Uniform ideas?

[TullochArd]

On 11/12/2022 at 11:10, PRC said:

Should G/1769, (and MiC also has GS/1769) turn out to be a TF number, and I don't think it will, then I suspect very unlikely to be pre-war. 

PRC's advise is, as ever, sound.

Looking at the MIC I must confess to seeing 9/1769 rather than G/1769.  9 RWK's was a Reserve Battalion and as such may be a repository for any TF soldier who did not initially subscribe to the Imperial Service clause?   Stretching it a bit (quite a lot actually) 7th and 9th were both around Colchester April/Jun 1915.

I'm talking nonsense - G/1769 as per Grave Registration.

Edited 14 December , 2022 by TullochArd

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

9 hours ago, TullochArd said:

I have seen instances of period photos of that have been constructed from two images for the benefit of grieving relatives and I suspect this may be the case here

I don't think it is a composite.

Whilst I agree that his legs look a little iffy, I don't think it's a cut and paste job.
His right hand is resting on the arm of the chair, and you can see parts of the chair between his fingers.
Cutting and pasting fingers is difficult and would show really obvious hard cutting edges.
You'd be hard pressed to recreate that effect in that era.

The photo has obviously degenerated badly especially down the left side, with whatever detail was there having disappeared into a mist, including it has to be said, the rear end of the chair, including the hindmost legs of that chair. I think the abnormal appearance of the soldier's legs is due to maybe some manual retouching to attempt to increase contrast there.

The shadows for each subject match. Both have  subtle shadow on the left side of their faces (right sides as we look) which fits with an identical light source light source from our left. There is also matching shadows under the tip if the soldier's boot, and her shoe, which again wouldn't have been easy to replicate in pre-Photoshop days.

[TullochArd]

37 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

I don't think it is a composite.......

....... fair comment DByS but I'm still pretty much convinced this is a composite otherwise how on earth could his feet and legs be on the ground behind the lady and his torso be in front of her.  

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

I think each torso is in the same plane. So as she is sitting, with her legs forward (that sounds daft, if you're sitting, your legs are bound to be forward... you know what I mean), her feet are going to be her thigh length in front of his, so again, foot position is correct.

The area I've encircled below in red has, I agree,  been altered, but only by injudicious overpainting or drawing. It's lost its natural textures so looks artificial.  Everywhere (in yellow) else looks natural apart from the left edge area (Black) which has degenerated and/or been overpainted.

The chair front right (as we look) leg has also been painted over.

 

Edited 11 December , 2022 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

[PhilB]

His feet look much too small.His right hand is as long as his boot!

[FROGSMILE]

11 minutes ago, PhilB said:

His feet look much too small.His right hand is as long as his boot!

I agree and believe that the photo has been manipulated post mortem. 

[PRC]

Quick and dirty run through on near numbers for G/1769 Charles Day, Queens Own (Royal West Kent Regiment). Just need someone with subscription access to the likes of FindMyPast or Ancestry to check out the dates of enlistment and where they were first posted for those who have surviving service \ pension or Silver War Badge records.

1760 Archibald G. Russell, subsequently 604112 Labour Corps. Landed France 26th July 1915. Discharged and received the Silver War Badge. (MiC). No obvious service records (FMP).

G & GS/1761 Arthur Richardson. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion 26th July 1915. (MiC). Service records (FMP). Service records (Ancestry).

G/1762 Private William Daniel MacIntyre. Killed in action on the 31st July 1917, aged 34, serving with the 10th Battalion. Has no known grave and is remembered on the Tyne Cot Memorial. Brother of Miss Mary Macintyre, of Hartwood House, Hartwood, Lanarkshire. (CWGC). Prefix G and GS. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion, 26th July 1915. Killed in Action 31st July 1917. (MiC). Medical Admissions Register entry from 1916 but no obvious service record. (FMP).

G/1763 Lance Corporal William Henry Norman. Killed in action on the 3rd May 1917, aged 31, serving with the 7th Battalion. Has no known grave and is remembered on the Arras Memorial. Son of John Daniel Norman, of 8, Nelson Place. Steyne Rd., Acton, London. (CWGC). Prefix G and GS. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion, 26th July 1915. Killed in Action 3rd May 1917. (MiC). No obvious service records (FMP).

G/1764 Private Sidney George Wright. Killed in action on the 1st July 1916, serving with the 7th Battalion. Has no known grave and is remembered on the Thiepval Memorial. (CWGC). Prefix G and GS. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion, 26th July 1915. Killed in Action 1st July 1916. (MiC). No obvious service records (FMP).

