46 replies to this topic

[John Duncan]

The slouch hats were widely used before the war by the TF and were in use at least until the summer camps of July 1914 in some cases, I have attached a photo showing them in use, the same battalion seemed to have worn virtually everything including so'westers in the trenches Winter 1914/15

John

 Slouch_hats.jpg   89.12K   2 downloads

[seaforths]

I think it would seem, from the posting of the various photos, that a number of the men would have had these bush hats and taken then with them. Others may have been 'acquired' over there. I am now intruiged to see what a Glengarry cover looks like and good old Google is flumoxed over that one! The link Mike posted was very informative (aside from the bluebell frenzy border) showed some photos of postmen - and their hats - which had peaks.

Aaah well will just have to wait and see if one turns up somewhere - if anyone lives near a highlanders museum or such like, they might have one!

Marjorie

[brownag]

seaforths, on 03 June 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

I am now intruiged to see what a Glengarry cover looks like

Given the comments earlier in the thread about glengarry covers looking like postman hats I would suggest the photograph from historylinks in Dornoch shows you three.

http://www.historyli.../number2619.asp

And a postman....

http://www.flickr.co...ntos/266447920/


The soldier on the right has his cap perched on his head, unless he has an odd shaped head, and it looks to me like a cover over another cap which would tie in with the description you posted before.

Adam

[mconrad]

FROGSMILE, on 28 May 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

Personally I am not convinced that they are glengarry covers Chris, although I confess that I have never seen one with which to make a comparison.  If the covers were shaped like a Torin pattern Field Service Cap then I suppose it is possible, as the caps, with flaps folded down would have looked a little like a ghillie cap.  For me though the jury is still out.

Does it seem to anyone else that the hats in the Dorloch photograph seem to be high on the wears' heads?  As if the crown was indeed a form-fitting cap to a glengarry and the brim was suspended from that crown, and not tight to the head which would be the case if it were the sole item of headgear.

[T8HANTS]

The problem is there are two different styles of head gear, John's photo above in #26 is clearly of thr Austrailian/Boer war slouch hat.  The original post #1photo shows a hat with a much smaller brim.

[brownag]

mconrad, on 18 June 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

Does it seem to anyone else that the hats in the Dorloch photograph seem to be high on the wears' heads?
As if the crown was indeed a form-fitting cap to a glengarry and the brim was suspended from that crown, and not tight to the head which would be the case if it were the sole item of headgear.

Yes, completely agree. It isn't so clear on the man in the middle but for the other two their hats are too high on their heads.

Adam

[brownag]

T8HANTS, on 18 June 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

The problem is there are two different styles of head gear, John's photo above in #26 is clearly of thr Austrailian/Boer war slouch hat.  The original post #1photo shows a hat with a much smaller brim.

The original post confused matters by mentioning slouch hats several times which was a bit of a red herring since the hat in question is the one in the Dornoch photo of Seaforths in Bedford and is not a slouch hat.

Largs war memorial does have a soldier in a slouch hat but it is the wide brimmed affair and not this small brimmed cover.

Adam

[FROGSMILE]

brownag, on 18 June 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

The original post confused matters by mentioning slouch hats several times which was a bit of a red herring since the hat in question is the one in the Dornoch photo of Seaforths in Bedford and is not a slouch hat.

Largs war memorial does have a soldier in a slouch hat but it is the wide brimmed affair and not this small brimmed cover.

Adam

Yes I agree and had always thought that the type of head dress shown in the OP's image was known as a Ghillie Hat and originated in Scotland anyway?

[brownag]

tocemma, on 19 June 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

The mystery item is NOT a glengarry cover

How do you explain this contemporary quote from a previous post?

seaforths, on 28 May 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

Re headgear for 6th Seaforths. I found the following quote from 'Campaign Reminiscences p.9' for June 1915 when they were at Pacaut:

"Here also the blue Balmoral, covered with a khaki cover, was issued to us, instead of the unsightly and inconvenient kind of postman's cap to go over the Glengarry, with which we left England".

Marjorie

I agree with you being privately purchased items. I think they were only issued to 5th and 6th Seaforths and were probably purchased by the TF associations. These two battalions arrived in France at the same time as the khaki headgear was being issued so the unpopular covers could be discarded in favour of more practical and comfortable headwear.

Adam

[seaforths]

 NZ1.JPG   10.96K   0 downloads  NZ2.JPG   8.9K   0 downloads

The Postie's had as shown in the link from Brownag is, I assum what would be called a kepi or little cap? It fits the mental picture I had when reading 'Campaign Reminiscences' bit on the Glengarry covers but we have since had a very detailed description of these with their drawstrings etc. Looking at the headdress worn by the 3 soldiers in Brownag's history links and those in the original photo - well...

There are a couple of volumes of Di Ruvigny free to download as PDFs and I have just been flicking through the first few pages of one of them and while they are posed photographs the diversity of headwear is something else: bearskins, turbans, pithelmets, slouches, Canadian Mounties, the naval frisbee things and an array of caps with peaks etc. etc. etc. but I did find these two images both New Zealanders and their hats look similar to those in the original photograph although one of them looks like a 'Mountie' hat with a short brim - I suspect that different Territorial Battalions and Empire/Commonwealth forces around the globe including here, bought into whatever they thought suitable for their battalion, be it slouch or whatever as did others in the Empire/Commonwealth and those in the Battalion purchased from the same recommended supplier.

I also read that the Territorials bought their own kit piecemeal with some subsidy, and one chap was so excited when he finally got his breeks that he wore them to church. He wanted people to see and admire them that he didn't want to sit down!

