Unknown Scottish soldier

[Ruskie]

No I just meant that if the soldier in the online image had seen action there may have been variations to his uniform - possibly due to serving earlier than the chap in Barbara's picture (who may not have already served - he has no stripes). Something along the lines of how the pockets of the early WW2 army uniforms being different from the later uniforms ... 

Variations may also come down to the picture quality and what is not picked up in some as it is in others.

I noticed while browsing that the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders often wore plaid topped socks (not official terminology sorry) ... whereas these don't .... variation of the uniform?

[Skoosh]

Why on earth would anybody pay good money to be photographed as a soldier in a uniform to which he had no entitlement? and the bizarre assertion that studios had wardrobes stuffed full of kit, presumably in a whole range of sizes & regiments, for the use of imposters implies that this was common practice and requires some explanation!


Whose relatives would be impressed/conned by any of this nonsense. If the guy is photographed in soldiers uniform he's almost certainly a soldier/sodjer.

Skoosh.

[ScouseBoy]

A real soldier would prefer to be photographed in a more realistic setting, surely?

Next to his or her vehicle, lorry, AFV   or awaiting embarkation at Liverpool or Glasgow.

[John915]

Good morning,

A real soldier would prefer to be photographed in a more realistic setting, surely?

Next to his or her vehicle, lorry, AFV   or awaiting embarkation at Liverpool or Glasgow.

Thousands of soldiers had their photo's taken in studios. Usually close to home, the photo's we see are most likely just part of a series taken alone and with family members. These would then be given to family members who wanted them.

Why on earth would anybody pay good money to be photographed as a soldier in a uniform to which he had no entitlement? and the bizarre assertion that studios had wardrobes stuffed full of kit, presumably in a whole range of sizes & regiments, for the use of imposters implies that this was common practice and requires some explanation!


Whose relatives would be impressed/conned by any of this nonsense. If the guy is photographed in soldiers uniform he's almost certainly a soldier/sodjer.

Skoosh.

I doubt that studios would have all regt's and ranks etc but may have had a few. The photo here is my grandmother but the uniform is not granddads as he was a private for the whole of his service. It had to come from somewhere. Serving soldiers would not i'm thinking risk wearing a uniform and/or rank they are not entitled to. They would be risking punishment to do so.

John915

Added; Neither was he wounded 4 times, none at all in fact.

[jess5athome]

 Hi, I'm still inclined to go with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, I've tried to enlarge the cap badge.

Frank.

[Ruskie]

Why on earth would anybody pay good money to be photographed as a soldier in a uniform to which he had no entitlement? and the bizarre assertion that studios had wardrobes stuffed full of kit, presumably in a whole range of sizes & regiments, for the use of imposters implies that this was common practice and requires some explanation!

Whose relatives would be impressed/conned by any of this nonsense. If the guy is photographed in soldiers uniform he's almost certainly a soldier/sodjer.

Skoosh.

This also crossed my mind. I know they were different times, but especially in WW1 where all able bodied men were expected to join up and do their bit and those who didn't were punished or ridiculed, taking a studio photograph of an "imposter" in a uniform he was not entitled to wear, you would not think would be looked favourably upon.

A real soldier would prefer to be photographed in a more realistic setting, surely?
Next to his or her vehicle, lorry, AFV   or awaiting embarkation at Liverpool or Glasgow.

No I don't think so. A formal studio photograph was very common especially as few would have owned a camera to take their own snaps. As John said, formal photos were given to loved ones. This occurred in both WW1 and WW2.

John, do you know the identity of your soldier?

[ScouseBoy]

Why on earth would anybody pay good money to be photographed as a soldier in a uniform to which he had no entitlement? and the bizarre assertion that studios had wardrobes stuffed full of kit, presumably in a whole range of sizes & regiments, for the use of imposters implies that this was common practice and requires some explanation!


 

Skoosh.

    Try to imagine a 24 year old man from Liverpool, England,  who found himself in Edinburgh, Scotland in December 1939.  He walked past a photographers studio and saw an advert to have your photograph taken in the full regalia of a Black Watch soldier.

All for 2 shillings and sixpence.

Normal tourist activity, surely?

[Ruskie]

Hi, I'm still inclined to go with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, I've tried to enlarge the cap badge.

Frank.

It does look that way. It is quite a 'solid' circular shaped badge and it has that little point at the top ....

[Ruskie]

Why on earth would anybody pay good money to be photographed as a soldier in a uniform to which he had no entitlement? and the bizarre assertion that studios had wardrobes stuffed full of kit, presumably in a whole range of sizes & regiments, for the use of imposters implies that this was common practice and requires some explanation!


 

Skoosh.

    Try to imagine a 24 year old man from Liverpool, England,  who found himself in Edinburgh, Scotland in December 1939.  He walked past a photographers studio and saw an advert to have your photograph taken in the full regalia of a Black Watch soldier.

All for 2 shillings and sixpence.

Normal tourist activity, surely?

Possibly a one off specialty (rather than the norm) to persuade Englishmen who saw the uniform as a novelty to part with their hard earned pounds and pence.