Eye Glasses

[Piper42nd]

I don't recall ever seeing a photo of a WW1 soldier wearing eye glasses.  Were peoples eyes better a 100 years ago or were they not allowed in the army?

Harvey 

[Kath]

 

[Piper42nd]

Thanks Kath.  That answers the question. 

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

While its never shown or mentioned, I do some times come across them, but mostly in rear area units.

But as in all cases there are outlyers.

KING    Charles David    2186    Pte    04 LHR    15R to 1 Trg Bn (2Bn) UK 9-16 tos 10 platoon CCo/30Bn (2186a) 10-16 WIA 21-9-17 back shot reported 6 men wounded in forward party burying cable for 1 Div near Ypres F&B wore glasses reported killed by shell behind Messines buried Bethlehem Farm West Cemetery Messines Belgium    N/R    Farmer    30    Birchip Vic    20-7-15    KIA 1-12-17

But most are men in non combat units, at lest so far in the AIF

BAILHACHE    Eric    15085    Pte    14 AGH    HQ to 3 LHFA 3-18 att Medical Orderly 10 LHR 11-18 rtn 2-19 (CMF to Lt MUR 17-10-21 to Capt 5 Cav FAmb 1-7-24 to Maj 25-3-38 later WWII Maj 2/2 FAmb (6 Div) MID buried Benghazi War Cemetery Libya wore glasses    N/R    Student    18    Up Hawthorn Vic    17-2-16    RTA 4-3-19
 

RICHARDSON    Thomas Vivian    5501    Pte    14Bn    17R tos records Sect AIF HQ 5-16 to ICC records 7-16 to Orderly Room Sgt HQ/3Bn ICC 11-16 to S/Sgt 11-16 to records Sect AIF HQ 11-17 to 15 LHR 7-18 NTOS (wore glasses)    N/R    Clerk    24    Malvern Vic    17-9-15    RTA 24-7-19

PAYER    Joseph    20104    Pte    AAMC GR    Oct 1918 R tos 7 San Sect 12-18 att T/Sgt Educational staff 03 LHR 3-19 wore glasses    N/R    Assistant chemist    38    Waverley NSW    19-12-17    RTA 16-5-19
 

Hope its of some help

S.B

[Piper42nd]

It is and thanks.  It makes sense that rear area units would be more likely to have men with glasses.  It's interesting that the authors of the information you provided went out of their way to mention the glasses. 

Harvey

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

Yes these were from their service records, where it was noted.

How many they didn't show is unknown

Of cause most of these are reinforcements later in the war, those recruited in the first years were less likely to recruited with glasses.

S.B

[Moonraker]

Jottings from my Wiltshire notes:

William Nurse, an Army Service Corps driver, wore spectacles.

Stephen Lawford in Youth Uncharted (Nicholson & Watson, London 1935) described how on the outbreak of war, despite wearing spectacles and being slight of build, he persuaded a doctor to pass him fit for military service.  In 1917 a number of New Zealand reinforcements at Sling Camp on Salisbury Plain failed to pass the eyesight test, and have to be supplied with glasses to suit each case.

Herbert Andrews enlisted in Canada's Fort Garry Horse on August 27th, 1914 and when based at or near Bulford had a "... job in the stores[which] was to keep track of all stores we received and also to charge each man any clothing or equipment he received. I was not using my glasses and I found this a bit hard on my eyes." When most of his comrades left6 for France, he was kept behind.

In 1916 a British soldier with a fitness level of B1 (suitable for garrison duties overseas)  was able to march five miles and see to shoot with glasses and hear well.

[Piper42nd]

This photo was posted in the 2014 thread.  What unit did they belong to?  I know nothing about cap badges.

[kenf48]

From the OH Medical History Volume  1 p.136:-

"Another result of the extension of recruiting to all classes of the community was to introduce into the army men whose vision was lower than the standard accepted previous to the war, and with this came an organization for the provision of spectacles through opthalmic centres.  Thus in February 1917, the vision of a man passed into Category A, which formerly had to be one-fourth of normal vision in both eyes  without glasses, was  only required to reach that standard in one eye, provided the vision in the other eye could be corrected to one half of normal vision with the aid of glasses.  But the issue of spectacles was authorised long before this in an instruction in March 1915, in which every man proceeding overseas, whose eyesight would be improved by glasses,was to be provided with two pairs of spectacles; an instruction which was to be repeated in November of the same year to apply to every soldier liable for active service who was in need of spectacles."

Syd Tyrell writing in his memoir "A Countryman's Tale" describes how he was rejected twice for defective eyesight in the first eighteen months of the war.  He had no idea his eyesight was poor and did not feel the need for glasses, nor to have his eyes tested before the war and his attempts to enlist.  On visiting an optician following the rejection by the Army he realised how much more he could see when prescribed glasses.  Neverthless he remained under the impression the war would end without him until in 1916 conscription was introduced.  He was called up for service and placed in Category B1 and posted to garrison duty with the RGA in Gibraltar for the next two years. 

I imagine vanity or technical issues, e.g. reflection meant most studio portraits were taken without glasses.

