Jump to content
Gentleman's Military Interest Club

Recommended Posts

The basic criteria is simply operational service in the field between 23 November 1914 and 31 December 1915.

It has always seemed odd to me that there should be a 1914 star (up to 22 November 1914 as above) and then this 1914/15... both created late in the war and not to be handed out until afterwards...

but no 1914/16, or 1914/17, or 1914/18 Stars...

and having Officially Decided that THOSE didn't make any sense... why did the two that DID get approval, get approved?

Was frontline service in October 1915 any intrinsically different than in March 1917 or July 1918?

Since everybody got the War Medal whether they served in action or not, and frontline combatants got the Victory Medal... why TRIPLICATE with these two stars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there may have been a feeling that the Stars were to reward Regular soldiers, TAVR soldiers and volunteers, before conscription was brought in. I vaguely remember a very elderly collector telling me this over thirty years ago.

PK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard sources give this. British Battles and Medals, even Medals Yearbook. What else do you need to know?

This is a bit abrasive. The guy was asking a perfectly simple question. Maybe he doesn't have any reference books yet.

PK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Edward C. Joslin, The Observer's Book of British Awards and Medals, London 1974:

"... The first, approved in 1917, was the 1914 Star for award to those, who served in France and Belgium on the strength of a unit between 5 August and midnight on 22/23 November 1914; fewer than 400,000 were awarded. However, in October 1919, King George V sanctioned the award of a bar to the 1914 Star to all who had been under fire in France and Belgium between the above-mentioned dates. The bars, sewn onto the riband of the medal carried '5 AUG.-22.NOV. 1914'; the bar was represented on the tunic by a silver rosette. The majority of the recipients would have been the pre-war regular Army or the 'Old Contemptibles', a term derived from the Kaiser's reference to the British Army as the 'contemptible little army'. The third type is known as the 1914-15 Star which is identical to the 1914 Star except that the central scroll bar bears the date '1914-15' instead of '5 AUG.-22.NOV. 1914'. This 1914-15 Star was awarded to those who saw service in any theatre of war between the 5 August and 31. December 1915, except those who qualified for the 1914 Star; all were issued in bronze. ..."

1914 Star: 15109 PTE R. SHAW. I / G. GDS.

1914-15 Star: 13011 SGT J. LETCHFORD. R.F.A.

Regards

Uwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a slip on bar as well offered by the tailors. One of my 1914 Stars (to a verified recipient) has this slip on style. The original bar must have been lost.

Cheers :cheers:

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be really nice if, someday, someone took the time and effort actually to look at the records regarding the policy dynamics that led to the creation of the British medals and clasps for the Great War. So many concoct theories without taking up the effort of looking at the records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a nipper I had a Pioneer (who left me his medal bar-with bar) tell me that the rosette denoted being under fire in 1914. Not true of course, but I have seen this in other sources, so perhaps it was a British Legion Urban legend.

I have a different bar with the rosette sewn in above the bar itself.

Also, it's interesting to see photos taken war time with only this medal bar being worn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be really nice if, someday, someone took the time and effort actually to look at the records regarding the policy dynamics that led to the creation of the British medals and clasps for the Great War. So many concoct theories without taking up the effort of looking at the records.

There have been a couple of articles on the OMRS Magazine about these/ this topic. Too bad the navy never implemented the bars. Imagine the collecting possibilities if they had!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been a couple of articles on the OMRS Magazine about these/ this topic. Too bad the navy never implemented the bars. Imagine the collecting possibilities if they had!

But no one has looked at the records from a policy perspective, just a narrow numismatic focus. At ;least nothing I've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean politics?

As I recall the bars were promulgated by the Admiralty but nixed by the Treasury. There was a severe recession after the war and they couldn't afford the extras. they had a lot of pensions to pay.

As I recall Zara Steiner said there was a series of memos in her Foreign office studies about these medals and other awards.

The REAL PHD. work will be about US awards (contemporary) -a perfect microcosm of Kafkaesque politics.

Edited by Ulsterman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be really nice if, someday, someone took the time and effort actually to look at the records regarding the policy dynamics that led to the creation of the British medals and clasps for the Great War. So many concoct theories without taking up the effort of looking at the records.

I am pretty sure that the clasps were not made because it would have cost a lot of extra money and the crown was pretty close to running on empty financially.

Best

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the clasps are the easy part, I think. But has anyone ever looked at the records to confirm our guesses? I wonder if this guess is like the prevailing undocumented guess as to why WWII medals were not named: Finances (which is wrong, by the way).

The far more interesting question, and where this thread had started, I thought, lies in the decision to instituite the 1914 Star and, then, the 1914-15 Star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the clasps are the easy part, I think. But has anyone ever looked at the records to confirm our guesses? I wonder if this guess is like the prevailing undocumented guess as to why WWII medals were not named: Finances (which is wrong, by the way).

You mean the clasps financial reasoning is wrong?

Best

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the clasps financial reasoning is wrong?

Best

Chris

I tend to agree with that guess. But until someone looks at the records and does the research, it is only a guess. Right now, I agree, but I'd feel better if someone looked at the records to confirm that.

I accepted the common knowledge about the reasons for lack of naming on WWII medals until I looked at the records.

As we know, most of us, there is no substitute for research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe all us German collectors are not as dumb as we seem? :rolleyes:

Happen to have done a bit of archive diving as well......

I don't think you -- or your ilk -- are dumb at all. (Individuals, not classes of people, are dumb.)

Great! :jumping: And it is a much later decision that I'd have expected.

Now, the background to this??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the clasps are the easy part, I think. But has anyone ever looked at the records to confirm our guesses? I wonder if this guess is like the prevailing undocumented guess as to why WWII medals were not named: Finances (which is wrong, by the way).

Ok, Ed. I'll bite. Why did was it decided not to name the WWII medals? Or is this something I should know already? Because, qute honestly, when I heard the "cost" explanation, I'm afraid my native cynicism vis-a-vis governments kicked in, I thought "That figures! :( " and thought no more about it.

Peter, an earnest seeker after knowledge :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will dig out the PRO-exchavated notes and references later today and fill in gaps (pondering an OMRS article on the origins of the WWII campaign medals).

In brief: It was a simple desire to issue the medals as quickly as possible, for maximum post-war morale benefit, and the realization dawned that naming the medals would slow down their distribution. (In India, where most were named, the WWII medals wouldn't be issued until the early 1950s, after India was already a self-governing republic). I suspect that, had they decided to move ahead with naming, economic issues may have kicked in eventually, but the no-naming decision was made long before that stage (though Churchill, as I recall, didn't like it, he was overruled -- as he was on many wartime honours issues).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will dig out the PRO-exchavated notes and references later today and fill in gaps (pondering an OMRS article on the origins of the WWII campaign medals).

In brief: It was a simple desire to issue the medals as quickly as possible, for maximum post-war morale benefit, and the realization dawned that naming the medals would slow down their distribution.

Ah! Come the dawn. Thanks Ed, that makes perfect sense.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Chris could enlighten us as to how long it took the South African government to distribute its medals. Or any Aussie member have data on their government?

Edited by Michael Johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×