G/1765 Private Thomas Green. Killed in action on the 13th July 1916, aged 31, serving with the 7th Battalion. Has no known grave and is remembered on the Thiepval Memorial. He was the son of Thomas William and Lucy Martha Green, of 2, Church Rd., Sidcup, Kent. (CWGC). Prefix G and GS. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion, 26th July 1915. Killed in Action 13th July 1916. (MiC). No obvious service records (FMP).

G/1766 – no trace of a MiC.

1767 Private T. Welch . Died 10th January 1916 in France, serving with the 7th Battalion. (CWGC). Prefix G and GS. Thomas Welch. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion, 26th July 1915. Killed in Action 10th January 1916. (MiC). No obvious service records (FMP).

1768 William Lee subsequently 73216 Labour Corps. Landed in France with the Royal West Kents on the 26th July 1915. Discharged to Class Z on the 13th April 1919, (so would have taken an odd combination of circumstances for him to have been originally a member of the Territorial Force). (MiC). Possible service records (FMP) but couldn’t readily find service records or pension records on Ancestry. Update - there are service records under his Labour Corps service number.

G/1769 Charles Day.

G/1770 Corporal William Ernest Norburn. Killed in action 7th October 1916, aged 23, serving with the 6th Battalion. Has no known grave and is remembered on the Thiepval Memorial. Awarded Military Medal. Son of Harry Ernest Norburn, of Chipstead, Sevenoaks, Kent. (CWGC). However MiC records him as G/770.
Or
G & GS/1770 Frank S. Robinson. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion 26th July 1915. (MiC). Service records as 1770 Frank Stephen Robinson. (FMP). Service records. (Ancestry).

1771 Thomas H. Dudley, subsequently 155973 Royal Engineers. Landed in France with the Royal West Kents 26th July 1915. Discharged to Class Z on the 24th February 1919, (so would have taken an odd combination of circumstances for him to have been originally a member of the Territorial Force). (MiC). No obvious service records (FMP).

G & GS/1772 Charles R. Obbard. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion 26th July 1915. (MiC). Service records for 1772 Charles Reginald Obbard. (FMP). Service records. (Ancestry).

G & GS/1773 Albert J. Terry. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion 26th July 1915. (MiC). 3 x Medical Admission Register entries 1917 but no obvious service records. (FMP).

1774 Private Percy Oliver Merton. Died 25th August 1915, aged 22, serving with the 7th Battalion in France. Son of Henry and Emily Merton, of White Hill, Wye, Ashford, Kent. (CWGC) Prefix G and GS. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion, 26th July 1915. Killed in Action 25th August 1915. (MiC). No obvious service records (FMP).

G/1775 – no trace of a MiC. Possible service record on FMP and Ancestry. 1775 John Denyer, Royal West Kents, dating from 1914.

G & GS/1776 George Watts. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion 26th July 1915. Discharged 21st October 1916. Received Silver War Badge. (MiC). Service records for 1776 George Watts. (FMP). Pension records on Ancestry indexed as 17760.

G & GS/1777 Sidney A. Hollands. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion 26th July 1915. Discharged 12th June 1918. (MiC). As 1777 S. Hollands, SWB MiC showing enlisted 8th September 1914. Discharged from the 3rd Battalion 12th June 1918 as a result of wounds. (SWB MiC). 1777 Sidney Alfred Hollands service record. (FMP). Service record. (Ancestry).

1778 William N Pearson, subsequently 26926 Northumberland Fusiliers. Landed in France with the Royal West Kents 26th June 1915. Discharged to Class Z, (so would have taken an odd combination of circumstances for him to have been originally a member of the Territorial Force). (MiC). No obvious service records. (FMP).

G & GS/1779 Ailwyn L. Blackman. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion 26th July 1915. Discharged 20th February 1917. Received Silver War Badge. (MiC). G/1779 “Allwyn” Leslie Blackman service records. (FMP). “Ailwyn” Leslie Blackman pension records. (Ancestry).

“S” & GS/1780 William Holloway. Landed in France with the 7th Battalion 26th July 1915. Killed in Action 13th July 1916. (MiC). G/1780 Private William Holloway. Killed in action 13th July 1916, aged 19, serving with the 7th Battalion. Has no known grave and is remembered on the Thiepval Memorial. Son of Mrs. Susan Holloway, of 58, Guinness Buildings, Lever St., City Rd., London. (CWGC). No obvious service records. (FMP).

