Help identifing uniform

[Ardythe]

Can anyone help me to identify the uniform in this picture.

[Mark]

Welcome to the forum, Ardythe! We have several very knowledgeable members on the forum who are experts in uniforms of the period. However, do you have a larger image of this photo as the one you have posted is hard to make out?

Mark

[Ardythe]

Sorry, I am new at this and am not sure how to upload a bigger picture. It said my original was too big. I will try again.

[Mark]

Much better! Hopefully someone will be able to shed some light on this one - sadly I am a medal collector so uniformly challenged

Mark

[Ardythe]

Much better! Hopefully someone will be able to shed some light on this one - sadly I am a medal collector so uniformly challenged

Mark

The man in the picture was born in 1875 if that is any help.

[GrantRCanada]

Ardythe:

Would I be correct in guessing you are in Canada ..... or at least that the young man in the photograph was Canadian?

The reason I ask is that the image virtually shouts "Canadian Volunteer Militia".

Based on your indication of his birthdate and his apparent age in the photograph (about 18 or 20?) the image must date to the mid-1890's. He was born much too late to have been armed with a Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle Musket, so his rifle must be a Snider-Enfield - which was the the succeeding breech-loader version , and was still used with the Pattern 1860 Ball Bag mounted on his waist-belt.

To my knowledge, there was only one place in the British Empire where soldiers (of European ancestry, at any rate) were still armed with Snider-Enfield rifles and issued P'60 Ball Bags as late as the 1890's - Canada!

Beyond that, without a clear view of his glengarry badge or some information as to where in Canada he might have lived at this age, it will be virtually impossible to identify the particular Battalion of Militia in which he was enrolled, because the uniform was essentially the same for all regular infantry units.

Here is an artist's rendition of a Canadian Militia Infantryman of that era:

[Ardythe]

As far as I know this man was born on May 27, 1875 in Scott's Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada. He died on September 5, 1894
in Norwood, Massachusetts, at the age of 19.

[FROGSMILE]

As far as I know this man was born on May 27, 1875 in Scott's Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada. He died on September 5, 1894
in Norwood, Massachusetts, at the age of 19.

It cannot be who you think. That distinctive pattern of tunic was introduced in 1870 and replaced by the so-called patch tunic (of Zulu war fame) over the period 1873-4. The glengarry cap that he is wearing was introduced for all infantry (as opposed to previously just Scottish) in 1868. These factors, plus the long arm, date the photo to around 1870+/- and he might well be a Canadian Militiaman as Grant has suggested.

[Ardythe]

This man has the same first name as his Father so this must be the Father and not his son. He was born in 1840 in Nova Scotia,Canada and died in1913 in Nova Scotia, Canada. Does this make more sense?

[GrantRCanada]

Ardythe: I remain convinced that I am correct.

Frogsmile (who is in the UK) apparently assumes that the Canadian Militia made all the changes that the British Army made, but that perpetually undersupported and underfunded body in fact did not do so - the retention of the Snider-Enfield rifle and P'53/60 Equipments as standard issue until the end of the 19th century is but one excellent example of that.

In fact, Canada's Militia (we had no standing Army) did not adopt this particular pattern of tunic (with the simple triple loop cuff knot) until 1876, and retained it into the early 1890s ...... One case in point: this photograph of 'C' Company of Canada's Infantry School Corps, four Companies of which constituted the infantry component of Canada's tiny Permanent Militia (i.e. actually full-time but still deemed to be Militia) established in 1883 with a total strength of 750 men, all branches.



This particular image cannot date before the early 1890's, as they have the Martini-Henry rifles (and P'1870 valise Equipment) with which they (alone, of all Canada's Militia units) were finally issued in 1892. (Garrison Artillery batteries, another component of the Permanent Militia, were also eventually issued Martinis, but not until 1895-97.)

[ED, in Los Angeles]

Date of photo aside, let's do some detective work on the original picture. It is a probably a tintype. Tintype images were all reversed unless it went through a mirrored camera. I collect photo images and this image just walks and talks like a tintype. The image is reversed and you can see this by the tunic buttons. NOW...did the wearer reverse his bayonet and pouch on his belt to accomodate the reversed image? Looks like it...only he forgot to reverse his bag and shoulder strap! He held his gun on the left side to get the proper right side in the reversed image, right?

BTW...Tintypes were the popular photo image from the 1860's to well into the 1900's in America and probably Canada. Not so in Europe. I have seen tintypes from the 1930's with period automobiles.

Ardythe...This is a metal photo, yes or no?

[jf42]

Date of photo aside, let's do some detective work on the original picture. It is a probably a tintype. Tintype images were all reversed unless it went through a mirrored camera...The image is reversed and you can see this by the tunic buttons. NOW...did the wearer reverse his bayonet and pouch on his belt to accomodate the reversed image? Looks like it...only he forgot to reverse his bag and shoulder strap!
?

Not to mention his Glengarry bonnet, tipped to the left and with the badge on the right.

[FROGSMILE]

Ardythe: I remain convinced that I am correct.

Frogsmile (who is in the UK) apparently assumes that the Canadian Militia made all the changes that the British Army made, but that perpetually undersupported and underfunded body in fact did not do so - the retention of the Snider-Enfield rifle and P'53/60 Equipments as standard issue until the end of the 19th century is but one excellent example of that.

In fact, Canada's Militia (we had no standing Army) did not adopt this particular pattern of tunic (with the simple triple loop cuff knot) until 1876, and retained it into the early 1890s ...... One case in point: this photograph of 'C' Company of Canada's Infantry School Corps, four Companies of which constituted the infantry component of Canada's tiny Permanent Militia (i.e. actually full-time but still deemed to be Militia) established in 1883 with a total strength of 750 men, all branches.

This particular image cannot date before the early 1890's, as they have the Martini-Henry rifles (and P'1870 valise Equipment) with which they (alone, of all Canada's Militia units) were finally issued in 1892. (Garrison Artillery batteries, another component of the Permanent Militia, were also eventually issued Martinis, but not until 1895-97.)

Hello Grant, I was in fact supporting your view that he was probably a Canadian Militiaman, although I did not know that Canada kept that type of tunic for so long, which is interesting to learn and changes completely the possibilities regarding the age/DOB of the young man in the image. He does not have the look of (even a gauche) regular, seeming far too ill at ease in his uniform for someone who would have had to complete training at home before being dispatched overseas if he were an Imperial soldier.

The photo you posted of the infantry school shows frocks rather than tunics, although from your coloured image it seems clear that both types were worn. Both the 1870 and 1873/4 tunic had the trefoil knot and coloured cuff that you referred to but the (Imperial) tunic of the later period had only a patch of facing colour on the collar and the coloured cuff did not extend beyond the midway seam of the arm.

For Ed: Thank you for pointing out the facts about the tintype and reversed image, it is very interesting and something I know nothing about. I had noticed what seemed to be a head dress badge on the wrong side, but thought it might be a flaw in such an old image. I should have looked at the button front as you have pointed out.

[Ardythe]

Yes this is from an old tin type.

[GrantRCanada]

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!