Jump to content
News Ticker
  • I am now accepting the following payment methods: Card Payments, Apple Pay, Google Pay and PayPal
  • Latest News

    TS Allen

    Active Contributor
    • Posts

      268
    • Joined

    • Last visited

    • Days Won

      1

    Everything posted by TS Allen

    1. All, I realize that some things are sacred, but I think the sacred above all things are the rights enshrined in our Constitution. Those enough who serve or have served in the US military all took an oath to uphold and defend that document - it's an oath that I take seriously. I'm no far-out whackjob making a political statement as has become disgustingly fashionable, I'm a professional who works at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief to do what our country needs. While I love the Army with all my soul, I'd resign, demobilize, and disarm the moment the Army was a threat to the American idea and to that document. While I don't think the threat from the Stolen Valor Act was by any means existential, it was also not minor. The act was blatantly unconstitutional, based on the interpretations of generations of scholars, as the court case we're now discussing proved. Such minor transgressions against liberty are the only threat the remains to a system as loved and well-defended as ours. We should applaud those responsible for this action. More importantly, I think the title of the law is misleading. One cannot steal valor. While our decorations may be sacred, in the end even the hallowed Ranger tab is just a scrap of cloth, your Airborne wings are just a chunk of metal (even if you pounded the pins into your chest on the jump zone), and the vaunted Medal of Honor is just a chunk of metal on a piece of blue ribbon. The value of these decorations is in the sweat and blood that earned them, and the glory they forever enshrine. Pinning them on is meaningless to a man who has never experienced what they mean. Those who try to steal valor are only stealing a warrior's credit, and while I will denounce them as they must be, if the cost of preventing their theft is to transgress against our fundamental beliefs, I'd rather let the sorry posers be. V/r, ~TS
    2. All, I realize that some things are sacred, but I think the sacred above all things are the rights enshrined in our Constitution. Those enough who serve or have served in the US military all took an oath to uphold and defend that document - it's an oath that I take seriously. I'm no far-out whackjob making a political statement as has become disgustingly fashionable, I'm a professional who works at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief to do what our country needs. While I love the Army with all my soul, I'd resign, demobilize, and disarm the moment the Army was a threat to the American idea and to that document. While I don't think the threat from the Stolen Valor Act was by any means existential, it was also not minor. The act was blatantly unconstitutional, based on the interpretations of generations of scholars, as the court case we're now discussing proved. Such minor transgressions against liberty are the only threat the remains to a system as loved and well-defended as ours. We should applaud those responsible for this action. More importantly, I think the title of the law is misleading. One cannot steal valor. While our decorations may be sacred, in the end even the hallowed Ranger tab is just a scrap of cloth, your Airborne wings are just a chunk of metal (even if you pounded the pins into your chest on the jump zone), and the vaunted Medal of Honor is just a piece of blue ribbon and a dong. The value of these decorations is in the sweat and blood that earned them, and the glory they forever enshrine. Pinning them on is meaningless to a man who has never experienced what they mean. Those who try to steal valor are only stealing a warrior's credit, and while I will denounce them as they must be, if the cost of preventing their theft is to transgress against our fundamental beliefs, I'd rather let the sorry posers be. V/r, ~TS
    3. I agree with William. The manner of construction is consistent with a piece from the period, and for an officer. I have about a dozen tunics from this period and this has similar construction to many of them. ~TS
    4. Hello all, I'm trying to find information on the uniforms of the 4th Queen's Own Dragoons in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. I'm trying to find out what the correct buttons look like, what the uniform pattern is for a subaltern. I'm looking into the earlier-style tail coats as opposed to whatever they transitioned to during the Napoleonic wars. Thanks! ~TS
