Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders (1)

[Cuirassier]

Hi,

Can anyone tell me the rank of this soldier (I think a private)?
Also, any idea of the year? 

Thanks,

Richard

 

 

[6RRF]

Slightly puzzled by this one. The uniform lacks rank insignia, which would obviously indicate a private, but...

While there is Sutherland discing on the glengarry and the cap-badge is big enough to serve as a dinner-plate, the kilt has a light coloured overstripe

There's also something odd about the shoulder-straps

The diced hose and spats suggest an early date, as does the newly issued apron

[Cuirassier]

2 hours ago, 6RRF said:

Slightly puzzled by this one. The uniform lacks rank insignia, which would obviously indicate a private, but...

While there is Sutherland discing on the glengarry and the cap-badge is big enough to serve as a dinner-plate, the kilt has a light coloured overstripe

There's also something odd about the shoulder-straps

The diced hose and spats suggest an early date, as does the newly issued apron

Perhaps the light colored overstripe on the kilt is due to a lighting effect.

As for the shoulder patch, I don't understand.

Like you, for me this photo is from an early stage of the War (1914) considering the diced hose, the khaki spats and the Glengarry.

 

[Andrew Upton]

3 hours ago, Cuirassier said:

...Also, any idea of the year? ...

 

3 hours ago, 6RRF said:

...There's also something odd about the shoulder-straps...

It is an early type of SD jacket that was introduced in 1903, and effectively replaced by the more common style used in WW1 with fixed shoulder straps the following year, though these jackets were still in use at least as late as 1908 (when in theory they were all supposed to be turned in and replaced with the later type). So another good indicator that this is an early/pre-war photo.

Edited 21 January by Andrew Upton

[Cuirassier]

23 minutes ago, Andrew Upton said:

 

It is an early type of SD jacket that was introduced in 1903, and effectively replaced by the more common style used in WW1 with fixed shoulder straps the following year, though these jackets were still in use at least as late as 1908 (when in theory they were all supposed to be turned in and replaced with the later type). So another good indicator that this is an early/pre-war photo.

So, this photo was not taken in 1914 but before the War.

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Cuirassier said:

So, this photo was not taken in 1914 but before the War.

6RRF is correct that there’s something decidedly odd going on with this photo.  The white overcheck visible at the edge of the kilt looks like Mackenzie tartan and the dark Argyll pattern hose above the spats is odd.  Neither are as per normal for A&SH.  The cloth shoulder title visible on both shoulders of the older pattern SD jacket was replaced 1907-08 (phased in) by brass titles on the shoulder straps.  All of that said he doesn’t have the look of a civilian dressing up as a soldier as was peculiarly popular in Scotland early in the war going by many such images posted here in the forum.

Clutching around for solutions it made me wonder if there might be some connection with 5th Seaforth Highlanders TF, whose rank and file wore A&SH style glengarries, dark hose and government kilts, but their own discrete bonnet badge.  However, the Seaforths other battalions did not wear dark hose with Mackenzie kilts, so even a hotch potch of regimental items doesn’t make any sense.

 

Edited 21 January by FROGSMILE

[Cuirassier]

8 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

6RRF is correct that there’s something decidedly odd going on with this photo.  The white overcheck visible at the edge of the kilt looks like Mackenzie tartan and the dark Argyll pattern hose above the spats is odd.  Neither are as per normal for A&SH.  The cloth shoulder title visible on both shoulders of the older pattern SD jacket was replaced 1907-08 (phased in) by brass titles on the shoulder straps.  All of that said he doesn’t have the look of a civilian dressing up as a soldier as was peculiarly popular in Scotland early in the war going by many such images posted here in the forum. 

So, a photo that raises many questions...

[FROGSMILE]

3 minutes ago, Cuirassier said:

So, a photo that raises many questions...

Yes, the TF are always particularly difficult to pin down because of their various unit idiosyncrasies and the potential effect of supply shortages of various items of uniform that sometimes seemed to lead to odd and temporary compromises.

[Cuirassier]

25 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

6RRF is correct that there’s something decidedly odd going on with this photo.  The white overcheck visible at the edge of the kilt looks like Mackenzie tartan and the dark Argyll pattern hose above the spats is odd.  Neither are as per normal for A&SH.  The cloth shoulder title visible on both shoulders of the older pattern SD jacket was replaced 1907-08 (phased in) by brass titles on the shoulder straps.  All of that said he doesn’t have the look of a civilian dressing up as a soldier as was peculiarly popular in Scotland early in the war going by many such images posted here in the forum.

Clutching around for solutions it made me wonder if their might be some connection with 5th Seaforth Highlanders TF, whose rank and file wore A&SH style glengarries, dark hose and government kilts, but their own discrete bonnet badge.  However, the Seaforths other battalions did not wear dark hose with Mackenzie kilts, so even a hotch potch of regimental items doesn’t make any sense.

