Forestry Corps - British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum

DavidS · #1 05-04-09, 03:54 PM

Anyone have any info on the small beaver/large beaver versions of the Forestry Corps badge? I've been meaning to ask this for awhile & this eBay listing reminded me, as the two types are conveniently illustrated side by side.

Is the large beaver type, which I don't see all that often compared to the small beaver type, an officer's pattern as this seller posits, or just a die change? Maz. only shows the latter.

Voltigeur · #2 05-04-09, 04:38 PM

Hi David. these are in my opinion, just as you say, a die variation. A few years ago I had an officer's badge and it was of better quality and definition than those two.
Jo

DavidS · #3 05-04-09, 05:00 PM

Thanks, Jo. As a die variation, Mazeas doesn't list it, so I've cross-posted this to the Maz. corrections thread. Any thoughts on date vs. the more common small beaver pattern?

There are real quality issues with the small beaver CFC badges: one of the 'poorer' (not my initial word of choice, but much politer) Canadian strikings for sure, right down there with the Maissoneuve's and South Sask's badges. The large beaver pattern, cursorily at least, looks to be somewhat nicer.

Voltigeur · #4 05-04-09, 05:29 PM

You know David I should have paid more attention to details like that (i.e.different dies) for me it was just a matter of maybe different period, early war-time vs late war-time and nothing was more important than getting the best-looking badge.
Jo

badgecollector · #5 05-04-09, 11:09 PM

hi
is it me? or just the bad pics from the seller? but most of this sellers badges look like copies? poor strikes, smudging to peeks, strikes of centre?
any comments?
bc

DavidS · #6 06-04-09, 01:02 AM

BC: as I said in a prev. post, the CFC badge isn't exactly a shining example of craftsmanship. It's probably one of the worst badges we ever cranked out. My allusion to the South Saskatchewan badge was because it is another I found notoriously difficult to find with a decent crown; most are off-centre and clipped pretty horribly. There are a few other crud badge strikes as well, where the poor look is the norm rather than the exception. Not all are due to hurried wartime production either; the Norfolk Regiment and Sault Ste. Marie & Sudbury badges are, I think, all pretty poorly struck and fuzzy as well.

Conversely there are some phenomenal O.R. badges. A particular favourite of mine is the New Brunswick Rangers bi-metal badge.

Doug N · #7 06-04-09, 01:10 AM

David asks a good question. I don't have a very good answer, but will offer a dissenting opinion. I tend to agree with the e-bay vendor; i.e that the large beaver badge is strictly an officer's pattern. I say this because I've seen these in gilt & antiqued brass, but don't recall ever seeing one in gilding metal.

Just to muddy the waters - there is such a thing as a crisply struck, nicely detailed small beaver badge. In the pictures below, one is in yellow brass with a semi flat back. The other has a sort of lacquered browning finish, & a struck up reverse. Both are made by Ludlow. I suspect these are private purchase officers' badges simply because of their scarcity. I have a friend who is enormously respected for his badge knowledge, who disagrees with this opinion. He believes thy are general issue badges from an alternate manufacturer.

I have some questions of my own on the CFC subject:

The big beaver badges are maker marked Scully. Anyone know the maker of the small beaver pattern? (the ugly one I mean)

In his book, Cox lists this pattern as a CEF badge; Babin does not. Can any of our CEF experts tell us if this badge was worn before 1940?

Doug N · #8 06-04-09, 01:21 AM

Maybe we need a new thread for the cruddiest badge striking. My nominee is the Rocky Mountain Rangers. That poor mountain sheep has got no eyeballs! It looks more like a potato with horns.

DavidS · #9 06-04-09, 01:45 AM

This is getting even more interesting with your pics., Doug. Looks like 3 dies at least, as my little beaver badge has more a melting ice cream cone than a tree (it's the badge pictured on the CanBadge project page). Your 2nd example is very nicely struck by comparison, detailed tree and sharp lettering, and sure ain't from the same die as made mine.

Doug N · #10 06-04-09, 02:09 AM

Three different dies for sure, David. I should have scanned the two small beaver patterns side x side. The 'cruddy' pattern (maker unknown) measures 53mm x 39mm. The 'crispy' pattern (by Ludlow) measures 50mm x 37mm. This doesn't sound like much, but the Ludlow badge is noticeably smaller than its counterpart.

jim a · #11 06-04-09, 03:17 AM

As far as forestry badges go I think the Ludlow ones bring a premium price probably double or triple a regular one... just a better badge

boots and saddles · #12 04-03-10, 10:40 PM

I once had a or forestry badge in my collection that was so bad I sold it & got an officers one, Now I didn't want an officers badge in my collection but I kept it until I got a chance to trade it for a better OR one.

mad4thcef · #13 04-04-10, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug N

David asks a good question. I don't have a very good answer, but will offer a dissenting opinion. I tend to agree with the e-bay vendor; i.e that the large beaver badge is strictly an officer's pattern. I say this because I've seen these in gilt & antiqued brass, but don't recall ever seeing one in gilding metal.

Just to muddy the waters - there is such a thing as a crisply struck, nicely detailed small beaver badge. In the pictures below, one is in yellow brass with a semi flat back. The other has a sort of lacquered browning finish, & a struck up reverse. Both are made by Ludlow. I suspect these are private purchase officers' badges simply because of their scarcity. I have a friend who is enormously respected for his badge knowledge, who disagrees with this opinion. He believes thy are general issue badges from an alternate manufacturer.

I have some questions of my own on the CFC subject:

The big beaver badges are maker marked Scully. Anyone know the maker of the small beaver pattern? (the ugly one I mean)

In his book, Cox lists this pattern as a CEF badge; Babin does not. Can any of our CEF experts tell us if this badge was worn before 1940?

I personally have not seen this as a CEF badge in any collections!

I will check a book out which is extensive on Forestry Corps!

Wait Out!
Rob

Doug N · #14 04-04-10, 11:57 PM

I guess as long as long as we're re-visiting this, I should formally renounce my earlier opinion that all 'big beaver' badges were officers' patterns. As I type this, I have a gilding metal example in my hand. Live & learn.

Still curious if Cox is right or wrong on the CEF aspect though.

mad4thcef · #15 06-04-10, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug N

I guess as long as long as we're re-visiting this, I should formally renounce my earlier opinion that all 'big beaver' badges were officers' patterns. As I type this, I have a gilding metal example in my hand. Live & learn.

Still curious if Cox is right or wrong on the CEF aspect though.

Hello

I am back with a wealth of knowledge!

The pics of the CFC posted on this thread are not from the CEF period .

This is a common mistake as they are posted on ebay as CEF they are from the WW2 era and the corps was much smaller in size than WW1.

So Cox is incorrect the reference book I checked was in correct etc.

It is also one of the crudest looking badges even for WW2.

I hope this helps.

Cheers
Rob