British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum

Recent Books by Forum Members

   

Go Back   British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum > Other Commonwealth Military Insignia > New Zealand Badges

 Other Pages: Galleries, Links etc.
Glossary  Books by Forum Members     Canadian Pre 1914    CEF    CEF Badge Inscriptions   Canadian post 1920     Canadian post 1953     British Cavalry Badges     Makers' Marks    Pipers' Badges  Canadian Cloth Titles  Books  SEARCH
 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 11-10-13, 04:49 AM
atillathenunns's Avatar
atillathenunns atillathenunns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
Don't shoot the messenger, only passing on information from two of NZ's leading authorities in uniforms and insignia ,They think your beret is post war
Iain, you really are going to have to do a lot better than just someone else’s beliefs to prove –
“that Wallace was incorrect in his recollection that it was this beret that he wore during WW2.”

http://militarianz.freeforums.org/th...ret-t2635.html

It is obvious to me that you are referring to Barry O’Sulliavn as your NZ leading authority in regards to uniforms, but he is really not an authority at all when it comes to knowing everything about New Zealand insignia, so I am interested who you qualify as being New Zealand’s leading authority in regards to New Zealand insignia?

Now unless you’re communing with the dead, I have ruled out Dave Corbett, so it would have to be Malcolm Thomas who you are referring to? As he is the only leading authority in regards to New Zealand cloth insignia that I am aware of.

Now when it comes to ‘New Zealand headdress,’ it is a very specialist area, and I am certainly no expert, and to date I have not yet found anyone that I would consider to be a leading authority on the subject.
Certainly Barry has more than the average knowledge on the subject, but as headdress is not his specialist area, he has made some bad mistakes when it comes to interpreting NZ and British dress regulations.

Now no disrespect to Barry, but to prove that Barry makes mistakes and does not know everything about NZ headdress, I would like to point out that on page 152 of his book – “New Zealand Army Uniforms and Clothing 1910-1945” he gives credit that that the New Zealand Senior Cadets were the first to adopt the peaked felt hat.
Barry also states that the NZ Artillery adopted the peaked felt hat in 1912, and that the Wellington Infantry Battalion adopted the peaked felt hat circa 1914.

The truth is it was the Boy Scouts who were already in possession of the (BP) peaked hat when they were incorporated into the New Zealand Defence Force in 1910, which are the only unit who were given the authority in the 1912 NZ Dress regulations to wear the peaked felt hat. This was of course never extended to the Senior Cadets who wore the felt hat with a fore and aft crease.
The NZ Artillery did not adopt the peaked felt hat in 1912; in fact it wasn’t until after the start of WW1 that they adopted it.
The 17th Ruahine Regiment however did adopt the peaked felt hat (Lemon squeezer as it is now commonly known) just after they were formed which was just prior to the start of WW1.
The Wellington Infantry Battalion adopted the peaked felt hat on the 24th August 1914, when it was challenged by General Godley and defended by Colonel Malone.

This was all proven by me just before Barry’s book came out, which can be viewed in the following thread –

http://militarianz.freeforums.org/nz...s-t701-15.html

Since then I have continued collecting NZ Headdress information and spared with Barry on other threads. (The Boy Scouts continued to be a part of the NZDF throughout WW1)

http://militarianz.freeforums.org/ne...hat-t2584.html

So it comes down to should I trust in Barry’s belief that Colonel Wallace got it all wrong in his letter?
Hell no, I’ve proven Barry makes mistakes, and his assumption that the Green diamond patch was only worn post 1947, just goes to show that Barry does not understand fully the NZ Divisional Cavalry Regimental order 85, dated 17th February 1943.

Interestingly, another item of headdress that Barry failed to identify when he sold it on behalf (two separate time actually) is the Generals hat on page 163, which is now in my collection.
Not only did I manage to identify it just from pictures posted by Barry, I managed to identify who it belonged to. (Which Barry and I did argue about at the time)
Since then I have managed to track down all previous owners, which one of them just happened to be Malcolm Thomas, who mentioned that in all the time that he had owned it he was unable to identify it himself, and was most impressed that I had identified it so quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 11-10-13, 09:14 AM
pukman's Avatar
pukman pukman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Southland,New Zealand
Posts: 749
Default

Brent .

