Help with crest / logo on Royal Irish Regiment uniform c.1915

[leemeetee]

This studio photo is that of a private in the Royal Irish Regiment.

1. Would anyone know if there is any significance to the tent-type background?

2. He seems to be carrying a cane  - would this have been normal for a private or would it have had a significance or would it merely have been a prop?

3. I have never seen the logo / crest shown on his left sleeve (is it crossed flags??) Would this have had any significance?

[Kiltpin]

Hi, 

1 - Could be a "Bell Tent". They were round with a central pole. Rather like a clock face, or a sliced pizza. Could house 8 to 12 men. A "Patrol type Tent" housed 6 to 8 men for the same ground area.   

2 - It is a "Swagger Stick". Depending on the Regiment, it could be carried by Officers only, NCOs and above, or All Ranks. The idea was that you had to carry the stick and keep your hands out of your pockets. 

3 - "Signaller", trained in semaphore signalling. Also was a messenger, so swift running was needed. 

Regards 

Chas

[BumbleB]

Also on:

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=888791.0;topicseen#msg7622378

[AllanUK]

The cane is a swagger stick -- privates, NCOs had to carry one when out of the barracks.

The tent is a bell tent, commonly used in the British Ary.

The crossed flags signify that he is a signaller.

[leemeetee]

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[shanreagh]

That is some pretty drastic scribbling over that photograph. 

If you need help removing it the miracle workers on the Photographs board can usually work miracles. 

[alan o]

It is likely that the tent is painted on a canvas backdrop in a studio.  A suitable background for a military man.

The flat unpleated pocket on the jacket suggests it is a 1915 pattern jacket.

[Andy J2022]

That is some pretty drastic scribbling over that photograph. 

That is not 'scribbling' on the photograph. That is an attempt at obscuring the identity of the man done digitally,  by dragging a brush tool across the image, hence the telltale aliasing pixels (little squares of solid grey). Therefore if the OP has the original photograph this won't need restoration - or at least, not to remove the 'scribbles'. If all the OP has is the image as presented here, then there is no chance of accurately recreating/restoring the face.

[shanreagh]

That is some pretty drastic scribbling over that photograph. 

That is not 'scribbling' on the photograph. That is an attempt at obscuring the identity of the man done digitally,  by dragging a brush tool across the image, hence the telltale aliasing pixels (little squares of solid grey). Therefore if the OP has the original photograph this won't need restoration - or at least, not to remove the 'scribbles'. If all the OP has is the image as presented here, then there is no chance of accurately recreating/restoring the face.

I half suspected as much, but why?  Why would you need to obscure a face from a photograph so many years ago. I can understand contemporary damage, ie at the time,  as people scribbled over and cut out faces over sad/angry personal slights