Group pic for ID please

by **coldstreampaul** » 10 May 2012 08:43

Hello Forum members,
Attached is a recent aquisition,a group picture for ID please.
I have been told this is York&Lancs but not sure what period.
Very gratefull for any comments and information please.

Regards
Paul

: 001_edited-1.jpg (69.72 KiB) Viewed 900 times

: 002_edited-1.jpg (72.69 KiB) Viewed 900 times

: 003_edited-1.jpg (75 KiB) Viewed 900 times

: 004_edited-1.jpg (66.18 KiB) Viewed 900 times

by **Frogsmile** » 10 May 2012 11:18

Yes they are men from a Volunteer Battalion of the York and Lancs and you can see the distinctive "Cat and Cabbage" (Tiger and Rose) on the officers Staff Pattern forage caps. The men have 3 piece shoulder titles that would show 1, or 2 above V and then Y&L in white metal and Austrian Knots on their cuffs to indicate their status as Volunteers. They appear to be armed with Martini Henry Rifles. Notice also the typical volunteer 'efficiency' and 'proficiency' stars on the right arms (above and below chevrons) of some of the sergeants seated on the ground.

The officers staff caps and patrol jackets were replaced in 1902 and the mens glengarries around 1897. The Volunteer battalions were formed in the early 1880s after the Cardwell/Childers Reforms and became TF in 1908. With all those factors taken into consideration I would date the photo to be around 1890+/- and probably at the annual summer training (largely musketry) camp.

Before 1883 the 1st and 2nd Volunteer Battalions were the 2nd Yorkshire West Riding (Hallamshire) RVC and 8th Yorkshire West Riding RVC, respectively.

The Tiger came from the old 65th Foot and the Rose from the 84th Foot, who amalgated to form the 1st and 2nd (Regular) Battalions.

by **crimea1854** » 10 May 2012 11:28

Frogsmile, far be it for me to question your identification, but if it was the Yorks and Lancs should not the officers have the number '84' on their caps, not what looks to be '22'?

Martin

by **grumpy** » 10 May 2012 11:36

The front row sergeant lying down has an intriguing badge on his left arm [HIS left]. Close-up please?

by **Frogsmile** » 10 May 2012 11:37

crimea1854 wrote:Frogsmile, far be it for me to question your identification, but if it was the Yorks and Lancs should not the officers have the number '84' on their caps, not what looks to be '22'?

Martin

It's not a 22 Martin, but a stylised Tiger. It was gold and silver bullion wire embroidered and similar in configuration to the enclosed collar badge, but with the tiger facing left.

by **crimea1854** » 10 May 2012 11:54

I remain unconvinced. What we need is a close-up of the officer in the third photograph. The answer could be that these were instructors from another regiment.

Martin

by **coldstreampaul** » 10 May 2012 11:57

Frogsmile

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and providing me with this information.

Paul

by **coldstreampaul** » 10 May 2012 11:59

Grumpy

Thank you for your reply,I am afraid the close up pic is at its limits even with macro setting.

Paul

grumpy wrote:The front row sergeant lying down has an intriguing badge on his left arm [HIS left]. Close-up please?

by **Frogsmile** » 10 May 2012 12:01

crimea1854 wrote:I remain unconvinced. What we need is a close-up of the officer in the third photograph. The answer could be that these were instructors from another regiment.

Martin

The three officers and the Musketry Instructor (wearing a staff sergeants patrol jacket with 4 chevrons surmounted by crossed rifles and crown) have the same badge, although the latter has the rose stitched slightly higher above the tiger (it is he who you refer to as 'in the third photograph').

The officers and staff sergeants badges were worn on the staff cap in a separated configuration at that time to mark the joining together of the 65th and 84th.

I had inadvertently omitted to mention the Musketry Instructor, one of whom (there was usually one per company) was normally selected by the CO as the "Acting Sergeant Major" (RSM in modern terms), as was permitted and encouraged by regulations.

by **grumpy** » 10 May 2012 13:34

"The three officers and the Musketry Instructor (wearing a staff sergeants patrol jacket with 4 chevrons surmounted by crossed rifles and crown) have the same badge, although the latter has the rose stitched slightly higher above the tiger.

The officers and staff sergeants badges were worn on the staff cap in a separated configuration at that time to mark the joining together of the 65th and 84th.

I had inadvertently omitted to mention the Musketry Instructor, one of whom (there was usually one per company) was normally selected by the CO as the "Acting Sergeant Major" (RSM in modern terms), as was permitted and encouraged by regulations".

I must be going blind: cannot see the ARSM for love nor money ....... are we looking at same picture?

I see a sergeant with the SNCO proficiency 4-point star above chevrons, and at least one efficiency star on cuff, but ...........

by **Frogsmile** » 10 May 2012 13:41

grumpy wrote:"The three officers and the Musketry Instructor (wearing a staff sergeants patrol jacket with 4 chevrons surmounted by crossed rifles and crown) have the same badge, although the latter has the rose stitched slightly higher above the tiger.

The officers and staff sergeants badges were worn on the staff cap in a separated configuration at that time to mark the joining together of the 65th and 84th.

I had inadvertently omitted to mention the Musketry Instructor, one of whom (there was usually one per company) was normally selected by the CO as the "Acting Sergeant Major" (RSM in modern terms), as was permitted and encouraged by regulations".

I must be going blind: cannot see the ARSM for love nor money ....... are we looking at same picture?

I see a sergeant with the SNCO proficiency 4-point star above chevrons, and at least one efficiency star on cuff, but ...........

There are 4 men seated on the ground with staff caps. The one at far right (look in the large group first and then the second pic down where you will see his rank) is wearing a staff sergeants patrol jacket (no frogging but mohair braid) and has the Musketry Instructors badge on his right upper arm (he appears more close up in the third pic down, but omitting his right arm!). I am not saying he IS the acting sergeant major, just that one of the instructors would have been the ASM.

by **grumpy** » 10 May 2012 14:53

Thank you for your patience: yes, I can just about make it out, congrats!

by **Frogsmile** » 10 May 2012 16:16

grumpy wrote:Thank you for your patience: yes, I can just about make it out, congrats!

The remainder of those sprawled on the ground are the colour sergeants and wearing glengarries.

by **jf42** » 10 May 2012 17:05

crimea1854 wrote:I remain unconvinced. What we need is a close-up of the officer in the third photograph. The answer could be that these were instructors from another regiment.

Martin

The Volunteers may have had different arrangements, I couldn't say, but would any one be wearing pre-1881 regimental numbers on their caps circa 1890? The former regimental insignia of the two component battalion that made up the post 1881 badge, as Frogsmile as pointed out, would be a different matter.

by **brownbadger** » 01 Sep 2012 14:12

Have only just come across this thread but note with interest the debate about whether the Officers/soldiers are Y&L or not.

It strikes me that the Officers are indeed Y&L and are wearing the post 1881 badge of a rose above a tiger introduced when the 65th and 84th were merged.

Prior to 1881, Officers would have worn a Rose with either the 65 or 84 below it (although the one pictured is a grubby example)!

As for the SNCO's, dependant on whether they are from the 1st or 2nd VB, it is highly likley that they are wearing the silver NCO's Glengarry badge of the 1VB or the 2VB glengarry badge.

Hope that helps.