Two 1902 Coronation Medals........

[bigjarofwasps]

Thought this might be of interest? 

As you can see this chap is wearing two 1902 Coronation Medals as well as the 1887/1897 Jubilee Medal.

The reason for this is very curious and anyone's guess? 

His name is Henry BRADLEY.

He joined the Metropolitan Police on the 14.06.1886 warrant number 71882, he was posted to W Division and was there in 1887 for Golden Jubilee. On the 10.06.96 he was promoted to Sergeant and posted to S Division as 55S. He remained in S Division until he retired on the 17.07.11.

He was stationed in Barnet and appears numerous times in the local paper.

 

My research into him is still a work in progress, that I hope to post in the near future. 

[Alan Baird]

Hi,

Nice puzzle.....the first two medals are probably his and they are the ''Queen Victoria Metropolitan Police medal for 1887 and with the 1897 clasp'' and then we have the ''Metropolitan Police Coronation medal for 1902'' and they both appear to be fixed to the same ribbon/medal bar. There were 19,885 bronze Coronation medals for 1902 issued to the Metropolitan Police 

The second and third medals both appear to the ''Metropolitan Police Coronation medals for 1902''

What if.......................the third medal [Metropolitan Police Coronation medal for 1902] and which appears to be separately attached to his tunic, is actually the ''Silver Metropolitan Police Coronation medal for 1902''  Only 57 of these silver medals were issued and only to individuals of the rank of Superintendents and above. If the medal belonged to his father, that could explain why he was wearing the medal. This Coronation medal does look much brighter in the photograph compared to the other example which definitely would have been the bronze example.

Just a theory and maybe a bit far fetched but you never know...…..

Alan.

 

[ayedeeyew]

On ‎19‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 20:13, bigjarofwasps said:

...As you can see this chap is wearing two 1902 Coronation Medals as well as the 1887/1897 Jubilee Medal...

 

13 hours ago, Alan Baird said:

...What if.......................the third medal [Metropolitan Police Coronation medal for 1902] and which appears to be separately attached to his tunic, is actually the ''Silver Metropolitan Police Coronation medal for 1902''  Only 57 of these silver medals were issued and only to individuals of the rank of Superintendents and above. If the medal belonged to his father, that could explain why he was wearing the medal. This Coronation medal does look much brighter in the photograph compared to the other example which definitely would have been the bronze example...

For what it's worth, my thinking is along similar lines to Alans, but with a somewhat different conclusion.

I have taken the original detailed shot of the medals and tried to take out the worst of the distortion due to the angle they are worn at. There is still some, particularly on the vertical plane, but it makes life a little easier for measuring the diameter of the planchets of the medals at least. I have attached it below.

The first is clearly the 1887 Jubilee Medal with 1897 clasp, no doubt there. The planchet diameter of this is 36mm. Using this as a scale when the picture is altered it is clear that the third medal appears to match this perfectly in terms of the diameter of the planchet. This would make it the 1902 Coronation Medal to me as this also had a planchet diameter of 36mm (and freshly issued/polished bronze is just as shiny as any silver medal).

However, in comparison the planchet of the centre medal comes up slightly undersize on a vertical plane (perhaps 33 or 34mm if I am generous) versus maybe 30 or 31mm on the horizontal (if this medal had a swivel suspender as with both the 1887/1897 and 1902 medals this difference may be due in part to it slightly twisting to the viewers left and consequently appearing narrower).

It is well known in medal collecting circles that most older copies of medals tend to come up slightly smaller than originals (generally due to them being cast from moulds taken from an original and suffering shrinkage accordingly).

If the second medal is not simply something different but similar to the 1902 medal, I wonder if the second medal was not simply a copy of one? Perhaps there was some delay or such between Sergeant Bradley being issued his actual medal and as he was entitled to wear it he made other arrangements? Then when he received his actual medal he had himself proudly photographed wearing the real thing alongside his copy that was already mounted?

More speculation I'm afraid...

Edited January 21, 2020 by ayedeeyew

[Alan Baird]

Hi,

Your right - the photograph clearly appears to show the second medal ie Coronation medal 1902, as being visibly smaller than the other two medals.

I wonder if this is more of an ''optical illusion'' especially because this Coronation medal had been badly attached to the ribbon bar holding the first two medals.

