RootsChat.Com

General => Armed Forces => Topic started by: pwl1951 on Tuesday 23 January 24 20:56 GMT (UK)

Title: Uniform identification from photo
Post by: pwl1951 on Tuesday 23 January 24 20:56 GMT (UK)
I am looking for uniform identification from photo. Not even sure it is a military uniform.
Title: Re: Uniform identification from photo
Post by: Wexflyer on Tuesday 13 February 24 05:51 GMT (UK)
Yes, it is an army uniform. Looks to be an officer.
But if you want any chance at identification you need to generate a much higher resolution scan.
Particularly of the collar badges, and of the helmet badge.
Title: Re: Uniform identification from photo
Post by: ShaunJ on Tuesday 13 February 24 11:23 GMT (UK)
The Sam Browne belt suggests 1900 or later. Looks out of place with late 19th century uniform.
Title: Re: Uniform identification from photo
Post by: Andy J2022 on Tuesday 13 February 24 13:02 GMT (UK)
I've just checked the Army Dress Regulations for Officers 1913, and nowhere does it authorise the wearing of a Sam Browne with Full Dress or Undress Uniform, which is what this chap is wearing. The only time I've come across this is during sword drill, or rehearsal parades (eg at Sandhurst) where swords are carried.

There is a reference on Wikipedia (fourth paragraph of this section of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Browne_belt#United_Kingdom_and_the_Commonwealth)) which says the wearing of the Sam Browne was authorised for officers and WO1s by the Australian Army 'on ceremonial occasions' but at no point does the article or the  source document (https://www.army.gov.au/about-us/history-and-research/traditions/sam-browne-belt) mention either Full Dress, Undress or No1 uniform, so I think that's a red herring. That statement would also apply to the British Army where No2 dress was worn on parade.

Given that this would appear to be an unauthorised form of dress, perhaps the photograph is not of a real soldier/officer, or is some sort of fancy dress or stage costume.
Title: Re: Uniform identification from photo
Post by: sandiep on Tuesday 13 February 24 16:18 GMT (UK)
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/53691420531775971/

doing a web search for above phot brings this up a soldier I thik in same uniform

Brilliant picture of Private William Roy (1st battalion 24th Regiment of foot) He was in Hospital with Malaria and fought throughout the battle and for his actions was awarded the DCM (Distinguished
Title: Re: Uniform identification from photo
Post by: Andy J2022 on Tuesday 13 February 24 16:29 GMT (UK)
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/53691420531775971/

doing a web search for above phot brings this up a soldier I thik in same uniform
Not really the 'same' uniform unfortunately. Yes, it's a dress tunic like the one in the OP's photo, but not from the same regiment. Note the different piping on the lower sleeves, different facings (collar) and different plate (badge) on the helmet. Most Infantry regiments wore a version of this tunic at the end of the nineteenth century.
Title: Re: Uniform identification from photo
Post by: sandiep on Tuesday 13 February 24 16:38 GMT (UK)
shucks  sorry must get my eyes tested ;D ;D
Title: Re: Uniform identification from photo
Post by: tonepad on Tuesday 13 February 24 17:04 GMT (UK)
Would agree that this is probably some sort of fancy dress or stage costume.
If the photo is originally taken in colour, then most likely after WW2.
The pose, with two hands on the belt is very unusual for a soldier portrait.


Tony
Title: Re: Uniform identification from photo
Post by: Wexflyer on Tuesday 13 February 24 17:23 GMT (UK)
I thought it colorized.
If really an original color photo, then has to be from a much later period.
Title: Re: Uniform identification from photo
Post by: alan o on Wednesday 14 February 24 08:35 GMT (UK)
The Sam Browne belt would not be worn with that tunic and helmet if he was an officer.  It would be worn with khaki.  I suspect you have someone dressing up.