60 replies to this topic

[Sullivan]

Was the Memorial Plaque 'Committee' short sighted.

The following appeared in 'The Times' under a headline -

'Memento for the Fallen. State Gift for Relatives'.

A General Committee, representative of both Houses of Parliament and of the Government Departments most concerned has been appointed to consider the question of a memorial to be distributed to relatives of soldiers and sailors who fall in the war...'.

The Committee was composed of the following -

Two Peers.
Six MP's. (two of whom held military rank).
Representatives for the Dominions.
The India Office.
The Colonial Office.
The Admiralty.
Sir Reginald Brade, Secretary of the War Office and Army Council,  was appointed Chairman.
Mr. W. Hutchinson, also of the War Office, was made Secretary.

Specialist Subcommittee.

The Director of the National Gallery, Sir Cecil Harcourt-Smith.
The Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, Sir Charles Holmes.
The Keeper of the Department of Coins and Medals at the British Museum,
George Francis Hill.

I have no argument with the design and the principal of a consolatory memorial, and the aim to perpetuate the name of the deceased, all were equal in death and there was no need for rank to be included with the name, however 'The Committee' overlooked to include a key that would allow future descendants of a family, military memorabilia collectors and other interested persons, to trace the military history of the deceased. Obviously many plaques are now without the accompanying scroll, over the years the scrolls have been lost and now there is no clue as to the deceased's regiment, although knowing the regiment is not always helpful due to common Christian names and Surname's within one regiment.

I receive many emails from various parts of the world, the theme is always similar to this example -,

'I have just discovered this medallion, it is the same as the one on your web page, can you tell me anything about the person, his name is John Smith'.

There are approximately 1,997 J. Smith's on the CWGC database, take your pick!!!.

Instead of the so called batch number, the most useful number in my mind would have been a regimental number stamped on reverse of plaque.

This posting prompted by frustration in researching a plaque with name of James Thompson. (aprox. 553 on CWGC database.)

[Pete Wood]

Sullivan

I think that, like many things, it all comes down to time and money.

Mistakes in the production of the plaques were numerous. I have read many soldiers' records in the PRO where a relative has written to complain that the details on a plaque were incorrect.

Soldiers, especially Australian soldiers, often joined the services using a slightly different name than that with which they were christened. Indeed one of the forms you have posted on this forum shows that the Australian Records Office were obviously aware of the problem and stated that the name on the plaque is that which the soldier is known by when joining up.

Each plaque cost the governement about 4 shillings (48 pennies in pre-decimal money), which was a fair old sum in those days. But a scroll cost less than 2d (two pennies) to make, including printing and signing.

So many soldiers had acting/local ranks and were attached to different units that mistakes were bound to occur - or not be to the liking of their next of kin. For example should a Flying Corps squadron precede the regiment to which a soldier first joined or from which he was detached?  It is much easier - and cheaper - to make a new scroll, than melt down a bronze plaque and pay for shipping another 4 ounces of metal to the four corners of the empire.

If it was so easy to get the spelling wrong, just think how many mistakes you could make with a soldier's number.........

There is also the small matter of the class system. I don't believe any of the committees ever envisaged that the 'poor people' would ever have the inclination, or time, to be tracing their family tree - let alone sending messages all over the world in a micro-second. And hasn't the hobby of medal collecting really stemmed from the ease of obtaining affordable medals from the Great War period and after?

Has anyone else come across mistakes that weren't reported to the War Office? In other words, have you found a plaque or medal for someone that, on paper, just doesn't exist?

[Sullivan]

Memorial Plaque Casting.

Having read all the Memorial Plaque postings, I have not seen any reference to the actual method of casting, how were the moulds constructed and how was the name cast onto the plaque, is there any documentation at PRO which describes the casting method.

In Philip Dutton's article 'Dead Man's Penny', page 65 right hand column, he states the following -

'...Hill had been impressed by Pike's solution to the problem of incorporating the names of the deceased on the plaque in a manner which was in harmony with Carter Preston's chosen script'.

I often wonder about the 'solution to the problem', and how it was solved.

James O'Sullivan.

[ianw]

I think the point  with common names is that the family's at the time would have been only too painfully aware which "John Smith" their plaque referred to . I can't feel too much sympathy with the problems of modern collectors of these items - although I have no problem with collectors giving them a good home.

[Terry_Reeves]

I must agree with Racing Teapots on this subject. Tens of thousands of names and numbers being transcribed by thousands of clerks. Even in todays computerised world things go badly wrong.

Terry Reeves

[Pete Wood]

Well, the plot thickens.

Last night I attended a meeting hosted by the ORMS (orders and medals research society). The guest speaker was Paul Quilliam who, as many of you may know, has nearly 700 memorial plaques in his collection.

