Kangaroo Ring!? and other 1 CACR suspects...

[Tanker Mike]

That seller has a huge collection, I am surprised he does not know his is a reproduction.

[shootemup]

That lanyard in the one listing with a AmdCar flash is a (Royal) Westminster Regiment lanyard...Royal Blue and Old Gold (Orange) from it's allied regiment, the Warwicks.

[DavidS]

Originally Posted by Tanker Mike

That seller has a huge collection, I am surprised he does not know his is a reproduction.

In defense of this collector, I believe he originally obtained this badge from, and it was described to him by Chris Brooker as an "original WWII Die 3 issue[s]" (A Contrary Opinion! Authenticating the Badges of the 'Kangaroos', Spring 2007 CSMMI Journal).

Given the info on Kangaroos badges Wm. Miller has assembled, I don't buy Mr. Brooker's conjecture in that article that these were legitimate badges, especially when there were sufficient left-over Die I badges that they were passed out at one Kangaroos reunion.

[Phillip Herring]

I've had my "type 2" for over thirty years. It was originally purchased from Ray Bennett who had a large selection of original and "true restrikes" - from original dies.
If the type 2 (round O) badge was not even from an original die, why was this particular die even made up and then the badges sold for BGP 1.50?

Phil

[WJ Miller]

If the type 2 (round O) badge was not even from an original die, why was this particular die even made up

Well, that's the $64,000 question isn't it? A question for which I have no answer.

All I can tell you is that the so called Die 2/Type 3... I have NEVER found one in any of the original regimental items I have seen from any veteran of this unit. And I have seen dozens of veteran collections. That said, I know of one veteran who acquired a "repro" on a trip to England in the 1980's and several veterans over the last decade whom I have supplied repros to replace lost badges.

The origins of this second die are a mystery, I have yet to come across one that has any provenance (spurious or otherwise) beyond the 1970's. The die is still around as freshly minted badges with sliders are still popping up in England.

The one mentioned for sale in this thread I saw first hand, last week. It is a tarnished, thin yellow brass, Die 2 with short Gaunt style lugs (D shaped openings). The seller asked my opinion, I gave it (repro of unknown origin, but NOT the common type made of gilding metal). He told me what Brooker vetted it as an original SWW issue when Brooker sold it to him and wishes to sell it as described when he bought it some 15 years ago. No malice there, but I think he is hoping to recoup his money. I get the sense he paid more than a few dollars for it.

Here are documented FACTS, not conjecture, infer from this what you will:

Genuine Kangaroo badges were made by JR Gaunt in 1945. The CO, Lt. Col. Churchill designed the badge and finalized the order for 100O badges from Gaunt in December of 1944. Correspondence with Gaunt and reciepts in the Regiment's War diaries show two shipments of 500 yellow brass badges. One in early February 1945, one in late March 1945. The regiment had an average monthly strength of just over 500 men, Part One orders state that badge issue was to be one per man, so this was a more than generous allotment. The regiment stood down in may of 1945, took on it's last draft of reinforcements in early June (replacing those who left for Pacific duty) and the regiment was disbanded on June 20, 1945. As the badges were purchased with regimental funds, the surplus (est. 200 badges) were divided up among Officers and RHQ men whom had any interest in the extras. I have seen numerous veteran estates with multiple "mint" badge (all type 1). This also went for extra collars and cloth insignia (I have another thread on the forum showing a 6' roll of 79th Armoured bull's head patches)

Would Gaunt have made a second die for such a small order, an order that was complete in three months? The regiment was disbanded less than three months after the badge order was completed. The Army had no plans to reconstitute the "kangaroos" in Canada and never did so, so further badges of their design were not needed.

I doubt we'll ever know fully the origins of the Die 2 (in my mind, repro only) badge. I think where some of the confusion or doubt lies in these grey area badges. Those stamped from the Die 2, but made from good brass and using SWW style Gaunt lugs. They are genuinely a different badge from the common repros we see today (the reddish gilding metal type), typically these brass types (I own 4 of them) like the vendor is selling look worn (considerable surface wear and caked polish residue on the back... however, that is purely circumstantial and is not proof of SWW issue. Unless, a Die 2 badge turns up in a veteran's collection, with a rock solid provenance back to 1945... I remain highly skeptical that Die 2's are anything but reproduction.

I agree with Brooker in one sense, that it is not easy to make a die (a mould, yes) but a die for stamping, no. An original die is a difficult and expensive undertaking, requiring some very specialized equipment. So someone, maybe even Gaunt themselves in the 1960's or early 70's; someone went through a lot of trouble to make this die and they are seeing a lot more use out of it than the one made in 1944-45. :roll eyes:

(I look at all the repro badges that have flooded the UK market and beyond and have to wonder how anyone is making any money from these cheap badges. Is there really that much demand for badges - fake or otherwise??)

