QRWS - Core Variants & Search Request

[Jelly Terror]

In an attempt to make sense of the many types of Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment badges, I have managed to identify six core types (or variants) in respect of the other ranks' cap badge (patterns 4681/1898 and 4681A/1916). Each of the six badges identified (shown below) displays a different combination of the following ten, defining characteristics:

1) Loops
2) Slider
3) Bi-metal
4) All-gilding Metal
5) Elliptical Halo
6) Circular Halo
7) Voided Tail Area
8) Voided Foreleg Area
9) Non-voided Tail Area
10) Non-voided Foreleg Area

The six core variants so far identified are:

1) Looped, bi-metal, elliptical halo, non-voided foreleg, non-voided tail

CV 1a.jpgCV 1b.jpg

2) Slidered, bi-metal, elliptical halo, non-voided foreleg, non-voided tail

CV 2a.jpgCV 2b.jpg

3) Slidered, bi-metal, circular halo, voided foreleg, voided tail

CV 3a.jpgCV 3b.jpg

4) Slidered, bi-metal, elliptical halo, non-voided foreleg, voided tail

CV 4a.jpgCV 4b.jpg

5) Slidered, all-gilding metal, elliptical halo, non-voided foreleg, non-voided tail

CV 5a.jpgCV 5b.jpg

6) Slidered, all-gilding metal, elliptical halo, non-voided foreleg, voided tail

CV 6a.jpgCV 6b.jpg

At this stage there seems to be no other existing combinations comprising these ten defining characteristics, though I would be delighted to learn of others to include in this series. Therefore I would like to call on members for their assistance and ask if they might be kind enough to check their collections for variants which display combinations of the ten defining characteristics listed above, but which differ from the existing six core variants already established?

Of course, each of these six variants will in turn have its own sub-group of variants with perhaps such traits as (for example) variations in slider length, makers' marks, absence/presence, shape and number of vent holes, flagstaff type etc. etc. Theoretically, such a list could be divided and sub-divided ad infinitum. This however, will be the next stage in the cataloguing process and an ongoing project leading from the establishment of the main types covered here.

I'd like to thank Wilf/ORASOT for his ID of CV 4, and for furnishing me with accompanying photos of this variant, and Julian/KLR for his provision of pattern numbers.

With thanks,

JT.

NB - Within this research I have sought not to include officers' badges, cadets, grammar school, OTCs, or volunteer battalions of the regiment.

[KLR]

Brilliant - a man after my own heart. I'm doing exactly that for KLR badges - but sadly I don't have your photographic skills !!
I would say though, officer's badges are often stamped by makers - and so might be able to define the same die characteristics etc to the OR badges. In the case of the KLR ,Gaunt badges use a different design to the OR's, whereas Firmin use exactly the same. Also, VB and TF badge designs can give you a chronology .

[Jelly Terror]

Originally Posted by KLR

Brilliant - a man after my own heart. I'm doing exactly that for KLR badges - but sadly I don't have your photographic skills !!
I would say though, officer's badges are often stamped by makers - and so might be able to define the same die characteristics etc to the OR badges. In the case of the KLR ,Gaunt badges use a different design to the OR's, whereas Firmin use exactly the same. Also, VB and TF badge designs can give you a chronology .

I look forward to the results, Julian.

Many thanks for your reply.

JT

[Chipper]

Outstanding work, JT.

Of the 3 I have, all fit nicely into your classifications.

Cheers, Tim

[Jelly Terror]

Thank you, Tim. Appreciate your response, mate.

[Nozzer]

Great work Jelly!

I watch with interest

Noz

[Jelly Terror]

Originally Posted by Nozzer

Great work Jelly!

I watch with interest

Noz

Thanks Nozzer.

Any rare beasts lurking among your flock, at all?

[Nozzer]

Originally Posted by Jelly Terror

Thanks Nozzer.

Any rare beasts lurking among your flock, at all?

Sorry mate, all mine are in my album.

[Fatherofthree]

Jelly m'boy.

Outstanding work.

Must converse soon.

Regards

FoT

['Ticker' Riley]

Hi JT

Many thanks for sharing your very interesting posting about variation in your Queen’s Royal West Surrey badges. As you’ll know I’ve been doing something similar with the Leicestershire Regiment tiger cap badges, though my interest in variation is to do with actual manufacturers’ variants. For me this centres around the artistic modelling of the badges and the characteristic features you get, which in the case of the Leicesters is the distinctive look of the tigers and the letter shapes used in the honour scrolls. I assume that this is what Julian means when he talks about “die characteristics etc.”

Like Julian, I too believe that marked badges, such as those of officers, are a vital part in helping to identify makers’ variants, or types. Obviously variation of fixing, loops (lugs) versus vertical shanks (sliders), variation of metals, all-gilding metal as opposed to bi-metal, voiding and non-voiding of elements, as well as size, shape, position, etc. of sweat/braze holes are also very important, but they are not how I personally categorise manufacturers’ types. For example, looking at your ‘core variants’, your CV4 and CV6 look like the same maker’s type to me.

Anyhow, keep up the good work, the more we can get others involved in studying things like this, the better we should be armed when it comes to deciding if badges are genuine or not. As Julian has already said – “Brilliant”.

Best regards

Martin

[Keith Blakeman]

Here's one you can firmly put down to a manufacturer - GAUNT. Unusual for an early badge like this to be mm'd and be in mint condition so before anyone slags it off it came from the 'Gaunt' stuff sold by DNW. My guess it's a sample.

[Keith Blakeman]

I'd say that this is also a GAUNT badge, slightly different from the one above but possibly cut by the same die maker. It's pretty much identical to mm'd OSD (or blackened 5th Battalion?)

