Bilco Posted 6 January , 2023 Share Posted 6 January , 2023 (edited) An old case of claiming returned medals ... I've just taken delivery of a pair to Private Reginald J Scarrow of the Royal Fusiliers. The Remarks section of his MIC shows ... Rtd in accordance with appropriate section of KRs 1912; then two dates - 15/3/71 and 21/2/72. I assume the first date is when the claim was received, and the second when the replacement medals were issued? The Victory Medal shows some interesting features ... ... it's a rather strange colour, and the suspension seems to have a elongated and mis-formed 'neck' below the barrel ... ... and the barrel is mis-shapen ... Sorry for the poor image - the auto-focus focussed on the background instead to the barrel! The naming appears to be engraved rather than impressed ... I'll be interested in any comments on the MIC and naming - any any speculation on why the suspension is as it is. Bill Edited 6 January , 2023 by Bilco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNCVR Posted 7 January , 2023 Share Posted 7 January , 2023 I cannot assist you with his MIC but his Victory sure appears impressed to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mancpal Posted 7 January , 2023 Share Posted 7 January , 2023 I too think it is impressed rather than engraved. I wonder if the manufacturing process accounts for the misshapen mount? Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNCVR Posted 7 January , 2023 Share Posted 7 January , 2023 I have attached a Victory medal awarded to a Canadian serving in the RNAS, he qualified in March 1915, the 1st Canadian to qualify in the RNAS. Including a close up of the barrel type rig attachment. His Victory medal is one of the so called "dipped in Flanders mud" - 1st type, with no gilding as in subsequent types. I think there were a couple of barrel type ring attachments, & I seem to recall that this was addressed in the past somewhere on this forum, so you might try a search here & see what turns up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNCVR Posted 7 January , 2023 Share Posted 7 January , 2023 From looking at your mount photos (& they are really not all that clear), it appears somewhat crude (for want of a better descriptive). I am wondering if that mount has been replaced at some time in its career. Here is another Victory medal mount - this example had theoriginal gilded finish at one time .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan1892 Posted 7 January , 2023 Share Posted 7 January , 2023 His entry in the Medal Rolls suggests that something happened in 1924 - medals returned?? // not able to be delivered ?? (image courtesy of Ancestry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNCVR Posted 7 January , 2023 Share Posted 7 January , 2023 I would say: D = Duplicate (issued) 14-4-24. But I am not really knowlegable on interpreting MIC's, I was an RN collector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depaor01 Posted 7 January , 2023 Share Posted 7 January , 2023 1 hour ago, RNCVR said: I seem to recall that this was addressed in the past somewhere on this forum, so you might try a search here & see what turns up. I searched earlier and found this: But that thread was started by the OP and the medal in this thread doesn't look chocolate brown so I didn't take it further. Anyway here's the previous thread... Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilco Posted 8 January , 2023 Author Share Posted 8 January , 2023 (edited) Many thanks for the reponses to my post about the Scarrow 'late issue' On the naming - my assumption of engraving was because of the shaping of the letters ... ...top is the PTE. from Scarrow. Middle is a brace of impressed T s from another Victory medal - they have square ends to the horizontal and vertical lines, while the Scarrow had round ends. Bottom is a E. from another Victory medal - again, the lines have square ends, while the Scarrow has rounded, and the full stop is square, while the Scarrow is round. On the medal roll - both the date of the initial annotation and the subsequent date in the remarks column have 'd' in front of them. The first, 14/4/24, is rather early to have a duplicate issue, while the other, 15/3/72, whould have meant that the naming would have included DUPLICATE or REPLACEMENT if it was a duplicate set. I wondered if the 1924 'd' meant 'died' -- but then what would the 1973 'd' indicate? I'm not an expert on MICs, I must admit, so it's something I need to research more. depaor01 - the post you showed about the 'chocolate-brown Victory medal was indeed mine! Bill Edited 8 January , 2023 by Bilco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEW Posted 9 January , 2023 Share Posted 9 January , 2023 It's odd that the MIC has the medals returned under KR1743 but the roll states KR992. I've copied the below from other posts: 992. Medals which, at the end of one year, still remain unclaimed, will be sent to the Secretary, The War Office. 1743. Medals which, at the end of 10 years, still remain unclaimed, will be sent to the India Office (if granted for India service), or the deputy director of ordnance stores, Royal Dockyard (Medal Branch), Woolwich (if granted for other service) to be broken up'. It's frequently said that the soldier had moved without updating his address so the medals were returned as a signature was required. I'm sure there were many occasions where the records office (Possibly Hounslow in this case) were aware they didn't have a bona fide address for the man so there was no point in sending medals out. The records office would retain the medals and try other ways to make contact but would eventually return the medals to AG 10 Medals Office. The latter no doubt scrapped his original set at a later date (presumably circa 1934). The extra annotations on the roll and MIC were added by AG10. So it appears he or someone on his behalf made contact early 1971 and his pair were sent out 15/3/1971. I'd say the 'd 15/3/1971' is simply the date for the issue voucher as per the MIC. The roll gives an original receipt voucher reference d/14/4/24 which again is simply the date. The later references IVB 6287 & A/68/Medals/566 are for the 1971 issue. The referencing system was changed slightly in 1928/9 but by 1971 must have changed altogether and I can't find anything for this referencing system but it may just relate to correspondence from the claimant filed alphabetically by AG10, similar to the NW references of the war period. Any correspondence from him post-war and post the 1928/9 date (to an unknown date) would have been referenced as NW4 for Scarrow. As to the 21/2/1972 date in black pen. It seems a long time for EG. the return of the 1971 receipt voucher and you'd expect it to be in red. They did annotate MICs in this way for various reasons, queries from other departments (pension?). I think his death was registered in 1983 so it's not that. The A787 is a former reference to the medal roll which The National Archives calls Former reference in its original department. It simply translates now as WO329/788, his page has been attached above. There is a forum member who worked at AG10 and annotated the MICs but I think 1971 is too early. TEW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNCVR Posted 9 January , 2023 Share Posted 9 January , 2023 On 08/01/2023 at 09:09, Bilco said: Many thanks for the responses to my post about the Scarrow 'late issue' On the naming - my assumption of engraving was because of the shaping of the letters ... ...top is the PTE. from Scarrow. Middle is a brace of impressed T s from another Victory medal - they have square ends to the horizontal and vertical lines, while the Scarrow had round ends. Bottom is a E. from another Victory medal - again, the lines have square ends, while the Scarrow has rounded, and the full stop is square, while the Scarrow is round. Bill Bill, I feel the naming is deffo impressed - if you look closely at the letters you will be able to see where the indenting of each letter has left a bit of raised metal around the perimeter (its kind of hard to explain), its easier to view in letters that have an enclosed area ie: C, D, G, O, P, R. ie: the P in PTE. O & R's in SCARROW Best w....Bryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilco Posted 9 January , 2023 Author Share Posted 9 January , 2023 TEW, Bryan - many thanks for your input. The translation of the MIC is very interesting - it's certainly added a lot to my understanding of this 'late issue'/reissue. As for the naming - I'll amend the description to "Engraved?" for now! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now