QC b/m 16/5 QRL

[GTB]

While I'm currently focusing on my cavalry/yeomanry material, I'd be happy to have confirmation about usage of the attached badge.
Reason I ask is because as Kipling states that the 1956 a/a pattern is the one worn officially on all headdress by all ORs, would this mean that my b/m version was only worn between 1954 and 1956?
GTB

[Alan O]

Not likely because they were still wearing out the stocks of k/c ones when the a/a one was sealed.

This retention of the k/c badge well into the late 1950s was not unusual and the 8th Hussars ORs were still wearing k/c badges on amalgamation at the end of that decade.

Metal q/c badges do exist for the 16th/5th and there is a half sized one worn by WOs. They were not provided by service sources.

Likewise the Royal Hussars were only ever issued a a/a badge but they were given the option to all change to a metal badge if they wished to buy them. They did so.

[jeep]

See post 3, and remember these were the days before the internet revolution and the likes of ebay and online dealing.
http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/for...ad.php?t=41395

[davidwyke]

Hi Chaps

There seem to be a lot of these available on the internet and whether they are all contemporary to the period or not I have no idea.

Having said that, just to add to the thread highlighted by John, above, I have been reliably informed that the bi-metal badges were worn as a non-issue private purchase item.

I always thought the smaller badges were beret badges, didn't realise they were worn by WO's.

David

[GTB]

So wasn't there a Sealed Pattern for the b/m badge? Could QC b/m badges not have been worn concurrently with KC versions? Mine looks authentic and there are what appear to be blocked sweat holes behind each wm fixture.
GTB

[davidwyke]

Originally Posted by GTB

So wasn't there a Sealed Pattern for the b/m badge? Could QC b/m badges not have been worn concurrently with KC versions? Mine looks authentic and there are what appear to be blocked sweat holes behind each wm fixture.
GTB

There shouldn't be a sealed pattern for the bi-metal QC badges as they were not official issue.

Officially, the KC bi-metal badges were replaced by the QC anodised badges (the sealed pattern date for these is 25/10/1956). But what is "official" and what is actually worn can be two very different things, as John's post in the previous thread illustrates.

As regards "authentic", it depends what you mean by authentic.
If official issue then "no".
If actually worn in service then "yes".
Make your own mind up!

David

[GTB]

Is Kipling 1911 a doubtful item? If no, then it is authentic.
As for my badge, it isn't a spurious item that came from a doubtful source via the internet. It came from a collection.
There is no way I could know if it was worn in service or not, just like I wouldn't know if Kipling's badge was ever worn in service.
The thread has been fruitful though, as I am more informed.

GTB

[dak580]

Hi Guys

Here's a couple of pictures of my metal QC b/m 16th/5th.

Maker marked Firmin London.

John

[davidwyke]

Originally Posted by GTB

Is Kipling 1911 a doubtful item? If no, then it is authentic.
As for my badge, it isn't a spurious item that came from a doubtful source via the internet. It came from a collection.
There is no way I could know if it was worn in service or not, just like I wouldn't know if Kipling's badge was ever worn in service.
The thread has been fruitful though, as I am more informed.

GTB

Just checked K&K. I'm sure they have illustrated the QC bi-metal badge because that pattern is known to have been worn. They also clearly state that the anodised badge was the official issue badge, as you mentioned in your original post.

David

[GTB]

Analysing K&K leads one to conclude that the QC b/m badge was worn by ORs up to 1956, when it was officially superseded by the a/a version. Purchasing of badges refers only to Officers and WOs items so, by inference, the ORs b/m badge could be considered an issue item.

GTB

[Alan O]

Sorry but there is no evidence to support that idea. There was no immediate issue of Q/C OR's badges in 1953. It took years for Q/C patterns to be issued. In fact the a/a badge was one of the earlier cavalry ones.

[grey_green_acorn]

Soldiers have been able to purchase badges for many years. Originally from barracks and garrison welfare facilities such as the NAAFI and for at least the past 50 years from the unit "shop" known generally as the PRI (President of the Regimental Institute) with all profits retained by the unit. From the 1970s many types of all metal cap badges were available and being sold as more durable (and polishable) than the issued anodised aluminium version.

Inclusion in a collection depends on the collector's definition of "issued, official or authorised" etc but these badges, including those maker marked "AMMO UK" were definitely worn by serving soldiers.


Tim

[davidwyke]

GTB

I fully agree with the above two posts.

As Alan says, the 16/5 L QC anodised cap badge was one of the first QC cavalry badges to be issued. They replaced the KC bi-metal badges then currently in use from 1956. There was no issue of an official QC bi-metal badge in between the two.

Anodised badges were not particularly popular with collectors for many years, equally they were not particular popular with many of the men and women who wore them.

So, as Tim points out, there was a market for "metal" replacements to be worn by soldiers who wished to purchase them at their own expense. Sometimes worn with the tacit approval of a CO, sometimes just worn by anyone who could get away with wearing them, sometimes purchased as "souvenirs". That is what you have.

To my mind, any badge which was worn in service, whether official issue or not, is worthy of inclusion in a collection; other collectors might think differently.

David

[yorkstone]

PRi private purchase early to mid 1980's a pall of mine gave me one for my collection back then
Regards
Stephen

[GTB]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

David
I understand all that is being said about purchasing of the QC b/m badge, from PRI for instance. I have no problem with that at all.

What I find hard to reconcile is that K&K (although also human like the rest of us and therefore prone to the occasional slip, nevertheless I value their knowledge) make no reference to this state of affairs and have included said badge in their 'bible' just after the KC version and precisely before the QC a/a one, as if there was nothing untoward. In fact, it was given recognition by being indexed as Fig.1911. Tellingly, immediately after this, K&K mentions "ALSO anodised" (my emphasis). This would imply that the a/a version was identical to and superseded a previous pattern, i.e. QC b/m.

Can you please point me to the evidence showing that the a/a version was directly preceded by the KC b/m version? I am asking for the sake of research.

GTB