Paul had some interesting theories and some fantastic examples of plaques for which we, the audience, were enthralled to see.

One of the plaques that Paul has in his collection, complete with all its paperwork (a very rare combination), is that of a soldier who was killed in the first few weeks of the war. The envelope in which the plaque was sent has a reference number with just three digits, with which the next-of-kin was told to use - should correspondence be required. Paul has deduced that it is possible, therefore, that the earliest plaques were manufactured according to the earliest date of death. In other words, if your next of kin died in 1914, the next of kin should have received the plaque at the start of plaque production (in the last months of 1918). Those who died in 1920 (the cut off date for eligibility of the plaques) would be the last to receive their 4oz of bronze.

Again, it gets more interesting/confusing. Some members of the ORMS had plaques, which were issued to soldiers who died long after the 1920 cut-off date. Today I heard from one collector who has a plaque for a soldier, with a very unusual name (so there is no dispute), who died in 1926, and received his plaque later on. Has anyone else come across other instances like this? Is this starting to make sense to forum members, researching a soldier's records - based on a plaque?

We also heard from members who have plaques issued to a soldier who was still alive at the end of the war - and who signed for, and kept(!), his plaque.

Even more strange appears to be the government's attitude to our colonial cousins. As we know from Sullivan's evidence, the next of kin of Australian soldiers did not start to receive their plaques until 1922, when production of the 'British Isles' plaques was nearing completion. But it appears that the next of kin of New Zealand troops had to wait even longer - and one collector has three examples of plaques to NZ soldiers, which are engraved (rather than their names being cast, in the conventional way) and were not sent until 1927(?).

There are a few examples of (original) plaques, which are blank - and were made at the very end of production, which was around 1930 (and maybe even later). These 'blank' plates were obviously made so that they could be later engraved - as casting of the letters had to be done at the same time as the molten bronze was poured, and could not be done afterwards.

It appears that the time consuming casting process was gradually phased out in favour of a plaque that could be engraved.

So I am asking any forum members who have any evidence, which might contradict the above to step forward.

A collector of Gurkha medals raised one other point. He was of the opinion that the vast majority of plaques, destined for addresses in Nepal, would have been returned with the envelope marked 'no one at this address.' It appears that when a Gurkha soldier signed up, he received a travelling allowance; the amount paid by the British government depended on the distance travelled by the new recruit. So many Gurkhas gave false addresses in far-off villages to claim more money. So it would appear that Gurkha plaques could almost be as rare as those issued to women (estimated to be approximately 600).

Again, I would love to hear from anyone who has a plaque and paperwork for Canadians, Gurkhas, and servicemen and women from other countries.

One interesting point raised was that at least one plaque, issued to a soldier who was executed, has survived. Can any of the SAD experts support this evidence with other examples?

[Pete Wood]

Just to keep you all updated, there have been some interesting developments with regard to my research. I had been told, by a medal collector, that one of the moulds from the Memorial Plaque factory was rumoured to have survived. After a bit of detective work, I have managed to trace the owner of the mould. Yes it does exist, and I am due to meet the owner at the Imperial War Museum at the end of the month.

The second bit of news is that I have managed to find out some great details about the scroll, that accompanied the plaque - and the woodblock that was made to print the scroll.

The woodblock was cut by Noel Rooke, one of England's finest craftsman. Rooke produced some of the best wood blocks ever made, and was an instructor at the school of Arts and Crafts. The lettering for the scroll was created by Graily Hewitt - again one of the best men in his craft that has ever lived; ask any printer, today.

There were three versions of the scroll, made by Rooke and Hewitt between 1917 and 1918 - and I'm very happy to report, they all survive and are now in good hands.

That's right. I have just tracked down and spoken to the keeper of these scrolls, who is pleased that there is interest from forum members in Rooke's work, and who rescued the scrolls from being thrown away.

I hope to have some photographs of these pre-production scrolls soon. If Chris doesn't mind, I will post them on the forum. One of the scrolls has been hand printed and illuminated on vellum (calf skin); just like the medieval scrolls created by monks. It sounds beautiful.

[MartinWills]

In view of correspondence on other threads I have posted these few words to bring this topic back into currency.

It may be useful to note that I passed the contents of this thread on to an avid collector friend who went through his collection and responded to the effect that he had most of the exceptions that clearly proved the rules. SO, whilst the guidance may in general be correct do not take it as gospel - there are exceptions.

[Pete Wood]

More exceptions than you can shake a stick at. I am still working, quietly and slowly, on piecing together the story.

My latest news is the discovery of thousands! of scrolls that were classed as 'seconds' by the scribes and never issued, kept at the school for years - then thrown out, and saved by the school caretaker.