Cheers,
Peter

[PhilB]

My impression is that it is a composite. One shot is of the lady and a soldier’s legs and feet. The other shot is of a soldier from the bottom of his tunic upwards. His right hand is extended, not gripping the arm as would be expected.

[PRC]

Folks, for my twopenneworth, the discussion of the photograph is a bit subjective. It has definately been touched up  - to my mind rather crudely but in keeping with the output of many a photographic studio of the day - and that by itself argues against the slightly more sophisticated cut and shunt being proposed here.

The effect of the touching up - emphasied shadows, lines made bold. combined with elements of low grade paintwork on the bottom quarter which includes the ladies shoes as much as the mans boots and gaiters - all jar to the modern eye and possibly suggests more is artifice than is actually the case.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with the stance of either subjects. If they were brother and sister then there might not be physical contact between them. What I think I an seeing is a man conscious of his hands - he appears to have very long fingers, and in looking for something to do with them he has grasped the knob on the corner of the chair. The fingers of both hands seem proportionate. In proportion to the feet is another matter, but again could be down to perspective and the low grade paint job. It may be irrelevant to proving the relationship between the two, but the woman also seems to have longish fingers.

But at the end of the day that is all nothing more than my opinion. Unless anyone can think of a scientific way to prove whether or not the two individuals were present at the same time then we could just go round and round in circles.

Cheers,
Peter

[GreyC]

Hi,

it is indeed not easy to decide whether the photo was not only retouched but also altered by way of montage. Both means to alter the image were practised routinely at commercial photo-studios (see Ex1 the two guys standing on the right inspect glass plate negatives they had or want to retouche, the one seated on the right does retouching a positive). Retouching was done either on the negative or on the positive. Positive retouching was used often to  augment beards and tophair on portraits of men by penciling in more hair, with women retouches of the negative were done mainly to narrow the waistline by covering up or scratching away "surplus waist" (see Ex2 waistline altered by negative retouching). Other retouching was done by thrifty people, to delete unwanted accesoires like Nazi party badges on photos taken before 1945 which could then be used after 1945, too (Ex3). Montages were usually done during the printing process and were at times used to unite people that were at different places at the time of the printing (as might be the case with the photo above) or to reunite deceased with the living. These montages boomed du.ring the war when by power of montage family members far apart were reunited on the photo (Ex4-5 see the seems were the two negatives were joined). Montages can be spotted by different surface texture were the different negatives were united or (if the photographer was careless) by spotting that the light on the different negatives came from different directions.

In the case above I doubt, that a montage took place but do think it was heavily retouched (eg foot). The amateurish way it was executed makes me think it was done to cover up mistakes made already while taking the photos. Some studios employed professional retouchers (like on the photo from my collection Ex1), others had their wifes or daughters do the job, some of who then developed into really skillful craftswomen, while others remained on an amateur level.

Best,

GreyC

 

Edited 11 December , 2022 by GreyC

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

3 hours ago, PhilB said:

His right hand is as long as his boot!

That is due to the fact that the boots are not viewed side on.

Any good artist ( and many poor ones) will tell you that the hand should be approximately the same length as the face (allowing for the hairline).
The soldier's hand is in my view correctly proportioned.

[PhilB]

9 hours ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

That is due to the fact that the boots are not viewed side on.

Any good artist ( and many poor ones) will tell you that the hand should be approximately the same length as the face (allowing for the hairline).
 

Possibly because the hand and face are from the same original shot.  The hand and foot may not be, though I take your point about the angle (which I had tried to accommodate!)

[PRC]

Folks,

Fascinating as the discussion is, (and as a potential example of photo-editing of the period it is of great interest to me!), I don't think it gets us one inch closer to identifying who the soldier in the picture might be.

Yes those trunks in the attic may contain a receipt specifically asking for a picture of Charles Day and the unknown lady to be merged, but in the absence of such documentary information we are never going to at best get beyond a stand-off between those who see two merged images and those who don't.

A far bigger issue for me is that the picture appears to show a man with a three line unit badge on his right shoulder. The most likely reason for that is that he was a Territorial. The evidence I've submitted so far, and have looked to others to expand on, is that Charles Day wasn't a Territorial for his Great War service. Yes potentially he could have done four years before the war with the TF, and the picture was taken then, but then I'm of the opinion he wouldn't have been wearing that uniform.
It it a trick of the light or is there a non-Territorial explanation.