Absolutely nothing personal on my behalf ,don't take it any other way .As you will well know ,I'm just learning the trade .I just thought it to be common knowledge that the diamond patch ,in any shape or form ,was post war .
I have read the part on the order in the Thomas/Lord book and I don't see any thing relating to a diamond patch ,although its up to interpretation .

I read Barry O'Sullivan's thread on Militarianz and contacted him .Yes you are correct ,is one of my good contacts .
Barry is the author of the only reference book produced on NZ military uniforms .He has handled the beret when he arranged the selling of the items which were mostly post war. The Lt Col served until the 1960's .Amongst other things Barry has told me that the hat is post war and he wouldn't have it in his collection. Hardly a ringing endorsement

My other source ,Aaron Fox ,was one of the main consultants in the Thomas /Lord insignia book .I'm not sure without peer in the uniform collecting world in New Zealand .I would take his testimony above all as he has been a very successful collector /researcher of uniforms /headwear and insignia for decades

He has said ''not what I have would expect from a WW2 model necessarily( and if I were Attila the Nunns ) I would proactively suggest that it could be a post WW2 RNZAC beret with a retro fit 2NZEF badge''

Again not a ringing endorsement.

Perhaps one of us can contact Malcolm Thomas and get his views on R.O 85 and weather it pertains to your diamond patch .

Better still ,and this is a game changer ,a picture of Col Wallace wearing the diamond patch in the desert would prove beyond all doubt your theory

Iain

Last edited by pukman; 11-10-13 at 08:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 13-10-13, 04:14 AM
atillathenunns's Avatar
atillathenunns atillathenunns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atillathenunns View Post
Some tank lids from my collection



Note that the 2 inch green wool patches on the RNZAC berets are very different from the patch on Wallace’s beret.
OK before I proceed, I would like to point out that in regards to the top tank beret picture in post #299, the badge and green backing cloth is 100% original, as is the 1942 dated beret, they are just not original to each other.
The badge came from a friend of the family, and the beret (missing its badge) was found in a Wellington second hand shop.
Nowadays the Div Cav onwards badge forms part of my tank badge collection, and the beret is just displayed with a standard onward badge which can just be seen in the first picture behind Wallace’s beret in post # 287.
(This is how I suspect that Wallace’s beret looked after the 12th February 1943 and up until 1947. Although I cannot rule out that Wallace may have worn something quite different than was regulation during this period.)

The middle RNZAC beret in post #299, is actually a post war beret (type with stitched triangle behind badge) that I have swapped its queens crown RNZAC badge with a kings crown RNZAC badge from my tank badge collection, just for the purpose of this photo.
(This is how I suspect that Wallace’s beret looked after the 1947)

The bottom ordinary ranks Kings crown beret in post # 287, is 1953 dated, and is 100% original.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 13-10-13, 04:21 AM
atillathenunns's Avatar
atillathenunns atillathenunns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
Brent .
Absolutely nothing personal on my behalf, don’t take it any other way .As you will well know ,I'm just learning the trade.
Puk we are both learning, we both use the same forums to find answers and test our theories, and we are both guilty on more than one occasion in collaborating together to prove that the book writers quite often get it wrong.

You and your two New Zealand leading authorities of uniforms and insignia have questioned the word of Colonel Wallace!!!!!!!!!

Well I’m calling on you all out on it.
What proof do you, Barry or Doctor Fox have, that proves beyond all doubt that Colonel Wallace lied when he signed the letter??????

As its three against one (my kind of odds), I will obviously play Devil’s advocate representing the good name of Colonel Wallace.

