ON WAR SERVICE 1915 -ENAMELED
 

Hi all.

Here's another question, if anyone can confirm.

I'm sure I read that the enameled version of this badge was originally for managers and forman, and all brass for general workers. But in a web search to find information, I read that it was originally made by Gaunt then Wylie as all enameled, but due to cost they switched to all brass.

Anyone confirm the actual story for me.

Cheers

Simon.

Simon,

change from enameled to gilded brass was an economy measure, though silvered examples can also be found.

Hi JB

So really the cost cutting measure seems to be the reason to switch then, and not so much a person's position. Make's sense, as the army had to do the same. Still, mean's it's closer to the original 1915 issue of the badges.

Thanks for the input

Regards

Simon.

Indeed Simon, purely a cost cutting exercise. The early examples would I assume be more desirable to collectors of such items.

There is detailed article to published soon on the WWI British Home Front Badges of which I was lucky to see an advance copy from the author.

Thanks Jerry. Really appreciate the confirmation. I'll keep my eye open for what I read was the fist issue by Gaunt.

Cheers

Simon.

1915 OWS badge
 

Hi

Also got a very good condition "standard" 1915 brass badge with the "incuse" details filled in red and blue enamel. Lovely quality gilding and a low 4-digit number.

That sounds like a nice badge, any chance of a photo?

Michael

Photo of 1915 badge
 

Hi Michael

Yes I will. Once my old(er) brain works out how to do it! I don't think that the "incuse" enamelled versions can have been that common (I have a 1916 "triangle" badge that has had similar treatment).

I'd love to know WHY you see so many versions of these in plate, nickel silver, etc. They must have had some meaning at the time!

1915 War Service badge variant(s)
 

Hi

I've managed to take a photo of two 1915 badges I have. The one APPEARS to be nickel silver and NOT plated but it might take a bit of "vigourous use" of abrasive to confirm this!
The other seems a tad strange and I would welcome any suggestions. Note that the "nickel" version has a 4-digit number, the other has a higher number much as you would see on any of the other 1,000s that litter websites:D

That's a nice badge, I haven't see one like that before.

I was told at a badge fair that the nickel / silver ones were worn by supervisors but that may have just been the dealer trying to make a sale.

Thanks for the photo.

Michael

Hi Michael

Thanks for your reply. I think that there MUST be some truth to what is said about these different types of badge.
Thinking logically, you are in a working situation and you need to be able to identify the "chap in charge" (or "chapess":) ).

So how do you do this? Armbands were one answer but badges would also serve the same purpose.

What has been exercising me for a while are the numbers on those 1915 badges (the "M"; "X" or "U" marked on the back of the crown). They are part of the "hammer head" striking the badge as they are RAISED, had they been struck INTO the badge it would be easier to understand their function as they would have used one type of badge and just impressed the appropriate letter into the badge.
Clearly they had an important function in identifying the wearer either by trade, industry or region.

Thoughts?

‘On War Service’ Badges and their numbering
 

Hello Michael & dumdum

I was interested to hear what you were told Michael, about why some 1915 ‘On War Service’ badges may have been nickel plated because they were worn by supervisors, and I think there might well be something in this. It would certainly make sense that foremen or managers would want to perhaps distinguish themselves, though I’ve not personally come across anything to prove this.

As to your thoughts on the letters behind the crowns dumdum, possibly signifying a specific “trade, industry or region”, whilst I have read elsewhere they these letters are ‘designation letters’ for reserved occupations, and am also aware of attempts to connect the letters with the coded classification system that apparently existed at the time for the types of work undertaken by the wearers of such badges, my own personal conclusion, which I came to a few years ago now, is that they are merely part of the actual overall numbering process.

As far as I can see the letters ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ all appear on the small round 1914 Admiralty ‘On War Service’ Badges, whereas the brass 1915 War Office ‘On War Service’ ones have ‘J’, ‘K’, ‘L’, ‘M’, ‘N’, ‘P’, ‘Q’, ‘R’, ‘S’, ‘T’, ‘U’, ‘V’, ‘X’ and ‘Z’ (I have not myself, as of yet, come across any badges using the letters ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’, ‘H’, ‘I’, ‘O’, ‘W’ or ‘Y’). The 1914 badges also come without any letter (and indeed without any number), as do the enamelled 1915 badges, which I understand pre-date the issuing of the brass ones.

