Jump to content

Sal

Active Contributor
  • Content Count

    676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sal

  1. Latest arrival....no info other than that the seller believed it belonged to a retired British Colonel who retired in Belgium. Is there any way to possibly trace based on the combination of orders including the Olav? Many thanks Tony
  2. A little bit of information from the auction for his full size and mini bar Arthur Hugh Bell was born at Hampstead 16/041878. Educated at Charterhouse starting in the Oration Quarter 1891. RMA Woolwich. 2/Lt Royal Engineers 23/03/1898 Lieut RE 14/02/1901 Capt RE 25/03/1907 Major RE 30/10/1914 Lt Col RE 06/05/1919 Col RE 11/04/1928 Brig RE (rtd) 13/10/1928 Son of Edward Alice Bell (nee Hoets) after his Military Career, became a Director of G Bell & Sons Publishers. He published A Few Articles in a Military Journal. Recreations Lawn Tennis, Swimming, Motoring and Golf. Brigadier Bell was
  3. Gentlemen Thanks so much for your comment and input. I have one other DSO mini bar in my collection to Brigadier AH Bell. I have done some reading on him but no requests for records so not researched yet. Was able to find a picture from the original auction that sold his full size bar as well as the mini I have, and so I use that as the only provenance until I have some time to research further. The DSO is gold vice the gilt one in the Gordon bar. Something about a bar (mini or full) with a DSO that is striking to me. Either way they are both great IMO. Tony
  4. I have not seen them rim engraved, however, I wouldn't presume to say they cannot be found engraved.
  5. Latest pick up Brigadier General H.W. Gordon DSO, Royal Engineers. GORDON, H.W. ( D.S.O. London Gazette 1.1.1917 ); born 5.2.1871; died 5.1.1961 Edinburgh; 2nd Lt., R.E., 14.2.1890; Lt. 14.2.1893; Capt. 14.2.1901; Major 14.2.1910; Bt. Lt.-Col. 1.1.1918; Lt.-Col. 3.4.1918; Bt. Col. 1.1.1919; Colonel 1.12.1921; served South Africa War, 1900-02; European War; Despatches. His London Gazette entry:- London Gazette, 1 Jan, 1917. War Office. 1 Jan, 1917. A little worn as you can see but I like that fact in this case. Have not researched any more than what the gentleman who owned it prior to m
  6. Forgive my ignorance if this has been addressed elsewhere, but what is the significance between the kingdom era awards and republic era awards with respect to the number of rays on the stars of the badge. Kingdom has 7 and republic has 8. Thanks in advance Tony
  7. Some nuances to your observations. Yes, new regs have the SSI for FWTS located on the breast pocket. I doubt if he would, but GOs retain some ability (as I recall) to prescribe their uniform, so if he wanted to place the emblem out of location (unless that has changed since I left) he would be within his authority to do so. It is not likely on this uniform because of the appearance of impropriety, but I have seen it in the past for small subtle things. Additionally, on the old time BDUs and pickle suits, SSI for 2d Armored Division was worn on the left breast, as GEN Patton wanted to keep Hel
  8. The dates of the 2 items from the contractor cardboard will tell the tale. Several possibilities here. If 2 different manufacturers and dates (periods), then color variation may be due to changes by the service in the color requirements. The detail on the smaller is better, but it looks like the female size IMO. Although I don't believe a contractor made 5 star sets in the event there was a female GOA. That being said, I believe 2 variations of from 2 manufacturers from different eras (and contracts). Tony
  9. James That being said, I would think it plausible that my example is an un-numbered piece that was later numbered to make the pair into a set. I note that there is no "C" preceding the number on the Commander badge, which I surmise would be appropriate; or would I expect to see numbering only on newer issued pieces? I am convinced the 2 were joined to make a set, but trying to determine if the Commander badge is a legit awarded piece with the breast star added later or vice versa. Tony
  10. Very interesting James, thank you....I think you have solved it. I would tend to believe that the CVO was numbered as you say and joined with the star. There does not seem to be any indication that a previous number was removed and this one added, so is it plausible the star was not numbered and later numbered to match the CVO and make a set (assuming that foreign awards were not numbered, it is possible there was an unumbered specimen out there?) While bothersome that it's likely put together, I do like each piece for what they are so at least they display well. I am jazzed about the i
  11. James, thank you for the information and insight. I have sadly not had the time to try to write for information on the awardees, so this is a great bit of information. Would you suppose then, from your information on the KCVO that the set was put together and numbered to make it more desirable or lend credence to it? I had some cause for pause when i saw the look of the numbering, but thought it might be possible these were joined by the Chancery from 2 returned pieces returned for higher grade appointments.
