Montgomeryshire Yeomanry - Dragons Galore

[Luke H]

A truly mercurial beast is the post 1908 M.Y. version cap badge of the Montgomeryshire Yeomanry. It’s by far the rarest and hardest to obtain and for anyone collecting the Yeomanry 1914 set it is the eternal gap on the card.

Indeed so rare that even Hugh King’s example pictured in KK came in for harsh criticism and was denounced a fake: https://www.britishbadgeforum.com/fo...eomanry&page=2

In addition to the KK badge an identical one is also pictured in the 1st edition of Gaylor’s book.





So both John Gaylor and Hugh King wrong or deceived? Unable to obtain a post 1908 Yeomanry badge in the ‘good old days’ of badge collecting. I found this unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Kevin’s (41st) type (#3) which has universal acceptance as genuine is indeed so rare that in my collecting lifetime I’ve seen more original double scroll Nelly’s for sale than this type of M.Y. badge. Indeed I know of no-one who owns or has even seen that type in GM.

Clearly to be so very rare, almost unique, one (or more) of three things has occurred:
1. Very large existing stocks of M.I.Y. badges continued to be issued and worn far past ‘08.
2. On disbandment majority of issued M.Y. badges collected in by QM and disposed of.
3. Genuine M.Y. maker variations exist so whilst still rare they’re not Halley’s Comet rare.

Now the badge shown by Alan O here
https://www.britishbadgeforum.com/fo...83&postcount=1 matches exactly the ones in both KK and Gaylor. It’s construction is single piece stamping with two E-W loops behind the dragon. My example of this badge is badge #1.

From the moment I clapped eyes on it Alan’s badge just struck me as genuine, the age, wear, patina, loops, even the old repair. Nothing about it looked wrong. This gave me faith that Gaylor and Hugh King had been correct and their badge genuine.

Now some connoisseurs will point to the detailing and finesse of features not being favourable compared to the universally accepted type (#3). True. But whilst poorer rendered designs are stereotypical of fake dies they are also sometimes symptomatic of wartime manufactured dies. There are many other undoubtedly genuine WW1 produced badges of far worse manufacture and the die quality than this single piece M.Y. badge.

One of the points raised in the debate detracting from the single piece badge was its method of construction as the dragon part was used as the collar badge with relevant scroll attached to make it into a cap badge. However, note the ‘bourbel’ tipped spikes on badge #3. This is different to the M.I.Y. dragon and every collar badge I have ever seen. Which means if a new dragon die was cut for this M.Y. badge then why might a single piece badge not also be a makers variation?

Realising the only things which would likely settle the single piece badge debate was either a badge with ironclad provenance or period photo of it in wear I’ve been searching for both for some time now.

Recently Jonathan (BROOKIES) contacted me with the exciting photo below which he very kindly deep scanned around the badge and has allowed me to use for this thread.







Clearly discernible is the bottom scroll which is legible and has just two letters M and Y both in the correct positions for the post 1908 badge.

Whilst the photo is undated and I’m no uniform aficionado from the cap and Imperial Service tablet I’d say the picture is wartime, likely pre-1916. Happy to hear any observations or advancements on this date.

Due to the good quality and sharpness of this photo I think it is possible to compare proportions and voids on the badge to the contenders.

The candidates...

#1

Mine - identical to Alan O’s and those illustrated in KK and Gaylor.

#2

John’s (Tinto) - another single piece badge. This type has previously been sold at Bosley’s.

#3

Kevin’s (41st) - an undoubtedly genuine variety.

N.B. I’ve intentionally not included badges from the fake die (found in single and two piece) or M.I.Y. die which are the only two other dies I know of relating to this Yeomanry.




As you can see both voids between the ground and scroll are very asymmetrical. The left void being significantly smaller than the right. This is a match for badge #1. Badges #2 and #3 have very equal voids. Also the scroll tips on #2 point upwards which is different to both the picture and two other badges which visibly curve down. It is also apparent that the lowest parts of the scroll dips are uneven with the right dip lower than the left, again this matches badge #1 whereas the other two are very even with this feature.

Admittedly the sitter is at a very slight angel but I don’t believe the perspective is the explanation for such a significant disparity in void sizes or the scroll dips mentioned.

Recently I was lucky enough to obtain an identical badge which as Alan’s strikes me as totally genuine and period in all its characteristics from the loops, patina, wear and age etc.