    5. Hello all, I have an Austro-Hungarian artillery tunic that I bought a few years ago to make up for the lack of a proper Austrian uniform in the collection. It's a great piece, in wonderful condition, with all of the correct buttons and a very nice period liner. However, I've never been able to figure out the rank. Based on this site (http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/badges/badges.htm) the rank doesn't exist! The uniform is the brown artillery style, without epaulettes, which I thought meant it was for a company-grade officer. The construction of the tunic and it's fine material would also suggest it belonged to an officer. But, the rank insignia on the collar is only a single strip of 13mm-wide gold braid... there is not star! Is this for a junior lieutenant? A warrant officer (did the Austrians have those)? A cadet? Something else I've never heard of? Any help would be appreciated, pictures are below. ~TS
    6. If you go to the SVC page on germancolonialuniforms.co.uk, you can find a working link. I can't seem to copy/ paste it. V/r, ~TS
    7. 'Ello Shams, Not on your list but within the topic, the author of germancolonialuniforms.co.uk, Chris Dale, has some information on the Shanghai Volunteer Corps, which was a combined unit including British, German, and other troops. If you shoot him an email, I'm sure he'll be happy to share his sources -- you may also want to check out his links page.There's more information here: http://student.science.nus.edu.sg/~scip9109/zxr-shanghai/shanghai.htm. V/r, ~TS Allen
    8. Peter, Were you ever able to find anything on the Belgian piths? I always assumed they were almost all private-purchase examples. V/r, ~TS Allen
    9. Hello all, The British Army in the Victorian era had a very unique officer corps, and I'd like to illicit your help in helping me fully understand them. I'm reading Marcus Cunliffe's excellent book "Soldiers and Civilians," about the regulars (ie the professionals) and the militia and volunteers, and how they effected the American "martial spirit" in the decades prior to the Civil War. Reading the book, one is reminded of parallels between the American and British military structures, especially in how they had to interact with popular and political opinions of the day. The regular US Army of the period comes off as a very professional, if somewhat dramatic and often maligned. The British Army of the period also seems to be a very capable group, despite the disasters of the Crimea and the problems caused by a glacial leadership under the Duke of Cambridge. However, the more I read about them, the more I feel that they were truly a group of gifted amateurs, as opposed to the United States, which possessed a truly professional, West Point-trained officer corps (I will openly admit my bias towards the Point. Beat Navy!). Whereas the British carried the day in colonial battles based more on a willingness to close with the enemy, superior technology, and courage, whereas the Americans (when they got their act together, and didn't fight with each other, such is in the Seminole Wars) combined excellent staff work and logistical understanding with broad strategic vision to mount successful campaigns. The British seem to be good soldiers, but soldiers of an old school, one that they would find distinctly out of place in the Crimea. The Americans, however, seem to often act like small children with their petty internal conflicts, but still succeed in almost modern operations like Scott's march on Mexico City that it seems to me that the British Army of the period would have never attempted, probably because of logistics. (Of all the conflicts of the period, I feel that the comparison between the Mexican war and the Crimean war is the best, because the Russians and the Mexicans have some parallels as opponents, and while the operational situation was different, the logistical situation, the naval element, barren conditions are all somewhat comparable. There is a temptation to compare the Civil War to some British conflict of the period, but sadly, I see no parallels with the British, nor can I find an American parallel with the Indian mutiny. Indeed, the failings of the British response only reinforce my feeling that the British regulars were not very interested in warfighting.) The British also seem to have had a amateur attitude that reminds me more of the attitude found among American militia officers than American regulars. Whereas the "home" of the US Army is West Point in this era, the British Army has no "home" as such. The Americans remember the place where they received years of rigorous training, while the British care largely for their own regiments, in which they still purchase their commissions. And of course, Sandhurst in the period was not usually attended by university graduates, while Woolwhich seems to have had almost a negative reputation, as it was the school for officers of the "technical" services. I do wonder, though, how much of the differences in attitudes towards academies can be seen as a product of the American obsession with infrastructure development in the period, and the Point's relationship with the Corps of Engineers. I realize that my opinions, as presented above, are very biased, but, they are based on what I know. So, I humbly request refutations of the many points I am sure to be incorrect on. I really want to understand the British officer as someone better than the fictional Flashman (!), as I have come to see American officers as better than, "Old Fuss and Feathers" Scott. But, I still lack the evidence. Cordially, ~TS Allen
