Original British ww2 uniform?

[Pavlos]

Im wondering if the uniform, the insignia, cap, belt, pants and tie are all original ww2? im doubting if maybe some things are post-ww2.
Also could I put division patches on it? if so which patches fit this uniform? Thanks

[Watchdog]

The uniform itself looks OK from these pics but I think the belt may be be a later other ranks No2 dress belt. The officers service dress did have a cloth belt of that type but was more commonly worn with a leather Sam Browne belt. The tie I think is not an officers tie but an other ranks type although I can't be certain from the pics.

As for attaching formation patches I wouldn't as you would be altering the uniforms originality.

Formation badges were worn on the service dress but it is more commonly seen without. If you really felt the need I would suggest looking for a period photograph of a RASC officer wearing such badges on service dress.

I hope this helps

Mark

[jimpy]

I agree with Mark on this.

The tie certainly looks like a modern era ORs No2 dress tie and the belt certainly looks very much like the type worn, occasionally, with the ORs No2 dress tunic.

Also, are there any makers tags in the trousers? As they appear a more modern shade of khaki when compared to the jacket.

Regards etc

Ian D

AKa: Jimpy

[douglas2496]

Hello, I think its a fine uniform set and I see no problem with the tie and belt belonging with it. I was given two similar ties by 1st Subaltern Audrey Told (retired) when I visited her recently, she served throughout the war and into the 50's. She can be seen wearing one in this picture taken in the 1950's. Of course. it dosn't prove it is wartime, but does prove officer use. Several of my wartime officers tunics have near identical belts to the one shown.

[Watchdog]

I don't disagree with the tie being of the correct style it is just that having worn these myself on a daily basis for many years the colour looks more modern (subjective I know) and the material looks more like the modern synthetic type. The modern type is actually rather stretchy and quite soft to the touch compared to the older type.

You are also quite right that the belt is the correct style but the buckle looks like staybrite which it could not have been during the period of this uniform.

The only way to be convinced is to have both items in hand in which case I could tell the difference by touch alone

I wonder if these were the items that prompted this thread in the first place.

Regards

Mark

[douglas2496]

Hi Mark, Sure- thats all fair enough. The buckle looks brass on my screen, but obviously if its staybright then that is clear cut.

[Pavlos]

Thanks for the respond guys, i'll make some new pictures later zoomed in on the pants, belt and tie, I paid the full price for all these items as ww2, so if some are post-war I contact the seller again.
The uniform, cap and all the insignia are 100% original ww2 for sure?

[douglas2496]

Is the belt buckle made of brass or anodized aluminium?

[Pavlos]

I made new pictures of the belt, tie and pants, what really got my attention is that the belt and the pants have the same color but the uniform does not? the colors are different. Does this mean the pants can be post war too? Im desperate for answers. Many thanks!

[douglas2496]

So it is brass and not stay-bright, which means it is indeed of the wartime type. Unless items are dated it can be very difficult to prove exactly when they were made, but I maintain my view that there is nothing to say these are not wartime. If the belt is a different shade to the jacket and trousers it does rather imply they did not originally belong with it, but of course they may have been worn together or they may have been put together at a later date. Certainly my collection of wartime officers uniform shows a variety of shades, from more greenish to more brownish hues.