peter monahan

I would guess a private photo. Travelling photographers were a feature of Victorian life and chronicling one's travels and service was becoming common so, absent evidence to the contrary - archive or gov't stamps - I'd guess this one was 'commissioned' by the men it pictures. Just my tuppence worth, though.

He was a member of 'the 1st of the 1st of the 1st', a distinction also claimed by the Grenadier Coy, Royal Scots [1st Foot] in an earlier period: 1st Battalion, 1st Infantry Brigade, 1st Cdn Division. The 1st were in trenches around Neuve Chappelle from March 7th, 1915, in support of attacks by the 4th Battalion. german shelling caused a number of casualties of which, presumably, Jackson was one. If you are interested, PM me and I'll send you the relevant pafes from the war diary of the 1st Bttn. Peter

And, of course, gallantry awards are merely public recognition of the kind of act which 'the authorities' in that time and place have decided deserve to be recognized. By their very nature, the 'unsung' acts of heroism can never be catalogued or acknowldeged but must, I think, greatly outnumber those which are 1) observed 2) reported and 3) after investigation by many and interference by some, deemed worthy of recognition. It would be fascinating to know, for example, whay % of recommendations for the VC, DFC and so on are actually approved and what % rejected, replaced with a lesser award, or simply 'lost' in the maze of paper and opinions whihc surrond such a process.

Here is the link to Library and Archives Canada's research portal for military records: http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/military-heritage/Pages/military-heritage.aspx The records on the WWI soldiers are fairly complete - complete service files for men surnamed 'A' to 'P', attestation papers for all soldiers, 'Circumstances of Death' cards for most and war diaries. For WWII, unfortunately, far fewer of the records are either open or available electronically. because of the 70 year rule, actual service files can only be accessed - I think - by relatives. If the spouse or child of a serviceman/woman requests the records in writing, with proof of death, they can get it. Otherwise, there is a list of published records at the LAC site. Medal entitlement is not to difficult to make an educated guess at, for WWII and Korea, and Veterans Affairs and other sites will tell you the qualifying period for each medal. So, for example, if you know an uncle went to Europe with an armoured unti, he almost ceratinly earned the 1939-45 Star, either the France & Germany Star or the Italy Star, the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal with bar for overseas service and the Defence Medal. Canadians in Korea earned the British 'Korea' medal and the UN Korea medal, in general. Check here for descriptions of some: http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/medals-decorations I hope this is of some help. feel free to post other questions or contact me if you like. Peter

Excellent story to 'liven up' what would otherwise be, for me, a neophyte on Russian awards, a not-to-interesting award. Thanks for sharing it!

Do NOT use water, for all the reasons cited above. One technique sometimes used in museums for old fabrics is to rub, gently, over the surface of the ribbons with a bit of dry white bread. Strange but true. It may pick up some of the bits of surface dirt and other than crumbs leaves nothing behind. A bit like using an art eraser, but even gentler and certainly less likely to cause damage than a brush. Or just leave them. Age has it's own beauty.

That might make sense too. Good thought!

I must confess I simply muttered 'Oh, those Gunners!' when I came across the fact that both ranks were used, but what you say makes senses! And, for what it's worth, here is Wiki's take on the question. Not sure it is a huge help! Bombardier (Bdr) and lance-bombardier (LBdr or L/Bdr) are used by the British Army in the Royal Artillery and Royal Horse Artillery... The Royal Canadian Artillery uses the ranks of master bombardier and bombardier, corresponding to master corporal and corporal. Originally, the Royal Artillery had corporals, but not lance-corporals. Unlike a lance-corporal, a bombardier held full non-commissioned rank and not an acting appointment. The rank was equivalent to second corporal in the Royal Engineers and Army Ordnance Corps. In 1920 corporals were abolished in the Royal Artillery; bombardiers became the equivalent and acquired the normal two chevrons.

Hasan An important point: that the Tamgha-e-Jang and Tangshan-e-Jang were issued unnamed. On the other hand, it is not too unusual to find privately named medals, especially to men of higher rank or those who served for long periods and felt this was worth the expense. Many years ago, when I persudaded my father-in-law to apply for his WWII medals, they came unnamed of course. I had them privately named and framed with some badges from the Ferry Command, the organization whith which he flew for 3 years during the war. So, in the unlikely event that those medals leave the family, they may puzzle someone in the future.

A formidable adversary at lance length from the enemy. I speak to hundreds of high school students every year about WWI, with a group that sets up at museums around southern Ontario. We man as many as 15 stations and one I have been doing lately is 'Lance Drill'. It gives me a chance to talk about how vital the horse was to war, before and even after WWI, for transport and how the 'arme blanche' was properly used - to scout and screen. The students practice some basic lance drill and 'tent pegging'. I also explain how frightening a cavalry charge would be , especially against unprpepared infantry in the open, most of who would have had single shot rifles. Finally, I pull out my 10 round SMLE and explain how many shorts I could get off in the time it took horsemen to cross 200 meteres of ground. They inveriably get the point: MGs turned cavalry charges into a complicated form of suicide!