After more than 60 years of being stored in a damp garage, a leaking loft, and in suitcases under a bed, many of these documents are still in remarkable condition. What is becoming evident, in my humble opinion, is that the 'better' scribes were selected to write the details of officers. Has anyone else found this....?

[christine liava'a]

What is going to happen to these scrolls?
A local family history or genealogical society may be interested in indexing them, and maybe a military museum would like to have them. The IWM?

[Terry]

As I may have mentioned in an earlier message, I have only three Memorial Plaques to Canadians in my collection, but one of them is to the family of a soldier who received no medals.
   A conscript, drafted in early 1918, he was still in Canada when he became ill with influenza, and died in October. Because he had never left the country he was not eligible to receive any medals. Because his mother was already dead, and he was unmarried, no Canadian Memorial Cross was issued, so the plaque was the only recognition his family received.
   I was especially happy that all the accompanying paperwork (scroll, mailing tube, King's letter, cardboard envelope, archives file, etc.) was still with the plaque when I obtained it.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

I have read some notes which state that Woolwich Arsenal experimented with engraved memorial plaques, in the same way as the miniatures. Has anyone ever seen a memorial plaque with engraved lettering (rather than the normal raised, cast, letters)??

Never seen one but came across verification of their existance a couple of years ago - the following is lifted from my report on file contents for a Connaught Rangers Officer killed during the war - hopefully the context will be self-explanatory. Regards - Tom

o A small sub-file. Seems father was Controller of Recruiting in the west of Ireland “and incurred hostility”. During “the troubles” his house was looted and burned to the ground, and IHG’s medals and death plaque were either stolen or destroyed (statement sworn 19/6/30 in Dublin). A supporting statement attached (21/6/30) from Major General Hicks who had commanded 16th Div during the war says IHG served with “great distinction and gallantry”.
o Father writes to WO 22/6/30 and asks for MC to be reissued to him and offers to pay for replacement. Also asks for copy of King’s certificate. Refers to Col Roland Fielding re confirmation of fact of death and mentions that he wrote of IHG in his book “War Letters To A Wife” (pp 154 – 156). Another undated letter asks for replacement plaque.
o WO to father 10/7/30 approves issue of replacement MC upon receipt of a postal order for 15 shillings. Separate letter to follow ref plaque and scroll.
o Father’s address at this time, Vevay House, Bray, Co Wicklow.
o Father to WO 11/7/30 encloses postal order.
o WO letter 1/9/30 says that in view of circumstances of loss a replacement plaque will be issued upon payment of 5 shillings. It is noted that this is half the previous fee because the plaques are no longer cast with the name in relief but the names engraved onto plaques which have not been issued / claimed.
o A WO note estimates the scrap value of a plaque as 5 pence.
o Father sends postal order 3/9/30.
o WO to father 1/1/31 enclose a copy scroll and stamped sae so that he can acknowledge receipt.

[stu]

Hi
Can anyone tell me,was there ever any records kept that can be checked to see if the N.O.K. claimed the plaque and  scroll.
Was there some sort of system perhaps similar to the m.i.c. that is accessable.
Stu.

[Pete Wood]

No records have survived that I am aware of. I have written to every military department that I can think of, without success.

But I don't believe any relative had to claim the plaque and scroll. The P&S, plus the letter from the King - complete with facsimile signature - were automatically issued to the named (by the soldier) next of kin; spouse being the primary recipient, then father, then mother and so on.

Many plaques were not sent, issued, or received though - mainly due to clerical mistakes. I have seen letters from relatives who, in the 1930s, were still wondering when their plaque and scroll would arrive.

It was also possible for a friend, guardian, or even headmaster to receive the plaque and scroll if the deceased was an orphan or had no living relatives. These are the few occassions when I have seen 'claims.'

[Ian Bowbrick]

It was also possible for a friend, guardian, or even headmaster to receive the plaque and scroll if the deceased was an orphan or had no living relatives. These are the few occassions when I have seen 'claims.'

An interesting observation - my Uncle still has a plaque that was sent to my great-grandfather commemorating one of his employees who had been conscripted and subsequently killed in action in France. I have done some research on the soldier concerned and it would appear that he had no next-of-kin, so I presume that the powers that be sent the plaque to his employer, whose details were in his service record

Ian

[Pete Wood]

[QUOTE=Tom Tulloch-Marshall,Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:10:20 +0000][QUOTE=Racing Teapots,Fri,  1 Nov 2002 23:09:03 +0000] WO letter 1/9/30 says that in view of circumstances of loss a replacement plaque will be issued upon payment of 5 shillings. It is noted that this is half the previous fee because the plaques are no longer cast with the name in relief but the names engraved onto plaques which have not been issued / claimed.[/QUOTE]

Tom, this is a little gem. If you could ever get me a hard copy of this file, I would be very grateful. Here is why I am a tad excited and also slightly nervous.....