I maintain that the “old desert worn beret” was indeed worn by Colonel Wallace, and it is a “genuine relic of the 1939-45 war,” and that the “green patch of the Div. Cav. Reg,” is original to the beret.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
I just thought it to be common knowledge that the diamond patch in any shape or form, was post war.
The NZ Divisional Cavalry Regimental order 85 (dated 17th February 1943), does not describe shapes, so technically it cannot be ruled out that the popular diamond shape or square shape was not used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
I have read the part on the order in the Thomas/Lord book and I don't see anything relating to a diamond patch ,although its up to interpretation .
It is your own interpretation that is flawed, if you re-read all my comments concerning Wallaces beret, you will note there is a subtle ambiguity of information, and that I have never actually claimed that the patch on Colonel Wallace’s beret was applied during WW2.
Nor have I mentioned that a green diamond patch was used was used during WW2.

My interpretation of “NZ Divisional Cavalry Regimental Order 54” (page 49 T&L), was that it was a little vague on how the “green colour patches” were to be applied behind the onwards badge.
(Interestingly, the “4thNZ Armoured Brigade Regimental Order 26” (dated 26-12-42) described. — “the red flash will be cut to fit behind the badge.”)

The fact that “NZ Divisional Cavalry Regimental Order 85” exists, suggests to me the problem of interpretation of how the patch was to be applied, was so widespread that it required a regimental order to fix it. —
“Personnel have been observed wearing the green coloured patch in such a fashion that the patch can be seen “outside” the edges of the badge.”

Its only speculation on my part, but it seems very possible to me the green cloth issued by the Regimental Quarter-master, may have been originally issued in the standard regulation 2 inch square size, and left up to the individual soldier to cut to shape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
I read Barry O'Sullivan's thread on Militarianz and contacted him .Yes you are correct ,is one of my good contacts .
Barry is the author of the only reference book produced on NZ military uniforms.
Don’t get me wrong, I have the greatest respect for Barry, and fully appreciate all the help and mentoring that he has extended to me over the years, and I fully endorse his and Matthews two books, nobody else could have done a better job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
He has handled the beret when he arranged the selling of the items which were mostly post war.
Interestingly, as a member of the Wellington Antique Arms, it was thru one of our auctions that I obtained Wallace’s beret, there was a lot of interest on the day, especially from Dave Oldham who wanted it for his own NZ Armoured collection.
I have never met Colonel Wallace or John the collector who originally owned it, but I believe I was reliably informed by somebody who knew him personally, that Colonel Wallace’s beret was one of John’s prized possessions in his collection.

Barry organised the sale of John’s collection, and yes according to Barry it did contain some of Colonel Wallace’s belongings that he wore post war, but Barry also admits the collection also contained Wallace’s “pre war dress blue uniform (that he wore post war as well).”

The pre war dress blue uniform being worn post war is important to the understanding of the beret, as it shows that Wallace did not unnecessarily discard items of his uniform as he changed units or increased in rank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
The Lt Col served until the 1960's .Amongst other things Barry has told me that the hat is post war and he wouldn't have it in his collection. Hardly a ringing endorsement
It seems obvious to me that Colonel Wallace did as he says in the letter, and that is wear the beret during the 1939-45 war, and he continued to wear it after the war, until the beret was no longer serviceable.
Barry is completely wrong in his assessment that the beret is post war, and was only worn post WW2, and he will need to prove this beyond reasonable doubt before he is taken seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
My other source ,Aaron Fox ,was one of the main consultants in the Thomas /Lord insignia book .I'm not sure without peer in the uniform collecting world in New Zealand .I would take his testimony above all as he has been a very successful collector /researcher of uniforms /headwear and insignia for decades
I only know of Doctor Fox from what you have told me in private emails, and I don’t recall that you ever mentioned he was New Zealand’s leading authority on insignia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
He has said ''not what I have would expect from a WW2 model necessarily( and if I were Attila the Nunns ) I would proactively suggest that it could be a post WW2 RNZAC beret with a retro fit 2NZEF badge''
Again not a ringing endorsement.
I suspect the good doctor has never handled Colonel Wallace’s beret, so I am going to go out on a limb here.
The way I read it, Aaron has naughtily based his opinion on just the patch alone, as any worthy authority in uniforms and insignia would have done, he should really have asked for better pictures, especially of the inside, before making any reasonable determination that the beret is solely post WW2?????