Nice written and visual information. Thanks.

[FROGSMILE]

48 minutes ago, Cuirassier said:

Nice written and visual information. Thanks.

A connection with the Seaforth Highlanders 5th Battalion (Territorial Force) seems the most likely on balance.  However, as I mentioned above they wore government tartan not Mackenzie.

Edited 21 January by FROGSMILE

[gordon92]

The 5th VB Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders wore red and black hose according to Grierson. That is, to me, the most plausible explanation.                                

[FROGSMILE]

34 minutes ago, gordon92 said:

The 5th VB Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders wore red and black hose according to Grierson. That is, to me, the most plausible explanation.                                

I agree it’s all still a bit unclear and a VB is entirely possible from his dress**.  Did 5th VB A&SH wear a Mackenzie tartan though?  There’s no doubt in my mind that there’s a white overcheck, as spotted by 6RRF, even though we can only see the edge of the tartan where it protrudes slightly from the kilt apron.  It’s not a trick of the light, etc. etc. given the even spacing.

However, the bonnet badge looks far more like A&SH than anything else.  Hence the puzzlement.

** VB did wear the scarlet and white woven shoulder titles on upper arms for a 6-year period on drab Service Dress between 1902 and 1908.

Edited 21 January by FROGSMILE

[Cuirassier]

32 minutes ago, gordon92 said:

The 5th VB Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders wore red and black hose according to Grierson. That is, to me, the most plausible explanation.                                

[6RRF]

I'm inclined to suspect that the answer lies in the wearing of that brand-new kilt apron - concealing that fact that the subject is wearing the "wrong" tartan

[FROGSMILE]

To focus thoughts it’s quite useful to compare features:

Glengarry with three rows white dicing:

5th VB A&SH - yes  Other A&SH - yes

2nd** VB Seaforth - yes  Other Seaforth - no

Dark hose:

5th VB A&SH - yes  Other A&SH - no

2nd VB Seaforth - yes  Other Seaforth - no

Government tartan kilt:

5th VB A&SH - yes  Other A&SH - yes

2nd VB Seaforth - yes  Other Seaforth - no

Ergo is it more likely for a 2nd VB Seaforth man to be temporarily wearing a standard Seaforth Mackenzie kilt, or a 5th A&SH man.  But equally why would a 2nd VB Seaforth man apparently be wearing an A&SH bonnet badge.  It’s impossible to be sure, so it just seems a matter of the balance of probability for both cases.

** prior to 1908 5th Seaforth TF were 2nd VB Seaforth.

 

Edited 21 January by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

20 minutes ago, 6RRF said:

I'm inclined to suspect that the answer lies in the wearing of that brand-new kilt apron - concealing that fact that the subject is wearing the "wrong" tartan

It seems intractable to me as things stand given:

1.  The apparent A&SH bonnet badge.

2. The apparent Mackenzie kilt.

 I don’t know what the answer is, the photo is insufficiently clear.

Edited 21 January by FROGSMILE

[Cuirassier]

Close-up:

 

 

Edited 21 January by Cuirassier

[FROGSMILE]

21 minutes ago, Cuirassier said:

Close-up:

 

 

It’s not perfect clarity of course, but I think that 6RRF is correct and there are white lines visible there, which chimes with a Mackenzie kilt, albeit it would be most useful to learn what others familiar with kilts think.

There’s no doubt from that close up, which is very helpful, that’s it’s an A&SH badge and associated glengarry.  In particular the crossed branches are visible at the base of the badge.

 

Edited 21 January by FROGSMILE

[Cuirassier]

8 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

It’s not perfect clarity of course but I think that 6RRF is correct and there are white lines there, which chimes with a Mackenzie kilt, albeit it would be most useful to learn what others familiar with kilts think.

Can you do the same close up with the glengarry bonnet? 

 

 

Edited 21 January by Cuirassier

[FROGSMILE]

7 minutes ago, Cuirassier said:

 

 

Definitely A&SH.  The badge is more distinctive than the kilt, so if anything at all is being seen erroneously then it’s the kilt.

 I think we’ve done this to death now and taken it as far as we can.  Other opinions regarding the kilt would be helpful. 

Edited 21 January by FROGSMILE

[gordon92]

A possible/probable explanation for the anomalous tartan peering out behind the kilt cover: Grierson notes that the 5th VB A&SH wore the Campbell of Cawdor tartan until 1883 when it was replaced by Government tartan kilts. See image of tartan below containing red and white overstripes somewhat similar to MacKenzie. So, it would not be surprising that even 20+ years later, with shortages of kit, this soldier could have been issued an old kilt still held in inventory. After all,This was a Volunteer unit.

