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

    Ed_Haynes

    For Deletion
    • Posts

      14,343
    • Joined

    • Last visited

    • Days Won

      25

    Posts posted by Ed_Haynes

    1. Good point, Graham. We need to remember that these cards were filled out when the medals were issued, and not at the time the service was rendered. And this could be many years later, long after various regimental reorganizations took place. These changes can also be reflected in medal naming, as it ofter reflects the situation when the medals were issued rather than when the service happened. The variance in pre-1922 and post-1922 regimental names (and service numbers) on things like the GSM or IGS08 is a source of great "entertainment" for Indian Army collectors.

    2. Did British troops get the Iraqi WW2 service medal as well or was this only for Iraqi troops?

      No, so far as I know both The 1939-45 War Medal and the Nut al-Nasir 1945 / Victory Medal, 1945 were only for the late-war Iraqi Army that supported the British. The Nut Harkat Mais 1941 / Medal for the May 1941 Revolt was for those who didn't support the British (nationalists, not pro-Axis). I have never found much documentation on how the Nut Himayat al-Atfal fi al-Iraq, 1941 / Medal for Children's Wefare in Iraq, 1941 fir into Iraq's WWII phaleristc constellation.

    3. Rick had suggested in his original post that the card had something to do with the 68th Punjabis (which regiment, by the way, mutinied at Bareilly on 31 May 1857, and was not re-raised). It was unusual, but a few NCOs may on occasion have been attached to Indian infantry regiments by the end of the 19th century, most commonly in a training or educational role (teaching English, for example). Most tasks, Indian personnel could perform quite well for themselves. Attachments to what artillery that was allowed to exist in the Indian army was more common, as such technical knowledge was denied to Indians after 1857. I have never seen enlisted personnel so attached in any regiment.

      My guess is that this information on the MIC (and these are usually muddy enough to begin with, even when presented large enough to read) is simply a reference to the voume, page, and line in the original rolls where the award of his medal is given. The reverses, uncopied, have details on where the medal was sent. I think parts of these original rolls are now at the NA and it may be worth checking it, but if all you have is his hat and not his medal(s), it probably won't be worth the effort unless you are already at Kew for some other reason.

      (I am, by the way not "anti-British"; I am merely anti-imperialist and opposed to many of the ideas that came along with that system.)

    4. Yes, Rick, that might be what it is, from the teeny-tiny scan of the card, as opposed to the GIGANTIC hat-scan . :sleep:

      Although, as an apparent private, his attachment to an Indian Army regiment seems very very (even incredibly) odd indeed. Indian army regiments had no use for European enlisted personnel (not to mention others...).

      With a legible scan of the MIC some useful information might be available.

    5. The two letters on the lower star points seem to be (right-to-left, of course) "J" and "D".

      I can't recall if Owain treated this in his JOMSA article. I am at work and the journals are at home. Given where this is placed, Owain probably won't see the post. (If it were moved to Middle East, he would, hint, hint . . . .)

    6. I don't understand Ed Haynes' "off topic" remark. Everything posted here strikes me as very much on-topic.

      PK

      I'm sure you don't, Prosper. I'm sure you don't. Quite sure. And quite unsurpirsed.

      Based on your boundless expertise, tell me what in the world a minor theft from the US Air Force Museum has to do with a theft of major items in New Zealand?

      This important thread has been so far perverted that it is almost worth no longer caring about it?

      A shame, a shame.

    7. The 10 Jan 2008 sale produced some interesting Mongolian results:

      2246 $3,250

      2247 $2,000

      2248 $280

      2249 $350

      2250 $4,250

      2251 -

      2252 -

      2253 $400

      2254 -

      2255 -

      2256 -

      2257 -

      2258 -

      2259 -

      2260 -

      2261 -

      2262 $75

      2263 -

      2264 -

      2265 -

      2266 -

      2267 $40

      2268 -

      2269 -

      2270 $450

      2271 $425

      2272 $500

      2362 -

      2363 -

      2364 $150

      2365 -

      2366 -

      Almost makes me wish I'd bid!

      The Tuvan pieces, however (honorary Mongolians?) went high, $35,000 (2200) and $37,500 (2201).

    ×
    ×
    • 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.