Hertfordshire Regiment non-voided

[badjez]

Wilf,

The question to ask the IWM is when, and how this badge came into their collection. I could have donated a restrike last week and they would still have it in their vaults. We have seen before how they have displayed a restrike Norfolk badge as being genuine in their new WW1 displays.

I am yet to be convinced that these unpierced badges are the real deal. If we raise the subject often enough somebody will begin to think it is smoke from a real fire so they 'MUST BE GENUINE'!

Stephen.

[Alan O]

I am ambiguous about the originality of these and they have certainly been faked. I think that it is fair to say that there is no evidence that they were ever officially approved as a sealed pattern or as 1916 unpierced wartime expedient.

However unofficial but contemporary unpierced badges do exist such as the ones shown in my album. The unpierced Suffolks was collected in Cardiff in the 1940s so I know that one to be 100% genuine.

http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/for...hp?albumid=396

[Nozzer]

Badjez,

Please follow the link that I have supplied in post #28 and tell me what badge he is wearing. If the badge was pierced, no matter the quality of the image, you would be able to see some shadow and there is none whatsoever. I have many images of Hertfordshire Regiment Soldiers and one thing I can say is that every one you can see shadow in the piercing.

Originally Posted by badjez

I am yet to be convinced that these unpierced badges are the real deal. If we raise the subject often enough somebody will begin to think it is smoke from a real fire so they 'MUST BE GENUINE'!

I am not trying to turn this into something it isn't, but I thought this forum was about discussion? You can spend as much time as you like looking at official files and documents, but in doing so you can become somewhat blinkered and of the opinion that if it "isn't written down and you haven't seen it" then it can't be right. I have supplied the closest evidence (follow the link in post #28) that I can without the ability to time travel, but you have obviously made your mind up and that is up to you which I respect.

I will not raise the subject again, but please do not try to dissuade discussion.

[badjez]

Before the sleeping dog gets to lie, I'll give it one more prod.

Nozzer, sorry if I got up your nose about this. My intention was not to stifle reasonable conversation but to question the value of what was being put on the thread, and hope that repeated assertions won't eventually give credence to a falsehood.

In 50+ years of collecting I have seen a few badges: yes I've done research as I believe that this is essential, but I do question and test sources to evaluate their usefulness. Is it a primary or secondary source?
Any information should be assessed in two ways (a) the credibility of the source and (b) the strength of the information. Is a source known and trustworthy, unknown, or has it previously been at partial or consistent fault.

So, testing your photo. .
Do I know the source: No, only their internet profile, which is a secondary source.
Can I take their word that the photo is of the Herts Regt soldier they say it is: No, but it is likely.
Does anything else on the photo tell me it is of a Herts Regt man: No.
Does experience tell me that photos can be misleading: Yes.
Result: Doubt, not irreconcilable truth.


The dog can sleep now.
Stephen.