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
Perhaps one of us can contact Malcolm Thomas and get his views on R.O 85 and weather it pertains to your diamond patch .
Better still ,and this is a game changer ,a picture of Col Wallace wearing the diamond patch in the desert would prove beyond all doubt your theory
I have never claimed that the current patch on Wallace’s beret was ever worn in the desert, that is all in your own imagination.
What I can tell you is that in the desert Wallace’s only hat insignia was a NZ Onward badge.

However I am only too happy if he is in agreement, to let Malcolm Thomas get a hands on with Wallace’s beret, as he’s only a half hour drive from where I live, as I am 100% confident that he will agree that the beret is what Wallace would have worn during WW2, and even more confident he will easily identify the green diamond patch is original to the beret.

Just out of interest it is recorded that while attached to a British Regiment, Wallace who was a Captain at the time, managed to persuade the British battalion commander to let him go on a “silent” raid on the night of the 22nd-23rd August 1940, against an Italian post on the Libyan frontier. (The patrol consisted of one officer and fourteen other ranks)

In the report of the Lieutenant-Colonel commanding the British Regiment he wrote:—“Captain Wallace accompanied the patrol, and I understand he is the first member of the New Zealand forces in this war to have been in a hand-to-hand encounter with the enemy. Captain Wallace ably supported the patrol leader throughout the operations, and displayed that coolness and dash for which New Zealanders were famed in the war of 1914-18.”
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 13-10-13, 07:21 AM
pukman's Avatar
pukman pukman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Southland,New Zealand
Posts: 749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
Brent ,wasn't the green diamond patch a post war Div Cav one?
Brent ,this was my first question .I think its common consensus amongst the uniform/insignia collecting world that the diamond patch is post war(page 102 ,distinguishing patches ).

Last edited by pukman; 13-10-13 at 06:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 13-10-13, 08:04 AM
pukman's Avatar
pukman pukman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Southland,New Zealand
Posts: 749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atillathenunns View Post
Puk we are both learning, we both use the same forums to find answers and test our theories, and we are both guilty on more than one occasion in collaborating together to prove that the book writers quite often get it wrong.

You and your two New Zealand leading authorities of uniforms and insignia have questioned the word of Colonel Wallace!!!!!!!!!

Well I’m calling on you all out on it.
What proof do you, Barry or Doctor Fox have, that proves beyond all doubt that Colonel Wallace lied when he signed the letter??????

As its three against one (my kind of odds), I will obviously play Devil’s advocate representing the good name of Colonel Wallace.

I maintain that the “old desert worn beret” was indeed worn by Colonel Wallace, and it is a “genuine relic of the 1939-45 war,” and that the “green patch of the Div. Cav. Reg,” is original to the beret.



The NZ Divisional Cavalry Regimental order 85 (dated 17th February 1943), does not describe shapes, so technically it cannot be ruled out that the popular diamond shape or square shape was not used.



It is your own interpretation that is flawed, if you re-read all my comments concerning Wallaces beret, you will note there is a subtle ambiguity of information, and that I have never actually claimed that the patch on Colonel Wallace’s beret was applied during WW2.
Nor have I mentioned that a green diamond patch was used was used during WW2.

My interpretation of “NZ Divisional Cavalry Regimental Order 54” (page 49 T&L), was that it was a little vague on how the “green colour patches” were to be applied behind the onwards badge.
(Interestingly, the “4thNZ Armoured Brigade Regimental Order 26” (dated 26-12-42) described. — “the red flash will be cut to fit behind the badge.”)

The fact that “NZ Divisional Cavalry Regimental Order 85” exists, suggests to me the problem of interpretation of how the patch was to be applied, was so widespread that it required a regimental order to fix it. —
“Personnel have been observed wearing the green coloured patch in such a fashion that the patch can be seen “outside” the edges of the badge.”

Its only speculation on my part, but it seems very possible to me the green cloth issued by the Regimental Quarter-master, may have been originally issued in the standard regulation 2 inch square size, and left up to the individual soldier to cut to shape.



