WW1 Economy issue Question

[Charlie585]

I know that the subject of economy issue badges has been discussed in detail many times on the forum and it is a pleasure to be able to reference them in Andy's album.

I hope that those that have contributed before don't mind me bringing up the subject again but seeing as it is armistice day I may be forgiven.

I have read on the forum that the reason for producing the economy badges was to simplify the production mainly due to the use of Gilding metal / Brass, where originally the units would have had Bi metal badges.

I have examples of Hampshire regiment badges from the periood in Bi metal both lugged and slidered as well as an all brass economy version.

The only obvious differences being that the economy version is of one piece construction and it retains much of the same detail apart from that.

My question concerns the badge of the Royal Engineers.

KK853 the Gv ORs badge prior to 1916 is of GM / Brass one piece construction.

Does anyone have an answer / opinion as to why then an economy non voided badge was produced.

I may have missed something in previous threads so apologies if that is the case.

Intrigued all the same.

Ry

[LONGSHANKS]

Good question Ry, I just got one of those and I thought exactly the same. I'm curious on the consensus. The only reason I can think of is it might have eliminated rejects as the voiding was in some way delicate for mass fast production as it was the most prolific of regiments and members of all arms.

Simon.

[Alan O]

It was the next step in speeding up production by removing the need for skilled labour and the time taken for the fretting. The RA were the same. These were the 2 largest Corps/Regts in the British Army at the time so it made sense to change their badges. As it was they were very unpopular and the unvoided idea did not spread. KLR can add more info I believe.

Alan

[Charlie585]

Hi Simon,

I take your point but if you compare to detail to the badges of:

The South Lancashire regiment

The Norfolk regiment

The Middlesex regiment

And not least The Hampshire regiment and the detail of the tiger's tail and legs,

why were those badges not also constructed without the voiding?

Regards

Ry

[Charlie585]

Thanks Alan,

you got in before me, yes the numbers involved would make sense.

With regard to popularity, this is something that we as collectors often overlook when landing a sought after addition.

It was brought to my attention recently that the Rifle brigade badges KK705 and KK2019 were not popular and considered to be "heavy" in comparison to earlier badges.

I recall myself that whilst serving with the REs, although proud of our traditions and corps, the actual badge was regarded with disdain by most as a cheap piece of nastiness.

I have several examples of these A/A badges in my collection and actually am quite fond of them now, pure nostalgia I suppose.

Kind Regards

Ry

[LONGSHANKS]

Ry, as Alan and myself both seem to have said the same -quantity and size of the formation I think is the real thing. Being in manufacturing, we would take the same approach; even today. And maybe as they did not have as much, well shall we say regimental esteem as compared to some of the line regiments. There may have been some push back to dull down the infantry and other more exotic combat formation badges, by the QM etc.

[NorthStafford]

I believe that one of the reasons for the economy badges was the need to conserve nickel which was used in the production of WM badges not simply to reduce the labour content ,this would explain why some all WM bafges were also made in brass.

[Alan O]

Please go to Andy's article and read the official record that states exactly the opposite before we go down this road again. John Gaylor got this totally wrong and this myth perpetuates to this day despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

[Charlie585]

Thanks gents,

All clear now. Here is an extract from Andy's album relating to the issue for those that may not have seen it.

Quote "Towards the second half of the First World War (c.1916), driven by the requirement to save on the time required to make badges an not as a result shortage of Nickel (the component part of British military badges commonly referred to as "White Metal") badges which were normally struck (made) in two metals (bi-metal) and also in an attempt to speed up production of the badges required to equip an ever expanding Army, all Brass (Gilding metal) badges were offically introduced into service. Although these badges were intended to replace the bi-metal badges, as an economy measure, their use is widely disputed. John Gaylor in his book, "Military Badge Collecting" published a non-official list (compiled in 1965 by a group of collectors and based on badges in their collections), a list which has been disputed on this Forum. A lot of research has been done to uncover which were offically produced badges, the rough bench mark being only badges which were produced in Bi-metal should have an Economy Issue (EI) (all Brass/Gilding Metal replacement) version, although some anomolies exist. Most economy badges should be fitted with a vertical shank or "Slider" as it is more commonly referred to by collectors."

Regards to all

Ry

[KLR]

I hope to publish the full details shortly.

[2747andy]

I am sure that Julian's work will provide a definative answer to a lot of WW1 Economy badge questions.. In the meantime the rules of thumb of no lugs (less Royal Scots), only one Scottish badge (Royal Scots), only single piece construction, NO badges which were previously made in all white metal and overall they were introduced to save time and not materials should be used. I may have something up my sleeve to compliment Julian's efforts!

Andy

[Charlie585]

Thanks to all,

Although I seem to have had my question answered I look forward as I'm sure will others,to both Julian's and Andy's further input on the matter of EIs.

Regards
Ry

[Peter Doyle]

Though I followed Gaylor's lead with respect to GM 'economy' versions of WM badges in my recent book - having met with Julian (KLR) today, I think he has compelling evidence that will help us. Like all of us, I await his article with bated breath. (Still means we have some seemingly genuine/really realistic GM versions to explain away, though).

Peter