Mike

[FROGSMILE]

3 minutes ago, gordon92 said:

A possible/probable explanation for the anomalous tartan peering out behind the kilt cover: Grierson notes that the 5th VB A&SH wore the Campbell of Cawdor tartan until 1883 when it was replaced by Government tartan kilts. See image of tartan below containing red and white overstripes somewhat similar to MacKenzie. So, it would not be surprising that even 20+ years later, with shortages of kit, this soldier could have been issued an old kilt still held in inventory. After all,This was a Volunteer unit.

Mike

It certainly seems possible for an auxiliary unit and with the A&SH badge being the most crucial aspect given its clear ID, that would chime reasonably neatly. 

[TullochArd]

Some sound observations.......the Campbell of Cawdor possibility chimes most plausible.  I must say that If ever I come the unexplainable my search will almost inevitably gravitate towards Canada.  I'm tempted to offer the 92nd Overseas Battalion (48th Highlanders) CEF which was a jumble enthusiastically brought together (and dressed) in July 1915 and successfully deployed in 1916.  They started with 3 companies of the 48th and one company of 91st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada.  They were eventually absorbed into other units as the War progresses. The tartan worn by the 48th was/is Davidson (a light Government sett with a red over stripe).  They also wear "bully beef" hose tops identical to those shown.  I cannot find reference to the A&SH Glengarry and badge but note that the Canadian pattern Seaforth badges were occasionally offloaded when British Seaforth badges were available which is a long shot not to mention the A&SH of C connection.

Edited 23 January by TullochArd

[FROGSMILE]

20 minutes ago, TullochArd said:

Some sound observations.......the Campbell of Cawdor possibility chimes most plausible.  I must say that If ever I come the unexplainable my search will almost inevitably gravitate towards Canada.  I'm tempted to offer the 92nd Overseas Battalion (48th Highlanders) CEF which was a jumble enthusiastically brought together (and dressed) in July 1915 and successfully deployed in 1916.  They started with 3 companies of the 48th and one company of 91st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada.  They were eventually absorbed into other units as the War progresses. The tartan worn by the 48th was/is Davidson (a light Government sett with a red over stripe).  They also wear "bully beef" hose tops identical to those shown.  I cannot find reference to the A&SH Glengarry and badge but note that the Canadian pattern Seaforth badges were occasionally offloaded when British Seaforth badges were available which is a long shot not to mention the A&SH of C connection.

I did consider the Canadian regiment and like you think they are good suspects when there’s a mix match of uniform items.  I ruled them out because the bonnet badge does not come close to that in the subject photograph.

[gordon92]

2 hours ago, TullochArd said:

Some sound observations.......the Campbell of Cawdor possibility chimes most plausible.  I must say that If ever I come the unexplainable my search will almost inevitably gravitate towards Canada.  I'm tempted to offer the 92nd Overseas Battalion (48th Highlanders) CEF which was a jumble enthusiastically brought together (and dressed) in July 1915 and successfully deployed in 1916.  They started with 3 companies of the 48th and one company of 91st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada.  They were eventually absorbed into other units as the War progresses. The tartan worn by the 48th was/is Davidson (a light Government sett with a red over stripe).  They also wear "bully beef" hose tops identical to those shown.  I cannot find reference to the A&SH Glengarry and badge but note that the Canadian pattern Seaforth badges were occasionally offloaded when British Seaforth badges were available which is a long shot not to mention the A&SH of C connection.

 

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

I did consider the Canadian regiment and like you think they are good suspects when there’s a mix match of uniform items.  I ruled them out because the bonnet badge does not come close to that in the subject photograph.

It is a sensible line of exploration to think "Canadian" when the bits and pieces of uniform cannot be strongly attributed to an Imperial unit. There were 8 Highland battalions of the CEF that served with the Canadian Corps in France/Flanders. There were 17 additional Highland battalions formed in Canada, sent to the UK, and then used used to reinforce battalions in the field. Further there were numerous other CEF battalions not styled Highland that had pipe bands. I have reviewed a thread I started in 2017 from various sources on the Dress of the Canadian Highland Battalions to see if there is a possible match to the OP. This thread is, as far as I know, still the most concise readily available summary to be found in a single place on CEF Highland dress (some of the links to images are broken). I was unable to identify any reasonable match to the original photograph. The Nova Scotia Brigade - 85th, 185th, 193rd, and 219th Battalions - did all wear the red-white Sutherland dicing on glengarries as did the 173rd Battalion Canadian Highlanders, but all wore Government tartan kilts. This latter battalion drew primarily from the pre-war 91st Regiment Canadian Highlanders and was the actual predecessor regiment for the post-1920 Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders of Canada. None of the badges, as noted above, are at all close to that of the Imperial A&SH. So, as far as I can tell, this line of inquiry seems dead ended.