L.S.G.C. Medal Pattern 1837-54

[Brian Wolfe]

Hello All,

This has been a very good weekend as well as being St. Patrick's Day on Saturday I was able to add 21 new additions to my medal collection. Most are of Imperial Germany, a whole new world for me, but some were in the area I have been collecting.

This is a LSGC Medal from the 1837 to 1854 period. The date is giving me some confusion. The medal has to be after 1837 as the Hanoverian emblem is no longer on the obverse. The medal is dated therefore it would have to be before 1854 and there is a ring suspension which came before the change to the swivelling suspension in 1855.

My question is regarding the date which is 26.12.16. The Medal Yearbook (Token Publishing) states that these dates represent the date of discharge and award. If I am reading the date correctly it would be the 26th of December 1816. If that is the date of discharge that would place it before this medal was struck. If it is read the other way around (as the dealer has suggested) and the date is the 16th of December 1826 you have the same problem. The dealer suggested that this is in fact the date the soldier enlisted. If that is so then the date of the 26th of December 1816 + 21 years of service = 1837 which puts it in the correct year for this medal. It would also indicate that this soldier served during the reign of King William IV. I also find it puzzeling that if a soldier was awarded a LSGC medal upon discharge he would never get to wear it during his service.

Any comments on this questions will be welcomed.

The medal was awarded to,

S.POLLARD 18th BATT. DIS. 26.12.16

I was also told that the 18th Batt. Dis. was the London Artillery. Is this true?

Thanks and Cheers.

Brian

[Brian Wolfe]

Here is the reverse of the medal. Note that this is the large lettering which places it before 1874.

Brian

[Tony Farrell]

Any chance of posting some images of the naming details? Whist it was (and still is) not uncommon for a recipient to be awarded his medal after discharge, this date I find totally wrong - assuming 'DIS' indicates a discharge date. I can see no point in an attestation date on a medal - and this would not be in keeping with contemporary LS awards. Something is telling me that this is a self-replaced medal. It would be possible for a man discharged in 1816 to find another (post 1837) medal much later on in life and have it named up with his details.

Early Victorian medals used impressed, broad, upright serif capitals - the same as that used on the Waterloo medals of 1815. The date of the award was also impressed. Later Victorian issues (from 1850 onwards) were both officially impressed in upright capitals and engraved in a variety of regimental styles - both with and without the award date, and in varying degrees of uniformity. Of course, this means nothing if he'd done it himself.

It was also common for foot regiments to be referred to (by those in them) as battalions - as they were (usually) battalion-sized. 18th Battalion may well refer to the 18th Foot. I'm sure if he was a gunner then the medal would be inscribed either RA or Arty etc.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Tony Farrell

[Brian Wolfe]

Hi Tony,

It took a little experimenting with my camera but here are the best views I can get.

I does not look as though another name has been removed but the discharge date of 1816 makes no sense.

Thanks for your help.

Cheers

Brian

[Brian Wolfe]

Here is a shot of the date Tony.

Thanks again.

Brian

[Michael NA]

Brian:

As noted by Tony, William IV and early Victorian issues to 1854 were impressed in the style of the Waterloo. Your photos do not show this type of naming on your medal.

Michael

[Brian Wolfe]

Brian:

As noted by Tony, William IV and early Victorian issues to 1854 were impressed in the style of the Waterloo. Your photos do not show this type of naming on your medal.

Michael

Hi Michael,

Looks like this medal has a shady history. Must have been, as suggested earlier, renamed by the "owner" at a later date.

Oh well, it'll still look good in the collection.

Cheers

Brian

[Mossy]

Pity about the possible (read very likely) re-name, but i'd still look into research. Pollard might not have earned this particular medal, but who knows (without research, that is) if he earnt any others?

Still a story here folks!

Sam.

[Michael NA]

Brian:

I would obtain his service records to confirm he was issued a Long Service. As noted, it would not be the first time a medal was lost and another was "named" up to replace it.

Michael

[Tony Farrell]

It might be worth checking the Egypt roll for the MGS, as the 18th Foot were out there in 1801.

[Brian Wolfe]

Brian:

I would obtain his service records to confirm he was issued a Long Service. As noted, it would not be the first time a medal was lost and another was "named" up to replace it.

Michael

Hi Michael,

That's a good idea and I will try to follow up on that. It seems that this renaming was not a rare thing. I may have the correct name, regiment and discharge number on the wrong medal.

Nothing cut and dried about this hobby!

Cheers

Brian

[Brian Wolfe]

It might be worth checking the Egypt roll for the MGS, as the 18th Foot were out there in 1801.

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the tip. I'll give that a "go".

Cheers

Brian

[Michael NA]

Following up on Tony's comment, I see that if he stayed in the 18th, this likely was his only medal entitlement. I checked my copy of Balmer's Regimental Medals and there is nothing for Pollard under the known examples at the time to the 18th Foot. Let us know how this story ends.

Michael

[Tony Farrell]

By default of their postings, the 18th pretty much missed out on most of the actions during this rather turbulent period, due to them being stuck out in the West Indies, so this could well be his only 'entitlement' - albeit self-awarded, and assuming that he was indeed in the Royal Irish and not some obscure artillery battery.