[DavidS]

Brooker's counter-opinion in the CSMMI Journal was in response to a well-reasoned 5-page opinion by Tony Reintjes on the legitimacy of the Type 2 'Roos badge (Authenticating... The 1st Canadian Armoured Personnel Carrier Regiment Cap Badge and Shoulder Title, CSMMI Journal, Spring 2006).

As far as I am aware, there is neither photographic support for, nor a provenanced beret with a Type 2 (or Type 3, as Brooker suggests), cap badge being worn.

Mazeas listed the Type 2 die as a post-war copy. Having a badge for over 30 years merely means it has been around since at least the 1980s. Having one for over 50 years merely means it has been around since at least the 1960s.

This doesn't negate the argument that the Type 2 badge was never issued or worn during WW2, it just means that some Type 2 badges are as old as I am.

Out of 16 pages in his CSMMI Journal counter-argument, Brooker only spent 3 paragraphs dealing with why he conjectured this badge was a war-time issue, based solely on the type of metal in which it was struck.

He concludes with this: "The use of ‘logic and common sense’ to make assumptions, in the absence of corroborating evidence, as to when or if badges were actually produced, or worn, does not conform to acceptable standards of research. Neither Tony’s opinion nor my opposing theory are supported by definitive documentations."

That disclaimer means, basically, that Mr. Brooker accepts that there is no documented support for his contention, and contention it is, while information collected since these articles appeared, by Bill Miller in extensively researching the 1st APCR in fact does support Tony Reintjes' original points.

[Phillip Herring]

Originally Posted by Phillip Herring

I've had my "type 2" for over thirty years. It was originally purchased from Ray Bennett who had a large selection of original and "true restrikes" - from original dies.
If the type 2 (round O) badge was not even from an original die, why was this particular die even made up and then the badges sold for BGP 1.50?

Phil

Originally Posted by DavidS

Mazeas listed the Type 2 die as a post-war copy. Having a badge for over 30 years merely means it has been around since at least the 1980s. Having one for over 50 years merely means it has been around since at least the 1960s.

This doesn't negate the argument that the Type 2 badge was never issued or worn during WW2, it just means that some Type 2 badges are as old as I am.

I should have been more clear. I have always assumed that my type 2 was a 1970s vintage restrike.
Given that this badge appeared with many other restruck badges (the large w/m Canadian Para Corps with slider was on Ray Bennett's list), I'm wondering if Gaunt did produce two dies for the 1st CAPCR badge.
I think I will stick to idea that the type 1 is original and the type 2 is not.

Phil

[Michael Reintjes]

I could go on for hours about those who base their opinions on speculation and a background in coin collecting as opposed to those who formulate their findings on hard research and evidence but most have already had those arguments over the years. I can say that in the early 80's I was offered these round O phonies in almost unlimited quantities by the bag full for a quid each when I was in the employ of Jeff Hoare in London. They were being sold as fakes then and should be regarded as such now despite some somewhat convoluted theories about alloys and metal makeup.....the badge in the auction I believe was purchased from my father as a repro years ago after a discussion about the fact that it was yellow brass as opposed to reddish brass. How it became an original die 2 original in the mean time is unknown to me....

[DavidS]

Looks like everyone agrees but Chris Brooker.

[Michael Reintjes]

I should clarify that if the badge in question was the same badge as sold by my dad(and I think it is) it was not sold to the current vendor offering it on ebay.

[WJ Miller]

While we are on the subject of the 2007 CSMMI article by Chris Brooker, I want to correct one other deplorable fallacy.

Brooker concluded the article; "In Addition, the use of generic Canadian Armoured Corps badges described by Tony as being worn by the Regiment until 1945, does not match the known facts that the drivers, at least initially, were not assigned to the Canadian Armoured Corps, but were a hodgepodge of R.C.A. and reinforcement pool drivers"

True, they were initially a hodgepodge of RCA and (CAC) reinforcement pool drivers.

However, it was a priority for Col. Churchill, maybe his top priority, to mould the men of the newly formed 1CAPCR into a cohesive unit. He started with trying to achieve a uniformity of dress and creating single unit identity. Their first headquarters as a regiment was established in Tilburg on 1 Nov 44. The first regimental Part 1 Orders, dated 4 Nov 44, first page proclaims:

"9. All formation and regimental shoulder flashes other than Army Tps and CAC flashes will be taken down immediately. Cap badges at present in use may continue to be worn until CAC cap badges are available."

Part I Orders for 8 Nov 44:

"23. Badges and Signs: 1. There is an acute shortage in the theatre of badges cap, patches distinguishing and badges shoulder…"

excerpt from Lt. Colonel Churchill's letter of 20 Nov 44 to JR Gaunt & Son, Ltd:

"6. There is a degree of urgency in this matter from our standpoint, for we have at least fifteen different cap badges in the unit. Therefore, we we will be grateful for any special effort you can make to speed the production of the badge with alterations requested.
7. Five hundred badges are required, as soon as possible, and this is your authority to proceed with the order. Five hundred additional badges will also be required, but with less urgency."

