RN Commando

[elwe23]

Hi all,

I have seen a RN Commando embroidered title on Robin's website that seems like a reproduction title to me.
https://www.mcgregor.uk.net/product/...no-5319-sf24a/

I would like other people opinion on the matter. Is this a manufacture original variant or a post war / repro version ?

I have seen original ones, that are thicker and look more traditionally made like other commando titles (white commando title) with either glue back or white gaze back. They usually have rounder and smaller dots, not large dots like this and the typo is different 'D' and 'R'.

Would be good to have different opinions. I have uploaded a period photo.
Robin is serious seller, this post only goal is to learn and progress into the studies of variants.

Thanks

[Mike B]

It is good to see collectors taking a forensic approach to collecting Commando insignia - a necessary precaution.
But - to clarify my thoughts on the R.N. COMMANDO title referred to - to me it looks well made. I keep a similar example in my collection questions box. The question is when was it made of course, and who for.
Robin is a highly regarded and trusted friend.
Views are welcome, as we all learn from them - it is a title I have not examined in detail, apart from preference of this wording in some units rather than ROYAL NAVY and separate COMMANDO.
Mike

[elwe23]

Thanks Mike for your feedback.

I had previously the opinion of Normandie18 a few months ago on the same type. He said it was reproduction.

I talked with someone from the P Commando RN re-enactment group that said to me from his point of view it is a repro.

[Mike B]

The trouble with re-enactment groups is they often have insignia made to high standards - there is one firm making printed titles that are very close to original. While I admire the enthusiasm of these living history groups - they do sometimes pose a problem for insignia collectors. I firmly believe reproduction items should bear some mark or other to prevent unintentional (or intentional) deception. Are you saying this was made for a reenactor group?, or it is the opinion of a member of such a group it is reproduction. If so - please enlighten us with reasons why. I do suspect he may very well be right.
I note in your first post - observations regarding the dots - I must admit I have not examined the titles in such detail yet, but agree it may be necessary to look into this further. I am not sure the photographs you provide are clear enough to educate us. However, an informed forensic approach is often necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff - clear photographs, feedback from you contacts, views of forum members, would help. This sort of discussion is to be encouraged - often it boils down to my own personal mantra - 'if in doubt, leave it out'.
Mike

[NORMANDIE18]

A burn test could help, the embroidery thread seems to me to be synthetic ?
Normandie18

[Mike B]

Originally Posted by NORMANDIE18

A burn test could help, the embroidery thread seems to me to be synthetic ?
Normandie18

Agree - I am sure I have tried UV light but found no glow - may well check again.

[Paddy]

Hello All

Just in case it helps I have attached a few pictures of the RN Commando titles in my own collection. They came as a group with 2 combined ops badges and 2 single good service stripes.

Paddy

[Mike B]

Originally Posted by Paddy

Hello All

Just in case it helps I have attached a few pictures of the RN Commando titles in my own collection. They came as a group with 2 combined ops badges and 2 single good service stripes.

Paddy

Very nice set Paddy - they look text book to me
Mike

[elwe23]

Originally Posted by Mike B

The trouble with re-enactment groups is they often have insignia made to high standards - there is one firm making printed titles that are very close to original. While I admire the enthusiasm of these living history groups - they do sometimes pose a problem for insignia collectors. I firmly believe reproduction items should bear some mark or other to prevent unintentional (or intentional) deception. Are you saying this was made for a reenactor group?, or it is the opinion of a member of such a group it is reproduction. If so - please enlighten us with reasons why. I do suspect he may very well be right.
I note in your first post - observations regarding the dots - I must admit I have not examined the titles in such detail yet, but agree it may be necessary to look into this further. I am not sure the photographs you provide are clear enough to educate us. However, an informed forensic approach is often necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff - clear photographs, feedback from you contacts, views of forum members, would help. This sort of discussion is to be encouraged - often it boils down to my own personal mantra - 'if in doubt, leave it out'.
Mike

Hi all thanks for your feedback. Thanks Paddy for sharing your photos.

I agree with you Mike on reproduction for reenactment. It is a problem for us collector, specially young collectors.
He didn't say they were produce for reenactment he just said they were repro.

You are right a forensic approach is necessary. Only difficult bit is to find clear and detailed photos.

So here are again some montages I did, with original photos, and the different variant manufacture.
I have put the "Robin" variant on top and the three others are original ones (including the ones from Paddy). In the last photo I chose the period photo the closest I could find that looked like a printed version and added the blue printed version.
To me the typo is clearly not the one in the blue printed version, form of letters are different.
The only new detail I could find to add is when you look at all original period photos the spacing between the C and the O is larger than the "robin" version where the C touch the O.
In the textbook paddy exemple the spacing correspond to the originals photos.
There is a clear different version of quality with the "robin" title when you look at thread letters in details.

[Mike B]

Originally Posted by elwe23

Hi all thanks for your feedback. Thanks Paddy for sharing your photos.

I agree with you Mike on reproduction for reenactment. It is a problem for us collector, specially young collectors.
He didn't say they were produce for reenactment he just said they were repro.

You are right a forensic approach is necessary. Only difficult bit is to find clear and detailed photos.

So here are again some montages I did, with original photos, and the different variant manufacture.
I have put the "Robin" variant on top and the three others are original ones (including the ones from Paddy). In the last photo I chose the period photo the closest I could find that looked like a printed version and added the blue printed version.
To me the typo is clearly not the one in the blue printed version, form of letters are different.
The only new detail I could find to add is when you look at all original period photos the spacing between the C and the O is larger than the "robin" version where the C touch the O.
In the textbook paddy exemple the spacing correspond to the originals photos.
There is a clear different version of quality with the "robin" title when you look at thread letters in details.

Very useful montages Elwe23 - you are building a good case.

[RobinG]

I have UV light tested this badge as I in fact UV test all my badges and when tested this badge passed with flying colours. It is certainly not synthetic material which glows blue when placed on the lettering R.N. COMMANDO whitst the R.N.COMMANDO lettering stays as it should, white.

Best wishes

Robin McGregor

[Mike B]

Originally Posted by RobinG

I have UV light tested this badge as I in fact UV test all my badges and when tested this badge passed with flying colours. It is certainly not synthetic material which glows blue when placed on the lettering R.N. COMMANDO whitst the R.N.COMMANDO lettering stays as it should, white.

Best wishes

Robin McGregor

Thanks for confirming Robin.
I know you are always most diligent with such matters
Mike