Lovely that you've found your answers! And I suppose it's too late to claim that I thought I remembered the RA having 'Corprorals' at some popint, isn't it? Peter

Intriguing indeed. It is sounding less likely that India is part of the answer, though misspelled words are a staple of engraving work from that part of the world. Curiouser and curiouser, to quote Alice.

Well spotted, Coldstream! I do love this group and the depth and breadth of knowledge it's members share!

"Peter, I did find reference to a Frontier Force Royal Artillery yesterday however," My apologies, Tony, I didn't understand your point there. There certainly were RA units attached to the Indian Army and thus, of course, to the Frontier Force and it would be interesting to find a reference to such on a lovely artifact like this!

Absent strong evidence to the contrary, I'd say 'R.A.' is 'Royal Artillery', so that leaves the 'F/t' to puzzle out. Perhaps 'From the R.A.'? Looking at a very extensive list of military abbreviations doesn't suggest anything more likely than 'Royal Artilery' and nothing at all for 'F/t'. 'Fd' is 'Field, as in artillery, and 'FT' is French Translator but neither of those is relevant so... ???

"I'll continue to collect but now that I have all the most important medals from 1854 I will have to be very careful what I buy and only from Dixons from now on. I cannot risk spending say £hundreds on fakes. That's always a safe bet - buying form a reputable dealer. I don't buy anymore but still read Dixon's catalogue every month.

1) Read, read and read some more! Look out all the sites which identify the 'fake' marks/errors on the commonly faked medals. Buy books on the subject if they exist. It will save you a lot of grief and money in the long run. 2) Examine real medals, in museums, collections or at shows. Other collectors will be more than happy, generally speaking, to help you learn and there is simply no substitute for handling multiple examples of the real thing to 'tune' one's knowledge. 3) The Kandahar Star is one of the 19th century medals which is faked, due to its rarity and the campaign and actions it represents. OTOH, most IGSMs are still not so valuable that faking them is worth the bother, I don't believe. Of course 'improving' a medal with extar bars is and was done. I once collected IGSMs to Indian troops and almost all the multi-bar medlas had had bars added locally by regiment or indidivdual soldiers, with all sorts of odd rivets, wires and so on. Collecting to British troops should mostly obviate that issue but again, knowing what is out there is key. Did the Sussex Reg't issue 650 bars for 'Afgahnistan 1919', making them common and likely pukka or not? If it's too good to be true, it's likely false! 4) Ask around before you buy. Good dealers will always take back a medal if you're not satisfied and some dealers are known for their honesty! Good luck! I hope you enjoy many happy years of collecting!

It's what we on this side of the Atlantic call a 'hunting knife', which QSA Mike alludes to. Hundreds of models and sold in any sports store, so it's likely that many found their way to Europe [or were made in Brimingham] with private soldiers, but definitely not an issue item and, I think, unlikely to have been made in Europe or the other theatres in which the Allies fought.

I was going to say 'On his head.' but I guess that won't help. The fact that the 'digger hat' has traitionally had an easy to manipulate hook and eye arrangement suggests that 'Either way.' is the correct answer. Without doing any research but relying on my razor sharp [63 year old] memory, I'm going to suggest that 'turned up' is the preferred modern style, which one sees in photos of parades in particular, but that clearly 'down' was the more practical method in sun and rain and seems commoner the further back one goes in time, especially in 'action photos'. All obvious, I know, but my point is that the further back one goes, the less rigidly the regs appear to have been enforced in any but formal contexts: photos of the Aussie Light Horse in the Middle east, for example, and of WWII troops in the Pacific, show them worn down, for obvious practical reasons. Photos of individuals in portraits and so on more often seem to show them up - 'for the look of the thing'. That said, one photo, which I will attempt to locate, shows light horse - near Beersheba, I think - with most brims down but one or two up, supporting my thesis that at some point it became a matter of individual preference. As someone who wears an Aussie style hat most summers, I can testify that 'brim down' wears better, as the weight balances out and the hat seems less likely to slip on one's head. My tuppence worth and then some! Peter

Odd that. If I were a Freudian I'd blame it on toilet training or penis envy, but who knows? Fascinating stry, though. Thank you.

Interesting! We tend to assume that men wearing medals to which they're not entitled are complete fakes, I think. If what you say is accurate, this fellow was a genuine hero with multpile awards who still felt it necessary to gild the lily! May one enquire who he was?

Too bad. It would be nice to now what sorts of things qualified one for such an award.

Very nice looking medal! Any information on th recipient or details of the award?

I can only suggest searching the London Gazette. It is available on-line but can be frustrating, as the search engine is not infallible by any means. I took a quick look, but both his surname and forenames are so common as to throw up dozens of [false?] positives in a quick search. A few more details of his biography might help narrow the parameters.