[Jelly Terror]

Originally Posted by Keith Blakeman

Here's one you can firmly put down to a manufacturer - GAUNT. Unusual for an early badge like this to be mm'd and be in mint condition so before anyone slags it off it came from the 'Gaunt' stuff sold by DNW. My guess it's a sample.

Originally Posted by Keith Blakeman

I'd say that this is also a GAUNT badge, slightly different from the one above but possibly cut by the same die maker. It's pretty much identical to mm'd OSD (or blackened 5th Battalion?)

Keith,

Compare both your examples with this image from Rob's superb Gaunt catalogue album... although it's an illustration, I think it's safe to say the similarities are pretty much incontrovertible:

http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/for...ictureid=40198

Thanks for posting.

['Ticker' Riley]

Hello JT

Rob’s Gaunt Catalogue is certainly a tremendous resource, and the Surreys badge shown is indeed a good match for Keith’s badges. Though not all is as it might seem, because, at least where the Leicesters badge is concerned, the one shown is not, in fact, Gaunt’s own maker’s type; rather it is that of Firmin & Sons. My personal belief is by the time of the Catalogue’s production Gaunt were no longer making ORs’ bi-metal cap badges for the regulars of the Leicestershire Regiment, and so, for the purpose of the illustrations, one of Firmin’s was used. What other implications this might have I cannot say, but I am clear in my own mind that the Leicesters tiger cap badge in the Gaunt Catalogue is not theirs!

Best regards

Martin

[Jelly Terror]

Originally Posted by 'Ticker' Riley

Hi JT

Many thanks for sharing your very interesting posting about variation in your Queen’s Royal West Surrey badges. As you’ll know I’ve been doing something similar with the Leicestershire Regiment tiger cap badges, though my interest in variation is to do with actual manufacturers’ variants. For me this centres around the artistic modelling of the badges and the characteristic features you get, which in the case of the Leicesters is the distinctive look of the tigers and the letter shapes used in the honour scrolls. I assume that this is what Julian means when he talks about “die characteristics etc.”

Like Julian, I too believe that marked badges, such as those of officers, are a vital part in helping to identify makers’ variants, or types. Obviously variation of fixing, loops (lugs) versus vertical shanks (sliders), variation of metals, all-gilding metal as opposed to bi-metal, voiding and non-voiding of elements, as well as size, shape, position, etc. of sweat/braze holes are also very important, but they are not how I personally categorise manufacturers’ types. For example, looking at your ‘core variants’, your CV4 and CV6 look like the same maker’s type to me.

Anyhow, keep up the good work, the more we can get others involved in studying things like this, the better we should be armed when it comes to deciding if badges are genuine or not. As Julian has already said – “Brilliant”.

Best regards

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely correct; CV 4 and CV 6 are (in terms of the manufacturer's die) effectively the same. However, under my classification system here, they cannot be placed within the same core variant group simply because of the difference in materials; one being a bi-metal badge, and the other all-gilding metal. In addition, their different pattern numbers also render these two badges separate variants, of course.

My initial approach has been to construct an all-encompassing framework, distilled down into what might be viewed as its base elements, and upon which main types may be established. This, hopefully, will facilitate the simplest means of grouping badges together in the ongoing process of classifying individual variants. By using such a system as you allude to (of categorisation by 'artistic modelling') these two examples would, as you rightly point out, naturally fall within the same group. From what you have posted, would I be correct in assuming that you are seeking to classify the primary categorisation of the Leicestershire Regiment tiger badges solely within the context of artistic modelling/die characteristics? This, in my opinion, is a fascinating endeavour and I very much look forward to any results you may wish to share.

It goes without saying that there are many different ways to classify objects, whether it be (for example) by size, by colour, by weight, by cultural context, or whatever. The basis for my classification method here, centres on a system which (as stated previously) I have used to establish ten defining characteristics. This enables me to net every badge without exception, and include it regardless of its maker, absence of maker mark, or any other feature. For this reason it was essential that my primary categorisation should be by context of material and form. I felt that if I were to use, say, makers' variation as my starting point, then badges which might display exactly the same physical/core attributes, but which have different, or even no makers' marks, could never be placed in the same core group together, therefore rendering the primary categorization and starting point exclusive. This, for my purposes, would have been a weakness and would ultimately prolong the ongoing classification process, causing it to be unnecessarily convoluted. Not the end of the world provided that at the outset you are able to identify each and every badge by maker, but this, I fear, might prove to be untenable in the case of the QRWS badges. This is why I felt it was imperative to establish from the beginning, core groups which incorporate a broader means of categorisation, utilising specific physical similarities in material and form, as this, possibly, is a more wide-reaching and more inclusive means by which to categorise, study and record these badges, as opposed to starting at a point of commonality perhaps more subjective in nature.

It is essential that makers' variations are recognised, identified, recorded and included, but for my purposes, they must be categorised as a sub-group within the core groups to which they belong. In my view, the recording of makers' variations should come a little further along the line in the classification process. In this way, all badges in the series can be included within the classification system, with no exclusions. In the absence of makers' marks, what better way to effect this result than by the means outlined by Julian and yourself... die characteristics of maker-stamped officers' badges.


It could be argued that badges devoid of maker attribution could be classified in their own group/s, but this would result in badges of identical type being placed in different family groups. To me this makes less sense than to group them according to common characteristics, and then sub-divide them into variants using such criteria as makers' artistic modelling and/or according to other variations in form. These slightly more subtle differences are nonetheless vital, and will be key to separating/identifying variants within each core variant group as the classification process continues.