['Ticker' Riley]

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