  12. Navy obverse; so the obverse, brooch set up appear correct for Navy issue, but the uniservice reverse without the trophy of arms has me unless I am making a false assumption that the uniservice reverse medals had the Army trophy of arms....it is possible it's a later strike of the uniservice medal; Studley possibly? Need to float it by some folks more expert than I am. Sorry I cant be more help
  13. Correct, the Mint produced medals for the Navy and some USCG issues as well. I think obverse design theory is quite valid and if JEff suggested it more correct than mine; is there the possibility the Navy used some Army contract planchets on their ribbon drape set ups and issued in their US Mint boxes in a similar manner they used Army PHs? It would be an interesting study to determine the nuances of the Army contract vice US Mint strikes in comparison...and if the same differences present themselves on all US Mint Navy versions that do not present on Army contract strikes...as a means to
  14. Need to see the obverse of the medal. Gleim's Medal Letters P136 indicates a uniservice version but specifically refers to an Army obverse and reverse, which would explain the straight "For Service"....but you would find US Navy over a trophy of arms vice the naval service emblem depicting the eagle and anchor. Clearly a contract strike (the tone of the planchet and some pitting on the face of the reverse) but I can't speak to the uniservice reverse but without trophy of arms....interesting. I believe it's re-ribboned on a split wrap brooch with open catch which would be correct for a Navy ver
  15. Mervyn, that is perfect advice.....you are correct, the royal cypher will should impress, however I think some folks where I live don't even know where Great Britain is. I had planned to write the Chancery to ID the set based on the number. J Collins Medals has a Commander grade on ebay with a letter from the Chancery, I will try that address. The interesting thing is that I bought them together as a set but the seller had no info or history. The control of issuance is what got me wondering about the 2 different crowns, although they both appear to be variants of the Tudor Crown, the time
  16. Here is my MVO (LVO) with same crown as seen on the star. It is numbered 373 and is also marked "4" and "373" on the reverse of the Collingwood & Co. case.
  17. Mervyn, Exactly my dilemma, although I did not notice the difference until I had it in hand and compared the crown to my Victorian DSO...I have no idea why they both have the same number; I thought they might have been brought together and numbered then sold as a set, but I have never seen any grade of the order without a number. I missed the crown difference because I was looking at the numbering which id not look like the numbering I have on my other piece. I'm at a loss because I would expect to see some sign of renumbering if they were coupled from 2 different eras and issued as a set but
  18. Just received this KCVO and when comparing to my earlier MVO I see the numbering style is more contemporary looking. Is it possible to date the period of manufacture or award based on the crown on the obverse top of the badge? I notice a difference in the various eras of DSO and am curious if it is possible to date the badge based on the engraving of the number or the crown motiff. I know they are king's crowns but not sure if there are variations in design over the years.
  19. Chris, The formal name is the West Indies Naval Campaign Medal was first authorized in 1901 and was awarded to personnel who were assigned to the fleet of Rear Admiral William T. Sampson (thus Sampson Medal)during the Spanish–American War engaged in combat operations in the waters of the West Indies and Cuba. The medal was issued to members of the Navy and Marine Corps who took part in West Indies naval operations from April 27 to August 14, 1898. The reverse if each medal had the engagement it was awarded for, the subsequent engagements are noted by the bars affixed to the suspension ribb
  20. More http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_04_2011/post-1625-0-33776600-1302268475.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_04_2011/post-1625-0-08800100-1302268356.jpg
  21. Finally received the holy grail (for now) of my collection. A beautiful Phase I Sampson USS Marblehead, with Guantanamo engagement bar, impressed to William K. Nash, Machinist 2d Class. The bar is correct for the Phase I Marblehead as Guantanamo was the only Phase I engagement bar. There are also 2 United Spanish War Veteran medals, both numbered with matching mini buttons. What makes it for me are the 4 documents to Nash. 3 appointments, one as an Oiler on USS Dolphin, and the other 2 as a Machinist 2d Class and 1st Class on the Marblehead. The last is a Petty Officer appointment document. Th
×
×
  • Create New...