Don’t get me wrong, I have the greatest respect for Barry, and fully appreciate all the help and mentoring that he has extended to me over the years, and I fully endorse his and Matthews two books, nobody else could have done a better job.



Interestingly, as a member of the Wellington Antique Arms, it was thru one of our auctions that I obtained Wallace’s beret, there was a lot of interest on the day, especially from Dave Oldham who wanted it for his own NZ Armoured collection.
I have never met Colonel Wallace or John the collector who originally owned it, but I believe I was reliably informed by somebody who knew him personally, that Colonel Wallace’s beret was one of John’s prized possessions in his collection.

Barry organised the sale of John’s collection, and yes according to Barry it did contain some of Colonel Wallace’s belongings that he wore post war, but Barry also admits the collection also contained Wallace’s “pre war dress blue uniform (that he wore post war as well).”

The pre war dress blue uniform being worn post war is important to the understanding of the beret, as it shows that Wallace did not unnecessarily discard items of his uniform as he changed units or increased in rank.



It seems obvious to me that Colonel Wallace did as he says in the letter, and that is wear the beret during the 1939-45 war, and he continued to wear it after the war, until the beret was no longer serviceable.
Barry is completely wrong in his assessment that the beret is post war, and was only worn post WW2, and he will need to prove this beyond reasonable doubt before he is taken seriously.



I only know of Doctor Fox from what you have told me in private emails, and I don’t recall that you ever mentioned he was New Zealand’s leading authority on insignia.



I suspect the good doctor has never handled Colonel Wallace’s beret, so I am going to go out on a limb here.
The way I read it, Aaron has naughtily based his opinion on just the patch alone, as any worthy authority in uniforms and insignia would have done, he should really have asked for better pictures, especially of the inside, before making any reasonable determination that the beret is solely post WW2?????



I have never claimed that the current patch on Wallace’s beret was ever worn in the desert, that is all in your own imagination.
What I can tell you is that in the desert Wallace’s only hat insignia was a NZ Onward badge.

However I am only too happy if he is in agreement, to let Malcolm Thomas get a hands on with Wallace’s beret, as he’s only a half hour drive from where I live, as I am 100% confident that he will agree that the beret is what Wallace would have worn during WW2, and even more confident he will easily identify the green diamond patch is original to the beret.

Just out of interest it is recorded that while attached to a British Regiment, Wallace who was a Captain at the time, managed to persuade the British battalion commander to let him go on a “silent” raid on the night of the 22nd-23rd August 1940, against an Italian post on the Libyan frontier. (The patrol consisted of one officer and fourteen other ranks)

In the report of the Lieutenant-Colonel commanding the British Regiment he wrote:—“Captain Wallace accompanied the patrol, and I understand he is the first member of the New Zealand forces in this war to have been in a hand-to-hand encounter with the enemy. Captain Wallace ably supported the patrol leader throughout the operations, and displayed that coolness and dash for which New Zealanders were famed in the war of 1914-18.”
Your points raised .

No one called the old Colonel a liar .

Dr Fox (PhD in military history) ,I would consider in expert in New Zealand insignia and uniforms ,and was an advisor /consultant for the Insignia book .My fault I abbreviated his email when I was called out by you ..in addition

'' What does the interior look like /Kanjol 1943 or the like or similar dating .
Some officers have lovely wire woven badges, especially those worn by those worn in the Italian campaign. The badge on the beret ,if original would have been polished to death''

Now I 'm a little confused ,can you tell a simple soul what you have ,because you have confused the hell out of me .Is it a desert worn WW2 beret with post war patch and a WW2 badge ,or a WW2 beret with a non regulation patch and WW2 badge or a post war beret ,with a WW2 badge

Last edited by pukman; 13-10-13 at 11:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 14-10-13, 12:13 PM
atillathenunns's Avatar
atillathenunns atillathenunns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
Brent ,this was my first question .I think its common consensus amongst the uniform/insignia collecting world that the diamond patch is post war(page 102 ,distinguishing patches ).
Iain, the official approval for the green diamond patch was approved in Army Order No. 36 in 1947 (when the beret became standard issue)
So in answer to your question, I would agree it is generally considered common consensus.