51 minutes ago, Piper42nd said:

What unit did they belong to?

As for the cap badge given  @stiletto_33853 , who originally posted the picture interests, I'd guess the Rifle Brigade but I don't do uniforms either

[stiletto_33853]

Hi Ken,

Yes they were Rifle Brigade but 25th battalion based in Falmouth, home service only.

However find attached a Rifle Brigade Officer that served overseas until badly wounded.

 

Andy 

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

I was quite surprised that our family photograph of my Great Uncle George in uniform in WW1 (3/5th LF) shows him wearing spectacles. By this I mean that I was surprised that he made it into the army at all. However, I see from this thread, and that to which Kath has provided a link in the 2nd post, that for soldiers to wear spectacles, while seemingly not common, was by no means unheard of.

Great Uncle George made it across to France by the summer of 1917, but did not spend much of his war overseas, and was on Home Service from, probably, November 1917 until the end of the war. I do not know why this was. In my GF's memoir there is a reference to him being in hospital in September 1917 while his unit was serving overseas, but my GF does not say what was wrong with him. I don't know whether this hospital stay is what ultimately led to him completing his service in the UK. There is no reason, so far as I am aware, to suppose that his being in hospital or completing his service in the UK were connected to his eyesight.

As my GF and my Great Uncle George were both ex Bury Grammar School boys I was interested to be directed to the Bury Grammar School Roll of Honour by Mark Hone of this forum http://bgsarchive.co.uk/authenticated/Browse.aspx?SectionID=164&tableName=ta_boys_rollofhonour. There are 99 men listed on the site, but photographs are available for only 85. Of those 85, I can count 7 wearing glasses. That would equate to about 1 in 12. I recognise that this sample cannot be regarded as randomly chosen, not least because men from a grammar school can be expected predominantly to go into the army as officers, and also the sample includes only men who lost their lives, which, it might be argued, might be more likely to include men with poor vision. i think that I am right in saying that all 7 men who were photographed with glasses saw front line duty and died overseas.

Edited 22 November , 2022 by A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy

[RaySearching]

Three times rejected for poor eyesight

Ray

[FROGSMILE]

32 minutes ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I was quite surprised that our family photograph of my Great Uncle George in uniform in WW1 (3/5th LF) shows him wearing spectacles. by this I mean that I was surprised that he made it into the army at all. However, I see from this thread, and that to which Kath has provided a link in the 2nd post, that for soldiers to wear spectacles, while seemingly not common, was by no means unheard of.

Great Uncle George made it across to France by the summer of 1917, but did not spend much of his war overseas, and was on Home Service from, probably, November 1917 until the end of the war. I do not know why this was. In my GF's memoir there is a reference to him being in hospital at in September 1917 while his unit was serving overseas, but my GF does not say what was wrong with him. I don't know whether this hospital stay is what ultimately led to him completing his service in the UK. There is no reason, so far as I am aware, to suppose that his being in hospital or completing his service in the UK were connected to his eyesight.

As my GF and  my Great Uncle George were both ex Bury Grammar School boys I was interested to be directed to the Bury Grammar School Roll of Honour by Mark Hone of this forum http://bgsarchive.co.uk/authenticated/Browse.aspx?SectionID=164&tableName=ta_boys_rollofhonour. There are 99 men listed on the site, but photographs are available for only 85. Of those 85, I can count 7 wearing glasses. That would equate to just under 1 in 10. I recognise that this sample cannot be regarded as randomly chosen, not least because men enlisting from a grammar school can be expected predominantly to enlist as officers, and also the sample includes only men who lost their lives, which, it might be argued, might  be more likely to include men with poor vision. i think that I am right in saying that all 7 men who were photographed with glasses saw front line duty and died overseas.

Did you know that John Kipling’s eyesight was so chronically bad that his father had to pull strings and call in favours from several quarters to get his son passed and accepted for a commission?

[MrEd]

I have a copy of a photo of my great uncle early in the war - possibly just before he went overseas, who was a regular soldier in the buffs, and he is wearing glasses. He died in August 1915, so the fact he is wearing a simplified SD jacket means the photo just be from 1914-1915

Here is the photo, original and enhanced (not by me)

 

Edited 19 November , 2022 by MrEd

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

14 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Did you know that John Kipling’s eyesight was so chronically bad that his father had to pull strings and call in favours from several quarters to get his son passed and accepted for a commission?

I did know this, and it obviously makes John's death the more poignant. There is a suggestion in the other thread referred to by Kath that not wearing spectacles may have contributed to his death, but I presume that that is speculation. The photograph of John in the IWM Lives of the First World War site shows him without glasses https://livesofthefirstworldwar.iwm.org.uk/lifestory/2272820

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I did know this, and it obviously makes John's death the more poignant. There is a suggestion in the other thread referred to by Kath that not wearing spectacles may have contributed to his death, but I presume that that is speculation. The photograph of John in the IWM Lives of the First World War site shows him without glasses https://livesofthefirstworldwar.iwm.org.uk/lifestory/2272820

Yes I think he had undergone such profound disappointment (and personal embarrassment) when trying to enter the Army that he perhaps came to loath his glasses.  I suppose it was also human nature to want any portrait photograph to not be marred visually by the wearing of glasses when so young as he was.  There is a photo somewhere of a group of Irish Guards officers in a very carefree mood where young Kiplings eyes are obscured by reflection off his glasses in such a way that epitomises how he must have felt.

