City of London Police helmet plates

[filfoster]

What color were the helmet plates of the City of London police circa 1900?  I have seen examples that look painted black and some silver and some brass/gilt. Which was it?

Edited April 23, 2022 by filfoster

[filfoster]

[Dave Wilkinson]

14 hours ago, filfoster said:

The photo which you have shown displays the correct pattern helmet plate for the period you are referring to.

 

I'm attaching for your information, a photo of the various City of London insignia items worn almost since the force was formed.

 

Dave.

[filfoster]

Dave: Thank you! You've come through again.

[I_♥_Police]

5 hours ago, Dave Wilkinson said:

The photo which you have shown displays the correct pattern helmet plate for the period you are referring to.

 

I'm attaching for your information, a photo of the various City of London insignia items worn almost since the force was formed.

 

Dave.

 

Hi all,

 

Long time watcher, small time poster here. I had to comment though to say what a fantastic collection of City of London police memorabilia! Goodnes me, I was honestly shocked at it haha. Don't suppose you have a similiar one for the Met or a larger image of this one? We have corresponded before Dave, however you will likely not remember me but I did buy your book a couple of years back.

This website may well be of interest to anyone looking to see CoLP memorabilia (I dont have a connection to it at all ) - https://citypolice.tripod.com/

 

Kind regards,

 

Jack

[Dave Wilkinson]

Jack,

 

If you will tell me what period of Metpol. insignia history you are interested in I will try to upload an image of the appropriate board. The Met. have had a wide variety of badges etc since 1829, too many for one single display. If you send me a PM I will send you a further image of the City of London badges which you may be able to enlarge. I hope you enjoyed the book. Dave Dean's website on the City Police is, as you say, well worth a visit.

 

Dave. 

[filfoster]

....and a related question: all the photos show a front visor with no center seam, as many others have. Were there any of this kind (with center visor seam) for the City of London constables? I've read somewhere that the lack of a center seam was characteristic of helmets made by Christie's. Did they have an exclusive contract for these?

Edited June 7, 2022 by filfoster

[I_♥_Police]

Just as a quick aside to this, Dave and all, hope no one minds but I've seen several CoLP helmets online etc bearing the 'E999' on the number area of the plate. I take it for so many of these to be in circulation with what I would say is an unusual epaulette number means they are not genuine plates?

 

Many thanks indeed,

[coldstream]

My understanding is that the '999' affixed to these plates were designed for the Collector market on genuine plates however I'm sure Dave will know whether this is correct or not.

 

Regards, Simon.

[dpk]

Is there a reliable source of information on known fakes in the militaria/police collectables world? I saw a presentation during the recent OMRS virtual conference about the large number of fake George Cross and Air Force Cross medals made by one prolific faker, now in prison. He knocked out scores of these, all very good copies which fooled a lot of people. Now hearing about the CofL '999' helmet plates made for the collector market makes me wonder how many other fake items are out there being bought and sold either knowingly or perhaps unwittingly. It would be great to have a permanent topic in groups like GMIC, BMF, OMRS etc to keep us informed.

[Dave Wilkinson]

The "999" City of London helmet plates which are usually seen with an "E" Div. letter, were not made for the collector market. They are genuine City Police helmet plates which were presented by the City Police to certain individuals as souvenirs. It would be inappropriate to insert a currently used collar number and divisional letter, so 999 "E" was used.

 

Dave.   

[dpk]

Many thanks- so not a 'fake' but a souvenir. The question re 'fakes' still remains, occasionally someone on a forum will advise of a suspicious item, even a deliberately doctored or fake but thereseems to be little effort by the collector groups to make such info available to members.

 

I suppose 'caveat emptor' applies- buyer beware and best of luck...

[coldstream]

From what I've experienced on other Forums the issue with highlighting what makes a certain item a reproduction or fake is the fact that the makers of these items have access to this same information and could then take steps to improve their practices and so make identification of original versus reproductions almost impossible. A photographic database of known fakes and reproductions as on certain threads within The British Badge Forum may be the way to go to enable Collectors to compare their items to but once again it really comes down to Collectors acquiring knowledge via books, online resources and Forums and fellow collectors. All part of the fun of collecting I suppose.

 

Simon.

[Dave Wilkinson]

Simon is quite right. The more information there is in the public domain which identifies what is and isn't a fake simply allows those who are disposed to producing such things, the benefit of such knowledge. They are then able to "hone" their craft to such an extent that it becomes more and more difficult to detect what is an is not the real thing. Its down to each collector acquiring knowledge and sharing it. But not, I would suggest, in the public arena.

 

Dave.   

[filfoster]

This is a troubling dilemma which has long haunted the militaria collectors community. Maintainng the expertise as an exclusive preserve of advanced collectors consigns neophytes to walk into expensive 'manhholes'. Not everyone has ready access to expert help.  I was fortunate to have local folks who were knowledgeable, one who gave me wonderful advice: "Don't be a believer", by which he meant 'See critically, not just what you want to see.' Simple advice but hard to follow when you find some 'grail' /'Moby Dick' you've long hunted, and it's almost right, except...

And, there's the market for well-made reproductions that are good enough to hold a place in a collection or a display, but not intended to deceive. Many advanced collectors would deny less educated or sadly, less affluent collectors these substitutes because of the chance they could be offered fraudulently, even though they would not fool many real experts. Genuine artifacts often/usually have a tally of features that tell their authenticity, although some are real, but 'improved', and harder to identify. I suggest that the risk of fraud represented by most of these better copies is small, and a risk worth making these otherwise rare and too expensive items available to a larger body of enthusiasts/collectors. 

I assemble reproduction uniform/ movie/tv costume displays and prefer to use the most authentic and well-made replica items I can find. Most, because they are better reproductions, are not easy to find and are seldom cheap. These better-made replica items are essential to make a satisfactory display. Without a 'Bill Gates' budget or unlimited search resources for originals, good copies are the only alternative to simply having a shoddy display or more sadly, nothing at all. I am distressed to know many advanced collectors would have it that way.

I am, as you may suspect, a strong advocate of well-made, accurate reproductions, sold as such. 

A note: There are still many instances where no replica is available and resort must be had for an original item. This is unfortunate two-fold: it costs more than a copy, and simultaneously denies these items to collectors who desire and appreciate 'the real thing', ironically, when I do not, but have had to resort to it. Sorry for this off topic rant. It deserves a well-moderated forum of its own.

 

Edited June 11, 2022 by filfoster

[filfoster]

...By the way, it occurs to me to express 'thanks' to this site and these forums and the many members who generously share their expertise with us. You all deserve our respect and thanks.