But your original question was directed at Wallace’s beret, and as I pointed out to you, the patch on Wallace’s beret is bigger than the 2 inch square regulation size that is given in NZAO 36/1947.
The other thing that sticks out is the cloth of Wallace’s patch is not like any other diamond patches that I have seen.

Now I know the odds are 100 to one that the patch was most likely attached to Wallace’s beret in 1947, but I cannot ignore the size and cloth differences, so I must keep an open mind which means no matter how unlikely it may seem I cannot rule anything out until photographic evidence can be found.

If you check out the paper work that I supplied in my original reply (post 297) you will note that the top letter is dated the 8th July 1947, which suggests that approval for the green diamond patch was given well before the RNZAC badge design was approved by the GOC, add to this the time that it took Gaunt to manufacture the RNZAC badges.

You just have to wonder – what badge would have been worn by a WW2 veteran with the green diamond until Corps badges became available?
An Onward badge perhaps?

I will repeat it again, at the end of the day it is this little sentence that is what is important–
“The old desert worn beret, at least it is a genuine relic of the 1939-45 war. I am afraid as I said it shows more than a bit of wear. The green patch of the Div. Cav. Reg. still on it.”
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 14-10-13, 12:23 PM
atillathenunns's Avatar
atillathenunns atillathenunns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
Your points raised .
No one called the old Colonel a liar
I have only provided extracts of Wallace’s letter, but there is enough to see he was no senile old fool, in fact having read his entire letter, I would say his memory was pretty darn good.
So the way I see it, suggesting what he wrote is not true, is pretty much like calling Wallace a liar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
Dr Fox (PhD in military history) ,I would consider in expert in New Zealand insignia and uniforms ,and was an advisor /consultant for the Insignia book .My fault I abbreviated his email when I was called out by you ..in addition
'' What does the interior look like /Kanjol 1943 or the like or similar dating .
Some officers have lovely wire woven badges, especially those worn by those worn in the Italian campaign. The badge on the beret ,if original would have been polished to death''
From the extracts it sounds like Dr Fox is asking the right questions, but incredibly he still made a post war call on Colonel Wallace’s beret from just the two photos I have provided.
I’ve got to be honest, I think he’s dreaming, or if he has got a fool proof system to date black berets from just a photo of the outside, I’d still think he’s dreaming.

So the question has to be asked - what method Dr Fox using that determines Wallace’s beret is post war?

However, in answer to his question - the interior looks identical to a Kangol 1942, the white printing is long washed out from sweat and brylcreem, in fact the interior is extremely worn out which just reeks years of honest wear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
Now I 'm a little confused ,can you tell a simple soul what you have ,because you have confused the hell out of me .Is it a desert worn WW2 beret with post war patch and a WW2 badge ,or a WW2 beret with a non regulation patch and WW2 badge or a post war beret ,with a WW2 badge


I believe Colonel Wallace’s beret had an onward badge in the desert.
When he took his tank squadron to the Pacific, his beret sported an onward badge with green cloth behind the onward badge.
(Although I think it highly unlikely, I still can’t rule out that the current patch may be pacific period, so I am looking for photographic evidence to prove it or disprove)

I believe post war Wallace would have worn his beret with the onwards badge and green backing.
In 1947 when the green diamond patch was issued, I am kind of inclined to think Wallace wore his onward badge.

Although the badge lugs are slightly wider on a RNZAC badge compared to a Onward badge, it is not difficult to get the RNZAC badge to fit the same holes, so I cannot rule out that a RNZAC badge may have also worn on Wallace’s beret.
(looking for photographic evidence to prove it or disprove)
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 14-10-13, 09:45 PM
pukman's Avatar
pukman pukman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Southland,New Zealand
Posts: 749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atillathenunns View Post
I have only provided extracts of Wallace’s letter, but there is enough to see he was no senile old fool, in fact having read his entire letter, I would say his memory was pretty darn good.
So the way I see it, suggesting what he wrote is not true, is pretty much like calling Wallace a liar.

