48th Shako Plate - good or bad?
 

Hi Gents,

Can I ask for view on this shako plate?

The seller say's genuine but I'm not so sure.

Any thoughts?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/26330651675...84.m1436.l2649

Cheerio,

Roy

Hi Roy,
I think it is ok and shows good detail, obviously the issue of the two drill holes adjacent to the number is something any prospective buyer would have to consider, the fakes are usually quite heavy, if you are interested you may wish to ask what it weighs.
Paul

Hi Paul,

Thanks for that. Yes the holes certainly put me off. It's not much money right now, so will be interesting to watch.

Appreciate your comments Paul.

Cheerio,

Roy

I agree with Paul on all of what he said.

Roy, you could fill the wholes with braze and buff them down.
Andy

Hi Andy,

Thanks for that, a good suggestion but I think I will just let this one go and wait for an undamaged example. I'm in no rush.

Cheerio,

Roy

Chaps this is not my area of knowledge, but I am sceptical, as they say looks can be deceiving.
What I am seeing is a generic frame with a cut out 48?
My question is this common with surviving original 48th foot examples?
Pauls suggestion of weight is a good one, although many fakes of Victorian badges that I have seen show good reverse details but are much lighter compared with an original.
Can anyone provide a picture showing an original 48th badge of this pattern being worn?
Food for thought.

Hi,
Firstly, the sellers description is wrong on two counts, if is not a RIfle Volunteers plate (Roy noticed that already) and secondly it is not Shropshire but Northamptonshire.
Attila, I think finding an image of the plate being worn would probably mean a trip to the Regimental Museum. I can understand your caution, these were generic plates in every instance as stated in KK pg 106 for the Rank and File with the number cut out or stencilled within the garter, KK unfortunately only shows two examples of this type to the 1st and the 64th.
I am far from an expert with these but I have handled a few and with the fakes it's not just the weight but the stamping can fail to show good detail front and rear as the one linked does in certain areas,you do get a slight variation in some of the stencilled numbers but most of the time the fakes are a bit more obvious in style. The light on the image is not great but some traces of gilding remain to the reverse although I think most has been removed from the front,it does not look the usual coppery type found in repros.
Paul

Roy,
I think, from the photographs, that is original, however, it is certainly not a great example, you would be able to find a better one.
Regards Frank

Paul, if it was me looking at buying I would want to narrow the risks as much as possible, the problem is this is a well known badge frame that is extensively faked, they are currently for sale on Ebay either blank with no number or you "can have any number of your choice stamped in the centre between 1 and 99."

Sadly with modern technologies such as spin casting and CNC machining fine die struck detailing on fakes can be deceiving in photos but be obvious when you have them in hand that they are not right.

With the amount of collectors on this forum we must have a few pukka ones out there that we can compare the fakes with.

Brent

Hi Brent,
If you look up eBay item no.332448268416 which is described as a good copy though if compared to the 48th in the OP there are a lot of differences to be seen, colour (coppery), the no.4,the garter buckle area and the fixing positioning to name a few.
Paul

The plate looks ok to me , compared it with mine only 62nd and 99th in my collection now I have both officers and o r ' [some ex epworth trust collection sold in 1980 via Lt col Wood ,also from L .A , D .P and recently Bosleys ex K.R collection
David

Is there a possibiity that, if a genuine badge, the holes have been drilled in order to attach a different central device?
I don't know what it would be, just wondering.

A possibility Leigh, my first thought of the holes was that they had been made to nail on a display board. Their positioning does suggest a device may have been overlayed, maybe a Northamptonshire or Regt of Foot collector may know.
Paul

I too was hoping a learned Northamptonshire or Regt of Foot collector would join the discussion.:)

As mentioned the 48th Regiment is not my area of knowledge, but I am very interested in the following British Regiments that served in New Zealand – 12th, 14th, 18th, 40th, 43rd, 50th, 57th, 58th, 65th, 68th, 70th, 80th, 96th and 99th.
As a military headdress enthusiast I am interested in all badges worn by these regiments during the period of 1845 to 1870.

It is my understanding the generic frame as depicted in the “OP” was worn circa 1869 to 1878, so it is unlikely to have been worn here in New Zealand, however, the following picture of a shako belonging to Colonel Albert Jackson of the 18th Royal Irish Regiment of Foot is similar, I also have copies of group photos of both 18th Foot Officers and 18th Foot Ordinary Ranks wearing shakos with completely different badges to that of Colonel Jackson.

https://s20.postimg.org/v49jwtxml/Co...nt_of_Foot.jpg

The following Shako belonged to Lieutenant F.P. Leonard of the 65th Regiment, it is this style of shako badge frame that was more commonly worn by British troops serving in New Zealand.

https://s20.postimg.org/dojz8ygct/Lt...onard_65th.jpg

Surely someone on this forum must have some information or another example of the badge in the "OP" they can share?