Further, the longest number I have seen on any of these badges is only five digits, meaning the highest possible number would be 99,999. By 27 July 1916, however, 1,347,627 badges had been issued; consequently, if numbers alone had been used then there would have to have been duplication. It is therefore my personal opinion that as the issuing of both the 1914 and 1915 badges progressed it was decided to prefix a letter of the alphabet so as to create new series for these.

I suspect, given that the ultimate total of badges that could potentially be issued was unknown, it was decided to begin the 1914 badges lettered series with ‘A’ but the 1915 badges with ‘K’, thus giving a sufficient gap for further consecutive series for both badges. The reason I say ‘K’, and not ‘J’, is that the only examples I have seen with ‘J’ are where this appears stamped on the buttonhole fixing immediately in front of the number, and where other letters have been erased from behind the crown (I have two examples that seem to show that the erased letters on these were ‘L’ and ‘M’). It is my belief, therefore, that the ‘J’ series was chronologically after the ‘Z’ series.

I do realise that the above might not be what others believe, but personally my proposal as to the meaning of the alphabetic letters as a logical device to address an apparent numbering problem, especially given that these badges were being numbered on the buttonhole fixing (though Woolley & Co. ones are marked on the actual badges), would seem a rational explanation. Unfortunately, of course, there do not appear to be any actual records in existence that would help confirm things.

Best regards

Martin

Hi Martin

That is a very interesting, informative post:). It's greatly helped me to better understand the reasoning behind the numbering. I agree that there might well have been a regional pattern to these numbers.

Here in New Zealand we used "sub groups" for some of our National Reserve badges so you get things like "G 7/ Hastings" but on the FRONT of the badge.

Let's face it, these badges were important (you only have to read about the issue of "badging" or "unbadging":eek: workers to see how it was viewed at the time).

That they would erase the original number (some more skilfully than others) and stamp a NEW number on the old badge tells you that there was at least some centralised system at work. I'm also wondering if erasing the badge was because the process of getting a NEW badge was somewhat protracted and also they wanted to keep a tight rein on the issue of the badges, not wanting to have more badges out there than was truly necessary.

I'll be now looking at the 1915 and 1914 badges that I have to see what they can tell!:)

Hi Martin,

I agree, that's all really interesting. I've dug the few war service badges out that I have to see what numbers are on the back and it all matches what you say.

So if the letters could indicate a trade, industry or region have you ever got as far as a theory on what each could be? I read somewhere about the ladies at a manufacturer of water bottles wearing the triangular one but I don't remember them listing a badge number.

Michael

‘On War Service’ badges – an alphanumeric system?
 

Hello again dumdum & Michael

I think you might both have misunderstood my last posting a little, as I am actually saying the opposite to what you seem to think. I do not think that the letters denote a region or a trade, rather I believe that they are simply a way of continuing the overall numbering by the addition of a letter of the alphabet as a prefix. In other words, badge ‘L’ 99,999 would have been immediately followed by badge ‘M’ 1, then when they got to badge ‘M’ 99,999 this was followed by badge ‘N’ 1, and so on.

If the letters were for different regions or specific trades, then when we come to those that appear to have been reissued with ‘J’ as the prefix, and given that I have personally seen badges where the original letters have been removed in such circumstances only with a ‘J’ on them and no other letter, then this would mean they were all reissued for just one region or one trade which can’t possibly be right! To my mind, considering that by the end of July 1916 over 1,300,000 badges had been apparently issued, the logical way to achieve this would be to have chronologically consecutive alphanumeric series.

Another thing for me is the fact that the 1914 Admiralty badges use different letters to the 1915 War Office ones, whereas if the letters were for regions then surely you would get the same letters on both kinds of badges? On the other hand, if they were for trades then this might account for the differences, but my understanding is that the coded classification system which has been noted elsewhere was very extensive, much more so that the eighteen letters of the alphabet that seem to have been actually used on the badges.

I would also think that trying to manage a system where badges were simultaneously being issued on the basis of falling into a particular trade category would have been quite unwieldy, and what happens when you get to badge ‘M’ 99,999 for one on category but only badge ‘N’ 9,999 for another? What badges would you issue in order to carry things on for the first trade category in such a situation? Surely it was much more straightforward, after the initial purely numeric series of the 1915 enamelled badges, to issue a new series starting from badge 1 but prefixing this with a letter of the alphabet, which I personally think was ‘K’.

Anyhow, as I say, I think you might both not have grasped what I was trying to say, so hope I’ve explained things a little clearer now. These are, of course, my own views on matters, but I have given this an awful lot of thought and consideration. I accept that this is not what others might think, and perhaps we will just never know for certain about this.

Best regards

Martin