filfoster

My understanding of the regs specify only a single small crown surmounting the crossed batons within the wreath. Not a small and larger crown, both.  The field marshal batons and wreath badge does NOT include an integral crown at the top. It is a separate badge in the examples I actually have. Does anyone have any better information, please?

"...crossed batons within an oak and laurel wreath, surmounted by a crown.."   Well, here's two crowns. That ain't right, is it? Of course, he's a field marshal and friend of the King so I suppose he could wear whatever, but...

Thank you! I should send you a PayPal for all the help you've given me. Best, Phil

Field Marshal the Earl Haig seems to have a surplus crown on his shoulder straps. He wears the crossed batons wreath, surmounted by a small crown, per regulations, but also was what looks like a holdover badge, the larger rank crown, from his previous generals rank on each strap. (Photos of King George V also seem to show the larger crown.). Why is he wearing these 'extra' larger crowns?

Anyone make out the battle bars on the 1870-71 campaign medal?

1 hour ago, saschaw said:

It might be helpful the older type looks technically the same as the later one from Lippe (-Detmold), with their major difference being the initials in the reverse's(!) center...

 

 

I think it will be hard to find a copy of either, with swords.

Does anyone know, or can you decipher, the bars for his 1870-71 campaign medal?

Thank you Daniel (again!).    I have never seen a copy of it. If I copy this medal bar, that will be the most difficult one to get. 

If someone has a pre-war rangeliste that would do it.

What medals are on his medal bar?  I can make out:

1. 1870 EK2nd, with oak leaves

2. Officer 25 yr long service cross

3. 1870-71 campaign medal with bars:  Which ones?

4. 1866 cross

5. SW Africa medal: assume non combatant

6 Centennial medal

7. Some kind of Lippe medal? 

Voila! It's close, and a half a cigar. The helmet is cork but has one vent hole in each side. The plate is later, not the oval number surround. It's the best I can do in the time and budget I have. I hope someday to upgrade the helmet and plate if I can ever find a good helmet without vents and the proper plate. Until then, it's the best I can manage.

Dave: Once again, thank you very much. This was critical for my reproduction. I will soon post a photo of the completed kit. 

Were the collar numbers circa 1890, early 1900's larger than current numerals? The photo below seems to show numerals nearly an inch tall. Does anyone know?

Nick: I will support whatever course you take, as long as the site continues. Most of the members here have all gotten far more from this site than we've contributed. It's a unique and very valuable resource that must go on. Count me 'in' for whatever you decide. Best, Phil

JapanX, Thank you. That'll confirm it. Good pic!

Bump....nothing? Nada? Nyet?

Thank you! I have actually rented some of my kits out to TV and movie productions. Sadly, my contact, a Yorkshireman named Tim Pickles, a uniform consultant and author, has passed on. 

OK, here's the whole deal: 

...and here is the whole kit:  I also have the sword, sword belt, etc.

These are poorly described online but I think they are what I'm after.  Are they?

Eyaeaaahhhh, I know somebody out there's got some better references than I do.  Or a search engine besides Google...

Does anyone have a photo or illustration of an officer's liver/shako of the Preobazhensky Life Guards regiment?  I cannot find one online or in any of my hard copy references. 

...By the way, it occurs to me to express 'thanks' to this site and these forums and the many members who generously share their expertise with us. You all deserve our respect and thanks. 

This is a troubling dilemma which has long haunted the militaria collectors community. Maintainng the expertise as an exclusive preserve of advanced collectors consigns neophytes to walk into expensive 'manhholes'. Not everyone has ready access to expert help.  I was fortunate to have local folks who were knowledgeable, one who gave me wonderful advice: "Don't be a believer", by which he meant 'See critically, not just what you want to see.' Simple advice but hard to follow when you find some 'grail' /'Moby Dick' you've long hunted, and it's almost right, except...

And, there's the market for well-made reproductions that are good enough to hold a place in a collection or a display, but not intended to deceive. Many advanced collectors would deny less educated or sadly, less affluent collectors these substitutes because of the chance they could be offered fraudulently, even though they would not fool many real experts. Genuine artifacts often/usually have a tally of features that tell their authenticity, although some are real, but 'improved', and harder to identify. I suggest that the risk of fraud represented by most of these better copies is small, and a risk worth making these otherwise rare and too expensive items available to a larger body of enthusiasts/collectors. 

I assemble reproduction uniform/ movie/tv costume displays and prefer to use the most authentic and well-made replica items I can find. Most, because they are better reproductions, are not easy to find and are seldom cheap. These better-made replica items are essential to make a satisfactory display. Without a 'Bill Gates' budget or unlimited search resources for originals, good copies are the only alternative to simply having a shoddy display or more sadly, nothing at all. I am distressed to know many advanced collectors would have it that way.

I am, as you may suspect, a strong advocate of well-made, accurate reproductions, sold as such. 

A note: There are still many instances where no replica is available and resort must be had for an original item. This is unfortunate two-fold: it costs more than a copy, and simultaneously denies these items to collectors who desire and appreciate 'the real thing', ironically, when I do not, but have had to resort to it. Sorry for this off topic rant. It deserves a well-moderated forum of its own.

16 minutes ago, Dave Wilkinson said:

The attached photos show a cork Senior Officer ceremonial helmet which dates from the 1950's. As you can see the seam is evident above the helmet plate but does not extend down to the peak. So, the inclusion of a seam may not necessarily be indicative of a modern helmet. As you can see its a complicated subject where there are apparently no hard and fast rules.

 

Dave.  

Thank you, Dave. I suppose I am most curious about the visor seam as it's most noticeable. Most of the City of London helmets to be seen do not have the center visor seam, at least on the older helmets.