NF - Slouch Hat
 

Attachment 139940Attachment 139941Attachment 139942Attachment 139943Attachment 139944
Attachment 139945Attachment 139946Attachment 139947Attachment 139948

Brilliant photo, keep the NF's coming please! :D

Nice pix.

You can see the slouch hat has press studs on both sides of the brim and the multiple of small holes for air vents running around just below the crown. I think it is a Vero made example dating to circa 1900/01.

Here are two example I have seen on the net. One has been customised by the addition of extra holes in it which is not an uncommon mod and in this case spell out words.

Here is the link to the 2nd example. http://www.nam.ac.uk/online-collecti...c=1981-09-16-3

All of the NF photo's displayed, appear to be those of the 3rd Bn and I'll do a check as to where they were taken as I recognise the sports pavillion in the background.

Now this particular photo is very, very interesting as it was taken St.Georges day and these lads appear to be either members of the Mounted Infantry Section or the Transport Section of the Battalion - which is where the slouch hat is more commonly found. What is particulaly interesting is the wearing of the glengarry badges with the slouch hat, but no red 'V' pagri, which is the distinguishing mark of the NF during this period, or the capbadge as worn with the Broderick.

The red 'V' pagri was seen worn continuously with both patterns of Foreign Service Helmet(in either white or khaki) and it seems odd not to see it being worn with the slouch hat. So I wonder what the explanation is there?

Graham,

A couple of the photos that came with this little lot were inscribed as being 5th Bn. and dated 1908. Would that perhaps fit in this instance?

Thanks to you all for your posts. Excellent stuff.

[QUOTE=Jelly Terror;340843]Graham,

A couple of the photos that came with this little lot were inscribed as being 5th Bn. and dated 1908. Would that perhaps fit in this instance?

The 5th(Militia)Bn ceased to exist as of April 1908, becoming the 3rd(Militia)Bn and apart from St.Georges Day parades only ever came together as a Battalion during their Annual Camp in the late Summer months. Towards the end of the year it would become the 3rd(Special Reserve)Bn.

Having looked through my collection of St.Georges Gazettes for the period, the photo's are indeed of the 3rd Bn, taken in South Africa, January 1905, this is when 'F' Company did infact win the Inter-Company Football Shield. The sports pavillion(?) was at their base in Tempe, Bloemfontein, Orange River Colony. Laurie the photographer was also based in Bloemfontein.

Absolutely fantastic, Graham. You're a star. Many thanks.

JT.

Thanks very much, Jerry. Much appreciated, sir.

JT

I too find it interesting and it further substantiates the WO directive for Fusilier Rgts to wear the former Glengarry badge in the slouch hat . Recall that we have seen that this plan was formalized in 1902 and some badges with sliders were sealed in 1903.

The project was short lived but this evidence seems to further substantiate that issues did get made but we had discussed previously that The Northumberland Fusiliers did not seem to have been issued the badge . I suspect that this grenade had a long slider .

There are several previous discussions one of which is here,

http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/for...grenade+slouch

post 16

John

JT,

I am always happy to help out whenever my knowledge allows.

John,

Many thanks for your help.

Time and again we see evidence in support of the fact that, where dress regs are concerned, officialdom and 'real life' often fail to intersect as precisely as one presumes was initially intended. Adherence seems to be somewhat of an elastic concept.

Were not the inscriptions ''The Fifth Fusiliers'' ? If they were, that is the Regiment, not the battalion I believe?

Please correct me if I am wrong, mate :)

Phil

Very true but, the point here being that they are complying with regulations . In this case a short lived and relatively little known one.

John

Phil,

My recollection is '5th Bn', though I may of course be mistaken.

Yes indeed, John. Many thanks. :)