*******Neither I or Aaron with his correspondence with me, have mentioned the letter in this thread ,so I don't know what you are basing your assumption that we are saying the old Colonel was incorrect ,or a liar as you put it .Totally incorrect, Aaron probably hasn't read this thread nor the letter!!

Barry on the website Militarianz has provided the only comment on this letter ....'I believe that Wallace was incorrect in his recollection that it was his beret that he wore during WW2''.******




From the extracts it sounds like Dr Fox is asking the right questions, but incredibly he still made a post war call on Colonel Wallace’s beret from just the two photos I have provided.
I’ve got to be honest, I think he’s dreaming, or if he has got a fool proof system to date black berets from just a photo of the outside, I’d still think he’s dreaming.

So the question has to be asked - what method Dr Fox using that determines Wallace’s beret is post war?

However, in answer to his question - the interior looks identical to a Kangol 1942, the white printing is long washed out from sweat and brylcreem, in fact the interior is extremely worn out which just reeks years of honest wear.

*******I sent the picture to Aaron for appraisal .If I didn't give him enough photographic evidence ,then this is my fault as I only had your photo of the beret on this thread that you have posted .As you know headwear and uniforms are very ''hands on'' ,and I'm sure Aaron would have a better picture in doing so.I dear say Barry had a hands on look ,when he arranged to sell it though.

I know with my Armoured corp beret ,the white lettering is worn with wear ,so rather indecipherable .A point I make that even if a beret is manufactured in WW2 ,doesn't automatically meant it was worn in WW2,as a lot of WW2 gear was worn post war ,as WW1 ,was worn in WW2 etc
So what we could gain by looking in the interior of your beret ,would be inconclusive to when the actual beret was worn.******




I believe Colonel Wallace’s beret had an onward badge in the desert.
When he took his tank squadron to the Pacific, his beret sported an onward badge with green cloth behind the onward badge.
(Although I think it highly unlikely, I still can’t rule out that the current patch may be pacific period, so I am looking for photographic evidence to prove it or disprove)

I believe post war Wallace would have worn his beret with the onwards badge and green backing.
In 1947 when the green diamond patch was issued, I am kind of inclined to think Wallace wore his onward badge.

Although the badge lugs are slightly wider on a RNZAC badge compared to a Onward badge, it is not difficult to get the RNZAC badge to fit the same holes, so I cannot rule out that a RNZAC badge may have also worn on Wallace’s beret.
(looking for photographic evidence to prove it or disprove)
Unofficial patches were worn by the NZEFIP .It's possible that the triangle patch on your beret is one .But it is not recorded ,and so far there is no photographic evidence .


In conclusion(and this is my final say on the matter )

No one is saying your beret was not worn by Col Wallace or the patch is not original to the beret .Based on the 1985 letter ,there is every chance the beret itself was worn by Wallace during WW2,if his memory serves him correctly .But the sum of all parts the beret is badged for post war use ,not WW2.

Last edited by pukman; 15-10-13 at 02:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 15-10-13, 07:30 AM
atillathenunns's Avatar
atillathenunns atillathenunns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukman View Post
Unofficial patches were worn by the NZEFIP .It's possible that the triangle patch on your beret is one .But it is not recorded ,and so far there is no photographic evidence .

In conclusion(and this is my final say on the matter )

No one is saying your beret was not worn by Col Wallace or the patch is not original to the beret .Based on the 1985 letter ,there is every chance the beret itself was worn by Wallace during WW2,if his memory serves him correctly .But the sum of all parts the beret is badged for post war use ,not WW2.
So you and you're two NZ leading authorities in uniforms and insignia, have got nothing to prove your beliefs that Colonel Wallace's beret is post war?

Well the following picture is a bit of food for thought, just for you and you're two NZ leading authorities.