So if it potentially isn't Charles Day, who then could it be. Conceding the possibility of a merged picture for a moment, it has been mentioned earlier that the sisters of Charles Day never married. It's a bit of a cliche, but this could be a picture of one of the sisters and the boyfriend who never returned and who proved irreplaceable in her heart.

Cheers,
Peter

[Pat Atkins]

A very quick trawl of service records on Ancestry and FMP come up with the following relatively near numbers (all on 3-year short service attestations) which seem fairly indicative of the recruiting of a service battalion in the early months of the war. I haven't cross-referenced with PRC's suggestions (short of time) though I can see a couple of names on both lists, but this may help anyway. For what it's worth I don't see anything to suggest Day as having served with another battalion or unit other than 7th (S) RWK.

G/1761 Pte Arthur Richardson, attested Woolwich 07/09/14 and posted to 7th RWK on 09/09/14.

1768 Pte (later Sgt) William Lee, attested London 06/09/14 and p[osted to 7th RWK on 10/09/14.*

G/1655 Pte (later Sgt) Arthur Attwood, attested Maidstone 07/09/14 and posted to 7th RWK on 09/09/14.

G/1561 Pte W. Watson, attested Tonbridge 07/09/14 and posted to 7th RWK on 10/09/14.

G/1382 Pte George Warren, attested Bromley 04/09/14 and posted to 7th RWK on 10/09/14.

 

* the G-prefix appears relevant, though William Lee in fact fits the bill otherwise; see e.g. the following TF men:

1765 (no prefix) Pte William Nicholson attested into 1/5th RWK on 06/04/14; however, he (and his battalion) went to India at the end of October 1914. Othe examples are:

1776 (no prefix) Pte Sydney Ruddock, attested for 2/5th RWK in March 1914.

1765 (no prefix) Pte H. Towner, serving with 1/4th RWK when hospitalised in France on 16/07/16.

1768 (no prefix) Pte Henry Thorndycraft attested for 4th RWK at Tonbridge on 06/08/14.

[Nathan Dylan Goodwin]

6 hours ago, Pat Atkins said:

A very quick trawl of service records on Ancestry and FMP come up with the following relatively near numbers (all on 3-year short service attestations) which seem fairly indicative of the recruiting of a service battalion in the early months of the war. I haven't cross-referenced with PRC's suggestions (short of time) though I can see a couple of names on both lists, but this may help anyway. For what it's worth I don't see anything to suggest Day as having served with another battalion or unit other than 7th (S) RWK.

G/1761 Pte Arthur Richardson, attested Woolwich 07/09/14 and posted to 7th RWK on 09/09/14.

1768 Pte (later Sgt) William Lee, attested London 06/09/14 and p[osted to 7th RWK on 10/09/14.*

G/1655 Pte (later Sgt) Arthur Attwood, attested Maidstone 07/09/14 and posted to 7th RWK on 09/09/14.

G/1561 Pte W. Watson, attested Tonbridge 07/09/14 and posted to 7th RWK on 10/09/14.

G/1382 Pte George Warren, attested Bromley 04/09/14 and posted to 7th RWK on 10/09/14.

 

* the G-prefix appears relevant, though William Lee in fact fits the bill otherwise; see e.g. the following TF men:

1765 (no prefix) Pte William Nicholson attested into 1/5th RWK on 06/04/14; however, he (and his battalion) went to India at the end of October 1914. Othe examples are:

1776 (no prefix) Pte Sydney Ruddock, attested for 2/5th RWK in March 1914.

1765 (no prefix) Pte H. Towner, serving with 1/4th RWK when hospitalised in France on 16/07/16.

1768 (no prefix) Pte Henry Thorndycraft attested for 4th RWK at Tonbridge on 06/08/14.

Thank you so much for doing this for me. And thanks you @PRCfor all your helpful advice. Am I right in thinking that this list of soldiers would help in working out when Charles Day enlisted and whether he was a Territorial or not? 

Thank you everyone for your contributions regarding the photo. So much helpful advice and suggestions that I wouldn’t have thought to consider. Much appreciated. 

[Nathan Dylan Goodwin]

10 hours ago, PRC said:

Folks,

Fascinating as the discussion is, (and as a potential example of photo-editing of the period it is of great interest to me!), I don't think it gets us one inch closer to identifying who the soldier in the picture might be.

Yes those trunks in the attic may contain a receipt specifically asking for a picture of Charles Day and the unknown lady to be merged, but in the absence of such documentary information we are never going to at best get beyond a stand-off between those who see two merged images and those who don't.