The Coronation medal is positioned with the medal suspension bar adjacent to the level of the 1897 Jubilee clasp, instead of all the medal suspension bars being at the same level. The medal is also slightly angled due to its position on the tunic breast pocket.

Attaching medals to ribbon bars sounds easy but there is definitely a knack to doing it so I think...….. many people awarded such medals would not have been too concerned with small discrepancies in this area.

I have attached a few medals to ribbon bars.... in my time..... because I thought it enhanced their presentation. I would place the medals on the bar and pin the ribbons at the correct level  and my wife would then sew the ribbons but if I were to  criticize the end result, I would be told ''do it yourself next time.'' Maybe Sergeant Bradley was in the same boat.

ls this illusion or is the medal smaller in size than it should be ? I am not sure...………..

Alan.

 

[bigjarofwasps]

Interesting observation Gents, with regards to the apparent size difference. I like Alan just assumed this was an optical illusion and the difference in angles that the medals appear to be in might account for why the first and third look silver in colour whereas the middle one appears darker.

Personally I think that we can be fairly confident that medals two and three are in fact both 1902 Coronation Medals, but as to why he would deem it appropriate to wear two is anyone's guess.

The most likely conclusion in my mind, is that this photograph was taken just before he retired and he hadn't yet been issued with his 1911 Medal, but knew he was entitled to a third medal and wanted to be photograph wearing three medals before he had to had his uniform back, so borrowed one from another Bobby at the nick for the purpose of the photograph? 

 

[Alan Baird]

You may well be correct with your theory Gordon.

I checked with ancestry and his father was a porter and died long before 1902 so my theory that the Coronation medal might have been his father's medal...…...………... died a death.

[bigjarofwasps]

1 hour ago, Alan Baird said:

You may well be correct with your theory Gordon.

I checked with ancestry and his father was a porter and died long before 1902 so my theory that the Coronation medal might have been his father's medal...…...………... died a death.

Henry and his medals not to mention his family certainly are a puzzle.

I can't find him/them on the 1891 census, yet I know he married his wife Emma in 1887 and they had a son Bertram in 1890 who was born in Clapham.

In 1901 their living at 82 Sebright Street, Barnet. Henry his wife Emma, Bertram (11), Gladys (9), Elsie (6)Grace (3) and twins Dorothy & Alice (1).

By 1911 they've moved over the road to  75 Sebright Street, Barnet, Henry his  wife Emma, Gladys (19), Elsie (16), William (15) Grace (14) Iris (5), Winnifred (1).

Assume Bertram has left home by this time, but am unsure where William has come from and what's happened to Dorothy & Alice!!

8 children is some going mind, even by the standards of those days!!!

 

Bertram and William both serve during the First World War, Bertram being discharged having been wounded in the face! . 

 

[Tony Farrell]

He was most probably a member of the St Johns Ambulance as well as being a copper and (of consequence) received a double issue of the medal - albeit with two differing reverses.

[bigjarofwasps]

I contacted the Metropolitan Police Museum, to see if they could shine any light on this hazard an opinion or provide any other examples of such a case as this. They were very prompt in their reply and offered the following...

"Thank you for your enquiry. The middle medal appears to be smaller than the other two and the ribbon of the furthest right medal seems to be different to that of the middle medal. Our copy of “The Metropolitan Police – The Men and Their Medals – Volume 1” (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Metropolitan-P ... 1873313187) states Bradley’s medals to have been:



1887 – as a PC on W (Clapham) Division

1897 – as Sergeant on S (Hampstead) Division

1902 – as Sergeant on S Division

1911 – as Sergeant on S Division, which he was also in when he retired on 17 July that year (the Coronation was 22 June)



I would therefore conclude that (left to right) these medals are 1887 Jubilee Medal with 1897 clasp, 1902 Coronation Medal and 1911 Coronation Medal either on 1902 ribbon or with the two outer stripes of 1911 ribbon unclear or hidden. Such a ribbon mistake is not unheard of – we have even found one or two examples in our own collections! – and would be understandable given his retirement less than a month after the coronation".



