filfoster

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.

1 hour ago, Dave Wilkinson said:

The City Police have had contracts with a variety of manufacturers over the years and in some cases the finished product differed slightly. The lack of vent holes in each side of the helmet was, at one time, a hallmark of a City Police helmet. However, in recent years vent holes have been added so that the helmet could conform to British standard specifications. Christy's manufactured helmets with and without centre seams, what they supplied depended upon the specification. As I understand it, the City Police issue two types of helmet. The first is a cork helmet which is not re-enforced and has the one leather chin strap and the second is a rigid plastic shelled re-enforced version which has the "riot" straps fitted. Each officer gets one of each pattern.

 

Dave.   

So....the center seam is likely a more modern version. I have both types (not originally City of London helmets). The center seam covering is on the plastic shell; the no-seam covering is on the cork helmet. Both have only the single chin strap.

In the nearby thread on City of London Police helmet plates, I posed the question of whether any of the constable helmets had front visor seams. Every photo in that thread, and indeed, most online photos show CoLP helmets without front visor seams. Why?  Did they contract for helmets without these seams or is it random? Is it by era or type of helmet? There are a few photos of these helmets with seams, but there is no explanation. Most seam to be more modern era helmets.

Here are two illustrations: At top, no seam; Bottom photo, see the front visor seam.

...Were letters also used on collar/helmet numbers circa 1900?

....and a related question: all the photos show a front visor with no center seam, as many others have. Were there any of this kind (with center visor seam) for the City of London constables? I've read somewhere that the lack of a center seam was characteristic of helmets made by Christie's. Did they have an exclusive contract for these?

On 14/05/2022 at 20:29, ayedeeyew said:

 

On Ebay currently - listed as Met Police, but correct red/white for City:

 

VINTAGE GENUINE METROPOLITAN POLICE RED & WHITE ‘ON-DUTY’ CUFF BAND | eBay

I did buy a length of this and have made up, using a suitable brass buckle, a nice duty band. Thank you.

Dave: Thank you!  I  will post a pic of my replica display when it's done, probably in a couple of months. This has been more difficult to accomplish than I first anticipated but worth it. I've learned lots, thanks to you and the other Forum members. 

Dave: Thanks; the photo was from a CLP uniform display online. Didn't catch the helmet plate. 

So, the numbers would have been worn from the 1880's on, at least?

Does anyone know when the City of London police adopted brass collar numbers? The photo attached purports to be from 1891: