Jack, thank you so much for sharing your research on Gaunt silver badges.
I would agree with the assumption that the die flaws developed over time with the striking process generating wear to the die.
I’m not too surprised that you didn’t find a badge with an S. These must be very scarce as the Birmingham date letter was changed in July (source:
https://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/...irmingham.html). That would mean an S badge struck around May or June 1943, certainly amongst the first ones.
It is interesting to note that the examples with a T (badges struck from July 1943 to June 1944) have the two flaws close to the chute rigging. This is evidenced also in O. Lock’s books (Insignia p90, Headdress p10). Considering the vast majority of the first batch of silver badges would have been struck with a T letter, it is somewhat disturbing that so far none of these badges have been identified without flaws. It is also strange that these imperfections were accepted by officers willing to acquire top silver badges at a premium price.
I wouldn’t dismiss the idea of another die made by Gaunt for WM badges (see the comparison provided by Marinus). I looks to me that the white metal badges with the partially solid reverse are private purchase examples (Silverwash, thanks for sharing!), certainly not something that was massively produced for ordnance supply. Maybe Gaunt utilized the original die designed for private purchase badges (silver, plated or WM) later for ordnance issued badges when most of the flaws had developed on the die.
Die flaws on Ordnance Badges.jpg
Here a photo of a couple of WM badges (rear view) ordnance issued with the 4 die flaws mentioned.
I would be curious to see other ordnance issued badges made by Gaunt with less flaws.