ww1 brirish wound badge

[4thGordons]

1200dpi scan of the relevant area

 

Please let me know if there is some other way you would like me to demonstrate this is how the period card appears.

[FROGSMILE]

3 hours ago, 4thGordons said:

Scan at 300 dpi

Thank you for digging out the original Chris.  I think its veracity speaks for itself and see no merit, personally, in debating it any further.  Each viewer can form his, or her own opinion. It’s a great image, thank you for taking the trouble to post it.

Edited 26 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Muerrisch]

My apologies.

Any suitable punishment acceptable.

Thats 945th time wrong since joining

[TullochArd]

3 hours ago, 4thGordons said:

...... it MAY have been messed with in the original but the period card I own is as shown

4G ..... and that's what the "alternative view", me included, are suggesting. There is credible suspicion here regarding an  adjustment of the original photo specifically to the Wounded Stripes. There are many period examples of photos being adjusted to reflect a perceived reality or to record personal cumulative events.  This may be case here?

 

Frogsmile .......as this is a forum I would respectfully offer that even our most respected senior members do not presume to restict or impede open discussion on any matter regardless of their individual personal opinion.

Edited 26 December , 2023 by TullochArd

[58 Div Mule]

4G, no suggestion whatsoever that the photo has been altered by you. However, I think someone has, possibly many years ago, and maybe to reflect an entitlement.

I’d have snapped the postcard up if I‘d seen it, a great image.

Let’s not be tempted to shut down conversation because we have differing views?
 

58 DM.

[4thGordons]

17 minutes ago, TullochArd said:

4G ..... and that's what the "alternative view", me included, are suggesting. There is credible suspicion here regarding an  adjustment of the original photo specifically to the Wounded Stripes. There are many period examples of photos being adjusted to reflect a perceived reality or to record personal cumulative events.  This may be case here.

Obviously I cannot guarantee this is not the case. That said,  I am a fairly experienced photographer (both digital and analogue) with some darkroom experience and good knowledge of the processes. I see no sign whatsoever that this photograph has been doctored, but if it was it was done astonishingly well and 100+ years ago (note date on reverse)

Chris

[FROGSMILE]

26 minutes ago, TullochArd said:

Frogsmile .......as this is a forum I would respectfully offer that even our most respected senior members do not presume to restict or impede open discussion on any matter regardless of their individual personal opinion.

I’m sorry but you’ve completely misunderstood me.  I merely meant that I ‘personally’ see no point in my continuing to debate the matter, as I’ve said all that I can on it.  I regret any misunderstanding of that.  I entirely understand that you might enjoy continuing to debate it with whoever else wishes to do so.  I did not have it in mind at all to close down any discussion. 

Edited 26 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[TullochArd]

1 hour ago, Muerrisch said:

 

Thats 945th time wrong since joining

No ...... you're still at 944 Muerrisch!

Edited 26 December , 2023 by TullochArd

[Muerrisch]

2 hours ago, 58 Div Mule said:

4G, no suggestion whatsoever that the photo has been altered by you. However, I think someone has, possibly many years ago, and maybe to reflect an entitlement.

I’d have snapped the postcard up if I‘d seen it, a great image.

Let’s not be tempted to shut down conversation because we have differing views?
 

58 DM.

Indeed. In my opinion some of the best contributions on the forum have come from those with little "seniority" [whatever that may mean in this context] and who choose to use one word when two would do. They distinguish clearly between fact and opinion, remember that recent experience may be a poor guide to 110 years ago and try to quote the sources of their assertions. They tend to be lurkers with specialised knowledge who pop up, say their piece, and lurk on. Many of us could name a couple of dozen.

I understand that shutting a thread is the preserve of the originator and the moderators. 

Happy New Year to all. 

[58 Div Mule]

2 hours ago, 4thGordons said:

I am a fairly experienced photographer

Absolutely, I’m a firm fan of ‘Covid and Beasties’ in Skindles. Keep ‘em coming.

58 DM.

[battle of loos]

good morning,

here is one wound badge find in the ground near Vimy Ridge :

and another in metal :

In what date is appear the wound badge in metal & cloth?

regards

michel

[FROGSMILE]

20 minutes ago, battle of loos said:

good morning,

here is one wound badge find in the ground near Vimy Ridge :

and another in metal :

In what date is appear the wound badge in metal & cloth?

regards

michel

Army Order (AO) 249 of 1916 introduced the cloth wound stripe in gold ‘russia braid Number 1’ two inches in length'.  This was issued in rolls that could be cut according to requirement.

The metal stripe was eventually given the Patent number 115896 to mark an improvement via a mass production technique in specially treated, stamped out brass, that was applied for by Edwin Allen of 65/8 Mott Street, St. Georges, Birmingham on 22nd May 1917.

Edited 27 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[battle of loos]

perfect 

thank's.

michel

[Muerrisch]

4 hours ago, battle of loos said:

good morning,

here is one wound badge find in the ground near Vimy Ridge :

and another in metal :

In what date is appear the wound badge in metal & cloth?

regards

michel

You asked for the date? 6 July 1916, just in time for the first wounded on the Somme to rejoice at War Office largesse.

As often with AOs, it needed amending by202/17; 236/17 and 9/1918. Full details 236/17 if you need them but a PM may be more suitable than the forum.

I don't think I have an AO sanctioning the metal version which became much more widespread................. but it was, equally, never frowned on. Unfortunately my long run of AOs, bound by year, misses 1916 and 1918, its called Sods' Law.

Edited 27 December , 2023 by Muerrisch
supplement

[Muerrisch]

I have an odd case of a disputed, and awarded, wounded badge somewhere in my RWF bits and pieces box file.

The patient suffered from severe lacerations from barbed wire, during his unit's attack over No Man's Land. The American RMO attached to the unit made the interesting distinction between "enemy barbed wire" and Our barbed wire". His point argued with higher authority was that wire was indeed a passive weapon designed to injure and maim, and a soldier damaged on "our" wire was an accident and did not qualify, but enemy wire qualified.

 

Has anyone dug out out any other interesting oddities regarding grant or refusal of the badge? 

[battle of loos]

On 27/12/2023 at 19:27, Muerrisch said:

Vous avez demandé la date ? Le 6 juillet 1916, juste à temps pour que les premiers blessés de la Somme se réjouissent des largesses du War Office.

Comme souvent avec les AO, il a fallu le modifier avant le 202/17 ; 236/17 et 9/1918. Tous les détails 236/17 si vous en avez besoin mais un MP peut être plus adapté que le forum.

Je ne pense pas avoir d'AO sanctionnant la version métal qui s'est beaucoup répandue............... mais elle n'a, non plus, jamais été mal vue. Malheureusement, ma longue série d'AO, liés par année, manque 1916 et 1918, c'est ce qu'on appelle la loi de Sods.

thank's

[Muerrisch]

My French is not that good, desite Misery Martin forcing me to scrape an O Level.

I love la loi de Sods.