GrantRCanada wrote:Astute observation, and interesting information, Ed! I too was unaware how late tintype photography was in use. (Indeed, my daughter mentioned just the other day that the tintype has recently experienced a considerable "fad" revival!)
Another important point - touched on again by Frogsmile above - the chap in the photograph appears to be no more than 16 to 22 years of age (to my eye at least, although I narrowed that to 18 to 20 in my earlier post.) In view of the fact that the trefoil cuff ornament was not adopted in Canada until 1876, the man born in 1840 could have been no younger than 36 if he was enrolled in the Militia while this pattern was on issue.
For comparison, here is a photograph of the previous (Pattern 1870) Canadian Militia tunic -
I would ask for observations on how this compares with the standard issue tunic in the British Army at that time. From Frogsmile's indication of when the trefoil cuff ornamentation appeared on British tunics, it occurs to me that the Canadian Militia may well have been "running a Pattern behind", as it were - perhaps so a niggardly Dominion Government could save money by acquiring obsolete stocks!
Hello Grant, this is the 1868 Pattern tunic. You must remember that technically the Canadian Militia were a part of the British Army at that time, following the same dress and clothing regulations and observing the same administrative orders, albeit that it might have taken longer (as you have mentioned) for the changes and orders to take effect and that there were, from time-to-time, 'special' provisions (including especially winter/tropical clothing) for Canada and other Dominions/Colonies/Territories/Commonwealths. It was (and still is) the only way to minimize (if not avoid) confusion in nomenclature. As such, the first trefoil loop tunic is the 1870 pattern (that you confirm was adopted in Canada in 1876 and then retained) and the so-called 'patch tunic', is the 1873 pattern. Only India had its own, entirely separate, regulatory regime.