British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum

British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum (https://www.britishbadgeforum.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.britishbadgeforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Mazeas Corrections (https://www.britishbadgeforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4477)

Bill A 11-12-08 12:34 AM

Mazeas Corrections
 
Unfortunately, Mazeas 1920-50 has some errors. How about posting the errors that you have found or of which you are aware?
To start:
  1. Canadian Technical Training Corps plastic S.26b?
  2. Peterborough Rangers M89b Collar variation with CEF bn numbers
  3. M96 and M95 Images, sequence and names need to be corrected.

Pylon1357 11-12-08 12:51 AM

The lack of collars shown for the Calgary Regiment. M. 154 on page 106. might be a small omission, however it lets one believe there were no collars for the Regiment.

regimentalrogue 11-12-08 02:12 AM

I confess I don't have a copy, but if someone will be so kind as to send me a scan of the pages for The RCR I'll give it a look over?

If possible, I'd like a cover scan as well, and I'll add it here.

DavidS 11-12-08 03:49 AM

N.N.S. Highlanders "N.N.S. HIGH'RS" variant overlooked (title like the illustrated enamel officers M136a, but struck w.m.). And speaking of which, was there ever a "N.N.S. HIGH'RS (M.G.)" officers badge or do they all read "N.N.S. HIGH'RS"?

Incorrect date for 8th Princess Louise Hussars overseas pattern (C60), or he didn't know about/omitted the overseas pattern. I believe the letter/word spacing on the actual WW2 type is tighter than the badge Mazeas illustrates, so I lean toward the latter. I'd be guessing at the correct issue date, so hopefully someone like Jo can fill that in.

Officers general list badge shown (S29) is the enameled type, but Mazeas includes neither the "Canada" leaf O.R. general list badge nor the all metal officers type as shown in Tripp.

If someone can clarify the difference between Queen's Rangers (M26) cap badges illustrated, I'd be appreciative. He has 2 dates, 1926 and 1929, but I can see no difference in the cap badges; are the differences just confined to the collars and shoulders?

In a recent forum discussion about the Irish Fusiliers of Canada (Vancouver Regiment) bomb (M24) vs, crowned bomb (M24a) badges, the dates seem out of whack to me. Didn't boots and saddles say that 1937 was when they received authorization for the crown? If so, M24a s/b 1937, but what date goes with M24?

Similarly, per recent mad4thcef's postings about the Ft. Garry Horse, shouldn't C50 be dated 1915 or 1916, and C50a be 1922?

The RCR badge (M1) is the Guelphic rather than Imperial crown from 1926. Needs another pic.

Duplication of M166a -- once for West Toronto Regiment then again for Toronto Scottish officers. Someone needs a new number.

What's up with M53/M53a: two numbers for the same illustration?

Doug N 11-12-08 06:14 AM

David,
I'll give a couple of poor opinions on your questions.

Agreed the w/m N.N.S. HIGH'RS seems missing. I believe this was chronologically the first badge. Enamelled officers badges exist in the MG & NNS HIGH'RS pattern. To my knowledge there is no NNS HIGHLANDERS badge in silver & enamel.

The 1st Bn 8th PLH badge (the overseas pattern) is reported to have appeared in 1942. It may well be that it was not authorized by a General Order until 1950 - I don't know. If there is a difference between wartime & post war badges, it's more likely a reflection of British vs. Canadian manufacture - i.e. variants of the same badge rather than a pattern change.

The Queens Rangers cap badges are essentially all the same. I think you're right - Mazeas is showing the newer collars reflecting the MG designation received in 1936.

The Irish fusiliers 'bomb badge' was authorized in 1937. The Regiment wanted it to include the coronet to reflect their affiliation with the Royal Irish Fusiliers. Apparently the government agreed that they could wear the coronet, but refused to fund any changes. In other words, they had tacit permission to wear a badge which was not formalized by a General Order. Again, I don't know when the GO came through - probably a couple of decades later. The early crowned bomb badges are commony found with the coronet attached with a brass tab soldered to the reverse - a modification likely by a Vancouver jeweller, paid for out of Regimental funds.