    10. Hey Stuart, Can you suggest any good sources for DRs? Or should I just keep an eye out? Also, have you ever considered digitizing and possible selling digital copies of your set? I think collectors would pay handsomely for such a set, I know that I would. Thanks, ~TS
    11. Hello Stuart, Here's the jacket: http://www.wdmilitaria.co.uk/shop/viewphoto.php?shoph=11100&phqu=10 It allegedly belonged to MG JS Ewart. His bio, according to the site: Joined Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders 1881; Egyptian War, including Battle of Tel-el-Kebir 1882; Nile expedition 1884-1885; Sudan Frontier Field Force 1885-1886; Aide-de-camp to General Officer Commanding, Scottish District 1893-1894; Assistant Military Secretary to Governor and Commander-in-Chief, Malta 1894-1898; Deputy Assistant Adjutant General, Western District 1898-1899; South African War 1899-1902; Assistant Military Secretary, Army Headquarters 1902-1903; Deputy Military Secretary, Army Headquarters 1903-1904; Military Secretary to Secretary of State for War, and Secretary of Selection Board 1904-1906; Director of Military Operations, War Office 1906-1910; Aide-de-camp Gen to the King 1910-1914; Adjutant General to the Forces 1910-1914; World War I 1914-1918; General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Scottish Command 1914-1918; retired 1920; Col, Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders 1914-1920 It's from War Department militaria, which in general is a great little militaria shop. I'm not sure about this item though, but, since I know nothing at all about British GO's uniform, I figured I'd ask. If it is correct, I'd love to have it, but, the tunic seems strange still. Thanks so much, ~TS
    12. Okay, time to resurrect an old thread. I've decided to finally go after the mess dress. It's ~$120 with shipping, in nice condition with stains that I will have to go through hell to try to remove. However, It'll be my highest-ranking British officer's uniform by a wide margin, and my only British mess dress, so I think it's worth it. However, I think it must be made to later dress regulations. This is for a few reasons. (1) The waistcoat is red, not blue. (2) The shoulder boards are thin twisted cord, held on by Generals' buttons. (3) The cuffs are straight 1in oak leaf lace. I think mine must conform to later regulations? Does anyone have a copy of the 1906 regs? That's what this example is dated to. Thanks, ~TS
    13. Hey Tom, I'm worried they may be coming in slight contact with it. They aren't pressured against it, though. ~TS
    14. Hello all, I ended up using Dollar Tree 8 1/2 x 11 frames with black backing papers. I put the cigarette cards on 4x4, 16 to a case, with non-acidic photographic corner holders (suggested on another forum) in the upper left and lower right corners. They turned out really nice. With the holders on, is it safe to keep them under glass or should I take the glass out and leave them exposed on the frames? I prefer the glass because it keeps people from handling them. The images aren't being pushed up against the glass because of the plastic. Thanks, ~TS
    15. Hello all, A good friend of mine has been looking for the yellow-background cloth cavalry rank pips for quite a while. His uncle served in a Canadian armored unit during WWII (the something light horse, I believe) and he's trying to recreate his battle dress. He has all of the original insignia and the correct jacket, but I've promised to help him find the pips. Can anyone suggest a source? The officer was a captain, so I need 6 of them. Thanks, ~TS
    16. Hello all, I bought a huge set of a couple of hundred WWI cigarette cards a few weeks ago. They were manufactured post-war by a German company and I bought the whole group for $15, which I considered quite a steal. Wanting to mount them, I initially set up my favorites in a small frame that was glass on both sides and kept pressure on the contents with plastic edgings. This worked well for a small frame, and I set up all of the "portraits" this way. The problem is, I have hundreds of these, and I need to use larger frames to display them reasonably. When I try to use the larger double-sided glass pressure frames, the cigarette cards go all over the place. Sticky tack won't work. I don't care about keeping the reverses showing, but I would like them to be removable if absolutely necessary. The images have both horizontal and vertical orientations, so a matte job won't work. The cards are 6.25 x 4.75 cm, or 2 5/8 by 1 3/4 in. Any thoughts on how I can successful display these beautiful pieces? Thanks, ~TS
    17. Ah. I always thought that the frock was done away with after the introduction of the brown field uniform. That explains it, though. TTFN, ~TS