Not an unreasonable conclusion, with regards to the fact that perhaps the last medal is in fact a 1911 medal on a 1902 ribbon. That would certainly see feasible. I have looked as closely as I can at the last medal, the crown certainly looks very Edward V11, but the chin could be GV1R?

But the arms of the medals are both the same and "1911" medal doesn't have a ring as you'd suspect?

Has anyone ever seen a 1911 medal with an arm instead of a ring? An early prototype perhaps??


Although the medal in the photo does appear smaller, I believe this to be an optical illusion due to it being at a slightly different angle than the other two. If you measure the arms they are both the same size.

 

[Mike McLellan]

For my eyes, the most distinguishing identifier is the “shadow” of the left collar on the medal on the right. That, as well as the chin, as you point out, makes me think that this is not a case of incorrect ribbon. The medal is, indeed, an EviiR. If not coronation, then what would be lower in precedence than that. 
I think that your theory is the correct one. Knowing that he would soon have his third medal, but not soon enough to have it in time for the photograph, he opted to pin on one of his mate’s medals, probably thinking, “Nobody will ever notice the difference!”.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Mike McLellan

[bigjarofwasps]

9 minutes ago, Mike McLellan said:

For my eyes, the most distinguishing identifier is the “shadow” of the left collar on the medal on the right. That, as well as the chin, as you point out, makes me think that this is not a case of incorrect ribbon. The medal is, indeed, an EviiR. If not coronation, then what would be lower in precedence than that?

I agree Mike, the closer I look the more convinced I am that they are both Edward V11 medals.

They have to be both 1902 Coronation Medals, I can't find any other medal that it/they could be.

Not the 1903 visit to Scotland medal, as this has no stripes on the ribbon and has a thistle clasp on the top and I can see no reason why he would have been involved in that. 

His trio should look like this, it's a totally mystery.....................

 

 

[Tony Farrell]

Double issues of the same medal are not unheard of, whether they be from two differing issuing authorities, or unit admin office submissions. It's not even a double issue technically, as the St John's issue of the medal had a different reverse from that of the Met, though it was ostensibly the 'same' medal. I wouldn't think too hard on this.

[ayedeeyew]

On ‎24‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 18:05, bigjarofwasps said:

Has anyone ever seen a 1911 medal with an arm instead of a ring? An early prototype perhaps??

Not on a full size medal, but it is sometimes encountered on miniature versions of the same (due to the difficulties of getting the ribbon to behave correctly on the reduced scale through the ring - most companies seem to have just enlarged the scale of the ring to compensate) :

[bigjarofwasps]

20 hours ago, ayedeeyew said:

Not on a full size medal, but it is sometimes encountered on miniature versions of the same (due to the difficulties of getting the ribbon to behave correctly on the reduced scale through the ring - most companies seem to have just enlarged the scale of the ring to compensate) :

Many thanks ayedeeyew, that certainly is very interesting. 

[bigjarofwasps]

Have tried to take the best pictures possible for comparison.

I think we can be fairly confident that, he is wearing two 1902 Ev11R Coronation Medals?

[bigjarofwasps]

This might account for the change of address between the 1901 and 1911 censuses? 

[Tom King]

Probably taken near the time of his retirement and he may not have had his Coronation medal issued as yet so he wore a substitute for the photograph. That or he forgot it and borrowed one so he had three medals for the photo.

[bigjarofwasps]

On 01/03/2020 at 20:30, Tom King said:

Probably taken near the time of his retirement and he may not have had his Coronation medal issued as yet so he wore a substitute for the photograph. That or he forgot it and borrowed one so he had three medals for the photo.

I agree the issue pending scenario would be the most likely.
 

But still an interesting photo all the same. 

[bigjarofwasps]

Here is what appears to be another example?

Looks to me like a

1887 Jubilee Medal or 1897 Jubilee Medal

1902 Coronation Medal

1887 Jubilee Medal with 1897 clasp? 
 

would be interested to hear other people’s views. 

 

[Tony Farrell]

I'd say 1887/97, 1902 and an Afghanistan worn in the (then) correct position - with coronation and jubilees to the fore. The campaign medal could be a NW Canada, but the Afghanistan issue is more likely. The ribbon tone is not suggestive of a Canada GS, and the lack of Khedive's Star pretty much rules out an Egypt. So... ?