|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
No 9 commando hackle
Recently won this on greedbay
Just looking for opinions on it and if we think its correct or a reproduction Cheers gents |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Looks correct to me
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cheer mike ill try and get some better pictures once i get it .. but thats always good to know
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A nice short 'stubby' example with similar whipping finish I have seen in a couple of attributed items. I generally prefer this type, but have an attributed No.9 Cdo green beret (1943) where the hackle is of the 'longer' type.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Apologies for my ignorance but what would be the difference between a 9 Commando hackle and that of the Kings African Rifle, Royal Ulster Rifles or the Cameronians?
Regards Sean |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Am with Sean here, Black hackles, but era unknown?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sean and Billy - certainly the Cameronians is very much the same - although sellers like to state 'as No.9 Cdo' or 'No.11 Cdo' - etc which is really just 'window dressing'. My comments arise from examples I have attributed to No.9 Cdo veterans and a No.11 Cdo veteran regarding similarity etc. The hackle was adopted unofficially within No.9 and No.11 Cdos and would have been acquired from suppliers to Cameronians etc - so no difference as you infer.
Mike PS: No.11 Cdo adopted the black hackle before No.9 Cdo and were not pleased when No.9 (many of them 'Sassenach's') joined suit. |
|
|