Any ideas ?

[Jeff Mc William]

Hi all. I have had this one on the "sagongs" forum since June. No "takers" yet. It is identified in the "British in India" Museum in Nelson (Lancs) as 62nd Madras Regt Glengarry badge. However, I have also seen it identified variously in Bosleys and W&W amoung other things in the past as "62nd Wiltshire Regt" pouch badge, glengarry,...whatever ! In desperation..can anyone "out there" positively identify this !? PS: It is all brass, die-struck, and "glengarry size" ie about 75mm high
62nd_Madras_Regt_ORs_cap.jpg

[Wmr-RHB]

I am a newby here and just browsing through old threads. Thus a late post, but who knows it is of interest.

As far as I know there never was such a thing as a 62nd Madras Regiment. The numbers never went that high in te Madras army. The 2nd Madras Infantry became the 62nd Punjabis in 1903 and had a different badge at all.

[CftD]

The style of title - a number with the word 'Regiment' on a circlet is very typical of Indian infantry regiments of the mid-Victorian era. I do not see this as having anything to do with the 62nd Regiment of Foot pre 1881. It may be a head-dress badge and, with lugs, most likely is so. Also remember that Bombay, Madras and Bengal had infantry regiments with numbers going over 100, so 62 is well within that ambit. David

[CftD]

Originally Posted by Wmr-RHB

I am a newby here and just browsing through old threads. Thus a late post, but who knows it is of interest.

As far as I know there never was such a thing as a 62nd Madras Regiment. The numbers never went that high in te Madras army. The 2nd Madras Infantry became the 62nd Punjabis in 1903 and had a different badge at all.

Henk - I'm afraid you are wrong. The 1st Bn., Royal Dublin Fusiliers was - from 1861-1881 - the 102nd (Royal Madras Fusiliers). The 2nd Bn. Leinster Regiment was - 1861-1881 - the 109th (Bombay Infantry) Regiment and the 2nd Bn. Royal Munster Fusiliers was - 1861-1881 - the 104h (Bengal Fusiliers). These all illustrate the point I have made elsewhere on this thread. David

[Wmr-RHB]

I am sorry to disagree here.

The regiments you mention are the numbers used of the former European regiments of the HEIC after they transfered to the British army. Thus the 102nd (Royal Madras Fuseliers) was the 102nd in the British line and this does not means that the 62nd in that line was anything like that because it was the 62nd (Wiltshire) Regiment of Foot.

The 102nd Regiment of Foot (Royal Madras Fusiliers) was before the munity the 1st Madras (European) Regiment, then the 1st Madras (European) Fusiliers. All three presidencies had European regiments, but they never numbered more then about four for each of them, thus no 62nd Madras (European) existed.

I was refering to the Native Infantry. My information is from Boris Mollo's "The Indian Army".

The tables in that book show that the highest number ever in the Madras Army's Infantry was the 52nd. The highest in the Bengal was the 74th. In the Bombay Army the 29th.

Thus only the Bengal army had a 62nd (which was diasrmed in 1957).

After the mutiny the Bengal Army was recreated, but the infantry nubmers only rose to 48th.

1903 saw the renumbering of all the regiments in one range and there was again a 62nd, but that was the old 2nd Madras Infantry and it was now named 62nd Punjabis.

The next reorganisation of 1922 saw a complete new numbering, but that went only up to the 20th.

Now I am not a badge guru, but when I look to the picture in the post #1 above, which says "62 REGIMENT" and the gurus say it is Indian in style, I believe this, but when the caption says it is "Madras", I doubt very much.

