Hi John,
This badge has the Kings or Tudor crown which design was used post Queen Victoria until 1953 when Queen Elizabeth II ascended the throne and the crown changed to the Queens or St Emunds Crown (aka Imperial State Crown which strangely, with it being known as the Queens Crown, was used by King George VI). Yours is very bright and clean looking with more modern looking soldering of the lugs so I would say this example is from the very end of the KC range and was likely never used. This in itself is not unusual because by that time most members of the regiment would only be wearing the famous red hackle and no badge. The cap badge was worn in a dark blue (aka Cameron pattern) glengarry by Senior NCOs and officers but that was of higher quality and two colours multi piece construction (including solid silver for the discerning / affluent individual). There are quite a few badges to other regiments that are very similar but that is for another thread I think.
I attach a couple of pics to compare the Victorian crown, Kings Crown, SNCO/Officer pattern and subsequent Queens Crown in that order. The Queens crown example is a "Stabrite" anodised aluminium type to show the difference but that can also be found in white metal.
As with most British badges of this construction you expect the reverse detail to be fairly clean (there are exceptions) and the metal to be strong and hard to bend. This Stabrite badge is a good example of the difference in reverse definition. Many fake Stabrite types confuse the unwary because the reverse definition is much sharper than the original which leads to the assumption that it is the genuine one when the opposite is true. This is due to the fake being made from thinner material which also makes it more likely to bend.
I hope this helps with you question.
Regards
Mark
PS These pics are quite poor as I snapped them quickly with my mobile phone on the kitchen work top but they serve the purpose for comparison.
Last edited by Watchdog; 03-20-2023 at 10:53 AM. Reason: ps
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares more about than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature with no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Mark. Thanks for the reply and the information. Very informative and appreciated.
John
Similar Threads
Bookmarks