M53 / M53a - is he trying to tell us that the badge exists in different colours, black & brass?

DavidS 11-12-08 10:18 AM

I see what you mean about M53/M53a. Everywhere else Maz. doesn't differentiate if there is more than one material (eg. 48th Highlanders, Halifax Rifles), just design variations, but in this case, looking back at the entry, it looks like the blackened badge was for the Wellington Rifles, then the same badge but in brass for when they became the Wellington Regiment.

Which, I suppose, raises the point as to whether identical badges in different materials should be noted as variants and sub-numbered. Then what about makers? Distinctive materials differences (i.e. late war vs. early war or late 30s production? Lugs?

When I collected stamps, it seemed each known variation had a distinct Scott's or some other catalgue number, not just the overall pattern. My vote would be to do the same thing for badges if the aim is to create a comprehensive cataloging system.

Officers' badges is another can of worms; Maz. includes a few, maybe just 5 or 10 at most. The NNS Highlanders is one. Others I remember offhand are the Toronto Scottish, Garrison Regiment, Seaforths and Le Regiment de Quebec. My long-on-opinion-short-on-fact thought is that these are there because they are 'distinctly' different -- pieces in the case of the Seaforths, sizes in the case of the Toronto Scottish & Reg. de Quebec, materials in the case of the Garrison, then a combination of things in the case of the NNS Highlanders.

But based on that criterion, why wouldn't he include the Assiniboia Regiment officers (cloisonné), or even list the materials variants for the plethora of bi-metal officers badges like the BCDs, Lincoln & Welland, South Sasks, etc., etc.?

All this muttering and 'what-abouting' makes me sound like I should move back to the Canuck forum, and is not really the tone I want to convey. I really think Mazeas is an exceptional resource, if only because he took the time and effort to do it and no one else followed suite near as well. However, is this threads original question really are we (i.e. the Canadian forum members) collectively looking to come up with the best, most comprehensive Canadian badge reference and database ever? Could make a great stocking stuffer :D

Mike 11-12-08 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by regimentalrogue (Post 28386)
I confess I don't have a copy, but if someone will be so kind as to send me a scan of the pages for The RCR I'll give it a look over?

If possible, I'd like a cover scan as well, and I'll add it here.


there's one in the glossary you can take:

http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/arm...ary/mazeas.jpg

Dwayne H 11-12-08 01:15 PM

Perth Regiment M51
 
Mazeas shows left and right facing collars. Collars both face left for this pattern.

Dwayne

Bill A 11-12-08 02:26 PM

Guys thanks for all the input so far.
Mazeas is an excellent reference, and the basic bible for the king's crown era in Canadian badges. However, as we were working through the badge registry, some errors became apparent. Editing the catalogue makes sure that the reference is as accurate as possible.
Some good questions have been asked about cataloging the varieties of badges. David has asked an important question about the amount of detail for a catalogue.
The officers' badges are the most glaring example of omissions. Why Daniel Mazeas only included the handful he did was not explained. Most regiments did have officer's pattern badges. These should be listed.
Should significant differences in badge runs be listed? There was some discussion about the Irish Regiment varieties in the thread about DavidG's badge finds. The question about runs is differentiation and documentation. What exactly would constitute a difference? This would be somewhat arbitrary at some point.
It is certainly worth pursuing. The Canadian Badge Index is a major step towards this. Could it, and should it at some point be converted to a published reference? Digital?
Some information on a specific question. The Wellington Rifles were not the only unit to be granted "infantry of the line" status by becoming a regiment. The Algonquin Rifles were also granted the designation of "Regiment" in 1929. The Algonquin Rifles badges, blackened, were to have the blacking removed to reflect the new designation. There are M144 badges around that have had the blacking removed. If Mazeas included the two patterns of badges to represent the two different designations for the Wellington Regiment, the same should be done for the Algonquin Regiment.
Another numbering error. M131 represents both the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders and the Military School of Piping. The A & SH Military School of Piping should be numbered M131a.
David, my old eyes may be tricking me, but I can't find an S29. The officer's general list badge in my copy of Mazeas is numbered S28. There is no S29 that I can find. Should that become the or's general list badge?

