Headwear: Victorian foreign service helmet markings

[ED, in Los Angeles]

The webbing in the helmet is from an American WWII M5 flak helmet. I have an example and will try to post pictures later. Same herringbone fabric. Same color. Leather headband is different. It does not take many years for leather to deteriorate and become hard. I bought a pair of high heeled 1970's disco shoes at a thrift store about 15 years ago. They WERE in excellent unused shape. They have been in my bedroom as a display piece just for fun. The lineing has broken loose and curled up and the leather has stiffened with mild cracking on the instep.

[Stuart_Bates]

Early puggarees tended to be somewhat loose in fit and bulky as a primary function of the puggaree was to give protection to the wearer from sword cuts. As time went on they became neater and smaller and this process was probably completed by the mid to late 1880s. I have a photo of a surviving helmet from the Ashanti Campaign of 1873 and it has a thick rouched puggaree. Unfortunately I am unable to use it here. However, attached is an illustration from the Ashanti Campaign and it clearly shows what I mean.

Stuart

Ashanti Campaign 1873.jpg (123.53 KiB) Viewed 411 times

[Peter_Suciu]

Hi Ed, Stuart, Neil, et al-
The webbing is similar to the American helmet liners developed for the M1 helmet, and not limited to the M5 flak helmet. This liner was actually developed by the Riddell company for American football helmets in the 1940s!

Having a look at this helmet I think the suspension system is actually from a 1930s football helmet... and it makes me now wonder if this might not be a movie prop from something like Gunga Din or some other movie of the era, or possibly a retrofitted helmet with the football helmet liner.

Just my two cents! With inflation might not be worth that much.
Peter

[Peter_Suciu]

The history of the Riddell football helmets:
http://www.riddell.com/innovation/history/

[Neil Bates]

Now that is an interesting idea. A genuine shell and later fitted webbing lining for use in a 1930's film would explain the marks (although not what they mean) and the strange interior! I'm arranging to take the helmet to the National Army Museum, probably in February, to see if one of their experts can cast any light on the matter. I will certainly pass on any information I glean. Again, thanks for your interest Neil

[Michael]

Hello,
was wondering what your thoughts are on this helmet -
is it authentic?
Its ostensibly an 1897-1902 OR West Surrey badge on what appears to be a four panel foreign service helmet with a makers mark that reads "Jacobson, London 1891"...or maybe 1897..or 1901 - hard to say

surry.JPG (55.97 KiB) Viewed 359 times

_DSC0002.jpg (65.6 KiB) Viewed 359 times

_DSC0001.jpg (78.05 KiB) Viewed 359 times

860509_5.jpg (106.46 KiB) Viewed 359 times

Would appreciate any comments re authenticity - ive read previous discussions about 6 panel vs 4 panel and there are several examples of UK/commonwealth 4 panel Foregn Service Helmets, just not sure if Jacobson was a supplier to the WD.

Thanks,
Mike

[Stuart_Bates]

Mike,

could you post shots of the helmet say ¾ and full side-on?

Stuart

[Michael]

pith crop 2.JPG (43.57 KiB) Viewed 351 times

pith crop.JPG (68.99 KiB) Viewed 351 times

[Michael]

Interestingly the interior cork reflects a six panel, yet the exterior cnvas is four panel - similar to the blue home service helmet

[Stuart_Bates]

Mike,

yes I see that. Most interesting.

I am searching for Jacobson at the moment whilst talking to another VWF member via Skype. I have found Frederick Jacobson at 11 St. Martin's Court, London in the 1891 Post Office Directory and again in the 1899 directory but this time at 10 St. Martin's.

Have some reservations about the high hook, the chinchain rosettes and the overall shape which looks more like a Bobby's helmet.

I will post when I have more definite information.

Stuart

[Stuart_Bates]

Mike,

Frederick Jacobson is listed as a "hat & cap" maker in the Post Office Trades Directories 1891 and 1899. I did not find him in the 1904 directory but then again I didn't find any of the usual suspects either. I reckon the date as being 1891 from the maker's stamp inside your helmet.

I do not think that any British regiment wore a 4-seam foreign service helmet but we do know that Colonial and Dominion forces did. See attached for the Queensland forces c1886.

It is likely that chinchain rosettes were used by the British but very rarely and probably at the Colonel's whim. I do not, however, have any reliable information on this.

The high-hook is of the "hook and eye" type readily found on tunics/mess waistcoats etc. but was used in place of the "bolt through" type. These were stitched to the interior, is yours? I also notice that there are two indentations on the exterior of the helmet where the ends of the hook would be inside. The hook itself seems to be bent back but that is of no real concern.

Given the above I would say that the helmet plate to the West Surrey regiment is a later addition, possibly replacing a missing Colonial plate.

Hope this helps.

Stuart

HELMET 4 SEAM QLD.jpg (310.52 KiB) Viewed 347 times

HELMET 4 SEAM QLD description.jpg (146.93 KiB) Viewed 347 times

[Stuart_Bates]

I'm arranging to take the helmet to the National Army Museum, probably in February, to see if one of their experts can cast any light on the matter. I will certainly pass on any information I glean. Again, thanks for your interest Neil

Neil,

have you got your helmet for sale on eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Genuine-19c-B ... d=ViewItem)?

If so what authentication did you get from the National Army Museum?

Stuart

[Neil Bates]

Hello Stuart,

I've been meaning to get back about this. Yes that is the helmet.

I took it to the National Army Museum last month. After they had examined it they confirmed it was a genuine late 19thC Foreign Service helmet (probably from the 1890's). The puggaree is as issued and the WD arrow and numerals 80 are genuine. The 80 is not a date but presumably an inspection stamp. The interior is unusual but appeared of the period. They said the helmet was one of many variants and variations that were in use at the time (sometimes for short periods) and hadn't been put together to fool anyone.

I suppose we all need to remember that when these items of kit were manufactured the opinions and prejudices of collectors 120 or so years in the future were not uppermost in people's minds!

Best wishes, Neil

[ED, in Los Angeles]

I think that you got some bad information, Army Museum or not. You keep saying "they" when refering to your source of info. Who are they? Who produced the variations...the manufacturer, depot personel, military research? The cloth looks like cotton as jute is course. The fibers are very fine when I view the image at 200%. The whole suspension is off center and NO chinstrap provosion. Museum people and people of authority can be VERY stupid but unfortunatly, people take them at their word, probably more so in Europe rather than the "Colonies". ALL the presidential candidates in the United States are a good example of stupid.
If you ever go back to the museum, ask to see examples, not the word of a curator. The opionions and prejudices of a well meaning curator can be just as false as a collectors opinion. The curator was not living 120 years ago. Unless he can produce some kind of example or period printed mandate for such a suspension, it is just his opinion pulled out of the air.

[Neil Bates]

Thanks for your comment. We're all entitled to our own opinions of course. The National Army Museum is the world's foremost authority on the history of the British Army, which is why I went there. They have examined the helmet closely and confirmed it is a genuine late 19th century Foreign Service Helmet.

This is my last post on this site - I'm bowing out of this as we are in danger of going round in circles.