|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Solid Royal Gloucestershire Hussars I.Y.
I’ve previously seen a couple threads on these unusual badges but with no real explanation for why Royal Gloucestershire Hussars Imperial Yeomanry badges are found with a solid portcullis.
Several months ago I happened upon this wonderful WW1 photo on the bay. Clearly it shows the unvoided IY badge being worn. The photo isn’t mine and if it offends anyone that I’ve used it I shall remove it. In light of this I strongly suspect these are WW1 manufacturers variants/errors from 1914/15 using the old die and intentionally left unvoided to save manufacturing time in this period. As you can see the sitter wears an imperial service table which ties in with my pre-1915 idea. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Never say never. I would have staked my life on the premise these badges are fakes.
I seem to recall contemplating one of these some years ago, but rejected it as all wrong and never bothered to look again. CB
__________________
"We seldom learn the true want of what we have till it is discovered that we can have no more." Sam. Johnson |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
A great find Luke,
Good detective work, is the badge yours, if so, lucky you kept hold of it! One more for the Yeomanry collectors. Chris |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
The Imperial tablet makes is 1910 onwards so the badge is likely to be old stock. The reason i don't think it's wartime emergency production using old dies is that the Trooper in question could not be wearing the tablet if he was a new recruit. therefore he must have pre-war service and the badge is therefore also likely to be pre-war.
The tablets are generally regarded as being no longer in use by 1915 but I have seen a photo of a UK based Ayrshire Yeoman (2/1 probably) with it and the scrolled cap badge which would date the photo to late 1915 or later. So to summarize a pre-war badge still in use post 1910 in my opinion. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Alan as I understood it those who volunteered and joined Yeomanry at outbreak of war in 1914 were also entitled to it just as the pre-war Yeoman were who volunteered for service overseas.
If it’s old stock then the badge would no doubt have been finished and sat in stores. So if it is a pre-war badge then the question would still remain why is it unvoided? To me the trooper looks quite young and fresh faced and a bit awkward in his uniform which looks new. He doesn’t strike me pre-war chap. That’s purely speculation and my opinion I accept. Obviously all open to debate but the only fact we know is we have a early WW1 photo of it in wear. Last edited by Luke H; 09-01-21 at 12:48 PM. Reason: Spelling |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
It would certainly be interesting to know the young trooper's identity, he could quite easily have been serving prior to the declaration of war and be simply wearing a new cap.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Unless there's a service number on it I think that's very unlikely. Luke has stated it's a WW1 card although from his caveat I get the feeling it's not in his possession to be able to tell us?
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Thanks for your photographic evidence of the solid portcullis version. Here are my IY badges for comparison. Regards, John |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The original card is inscribed "Yours sincerely, Cyril Lewis".
A 2530 Pte Cyril Lewis enlisted in 2/1 RGH - based on his number this would have been between 9 and 17 October 1914. He went on to serve in 12th, 10th & 1/6 Bns Glosters. I can't find another Cyril Lewis serving in the RGH. Clive |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That date exactly matches my theory. Were you the lucky buyer of the card? Last edited by Luke H; 09-01-21 at 03:16 AM. Reason: Autocorrected! |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Yes I was!
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
So allowing for the time it took him to get his new uniform that would date it end of 1914 or early 1915. Presumably as the RGH was already established, unlike the Kitcheners, they had uniforms in store available to issue the new recruits including the Imperial Service tablet.
One imagines this may have been his first portrait in his new uniform. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Imperial service tablet
Quote:
Was it issued with the uniform? Did a long serving member of the RGH give it to him to wear for the photo as a joke? Your thoughts? Rob |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Apparently by joining the existing TF (rather than the unequipped Kitchener Battlaions) he could have signed up for the overseas commitment which would entitle him to the badge:
https://www.researchingww1.co.uk/imperial-service-badge This would explain why he has a late enlistment date but is wearing the tablet. As for the badge I think it's likely to be old stock, (albeit incorrectly unvoided and perhaps why they were still in the stores in 1914), rather than a new order using old dies. If you put a new order in then why not use the existing die? There was a cap badge shortage in late 1914/early 1915 because manufacturers could not keep up with demand. You see a number of 1915 photos with new recruits wearing obsolete badges being worn for this reason. There are a few on the forum including photos of pre 1913 black RIR badges, Norfolk pagri badge on peaked caps etc. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
The numbers seen of these badges is comparatively low compared to the correctly finished IY badges. Same scenario as encountered with the solid BM Mancs badges etc.
As you say a cap badge shortage late 1914 - early 1915 which is exactly when the picture dates from. Not sure what more I can say, either this unit accepted a very low number of defective IY badges from a manufacturer but decided not to do what any paying customer would and return/reject them but instead kept them (for perhaps nearly a decade) in a tin until late 1914/5. Sounds unlikely. Or this badge matches a well known trend of using old dies/designs in WW1 such as Northamptonshire Regt, Suffolk Regt, East Surrey etc. and the lack of fine voiding seen on Manchester Regt, Royal Irish Regt, Connaught Rangers etc. etc. to speed up production. Sounds more likely. A wartime rush job seems far more likely and feasible all things considered to me. We will have to agree to disagree. |
|
|