One for KLR and 8th Foot

[matti467]

Hello, one for Julian and Peter,
I bought this years ago and had it in 'the tin'. Could you be kind enough to tell me which era of Kings it is? It also has two circular sweat holes at the end of the scrolls that I had never noticed before.
Thank you
Matti

[KLR]

Matti, it's Pattern 10042/1026. Sealed late '26 but introduced early '27 (I'll look up exact dates later). It was official issue until 1950 - though unofficially worn until 1958.
However, in my research on these things I call this particular one 1926 Type 1C. (look at "1926" on my album). It is by far the most common of the 1926 badges and indeed the most common of the 1926 Type 1 badges. Interestingly, this one comes with two slider lengths, this and a shorter one. It has three retangular braze holes and two circular, but you often find the left hand ones missing, misstruck etc - possibly to do with hurried wartime production.
1A is that on the Sealed Pattern card (at the NAM) and is a very fine badge with serrated mane, curled end to the tail and three circular br holes only. 1B is similar (this is the one on the "1926" thing in my albums) but with a pronounced forelock and 5 br holes. 1C has a 'flat' mane, poorer construction and 5 br holes.
The actual satyle of Type 1 is Firmin but I've never seen one with any name on (except officer's badges of this Type - see the 4th row down of my regular battalions collection). Julian

[TWGB]

Julian,

Great info, particularly as I was looking at a couple of my own KLR badges. Could you do the same for me? My first badge is identical with Matti's, so I'm now fully informed, but my second is very different!

I heard somewhere about one of the KLR battalions having a private(?) order from Gaunts for badges without the 'The' in the scroll; is this apochryphal, or based on some truth?

Either way, I'd be very happy to learn all I can about this badge!

Thanks in anticipation; best regards,
Tim

[matti467]

Thank you Julian, the classification is incredibly useful too. I could see the archaeologist coming out there!
Matti

[KLR]

Tim, in haste (i'm at work) your first badge is exactly the same as Matti's - Pattern 10042/1926 and what I've classified as 1926 Type 1C.
Your second badge however, was indeed an "unofficial" one - and thus does not have a War Office Pattern number. This one is said to have been worn by the 1st Battalion (though I think the 2nd might have done too when overseas / India) from about 1903 to 1926, when it was given up in favour of the official pattern. There are a few differences, no apostrophe for one. (look at the 3rd row down on my 'regular' collection in 'my albums'). They are moderately common.
I think when you refer to the definite article it is that on the scroll of Pattern 6342A/1898 (ie the common "1st world War" type - see first and second rows ditto). But yes, there are loads of variations which I'm trying to classify - let alone the ones I don't know about !!!

Yes Matti, it's that museum / archaeologists classification pedantry / fanaticism !!!!!!

[Peter Brydon]

How can anyone add anything to that !!!!

P.B.

[TWGB]

Julian,

Brilliant! This is what makes this forum such a great resource!

Thanks, and best regards,

Tim

['Ticker' Riley]

I realise that Julian has given two very authoritative replies on this thread, but this is just an observation about Tim’s (TWGB) Gaunt ‘unofficial’ badge above and the fact the design of the horse appears to be very different indeed to the carded Gaunt badge Peter (8thfoot) has in his Kings Liverpool Regiment Album here. I know that the two badges are different ‘patterns’, by which I assume we are talking mainly about the different fixings and the difference in the “Kings” on the scroll, but as both are by J. R. Gaunt & Son I am surprised that the style of the horse is also so markedly different between them.

I can only speak from my rather limited experience with Leicestershire Regiment badges, where all the Gaunt badges I have seen (save those fake badges with the infamous 15mm ‘dot’ mark) have the exact same style/design of tiger. Whether this be pre-1908 1st Volunteer Battalion badges, 1908-1917 Territorials’ badges, Second World War OSD badges, or even 1970s restrikes reputedly made by the Company themselves. The ‘patterns’ might be different in as much as the wording on the scrolls may change, i.e. “1st Vol. Bttn” or “Royal Leicestershire”, and the fixings may be different, i.e. loops (lugs), vertical shank (slider) or blades, but the basic design of the tiger is constant throughout.

