Grenadier Guards Commissioned Quartermasters cap badge
 

Does anyone have any evidence of the above badge. A gilt grenade with white metal royal cypher on the ball ? Rather than speculation.
Andy

Andy,

Both you and I discussed this exact question very recently on this thread here:-

https://www.britishbadgeforum.com/fo...rmaster&page=5

It is clearly defined as such in K & K, so I dont think you can call it 'speculation' really, they authors were pretty well informed.

regards

As you know all too well, there are loads of mistakes in Kipling and King. As has John Gaylor and Major Parkin.
Andy

I know nothing about this badge but have read related threads with interest as well as seeing Emmerson’s badge on eBay.

Andy, I think it’s important to first ask what you would indeed consider evidence.

Someone else, even a current expert or regimental museum ‘saying’ it exists or doesn’t would surely only carry the same weight as K&K’s claim. As you noted, those authors made mistakes but so does everyone - collectors, experts and museums alike i.e. anyone providing any new information.

BW photos of the era won’t differentiate between gilt and GM. So they’re no use.

If it is as I suspect a primary source you’re after then maybe only a sealed pattern card (if it exists) or some documentation from the period referencing the badge (the latter still wouldn’t be evidence of wear) would satisfy you in this quest. I’d say finding a SP or any documents would be very, very lucky indeed.

This I feel is one of those badges like the curly scroll Leinster and Middx PWPB (no photos of either being worn) which comes down to what you believe based on what the old school collectors said, your experience, and ultimately gut feeling.

Good luck in your quest.

Luke

Luke
The sealed pattern info is at The National Archives.
Andy

1904 Dress Regs Bronze grenade for Officers ! And it doesn't say "with the exception of the Quartermaster". Evidence.....
Andy

Simon you have made this statement on eBay,
" This is a very rare and superbly made and mint condition Silver and Gilt cap badge worn ONLY by the Commissioned Quartermaster in each Battalion of the Grenadier Guards from 1937 to 1954. "
Where is your evidence for this ?
Andy

Andy,

I am not getting into any further discussions on the subject as you clearly have made up your mind that the badge was not worn by Comm QM's and nothing I say will change your mind.

As I have repeatedly said, I am accepting the description as provided in K&K and have absolutely no reason not to believe what they have said.

Toby Purcell in the thread that I highlighted has explained why Commissioned QM's were perceived differently to other officers and why they would have been given different badges.

My description is 100% accurate and just because you dont agree with K&K thats not my concern.

regards

Simon
Fair one, you have gone off Kipling and King. I would quote K & K though, in your description. Then your covered if someone buys it and then is not happy, in the future. Thats up to you though. Toby has only assumed, this doesn't prove anything what soever. I have used Dress Regs as evidence, i haven't assumed anything. If there is evidence out there then great, I'm all for learning. And as i have mentioned, we all make mistakes.
Andy

Sorry you have mentioned K & K.
Andy

Andy,

Yes I made it perfectly clear and below is a copy of what I said:-

"This badge is described in the military badge book Kipling and King as follows:-

Volume 2 - Page 23, Badge number (2) in the section 1937-1954. No photograph as even they didnt have an example!!

Volume 1 - Page 237, Badge number 890."

regards

This just goes to show what happens when people say something is such and such, without as it seems evidence. History corrupted.....
Andy

Just had a quick look at K & K
" All other ranks: A fused grenade with a plain ball. In gilding metal ( fig. 891 ). This pattern also found in bronze. "
You would of thought K & K would of checked Dress Regs 1904, and have realised the bronze grenade was in fact an Officers badge. But no.....
As I've said, we all make mistakes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Andy

As I’ve been unwittingly drawn into this I feel obliged to respond. First and foremost what Andy said about my comments in an earlier thread is true, it is just my opinion and there is no indisputable evidence to back my speculation. That said, I stand by what I said and agree with Simon that, notwithstanding their known errors, Messrs Kipling and King did generally carry out meticulous research, often visiting museums and poring over dusty archives in a way that we, for the most part, have not. In short, I do not think that they made things up, the information had to have come from somewhere.

In debating these things I would also, with the greatest of fondness for my fellow enthusiasts, urge them not to get too carried away with their respective arguments. Whilst it is without a shadow of doubt unintended, the use of an entire front rank of exclamation marks to emphasise a comment runs the risk of looking petulant. One problem that sometimes occurs amongst us retired, long-service soldiers, is that we fall into the trap of believing that if it didn’t exist when we were serving, or we haven’t heard of it, then it cannot be true. And yet, during Queen Victoria’s reign, let alone those that followed, there was an extraordinary range of different badges, many of them unregulated before the 1870s, existing for each and every regiment. Much of it can only be seen in regimental museums, and not all have been illustrated in publications that specialise in insignia.

A key aspect that can sometimes be inadvertently overlooked is that all of the badges that we are debating relate to specific designs of headdress. When headdress changed, for the most part, so too did the badges that adorned them. When looking at the provenance of a particular badge, it is worth then considering the type of headdress on which it might have been worn. As I have mentioned before the Foot Guards other ranks were the first to wear metal cap badges as we know them today, almost certainly derived from cartouche pouch badges and shoulder belt plates. For very many years, the Foot Guards were also generally the only units to have 3-types of headdress, full dress (bearskins and earlier equivalents), undress (forage caps) and field wear (folding caps), each with its own insignia, either badge, or plume/hackle. For other regiments and corps the latter two were one and the same until around the turn of the 20th Century.

It is with those factors and that background in our minds that we should continue to debate and consider such badges as that which is the subject of this thread. Is the quality good? Does it appear old? How does it compare with similar badges? Why might it be slightly different? These are all things that we’re right to discuss. Above all, if it’s not a commissioned quartermaster’s badge, as Kipling and King maintained on the basis of information obtained from somewhere that we don’t know about, then what is it?

Toby,

Thank you for your valuable incite into this matter. Respected and knowledgeable poster that you always are.

regards