    18. Leigh, It's identical in pattern to mine, which as I noted above, has a paper label for the 1st Dragoon Guards. The only difference is that mine has better-attached, longer, fitted collar patches. I think these are similar to the RCMP uniform, possibly because what the RCMP wears is derivative of it, but these particular uniforms are the British pattern. The RCMP uniform has pockets that have multiple points and a few other differences. Also important, the RCMP have a distinctive pattern of buttons. I saw an RCMP uniform from the period for sale via an auction about six months ago (it ended up going for a very low price because it was a US and not a Canadian auction) and the pattern was different. One question remains: What are these? They definitely aren't a dress uniform, but they are red and were still being produced on the eve of WWI. A final-pattern red field uniform? Why did they need one? TTFN, ~TS
    19. I have an example in my collection, all red with pointed dark-blue tabs, rounded epaulettes and plan red, pointed cuffs. It has a white blanket-cloth lining, and the typical lacquered metal closure tabs found on Edwardian uniforms. The items is hemmed throughout. The breast pockets have pointed flaps and hidden billows to the outer side, while the lower pockets have no buttons and are in fact sewn shut, in what appears to be an original addition to the tunic. Interestingly, the uniform has no belt ramps, although all brass General service buttons are present on my example and appear original. The label in mine, which was mercifully removed and mounted on acid-free paper by the previous owner, dates it uniform to "JUN 1913" manufactured at the "ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY" for the "DP 1.DRAGOONS.FK." First Dragoon Guards, right? If you're wondering wear to find pictures of this pattern of uniform, you actually don't have far to look. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police pattern is basically identical, and may be identical, although the RCMP uniform predates this type. Immediately after I bought this example, I did a far amount of research and found numerous pictures. I can look around and see what I still have. TTFN, ~TS
    20. Hello all, Every once in a while on sees a Victorian "general's" uniform for sale, I my experience, they're items to pass on, because there aren't any references I have that focus specifically on general's uniforms. General's uniforms also have bewildering variety. So, I'd like the purpose of this thread to be posting of pictures of and discussion on general's and staff officer's uniforms. I suspect that it should get interesting! (And so that there's no fear of going off-topic, don't hesitate to post biographical details!) Also, does anyone have any image references for Victorian-era General Officer's mess dress? Thanks, ~TS
    21. Hey, Thanks, that's all the answer I needed! Frankly, I was sorta hopin' they were just bad copies of military flags, the one without the cheesy paint still would have looked cool lying in a trench display. ~TS
    22. Hey all, The price is low enough that if they're even copies of WWI French flags I might just get them. I'm mostly wondering if the finials are a correct pattern. Are they, for military flags? I'm also trading these flags for WWII Luftwaffe items that I've lost interest in. I'm getting rid of anything that I have that's WWII German and isn't infantry. ~TS
    23. Hello all, I'm in the middle of trading off some of my Third Reich collection to a dealer in England. Thinking of the deal, I think I'm being a bit nice to the dealer, but my real passion is for WWI and earlier tunics and my "Nazi junk" is immenently saleable for her. http://www.a2zmilitarycollectables.co.uk/shop/viewphoto.php?shoph=10934&phqu=2 This flag seems like a very nice display piece too me, but, is it military? To me, RF could just as well mean a civil as a military flag. The dimensions are 31 by 23 inches. This other flag (link below, now sold) is similar, but of a larger size, this flag strikes me as "more military" and also has the "RF" finial. http://www.a2zmilitarycollectables.co.uk/shop/viewphoto.php?shoph=10940&phqu=3 If this is correct for a military flag of the period, I'm going to offer some of my LW items up for it. Help is needed ASAP! Thanks, ~TS
    24. Does anyone have more information on exactly where he wintered in Florida? I've got connections, direct or indirect, at many of the museums around this, my home state. ~TS
    25. http://users.telenet.be/ABL1914/organ1887.html About half way down this page, it also shows this color scheme for Lancers. I'll have to look for markings once I get it. So, I think I have a Belgian hussar or Lancer uniform, circa 1890?!?! http://users.telenet.be/ABL1914/Cavdolman.html EDIT: If I'm reading the facing colors list on the above website right, it is definitely 2nd Regiment of Chasseurs a Cheval or "Jagers te Paard." It also seems to be the pattern used from 1863 right up until 1914. Remarkable! Can anyone translate this for me? "De dolman wordt gedragen als stadskledij tot 1914. Ten velde wordt hij gedragen door de ruiters tot 1891 en door de onderofficieren tot 1903." It seems like it says this was worn by enlisted men up until 1891, but, my Dutch isn't, er, existent. Thanks, ~TS
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...

    Important Information

    We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.