A far bigger issue for me is that the picture appears to show a man with a three line unit badge on his right shoulder. The most likely reason for that is that he was a Territorial. The evidence I've submitted so far, and have looked to others to expand on, is that Charles Day wasn't a Territorial for his Great War service. Yes potentially he could have done four years before the war with the TF, and the picture was taken then, but then I'm of the opinion he wouldn't have been wearing that uniform.
It it a trick of the light or is there a non-Territorial explanation.

So if it potentially isn't Charles Day, who then could it be. Conceding the possibility of a merged picture for a moment, it has been mentioned earlier that the sisters of Charles Day never married. It's a bit of a cliche, but this could be a picture of one of the sisters and the boyfriend who never returned and who proved irreplaceable in her heart.

Cheers,
Peter

Hi Peter 

What does a three line Territorial badge look like? I’ve tried Googling it but getting very mixed results! I’ll try and get another photo of his right shoulder in better light tomorrow. 
 

Thanks for your help. 
Kind regards

Nathan

[FROGSMILE]

11 minutes ago, Nathan Dylan Goodwin said:

Hi Peter 

What does a three line Territorial badge look like? I’ve tried Googling it but getting very mixed results! I’ll try and get another photo of his right shoulder in better light tomorrow. 
 

Thanks for your help. 
Kind regards

Nathan

I have already showed you the 3-tier badge for the 5th (TF) Battalion earlier in the thread.  They were a feature of TF Battalions early in the war.  It’s a question of whether it’s that type of badge on his shoulders.

Edited 12 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[Nathan Dylan Goodwin]

5 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

I have already showed you the 3-tier badge for the 5th (TF) Battalion earlier in the thread.  They were a feature of TF Battalions early in the war.  It’s a question of whether it’s that type of badge on his shoulders.

Oh yes, sorry. I have these badges which I assume were his. Would they have been changed from the Territorial ones further into the war? 

[FROGSMILE]

5 minutes ago, Nathan Dylan Goodwin said:

Oh yes, sorry. I have these badges which I assume were his. Would they have been changed from the Territorial ones further into the war? 

Yes, later in the war, especially after the Military Service Act of 1916 that introduced general service and conscription one, or both of the top tiers, were often no longer used. 

Edited 12 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

2 hours ago, Nathan Dylan Goodwin said:

Am I right in thinking that this list of soldiers would help in working out when Charles Day enlisted and whether he was a Territorial or not? 

You are indeed correct. The additional information from Pat seems to re-inforce that Charles signed up for wartime General Service, (the G & GS prefix to his service number), and as far as the Great War Service is concerned there is no Territorial Force connection.

The Territorial Force came into being in April 1908 and the standard enlistment was 4 years. So it is possible he might have served pre-war, completed his term and decided not to sign up again. However if the picture was taken during that pre-war period, I believe he would not have been wearing that uniform.

So no pressure, but there is a lot riding on getting a better image of that right shoulder

Cheers,
Peter

[FROGSMILE]

I agree with Peter that the uniform, or more specifically the waist belt, rules out the photo being from any possible pre war service with the TF.  As mentioned earlier in the thread, that type of belt was not introduced until 1914 and largely intended for the masses of volunteers recruited by Kitchener for his so-called New Army.

[Nathan Dylan Goodwin]

On 13/12/2022 at 00:03, PRC said:

You are indeed correct. The additional information from Pat seems to re-inforce that Charles signed up for wartime General Service, (the G & GS prefix to his service number), and as far as the Great War Service is concerned there is no Territorial Force connection.

The Territorial Force came into being in April 1908 and the standard enlistment was 4 years. So it is possible he might have served pre-war, completed his term and decided not to sign up again. However if the picture was taken during that pre-war period, I believe he would not have been wearing that uniform.

So no pressure, but there is a lot riding on getting a better image of that right shoulder

Cheers,
Peter

I decided to remove the backing paper and so was able to get a closer photo of his shoulder without glass glare. Not sure it helps, though! 

[Nathan Dylan Goodwin]

This was written on the back of the photo. Not sure it helps. Might the top right read ‘DA’ as in first two letters of Day? Or am I reading too much into it?

[TullochArd]

........ remains gobbledegook to me I'm afraid ...........

Edited 14 December , 2022 by TullochArd

[charlie962]

42 minutes ago, Nathan Dylan Goodwin said:

Not sure it helps,

Interesting that the retouching of the eyes become more apparent. What does this produce lower down?

As to the shoulder strap, it doesn't eliminate possibility of a T/?/rwkent title, to me.

Edited 14 December , 2022 by charlie962