Simple badges.

[Frank Kelley]

Gentlemen,
As a subsequent post to the "it's still out there" of earlier today, I bought these two relatively locally in Greater Manchester, now whilst I know, they are very common, they are both very good examples and can still be had for very little, the pre "fleur de lys" is a typical Lambourne & Co piece and is a little "shaped" as well as being rather stained, but, I wish it could talk.
Lots of good simple badges still out there to be had and yet people still seem happy to buy copies, I fail to understand why, when there are more than enough real ones to go round!

[tonyb]

Again Frank look like good honest badges to me. Perhaps so many people are happy to buy copies because they don't know they're copies!
The more forum members the less copies will be bought I reckon.
Tony.

[Sonofacqms]

I agree with Frank, there are still original badges waiting to be bought, I picked these up at the weekend. Some may be spare, watch the classifieds . . !

Rob

[Frank Kelley]

Hello Rob,
I like the Manchester's (I would have to say that!) but, yes, lots of real badges all around us, often for pennies, yet the number of copies and general dross that keeps coming up is unbelievable!
Regards Frank

QUOTE=Sonofacqms;279562]I agree with Frank, there are still original badges waiting to be bought, I picked these up at the weekend. Some may be spare, watch the classifieds . . !

Rob[/QUOTE]

[KLR]

Frank, instead of referring to the "pre fleur de lys" badge why don't you use the WO designation of Pattern 4586/1898 (sealed 11.01.1898)
superseded by the GM 'fleur de lys' badge which was Pattern 3726/1923 (sealed 09.04.1923), itself superseded by the WM fleur badge Pattern 14503/1949 (sealed 10.02.1949).
Much better than arbitrary collector's references such as K&K etc.

[Frank Kelley]

LOL! A little too much to use between the words "the" and "is" moreover my use of the pre fleur de lys is factual simply because that is what it is, I could have said pre 1923, but, given that it was still being worn in 1923, it would be pointless and of course I could have used a K&K number, but, I dare say that there are people on here who do not have a copy or, like me, simply do not use that particular book.

Originally Posted by KLR

Frank, instead of referring to the "pre fleur de lys" badge why don't you use the WO designation of Pattern 4586/1898 (sealed 11.01.1898)
superseded by the GM 'fleur de lys' badge which was Pattern 3726/1923 (sealed 09.04.1923), itself superseded by the WM fleur badge Pattern 14503/1949 (sealed 10.02.1949).
Much better than arbitrary collector's references such as K&K etc.

[2747andy]

Originally Posted by KLR

Frank, instead of referring to the "pre fleur de lys" badge why don't you use the WO designation of Pattern 4586/1898 (sealed 11.01.1898)
superseded by the GM 'fleur de lys' badge which was Pattern 3726/1923 (sealed 09.04.1923), itself superseded by the WM fleur badge Pattern 14503/1949 (sealed 10.02.1949).
Much better than arbitrary collector's references such as K&K etc.

Julian,
In order to make best use of codes, you have to have the code book otherwise they are just a series of numbers! KK references are useless unless you have access to Kipling and King and WO Designations likewise!

Best regards

Andy

Hi Frank

2 Really nice looking badges good little find.

Best wishes

Paul.

[JerryBB]

A simple description with pre or post date or date range works for me. As already mentioned, any system involving letter/numbers mean nothing without the key, be that K&K or Westlake or Gaylor or whomever you chose or sealed pattern WO id codes.

As an aside it there a list available of all the known WO sealed pattern dates etc? I assume the size of such would be massive and would have to include all the various types of badges, officers, or's metal, cloth, cap, collar, service dress, mess etc..... I think Westlake included all (he knew) in his infantry collars book.

[Frank Kelley]

Good morning Andy,
Having a copy of K&K or going to Kew to look at Pattern details certainly does not make anyone a better collector, actually I've never been one for "sealed dates" anyway, they are often quite misleading.
I intended to point out with this thread that real badges are all around us and can be had for very little effort and money, the use of the Manchester Regiment was merely because they were bought locally and were the last badges I bought most recently, but, it could have been any badge really.
Regards Frank

Originally Posted by 2747andy

Julian,
In order to make best use of codes, you have to have the code book otherwise they are just a series of numbers! KK references are useless unless you have access to Kipling and King and WO Designations likewise!

Best regards

Andy

[KLR]

The point I was trying to make - as a contribution to the debate - is that the phrase or description "pre 1923" (or whatever date) is fairly useless. It provides a terminus ante quem but there is no information as to when the badge was introduced; 1853, 1903 or even 1922.
You may not want to cite the SP number or the day and month but a year is surely needed. Manchester (or whatever) Regt badge 1898-1923 provides the basic information.
Similarly, the common "post 1923" only means after 1923 when the badge (in this case) was actually introduced / authorised in that year.
I don't know about making one a "better collector" but surely we strive to be knowledgeable collectors !?

[Frank Kelley]

I agree with you and that is why I did not use that phase or description, but, I do think you have completely missed the point of my original post which was not about particular dates and patterns.

Originally Posted by KLR

The point I was trying to make - as a contribution to the debate - is that the phrase or description "pre 1923" (or whatever date) is fairly useless. It provides a terminus ante quem but there is no information as to when the badge was introduced; 1853, 1903 or even 1922.
You may not want to cite the SP number or the day and month but a year is surely needed. Manchester (or whatever) Regt badge 1898-1923 provides the basic information.
Similarly, the common "post 1923" only means after 1923 when the badge (in this case) was actually introduced / authorised in that year.
I don't know about making one a "better collector" but surely we strive to be knowledgeable collectors !?

[KLR]

Not at all, I agreed with your opening remarks. I just 'contributed to the debate' as it opened up !