in the Supplement to the "Monthly Army List Jan 1916 for the period 1/12/1915 to 31/12/1915".

So as he was born on 11/5/1899, he would have been 16 when on the Oxford OTC course. His father was a Major in the Kennedy Rifles, a regiment in Queensland, so I believe he sought a "gentlemen's commission" for his son (and probably paid over a few pounds for it).

I have a copy of the OTC photo and the spreadsheet but I see he had a file also on this site, for the Oxford School of Instruction. Is it possible for you to send me a copy?

I am shortly going to start writing the "Life and Times of William Slade Vincent Jnr" as his life was so full and tragic at the same time. The wealth of information I have on this man is quite extensive and I do not mind sharing any information you might seek.

Phil