It therefore strikes me as strange that these two King’s Gaunt badges have such different designs of horse - the earlier lugged one above looks to have much more slender forelegs, shorter rear legs and a longer tail. It makes me wonder if the style of horse in Peter’s slidered badge was originally that of another firm that Gaunts took over? As I say, my experience of the Leicesters is that Gaunts always used the same tiger design even when the ‘pattern’ changed for different badges. I wonder if anyone else has any thoughts on why the horse in Tim’s example is different to Peter’s when both are by the same maker?

Regards

Martin

[Alan O]

Martin,

The regt disliked the approved pattern of horse so much that they had a second pattern one made. It was this 'new' style of horse that the 1926 badge was based on.

Alan

[KLR]

Martin,
I use the word Pattern with a capital P quite specifically. This represents the official designation - I know you wrote pattern with a small p but to avoid confusion I tend to use 'type' where I mean a variation within a Pattern.
The King's went through three official cap badge patterns between 1896 and 1958, whereas the Leicester Regt only went through one - 4522/1897.
The (regular) King's and the Leiceters used the same design for officer's and OR's badges - the Patt nos cited are those given to OR's badges (though the 1950 King's badge uses the same Patt no for both).
Now to the specifics; the "unofficial" King's badge made by Gaunt does not have a Pattern number - though I guess Gaunt may have had some sort of identification number.
As to PBs carded Gaunt badge that is indeed a slight variation on the official Pattern - which incidentally is on a Sealed Pattern card at the NAM (Peter kindly showed me the reverse of that badge and if I remember rightly it does not actually have a maker's stamp on the rear). Please see the 'illustration' of the 1926 Pattern in My Album.
Yes the variations / 'types' are more pronounced than the Leicester ones - I guess there was more to play with in the design. There are, as far as I can tell, three basic types of the 6342A/1896 Pattern King's cap badge, but many more sub-types which I'm working my way through !
Finally, I can assure you that both the King's badges you refer to above are indeed made by Gaunt.
There is actually a complicated but fascinating story of three different companies using slight variations of design, copying each other's official and unofficial designs at different stages. But I'm keeping the details for the book !
Julian

Alan, it's not quite like that but there are still details of the 'unofficial' badge that need researching.

PS, there are two basic types of the 'unofficial' badge; type 1 has at least three subtypes but as far as I can seen there's only one type 2.

['Ticker' Riley]

Many thanks to both Alan and Julian for replying to things. I think I follow everything you’re saying Julian – so the “Pattern” (with a capital ‘P’) is the officially sanctioned overall design of the badge, whereas all the variations in this design, that are presumably generally down to different manufacturers’ versions, you would refer to as “types”. Differences in fixings then would not in themselves be representative of a different “Pattern”, even though I would have assumed the official “Patterns” would have specified the kind of fixing? I have to say that I would also have thought different wording on the titles/scrolls of a badge would have meant a separate “Pattern”, and whilst it’s not really relevant here, I see Kipling and King’s Head-Dress Badges of the British Army, Volume Two, does give a separate sealing date for the alteration of the bottom title of the Leicesters badges to read “Royal Leicestershire” - but from what you are saying this still wouldn’t be a different “Pattern” .

Anyway, as I say, I think I understand everything as you have explained it. But even if Tim’s pre-1926 unofficial pattern (with a small ‘p’) is not the same as Peter’s official 1926 “Pattern”, I think it is still odd that, given both badges are by Gaunt (and I am perfectly happy with the fact that you say they are), the actual style of the horse is so markedly different. Especially as these same kind of differences seem to be emblematic of different “types”, that I would have personally associated with different makers – hence my speculation that one of the badges was of a “type” that had originally been made by a firm swallowed up by Gaunt, who then used this style of horse for their badges?? But from what you have said this would seem not to be the case, and it is simply a question of Gaunt completely redesigning the horse for the new official 1926 “Pattern” – all very interesting nevertheless!

Best regards

Martin

[KLR]

Martin - apologies, of course the Royal Leics would have had a new Pattern no. the ACD records only go up to 1939 and I didn't think of the 1946 title ! (it's 'stock no' was CB 0356 but I don't know what it's Pattern no was - I'll try and find out for you)
Actually the ACD displayed various inconsistencies in that sometimes a new fixing did involve a new Pattern no, sometimes not ! A new / different fixing could just be noted in the ledgers without having a new P no.
It seems that different maufacturers vied with each other over small details.