Afternote:  taken by Christina Broom, I’ve found the image and post it below.

Edited 20 November , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[GreyC]

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

I suppose it was also human nature to want any portrait photograph to not be marred visually by the wearing of glasses when so young as he was.

Hi Frogsmile,

the photographers supported portraits without glasses, too, as it is sometimes not easy for them to get a pleasant, natural pose (depending on the set up of studio camera and artifical lighting), and at the same time eliminate the reflection of the glasses which could destroy a portrait as evidenced in the photo above. Saved them time and work. And to be honest, some wouldn´t have managed the task.

GreyC

[FROGSMILE]

56 minutes ago, GreyC said:

Hi Frogsmile,

the photographers supported portraits without glasses, too, as it is sometimes not easy for them to get a pleasant, natural pose (depending on the set up of studio camera and artifical lighting), and at the same time eliminate the reflection of the glasses which could destroy a portrait as evidenced in the photo above. Saved them time and work. And to be honest, some wouldn´t have managed the task.

GreyC

Thanks GreyC, that makes a lot of sense and is a factor that I hadn’t considered.  One can imagine how the photographer would want to remove anything within his ability to influence that might spoil one of his pictures and potentially affect his reputation.

Edited 20 November , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[stevenbecker]

Mates,

Of cause having to now wear glasses for reading (Old age) you don't have to wear them all the time.

These men could have the same problems, and only need to wear them for close in work, and not wear them all the time.

That they had a photo taken with them, does that mean they have to wear them all the time?

Then again why get a photo wearing them if you didn't need to?

The again if some restriction, why wear them in a photo

Appears there was not a restriction, purhaps resepition

S.B

 

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

On 20/11/2022 at 13:10, FROGSMILE said:

Afternote:  taken by Christina Broom, I’ve found the image and post it below.

Well done for finding it, Frogsmile. Christina Broom was clearly a very talented photograph, but this has to be regarded as one of her failures, unless she was deliberately making a very unkind point, which doesn't seem to fit with the style of her other photographs. We have to be grateful for the invention of contact lenses, not just for cosmetic reasons, but also because they make certain types of activity so much easier for those who would otherwise have to wear spectacles.

[FROGSMILE]

9 minutes ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Well done for finding it, Frogsmile. Christina Broom was clearly a very talented photograph, but this has to be regarded as one of her failures, unless she was deliberately making a very unkind point, which doesn't seem to fit with the style of her other photographs. We have to be grateful for the invention of contact lenses, not just for cosmetic reasons, but also because they make certain types of activity so much easier for those who would otherwise have to wear spectacles.

Yes it doesn’t seem that she would have missed something like that, but I think that exposure lengths were still quite long at the time and I suppose it’s possible that he might have moved his head at just the wrong moment. 

[Madmeg]

I have a coupe of photos in my grandmothers collection of officers wearing glasses- they were on leav at the time

[FROGSMILE]

10 minutes ago, Madmeg said:

I have a coupe of photos in my grandmothers collection of officers wearing glasses- they were on leav at the time

That would be quite natural both, then, and now Madmeg.  The general rule was correction of vision by means of spectacles to within acceptable limits.

[Moonraker]

When younger, I hated wearing glasses (cataract surgery means that I can now do without them in social situations) and sometimes would whip them off when being photographed. Incidentally, I and several office colleagues once volunteered for an ID parade at the local police station, but on arrival I was rejected because I was wearing glasses (presumably the suspect wasn't). "I can take them off," I protested, but was told that my facial expression might be affected (from trying to focus my eyes, perhaps).

Sir Anthony Eden had hoped to go to Sandhurst but was rejected because of his poor eyesight. With the outbreak of the Great War the British Army reduced its entry standards, and Eden was able to obtain a commission in the King's Royal Rifle Corps and took part in his first battle in May 1916. (There's a story that forty years later he was in a TV studio to make a statement about the Suez fiasco but had trouble reading the autocue because he didn't want to wear his glasses.)

Previous threads on eyesight:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/34506-eyesight-tests-for-recruits/

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/8705-measurement-of-eyesight-on-attestation/

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/274473-myopia-and-the-somme/

[GreyC]

After WW2 a drama written by Wolfgang Borchert (*1921) called "Draußen vor der Tür" (The Man Outside), which he wrote as a veteran of the war soon after the end of World War II. His works are uncompromising on the issues of humanity and humanism. He is one of the most popular authors of the German postwar period; his work continues to be studied in German schools. It was staged one day after his untimely death in 1947, almost exactly 75 years ago. The main protagonist wore a pair of gasmask-glasses which through photographs became an iconic image in post war Germany quite like the glasses worn by Dustin Hoffmann in Papillon.

GreyC