Obviously it’s for everyone to draw their own conclusions but personally I’m confident this badge is the KK/Gaylor single piece version in wear and it is indeed a genuine makers variation, very likely wartime in origin.

Lastly many thanks to Jonathan, Kevin, John and Mike for allowing the use of their images in this thread and technical help.

[Luke H]

My single piece badge.

[Alan O]

The photo can be dated from 1910-15 as the tablet was authorised in 1910.

[JerryBB]

Originally Posted by Luke H

My single piece badge.

The same badge, it looks and feels totally genuine imo.

it has plated lugs

[Alan O]

Nice badge. I am glad to say despite the very hostile reception my one got in the previous thread, I chose to ignore the 'expert' opinion on the validity of a one piece badge and still proudly have it in my collection.

[Keith Blakeman]

Originally Posted by Alan O

Nice badge. I am glad to say despite the very hostile reception my one got in the previous thread, I chose to ignore the 'expert' opinion on the validity of a one piece badge and still proudly have it in my collection.

The so called ‘expert opinions’ cost me a £90 loss, shame this and the earlier thread weren’t around at the time.

[JerryBB]

Originally Posted by Alan O

Nice badge. I am glad to say despite the very hostile reception my one got in the previous thread, I chose to ignore the 'expert' opinion on the validity of a one piece badge and still proudly have it in my collection.

I agree, mine, yours and Luke's are all good. The feel of mine in the hand, seems spot on and it compares well with others around.

[BROOKIES]

Good afternoon all.

Sorry but I don't think this is an original badge (and all the others apart from 41st badge).

Off the badges I have seen and would be happy with are two part and on slider and not lugs/one part.

Also if you look at the quality of 41st it is quite a lot better than all the others and is a lot sharper.

Jerry if you compare the one you have in the group of M.I.Y badge/collars (I know the M.Y.C has the pointed snake snout as there a few different version of this badge, even so it is a nice genuine badge, either in collar/cap version) you can see the quality is not there.

Ta

Jonathan

[Alan O]

Different makers is a simple explanation. I remain happy with mine but your opinion is fine.

[Luke H]

Originally Posted by Alan O

Different makers is a simple explanation. I remain happy with mine but your opinion is fine.

I agree.

Since this thread someone showed me an even clearer picture of what I believe is the single piece MY badge being worn. Apologies I can’t remember who and I can only find a screenshot of the cap / badge area in my phone. If it offends the owner(s) or anyone else I’ll of course remove and do apologise.

Simply the badge pictured is 100% not a MIY as the wing tips are not level.

From the shape of voids which are quite clear, esp. between the ground and scroll, it is also not the ‘accepted’ MY with tagged scroll.

Julian’s research of the tenders show in April 1916 some 3,000 MY badges were ordered (SP 549/1915) in GS.

And re the quality comment - there was a war on. Also it’s easier to make a one piece badge than mess about with brazing scrolls on.

For what it’s worth I suspect the ‘accepted’ MY badge to be very late or even just post war.

[BROOKIES]

Simply the badge pictured is 100% not a MIY as the wing tips are not level.

Don't know what this means, so are we saying that unless the wing tips are level then the badge isn't genuine.

Ta

Jonathan

[Alan O]

Big call - not sure saying the wing tips are not level means it's a fake? It is just a maker's variation.

[Luke H]

Originally Posted by BROOKIES

Simply the badge pictured is 100% not a MIY as the wing tips are not level.

Don't know what this means, so are we saying that unless the wing tips are level then the badge isn't genuine.

Ta

Jonathan

No not saying that.

All the genuine MIYs I’ve seen the dragon’s wing tips are much more level, sometimes the back is a smidgen higher, but not to the degree of the proportions observed in the MY above.

Kevin’s album has a nice selection.

https://www.britishbadgeforum.com/fo...ictureid=20907

https://www.britishbadgeforum.com/fo...ictureid=20909

https://www.britishbadgeforum.com/fo...ictureid=20911

Couple of mine below too.

Similarly the MIY has a sharper deeper ‘V’ shape void between the wings - again I have seen the odd example with a poorer void but not many.

This is different to the shallower ‘V’ almost a ‘tick’ shape outline on the MY.

Add this to the size difference in the scroll voids. To me it seems clear.

[BROOKIES]

Got it, the wing tips are not level.

Ta

Jonathan

[41st]

Sorry Luke but your theory on the photo you have used doesn’t hold any water at all. The photo is from one of my RPPCs & what you’re missing is the shoulder title which puts the timeframe nicely down for a MIY badge.