Last edited by Mike; 16-10-13 at 09:53 AM. Reason: remove image
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 15-10-13, 10:35 PM
OtagoBoB OtagoBoB is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10
Default This thread is moving beyond argumentative to offensive

As someone who has been quoted but not directly involved in this forum thread until now, I wish it noted that I have never claimed any supremacy in the field of New Zealand Army insignia. In my own experience, a credible collector never stops learning about his or her chosen field, should take opportunities to share his or her knowledge, and accept informed critical debate in the spirit in which it is offered. I consider that the current forum thread is in danger of descending from vigorous debate to personal affront.
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 16-10-13, 09:49 AM
saumua's Avatar
saumua saumua is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland New Zealand
Posts: 525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OtagoBoB View Post
As someone who has been quoted but not directly involved in this forum thread until now, I wish it noted that I have never claimed any supremacy in the field of New Zealand Army insignia. In my own experience, a credible collector never stops learning about his or her chosen field, should take opportunities to share his or her knowledge, and accept informed critical debate in the spirit in which it is offered. I consider that the current forum thread is in danger of descending from vigorous debate to personal affront.
I agree the NZ threads are generally like this which is why I rarely visit the NZ part of the forum these days.

Shaun Aumua
Auckland
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 16-10-13, 09:51 AM
Mike's Avatar
Mike Mike is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North of Hadrian's Wall
Posts: 2,296
Default

I've deleted the derogatory image in #310. The personal insults are not necessary.
Please tone it down chaps.
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 19-10-13, 08:08 AM
atillathenunns's Avatar
atillathenunns atillathenunns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OtagoBoB View Post
As someone who has been quoted but not directly involved in this forum thread until now, I wish it noted that I have never claimed any supremacy in the field of New Zealand Army insignia. In my own experience, a credible collector never stops learning about his or her chosen field, should take opportunities to share his or her knowledge, and accept informed critical debate in the spirit in which it is offered. I consider that the current forum thread is in danger of descending from vigorous debate to personal affront.
In my own experience, we all make mistakes, and when a credible collector makes a mistake, they should admit to it.

The provenance of Colonel Wallace’s beret has been put in doubt as Pukman had qualified you as a leading authority in insignia, and that you had deemed the beret to be post war?

Sadly, it appears you have not researched all the possibilities available, and as such, have failed to see Colonel Wallace’s beret for what it is, and that is a beret that was first worn in the desert by a NZ officer who had been credited by a British Officer as being: — “the first member of the New Zealand forces in this war to have been in a hand-to-hand encounter with the enemy.”

What defines Wallace’s beret as being unique among the earliest of NZ tank berets, is that it saw service in the Pacific during WW2, where Colonel Wallace was New Zealand’s highest ranking tank officer.
But just as important, is the final service that this beret witnessed, before it was traded in the friendship that exists between collectors, is that it also ushered in the new era that became the Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps.

Just in case someone is thinking that official approval to wear the black beret wasn’t granted in Regimental Orders until the 17th February 1942, the following photo was published on the 12th November 1941. The photo shows Sir Cyril Newall inspecting NZ Armoured Fighting Vehicle School instructors, who like Wallace had received their training at the Middle East AFV School.





Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 19-10-13, 08:12 AM
atillathenunns's Avatar
atillathenunns atillathenunns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike View Post
I've deleted the derogatory image in #310. The personal insults are not necessary.
Please tone it down chaps.
Mike, I admit I do have a habit of saying the wrong things; it’s because I just type what I am thinking, which often gets misinterpreted.
I meant no offence by the cartoon image of the three crows that I posted, I was going to use the “Three Amigo Crows,” (on a scarecrow) as it was friendlier, but was worried about the copyright implications.
The image of the three crows that I posted was only intended as a reminder of post #288, where I served up a cartoon crow for myself, that it is far better to quote the truth than it is to repeat mistakes.
Now I would like to point out in my own defence that no crows were actually harmed.

I’ve collected my toys and put them back into my cot and I promise to play nicely in future, and I will not make any more mention of crows.
Although good to see Puk has taken his crow like a man.

Just to show there are no hard feelings and I am all about sharing, here are three more WW2 tank lids in my collection, starting with my Russian tank officer’s hat.



An Italian Infantry officer (assigned to tanks) hat.



German Panzer officer’s hat.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

mhs link

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:36 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.