Gaunt card question

[Luc]

There is a Gregory and Quilter parachute badge for sale at the moment which is mounted on a Gaunt London card:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/175510883297?

On the card is written "established 200 years", but its London office opened in 1905. Can someone please explain?

[Alan O]

Source https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/J._R._Gaunt_and_Son

J. R. Gaunt and Son

as J. R. Gaunt and Son of Warstone Parade and Alfred Street, Birmingham. (1922)

as J. R. Gaunt and Sons of Warstone Parade Works, Birmingham. (1929)

Established 1750

Manufacturer of military and uniform buttons from 1870 to 1973.

1896 Military, Naval, Railway and Police button and ornament manufacturers. [1]

1896/7 Directory: Advertiser. More detail. [2]

1922 Listed Exhibitor. Manufacturers of Buttons, Badges, Medals, Whistles, Belt Buckles, Shoe Buckles, Safety Razors, Ladies' Handbag Frames, Advertising Novelties, Fancy Metal Goods, Souvenirs. (Stand No. E.26a) [3]

1929 Listed Exhibitor. Manufacturers of Buttons, Badges, Medals, Buckles, and Metal and Enamelled Fancy Articles, Bag Frames, Souvenirs. Birmingham Jewellers' and Silversmiths' Association Member. (Stand Nos. J.43 and J.54) [4]

1991 Purchased by Firmin and Sons.

[altcar73]

It opened an office in London in 1905, but its manufacturing base had always been in Birmingham and remained there until the company ceased trading.

Dave

[mike_vee]

Originally Posted by Luc

On the card is written "established 200 years", but its London office opened in 1905. Can someone please explain?

I think it is possibly an "inherited" claim.

From "TRADES DIRECTORY, 1914."

Gaunt J. R. & Son Ltd.(late Ed. Thurkle, est.200 years), military, naval, crest & general uniform buttons & ornaments, whistles, swords, belts, helmets, caps &o. ; gold lace-men & embroiderers : contractors to H.M.Government, 53 Conduit st. Regent street W & Warstone parade works, Birmingham

In 1897 Gaunt & Son purchased Thurkle's business and thereafter used the Thurkle name on swords retailed by themselves.


Photo #1 shows advert from the Volunteer Service Gazette and Military Dispatch (13 September 1901).

Photo #2 from Army List March 1938.

.

[magpie]

The card in the op is just a worthless piece of cardboard, these have been brought up on here before and I contacted a lady at Buckingham Palace who confirmed it 10 years ago.

[Luc]

Thank you gentlemen for your replies.
I could not find Gaunt were already established in 1750. It is also good to know that such cards are of little added value.

[grey_green_acorn]

Link to previous thread on Gaunt cards and Magpie’s detailed information.

https://www.britishbadgeforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=87548

Tim

[mike_vee]

Originally Posted by magpie

The card in the op is just a worthless piece of cardboard, these have been brought up on here before and I contacted a lady at Buckingham Palace who confirmed it 10 years ago.

I had a look at the old threads and agree that the "Royal Warrant" is wrong ....

.... but what I find interesting is that Gaunt used the "Established 200 Years" as early as 1901.

An advert in "1934 Dress Regulations for The Army" has "BY APPOINTMENT TO H.M THE KING" (photo from 2010 thread).

And yet with the 1938 advert that was published in the Army List it seems that the "full" Royal Warrant wasn't always used.


.

[magpie]

The card is the appears to be the same as the one I enquired about, I was told it isn't a royal warrant not just wrong as it hast be in the format as described and the quality of print has to be up to a higher standard not just something that vaguely looks like the Royal coat of arms, there are real cards and I have one somewhere and the difference is obvious and I think then that is where they would break the law by using it as it should be displayed form memory.
I'm sure I read on something that popped up on my phone a while back that one of the regiments had been granted a continuation of the use of the Royal Arms and poud to announce it.

[mike_vee]

Originally Posted by magpie

The card is the appears to be the same as the one I enquired about, I was told it isn't a royal warrant not just wrong as it hast be in the format as described and the quality of print has to be up to a higher standard not just something that vaguely looks like the Royal coat of arms, there are real cards and I have one somewhere and the difference is obvious and I think then that is where they would break the law by using it as it should be displayed form memory.

What I find strange is that Gaunt would produce and publish an advert in the 1938 Army List that isn't in the correct format .

Why , if they had a Royal Warrant at that time would they choose not to show it correctly ? Could the cards and adverts be a printer/publisher error using a generic "By Appointment" header instead of the official one ?

.