[Jeff Mc William]

Hi Henk. Thank you for your most interesting post, and for what its worth, I think you are perfectly right. This was exactly the conudrum which I encountered when I began to research this badge some years ago, and I am still no nearer to identifying it !
There are however quite a few about in various collections and every now and then they come up for sale variously described (ie Bosleys and W&W etc) tho most seem to agree it is Indian. K&K p172 describes it as a Wiltshire Regt glengarry badge (but it is not illustrated) and surprisingly the Wiltshire Regt museum seem to agree ! I have also written to the "British in India" museum some time ago but, so far, have not had the courtesy of a reply...but I wonder how they could have got it so wrong ??!
This is all a bit of a mystery which could well do with being sorted. Regards Jeff

[CftD]

Henk - Much of what you say relates to 20th century reforms which are totally irrelevant to this badge as it bears a Victorian crown. This is an Indian Army badge in every sense and relates to Madras, Bengal or Bombay. Instead of telling everyone what it IS NOT, why not tell us what IT IS ? Negative arguments alone don't satisfy an argument so what is your conclusion ? Do you see it as Carnatic or what ? David

[2747andy]

Someone has overdosed on their "Rude" pils this morning!

Andy

[Wmr-RHB]

Originally Posted by Counsel for the Defence

Henk - Much of what you say relates to 20th century reforms which are totally irrelevant to this badge as it bears a Victorian crown. This is an Indian Army badge in every sense and relates to Madras, Bengal or Bombay. Instead of telling everyone what it IS NOT, why not tell us what IT IS ? Negative arguments alone don't satisfy an argument so what is your conclusion ? Do you see it as Carnatic or what ? David

The only thing I try to convey is that there never was a 62nd Regiment of Madras (Native) Infantry and that thus the caption can not be true. I try to back this with one important source: Mollo's book (there are others also).

I can again add something negative to your suggestion about Carnatic. The Carnatic Battalions existed from 1770 - 1784 and I guess (but the badge gurus may enlighten me) that there where no cap badges with Victorian crowns worn then. And again their number never reached 62.

I thought it would be appreciated when more information about the (im)possibilities about this badge were gathered here, thus making it possible to come to a final conclusion. Telling what it is NOT is also information. Now telling that it is not a football is also true, but nonsense information. IMHO telling that it is not what somebody wrote alongside it is usefull. But you may think different.

It was you, not me, who started mentioning the 102nd (Royal Madras Fusiliers) Regiment of Foot that is in a complete different numbering range from a complete different establishment (the numbering of Regiments of Foot in the British Army between 1751 and 1881).

I only illustrated my post with the post Victorian reorganisations of 1903 and 1922 to prevent people from mixing these numbering systems with the numbering systems of the presidential HEIC armies that ruled in India in Victorian times and that we are talking about.

My, positive, suggestion is here: when it is a Victorian cap badge of some Indian Infantry unit (that is what the badge gurus assume), then it can only have been from the 62nd Bengal Native Infantry (because the other precidencies had never a 62nd). This Regiment started live in 1818 as 2nd/31st BNI and became 62nd BNI in 1824. It was disarmed (and thus ceased to exist) in 1857. I leave it to the badge gurus to explain if there were allready cap badges in the Bengal army before 1857.

[Wmr-RHB]

Originally Posted by Jeff Mc William

Hi Henk. Thank you for your most interesting post, and for what its worth, I think you are perfectly right. This was exactly the conudrum which I encountered when I began to research this badge some years ago, and I am still no nearer to identifying it !
There are however quite a few about in various collections and every now and then they come up for sale variously described (ie Bosleys and W&W etc) tho most seem to agree it is Indian. K&K p172 describes it as a Wiltshire Regt glengarry badge (but it is not illustrated) and surprisingly the Wiltshire Regt museum seem to agree ! I have also written to the "British in India" museum some time ago but, so far, have not had the courtesy of a reply...but I wonder how they could have got it so wrong ??!
This is all a bit of a mystery which could well do with being sorted. Regards Jeff

As I explained in several places, I can not tell much about a badge with respect to origin, material, style, fake or not, etc., because I am a noob I can only add some of the little knowledge I gathered about Regimental history.

Thus I can not tell if it is "normal" for a British Regiment of Foot to have a badge which says "62 Regiment". Also most people but me here will be able to decide if it is possible that the 62nd (Wiltshire) Regiment of Foot was in India in the time suggested and they could have let badges made by Indian artists/artisans/craftsman, thus showing a distinct Indian style. But I guess that all these possibilities allready passed through a lot of the minds of the forum members here.