2 MIC's?

[mrfish]

Hello, All

I'm looking for some help/advice as follows...

I recently bought a 1914 Star trio to 8964 Pte F Parry 1/Liverpool Reg.

All looked pucka, but they were very toned and upon closer inspection I noticed a slight difference on the medals thus:

1914 Star: 8964 PTE. F. PARRY. 1/L'POOL. R.

BWM: 8964 PTE. F. PERRY. L'POOL. R.

VM: 8964 PTE. F. PERRY. L'POOL. R.

Fearing fowl play I looked for an MIC and found 2, one to F. PARRY and one to Francis PERRY. Both Liverpool Regiment both with the 8964 service number.

The first, for F. PARRY dated 1914 gives the medal roll reference for the 1914 Star, but not the pair. Entry to theatre is 12/08/14. In the 'Actions Taken' box it says: (a) Discharged.

The second to Francis PERRY indicates the award of a pair only with respective medal roll index.

Both MIC's have the same initial, F, the same regiment and the same service number.

Are they two MIC's for the same man or two different men? It seems very weird that, if it's two men, they have the same service number, initial and regiment, the only difference being Parry and Perry?

Could it be that Parry/Perry was discharged after qualifying for the 1914 star and then rejoined the regiment later and got the other two? Could the Parry/Perry thing be an admin mistake?

Can anyone please advise?

Cheers

mr fish

><((((*>

[Armoured Farmer]

Both are for the same man. I would guess, having never seen the Liverpool Regt 14 Star roll that only initials and surname were used. The pair roll had the full name.

It is not uncommon to find this sort of thing where the index card compilers missed the link. I know of many for South Irish Horsemen and there are only about 1300 mics.

[mrfish]

Many thanks for your speedy reply.

><(((*>

[Stebie9173]

Almost certainly the same man.

There were many slight errors in the issuing of medals (probably tens or even hundreds of thousands). It was pretty much down to the individual to return his medals to the AMO to be adjusted.

There could have been many reasons why the man did not (he may have not noticed the error, he may not have wanted his medals, been to ill to do so after his discharge, etc.).

The error was probably at the original compliation of one of the medal rolls, hence two MICs (I've always presumed they were in some sort of alphabetical order, making it easier for a name error to slip through than a number error.

Steve.