|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
From the marking on the reverse, it may be a die strike specimen.
__________________
Res ipsa loquitur |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
48th (CEF) Badge Variants
this seems to be the 3rd "Cross" variant of the 15 Bn (CEF) It appears to be "cast" and Wm which matches "Cross's" description
Larry
__________________
Larry Will |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Modern 48th
I thought I post these pictures for discussion, having read Clive L's article on The Battle of the Garter.
https://servicepub.wordpress.com/201...of-the-garter/ The first picture is from the on-line CF supply catalogue showing the official badge of the 48th, including the typical slider. The small copper wire at 10 o'clock is the seal, as in sealed pattern. This picture I took the other night, different badge and a terrible TOS. It appears the war isn't over. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Hi Bruce, Clarification, the badge / tam are current wear?
__________________
Res ipsa loquitur |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
A serving soldier from the 48th was wearing it when I took the picture. I didn't have a chance to ask him whether the badge was unit purchased and issued, private purchase, or a kit shop item. The tam was unit purchased and issued.
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Also possible he acquired a buckle pattern from a dealer. I have sold many badges to soldiers who preferred what the old one looked like compared to the new issue. I don't know if they got away with it, but it has happened more than once.
__________________
Res ipsa loquitur |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Very possible. I don't think I have ever worn the issue badge. I've always worn older badges, they are higher quality, brass, wm, or some type of metal that actually polishes and shines and doesn’t fall apart. It is not at all uncommon for soldiers to hunt down good badges to wear. In my current regiment the issue badge isn’t close to being correct, so the unit purchases the correct badge to wear. Quality can be hit and miss, the last batch came from Hong Kong I think, the quality was poor to say the least.
Last edited by ddaydodger; 15-02-16 at 10:08 PM. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It did look cast and lacks a lot of the detail. |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I also got from the museum the "definitive" answer to the garter/buckle issue. " in 1991 the Queen gave official approval for the regiment to again use the garter" The vap badge on the sad looking tam is the current cap badge for the regiment. |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Now I have another badge to look for...
Are there characteristics on the reverse to look for?
__________________
Res ipsa loquitur |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Do you have a picture of the back of the current badge? Are they issue or regimental purchase?
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As for where they are sourced I do not know, we did not get into that aspect. My main mission was to determine the status of the buckle. I will ask the next time I am down at the museum if they know who is making the new badges. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
48th Highlanders cap badges
These pictures are of a badge I purchased about a year ago. I was told it is current issue. It seems a little different than the one on the tam.
It is definitely of modern manufacture. It has the garter belt and ribbed 48. Seems to be of good weight and a fully struck up reverse. The falcon head has a higher profile than the previous non-garter badges. The whole badge including lugs is plated with a non-polish finish. I don't see any maker marks. I wonder about the approval date of 1991. The official Canadian Heraldic Approval is dated 2007 (see: http://reg.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/pr...ctImageID=1455). Maybe the unit approved unofficially as of 1991. I have some of the same questions. Are these badges official supply system badges or unit purchase/issue? When did the unit officially or unofficially start wearing the new design? Jim |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
48th Enamel
This is the enamel badge I have. It is marked on the back but I cant make out the name. ***..B'HAM ?
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Sweetheart pin? What size is it?
|
|
|