Doug N 11-12-08 03:58 PM

David -
I hear the points you're making & understand what you're saying.

Some time back, Chris Brooker embarked on a project of authouring badge books with exactly the level of detail you describe. These catalogued every known issue & variant - material, fasteners, makers, new die / old die, officers / OR's, etc, etc, etc. He also included a numbering scheme, which would allow for the sequential addition of any new variants which came to light post publication. The series was never completed, but the first few volumes would have to be adjudged an outstanding piece of work.

I don't know what the sales figures were for these books, but it doesn't seem like they were embraced by the collecting community. They seldom come up in conversations, auction houses don't use the definitive numbering scheme, etc. The books are extremely complex; maybe too complex for the majority of hobbyists who don't collect that way.

One thing should be learned from the Brooker initiative - any reference work that gets into minute & subtle detail needs world class illustrations. This was the weak point in Chris' books. On occassion, I have had a badge in one hand & the book in the other, & have been unable to precicely determine which of the dozens of variants it is.

DavidS 11-12-08 05:47 PM

S29
 
Bill, you mean that little black blobby thing wasn't a '9'?

You're right of course, s/b "S28" for General List.

There is an S29, which is the RCEME 'unicorn' badge. This is a numbering oddity that pops up in a couple of places, as this badge follows the RCEME 'shield' badge (S15). Same for 14th Cdn. Light Horse (C39), followed by 14th Cdn. Hussars (C61). There is some odd mixing of chronological numbering (like the above) vs. badge type numbering. As well, for numbering things like the buckled annulus badges, in some places (e.g. Cape Breton High'rs, M137) the earlier buckled type has the "a" number while in others (e.g. Sault Ste. Marie, M78), it is the other way round.

Added to this, for most regiments badges are sequentially grouped and numbered, but for others, most notably 1949 pattern changes for Kings Own Calgary, Cape Breton High'rs, etc., they are in wholly different places in the book. This makes sense if most of the research was done before 1949, then the army came along with a pile of revised badges that just got stuck in, but the revised edition was printed in 1985, so go figure. More "LOOOSOF" from me -- after the first edition (blue cover) was produced, Mazeas just fit the variants and additional badges into the numbering he already had set up, rather than renumbering the badges for the revised edition.

As for would the world's greatest ever Canadian badge reference sell? Hmmm, 7 copies at least ;). I agree that there is so much minutia given that we are dealing with manufactured items where day-to-day variables influence so much, there is only so much 'picayuneness' even I could tolerate. There must have been a lot of "Hey, Chuck, I'm running out of 025 brass sheet and I've got another 237 to do yet, is 017 okay?" going on. But where there is a definite, reliable, definable difference (w.m., brass, bronze and copper for Halifax Rifles, say, or the comments about blackened badges vs. other versions of same as a result of unit redesignation) it's not a stretch to include these, or at least document the metals/finishes used like Charlton did with their "composition" line. Same goes for manufacturers.

Where we could go with officers badges is beyond me -- I can't afford very many :D

regimentalrogue 11-12-08 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike (Post 28401)
there's one in the glossary you can take:

http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/arm...ary/mazeas.jpg

Mike, thank you.

I also managed to dig out of my files an old photocopy of the badge drawing to do my site update.

Mazeas depicts only one badge of The RCR, rather than the three major variants, that existed during his date range of 1920 to 1950. The hand-drawn version of the Guelphic crown badge is applicable for 1920-1927, but for the period after that, he should also present the early Imperial crown and the St Edward's crown patterns.

Phillip Herring 11-12-08 09:23 PM

Reference the Irish Fusiliers
M21 is shown with the eagle facing the wrong direction.

I see that the debate about the coronet has appeared on this thread.
The following link will give the info that I previously posted.

http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/for...4&postcount=12

Phil

Pylon1357 11-12-08 09:37 PM

Another error I noted, and have already made reference to in another topic, is the Collar badges of the PEILH. C.52 page 44. The reference shows a common collar, not a right and left pattern.

Bill A 11-12-08 09:53 PM

Phil, Should the cap and collars eagle head be reversed, or did the collars come in matched pairs?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:34 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.