|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Your badge in post #4 is fine Paul.
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks Luke!
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Thank Luke. I think my badge in post 4 of the old thread may be 'related' to Andy P's 1st badge, perhaps the 'hatching' was a detail only visible on earlier examples of that variation? I'll pick your brains on the 3rd patt. sometime. Cheers, Paul.
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Yes yours is the same as Andy P’s first badge in his post and mine below. It’s perfectly genuine.
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Taking stock so far:
Bad: 4 and 5th Bat Royal Scots (CB) Good: Lovat ww1-era (in Yeomanry thread) Tyneside Divided opinions: Cameron (Good: Dubaiguy and Luke, Bad: CB) 5th Bat Seaforth cast badge (Good:Alex, Others hesitant) No opinions expressed: All other Further opinions very much welcomed. Thanks! Last edited by kaiserwilhelm2; 10-05-21 at 05:41 PM. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
How are you? I would very much welcome some second opinions on those 11 badges that have not had any opinions expressed on them. Thanks!
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
I personally don't like that Cameron type, I cant say its wrong, I just like versions with better feet- for me he fails foot inspection. Seaforth good 3 lug WWI type-missing a lug? The Kings Liverpool Scottish looks a nice example-2 parts placed well together. Regards, Paul.
Last edited by wardog; 15-05-21 at 03:58 PM. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Seaforth is indeed missing a lug but cheap. Liverpool Scottish is indeed a beautiful badge and thanks for confirming that because I really want to keep all those that are good and hope that I do need to send back any good badges just because these did not get a 2nd opinion. Much appreciated! |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Whilst the Seaforth is certainly missing a lug, I suspect it is a little older than it might appear.
Quote:
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
QVC on the HLI? Regards, Paul.
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|