|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
GvR Crowns
Hi All
This is the "services" part of the Naval and Military Club's famous display of WWI officers' cap badges of the Great War (which broadly runs in order of precedence). I am interested in opinions as to what the last and third to last badges might be. I am guessing the first one would be Staff for Royal Engineer Services and the second Military Provost Staff Corps. I don't think it could be Barrack Wardens or Recruiting Staff because those were civilian outfits (albeit, normally comprised of former servicemen). As far as I know the Corps of Army Schoolmasters did not have officers in it, unless someone can tell me that warrant officers wore the same badges as commissioned officers. We can also rule out Norfolk Yeomany as it is a collection of regular units only. I don't know whether officers in, for example, the Military Police, wore (completely) different cap badges to the ORs. Any other opinions welcome. Tom Last edited by TomPC; 25-08-21 at 04:55 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The RASC, RAOC and RAVC badges are all post-WW1.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
That's interesting. When did they come in?
The positioning of the RAOC is also wrong based on WWI precedence (basis KRs 1912 in force until new ones came out in 1923). And any idea about the other ones? |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Here are the KRs 1912.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
I believe hoot is saying the actual badges on display is post WWI and maybe even post WWII for the RAOC depending on what is on the scroll. These units were around during WWI, but the actual badges are not the correct WWI period badges.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
It is perhaps a risk to put too much faith in the display layout and content. It would depend upon the year that the display was originally assembled, using what precedent document and by whom, I believe by a badge maker? Also, has the display been refurbished more recently?
I last saw it in passing a few years ago but I think there was a brass plaque at the bottom of the frame giving details? Tim
__________________
"Manui dat cognitio vires - Knowledge gives strength to the arm" "Better to know it but not need it than to need it and not know it!" "Have more than thou showest, speak less than thou knowest." Last edited by grey_green_acorn; 26-08-21 at 07:45 AM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The ASC, AOC and AVC were all granted the "Royal" prefix, following the end of hostilities, in recognition of their outstanding contribution during the conflict. The new badges came into use around 1920.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hi
I spotted this on e bay this morning and wondered if it may answer your question. I have not studied it in detail (busy at the moment) but thought i would post it just in case. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/124872667...AAAOSwlZxhKKhs Regards Steve ps. hope it displays |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Doesn't really help, but a brief discussion of officer's quality (albeit bullion) crowned GRV badge here:
https://www.britishbadgeforum.com/fo...ight=Inspector |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
My only concern is that I understood the Corps of Army Schoolmasters to consist solely of Warrant Officers. Does anyone know if they would have worn an officers' or an other ranks' badge? Also has anyone ever seen an officers' version of a GvC crown for sale? Thanks, Tom |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
There are numerous examples of different units wearing badges of the same WO pattern e.g. QRWS v’s 22nd & 24th Bns London Regt and Kent Cyclists v’s West Kent Yeomanry. In such instances they are totally interchangeable and indistinguishable (unless you had provenance). I would echo what Hoot and Tim have said. I think you are maybe trying stratify and add context to a couple badges in a collection which actually has neither. Also I’d not put too much stock in posters. Every one I’ve ever seen contains either/both inaccuracies in badge designs or attributions. e.g. 36 - makes no mention design shown is NCOs and 135 - fails to mention Army Recruiters. The size of the GvR badge is significant as is the fixings. They look large so amongst the myriad of others who used the royal cypher I would not yet totally rule out Norfolk Yeomanry (cap / pouch) without measurements or seeing the fittings. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Officer's quality badges were worn by officers - Inspectors of Army Schools. A different Cypher as King Edward VII, the 1904 Dress Regulations describes Inspectors of Army Schools badge for the pugaree and forage cap as "The Royal Cypher with crown above". Last edited by leigh kitchen; 28-08-21 at 06:46 AM. Reason: Added Dress Regs ref. and image. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This is from a WWI collection of officers cap badges at the In and Out Club. It's huge and in a narrow corridor making it hard to capture in a single shot with terrible lighting and reflections from the trophy cabinets opposite. The member of staff who emailed it to me sent it as 22 photos which I've stitched together, so apologies for the quality! He was doing it as a favour so I can hardly expect him to start hunting for light switches. I think you may have slightly misunderstand my point, for which I apologise. The collection is in order of precedence (with a few errors and anomalies). We're trying to discern which corps those two GvR badges represent, probably more based on their positioning than their look, which is indeed identical. They wouldn't be barrack wardens or recruiters as those outfits were not part of the army (they were War Office civil employees). If you have any ideas, do let me know. Thanks, Tom |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You may well be on to something here - thank you very much indeed for that insight. I am indeed looking at their precedence to work out what they are (see also reply to Luke H, just above). I could not think of any units that were part of the army 1918 precedence that would have GvR-crown officers' badges apart from Staff for RE Services. I think you may have hit the nail on the head with the Inspectors of Army Schools. I wonder if they were perhaps the officers' department associated with the Corps of Army Schoolmasters. If so, that point in the precedence would make sense. Thanks, Tom |
|
|