Regimental Part II Orders for November list all the RCA personnel that were transferred to the CAC.

Regimental War Diary: 5 Feb 45.

"The first delivery of the new Shoulder titles was recd today… A large supply of Regt'l cap badges has also arrived and it is considered that these together with the shoulder flashes will have an excellent effect on morale and "esprit de corps".

But a picture is worth a 1000 words (Christmas, 1944. Tilburg. A Squadron No.4 troop). Mostly CAC badges, but some FGH, Essex Tank, Sherbrooke Fusiliers, Ontario Regt., a 16/22 Sask Horse and maybe a BCD or two… black hats everyone...

One last note. While I have clear regimental documentation to support the above, MOST of this was publicly accessible at the National Archives, known AND written about accurately long before 2007 and even long before I got involved with the Regimental association. So Brooker should have had the supporting documentation he was looking for. If he looked.

Ed Storey published perhaps the first indepth article on the regiment and it's insignia in a Militaria magazine, back in the mid 1990's (sorry Ed, I can't find the magazine title or date on my yellowed photocopies), the article was profusely illustrated, including a Christmas 1944 photo similar to the one I've posted here (his was No.3 Troop). But of course Ed actually tracked down and talked with a great number of actual veterans of the Regiment. What better source on Kangaroos?...

'nuff said.

[Bill A]

Just one additional note. The First Canadian Army / CMHQ considered the only authorized isignia for the 1 CACR to be the Canadian Armoured Corps cap and shoulder titles. (From LAC documents, May or June 1945, don't have the ref handy.) As Bill M has researched, all the inisgnia obtained by Lt-Col. Churchill was regimentally acquired, at unit expense, and not officially authorized.

[Michael Reintjes]

While we're at it..I just wanted to say that I.m so pleased that the hobby has reached the point of actual serious researchers and publishers doing the not so glamorous and sometimes frustrating work of digging patiently for the truth. We are lucky to have guys like Bill Miller, Ed Storey, Clive Law and our own Bill A who report their findings as they find it even when it ends up NOT being what they or most of us have believed for years.
There have been decades of perpetuated fantasy from some whom I call the definitive theorists who seem more than happy to be in a rush to fill in the blanks of history with info that ranges from fuzzy anecdotal evidence to outright speculation. I am unsure if the motive for such is a result of questionable business practice, an unfed ego or perhaps just a complete lack of training in the art of research itself but I have seen a few of these guys over the years. Some are more stubborn than others but all seem in a hurry to make absolute and definitive statements based on theory which of course makes it very difficult for some to retract their theories when more evidence arises.
I don't know where the so called second die of this badge came from and I'm happy to say I don't know. Some folks asked me some questions about some badge examples they had at the CSMMI convention and when I didn't have anything more than speculation on the badge in question, I told them so.
The danger of the Definitive theorist in the hobby is that over time these folks seem to perpetuate these theories long enough that in some regional circles they take on a life of their own and become fact to many, especially those new to the hobby. I will say that some of these guys have done some very good work over the years as well which makes their speculative work even more plausible to the novice collector.
The truth takes patience, time and hard work. If we are all looking for historical fact....why rush to judgement? Some facts in history will never be known and should be stated as such. Speculation and formulation is fine for around the hot stove and behind the badge show tables but the publication of such is in my opinion, damaging to both the hobby and history itself.
just my two cents....

[edstorey]

Thank you for the kind words, but my initial articles on 1CACR that were published some 20 years ago have long been outclasses and outpaced by the more scholarly research being undertaken of the many posters to this forum. Forty years ago when badges did not cost much and were basically collected like trading cards and you could get into the hobby for pocket money, the historical record and design differences hardly seemed to matter and the 'stories' associated with the material just added to the personal interaction of the hobby.

Now that the collecting hobby has become and industry and with higher prices being paid for what at one time was the most mudane of items; any piece of primary data relating to any item can save a potential buyer hundreds of dollars. I find it surprising that with all of the published information available, there is still a continuous stream of people entering the game who are willing to spend their hard-earned money on things that they know absolutely nothing about or believe the first story about the item that they are told.

I enjoy reading about the fruits of eveyone's research and once again thank you.

[Bill A]

Ed has emphasized something important. The collecting process is cumulative, and with each person adding their research and knowledge to the public fora, either through publishing, posting or discussing (maybe disgusting???), an immense data base has been created. It is the most valuable resource those interested in militaria have. With the "business" of collecting becoming more and more expensive, a collector with knowledge is protecting the hobby, and his / her investment.