Plaque collector Paul Q recently bought an engraved plaque which did not have the Woolwich Arsenal mark on the rear of the plaque. In other words, it must have been made early on in production, at Acton, where ALL the plaques had raised (and cast) letters.

The little block on this engraved plaque, which contains the soldier's name, appeared much thinner than the block found on conventional plaques with raised letters.

Tom, your evidence seems to support my theory that some plaques were returned, and their raised and cast letters ground/filed down and then later engraved - and not melted down. A five shilling postal order for the treasury for a recycled plaque certainly sounds better than 5d (five old pennies) for a lump of melted-down bronze.

Some of you know that I was once a motoring journalist. One of my articles featured the work of the police, identifying stolen cars - especially where the thieves had ground off the original chassis number and it had been restamped. The police use a special acid which reveals (very clearly) the original numbers - the acid 'lifts' the deformed molecules of the metal. I'm not a metarllurgist, but I think you get the picture....? Any policemen on the forum, who can explain better, please jump in.

Anyway, do I take the plunge and ask to buy this plaque off Paul and, in the name of research, experiment on (and almost certainly deface/ruin) this plaque with the acid; not very respectful to this soldier's memory, I know. Or might an x-ray, or other method reveal more? Remember the plaque's original letters, if my theory is correct, were cast (not stamped), then the letters ground down and the metal later engraved.

[Tom Morgan]

Just a thought from my experience of motorcycle frame-numbers which are also stamped and can be changed by grinding out and re-stamping -

Would it not be true that an original CAST name would have the same density as the rest of the plaque, with no difference in the molecular structure of the metal?

Is seems to me that the acid idea would only work if you are looking for evidence of previously STAMPED letters/numbers.

Tom

[Pete Wood]

I thought this might be the case, with the cast letters. I just wanted confirmation.

In a way I will be relieved, not having to plunge the plaque in acid. But then I'll just be frustrated, cos I can't prove (or disprove) the theory....

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

# 1
Tom, this is a little gem. If you could ever get me a hard copy of this file, I would be very grateful.

# 2
Anyway, do I take the plunge and ask to buy this plaque off

#1 - No problem - contact me off forum.  

#2 - I must say that I'd feel very ill at ease about an engraved plaque UNLESS the provenance was absolutely 100% cast iron - ie it was being sourced from the man's family together with his medals and original scroll - and even then I'd still have worries.

I just have this horrible vision of some unscrupulous e-bayer now sitting rubbing his hands with glee, and contemplating the money-making possibilities ................... and the thing that really naff's me off is the idea of some "real" soldier's name being ground off "his" plaque in order that it can be fictionalised. - Remember the member of (a well known organisation) who some years ago was drilling holes in plaques, fitting electrical clock mechanisms, and flogging them ?  

Regards - Tom

[Pete Wood]

Good grief. You're right about the possibilities of deception!

That thought had never crossed my mind. I guess I've led too sheltered a life....

I think I'll just let this remain a theory.

[Terry Denham]

I have a copy of the service record of an officer whose plaque I own and it contains correspondence on his plaque.

It seems that, in this case at least, a standard form was first sent to the n-o-k to verify that they still lived at the recorded address. I have such a letter which was sent from the War Office, Imperial Institute, South Kensington, London S.W.7 and is signed by the Assistant Financial Secretary. There is space on half of the form for the address of the n-o-k and their reply. My letter is dated 08.02.19 and relates to a 1916 casualty.

The last paragraph reads "Owing to the great number of cases to be dealt with it is impossible to say how soon the distribution will be effected in any individual case".

[Pete Wood]

you mentioned in passing the consideration by the War Office of the possibility of issuing Memorial Plaques for WW2 casualties. Do you know why it was decided not to do so?

Kim

I honestly can't remember. I think it was a combination of costs and the production difficulties.

All my notes are in storage. So if someone else doesn't answer your question, as I'm sure that the answer was in papers I read at the PRO, I will dig out the files and get back to you.

[Pete Wood]

Heard about an interesting plaque today. The soldier concerned was medically discharged from the army, and rejoined using an alias - to fool the authorities about his previous injuries.

The soldier was killed soon after and the family (the plaque is still in their hands) were given the plaque with his alias, rather than his real name. He was an Australian soldier and, as Sullivan pointed out earlier in this thread, the rules were very specific - in Australia anyway - that the plaque would be cast with the name that the soldier used when he joined-up.

Anyone come across a similar case...?