[Charliedog012012]

Mike & Dumdum. Please accept my apologies (but please allow me the indulgence) for making a deviation from the main line of argument that is presently under discussion. It is sort of relevant. Consider the 1914, and more particularly at the 1915 badges, which were initially enamelled and then for economy in their production were issued in the brass versions. I have always thought that the 1914 & 1915 enamelled versions are both elegant and beautifully manufactured...a joy to look at. The 1916 badge is functional but still distinctive in its design. However, as you are aware, my collecting focus is on the ‘Unofficial War Service Badges’...some have unique and distinct designs.....others are ‘variations on a theme’.....but all are wonderful things to study. Last week I was very fortunate to pick up a 1939 War Service badge for Fairfield Shipbuilders of Govan, Glasgow. I have the war service badge for Fairfield’s from c1915 also. When placed side by side, the 1915 badge has an elegance of its own....simple but a lovely badge whereas for me the 1939 version simply lacks the ‘Je ne sais quois’ and I have noticed this before with other companies...not economy of scale but no real effort with the design. I can understand the necessity of simplifying the Official WW1 issue badges but I prefer the 1914 / 15 badges to those of 1939 onwards. I am sure others will disagree. However, great to see a badge where it’s owner is identified, particularly the First World War badges.
So, now we reach the end of the ‘aside’.....please forgive my breaking the flow of your discussion.
Cheers
James