Marjorie

[brownag]

Perhaps we need to be very specific here and say a cap that covers a glengarry as issued to 6th Seaforths in 1915 before leaving for France is not called a glengarry cover but since it did cover a glengarry what should it be called instead?

The New Zealand cap is another red herring.

If we agree that 6th Seaforths wore a glengarry with a cover that made the headgear look like a postie (so this cover for a glengarry which isn't a 'glengarry cover' presumably has a peak or brim) as per the contemporary description, then if the photograph in post 1 of this thread isn't that cover for a glengarry do we now assume that 6th Seaforths had another item of kit?

Are we saying they had a glengarry, and a cover which made them look like a postie AND the headgear which we see in the photographs in post 1 and in the Historylinks photograph. This second piece of headgear perches on top of heads and may be a stiffened ghillie cap from what has been discussed

Alternatively this cover of a glengarry over a glengarry is the headgear in post 1 and it may take the shape of a n unstiffened cap if worn directly on the head without a glengarry under it?

Adam

[4thGordons]

tocemma, on 20 June 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

This is a fascinating item, but very likely confined to a few Battalions and fairly shortlived. Thanks for posting the Dornoch photo, very interesting.

Reposting I think - as I had already posted it in post #17!

[brownag]

Tocemma

Thanks for the update. My thoughts are that they were perhaps purchased at the same time as kilt covers? As you say an enterprising salesman may have made them sound like the very dab for the trenches.

With the introduction of the official drab headgear the privately purchased items, especially ones designed to bring ridicule on the wearer, would have been ditched very quickly.

Thanks again for all the detail.

Adam

[brownag]

You couldn't possibly get a clearer view of this headgear than in this photograph :

http://www.historyli.../number1156.asp

Another one from Historylinks

Thanks

Adam

[FROGSMILE]

brownag, on 26 June 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

You couldn't possibly get a clearer view of this headgear than in this photograph :

http://www.historyli.../number1156.asp

Another one from Historylinks

Thanks

Adam

Well spotted Adam, the best view yet by far!

[seaforths]

This is definitely an excellent find and very clear - well done for your perseverance in th search! I didn't intend my last post of the New Zealanders as a red herring and apologise if you thought it was. Perhaps I should have been clearer in my post, it was intended to show the diversity of the head dress across the colonies and that perhaps we are guilty (and include myself in this) of stereotyping certain nationalities and occupations to a particular form of hat - and that they were used much more widely throughout the colonies but more common in some countries than others. For example I had a stereotypical vision - when reading of the Glengarry covers being like postmen's hats and the images on the post fulfilled that image I had internalised. However, in doing a little more research, it would seem that their headgear was also diverse and it varied according to the job they did and the seasons too.

Between the late 1800s and 1940s they had a variety of headgear that also included bush hats - also these 'double peaked shako':

 double peaked shako 1896.JPG   31.02K   0 downloads


 DOUBLE PEAKED STRAW SHAKO.JPG   65.96K   0 downloads

[seaforths]

Sorry should have also added that I think that that Pipers original photo and the evidenced ones from history link courtesy of Adam are indeed Glengarry covers - perhaps there were other versions with drawstrings of a later issue which confused the matter - I don't see how a drawstring would operate with the brims unless it was concealed or tucked inside the Glengarry and the brim on the outside concealed it - that would make sense.
Marjorie

[4thGordons]

tocemma, on 27 June 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

Excellent stuff Adam and well found! Bizarre looking item. You wonder why they bothered to wear the glengarry at all, and instead just the waterproof hat.
I've certainly not seen anything like it before. Nice photo too, clear details of the kilt apron which he has pinned to the kilt to keep it closed. Privately acquired boots with a toecap.

Very nice image.

Regards

Tocemma

I wonder if this picture might have been taken in Bedford. I am pretty sure that AW Pierce the Nottingham photographer of that image is amongst those who phtotographed the higland troops in Bedford.
Richard (piper) would probably know, as would Raster Scanning.
Chris

I just checked and AW Pierce was one of the photographers photographing the Highand troops in Bedford see HERE

[T8HANTS]

Interesting, but the  8th Hants didn't wear Glengarries, so thier very similar headgear must be another variant, see my link at #5.

Gareth

[brownag]

Great to see so much debate around this. I think the latest photograph is from Bedford. I can't remember where I read it but I'm sure the officers in the 5th Seaforths found it diffiicult to wear the cover because of the metal feathers on their badges so they perhaps wore them on their own without a glengarry underneath.

Here is another chap from the same photographer at the same time I presume

http://www.historyli.../number1134.asp

And then look at this one, what a great photo this is...

http://www.historyli.../number1186.asp

Great find Seaforths, finding the posties' caps photographs. I just could't find them anywhere.

Interesting to see the puttees worn up to the hose tops. I'm sure later in the war the 5th Seaforths are photogrphed with them around their ankles.

Adam

[seaforths]

It looks to me like the earlier photo posted of of the Knockando men are wearing their puttees higher. Good old Wiki has this information (below) which is contradictory as next  to this information is an image showing someone wearing high puttees:

"Main article: Service Dress (British Army)
The British soldier went to war in August 1914, wearing the 1902 Pattern Service Dress tunic and trousers. This was a thick woollen tunic, dyed khaki. There were two breast pockets for personal items and the soldiers AB64 Pay Book, two smaller pockets for other items, and an internal pocket sewn under the right flap of the lower tunic where the First Field Dressing was kept. Rifle patches were sewn above the breast pockets, to prevent wear from the webbing equipment and rifle. Shoulder straps were sewn on and fastened with brass buttons, with enough space for a brass regimental shoulder title. Rank insignia was sewn onto the upper tunic sleeves, while trade badges and Long Service and Good Conduct stripes were placed on the lower sleeves. A stiffened peak cap was worn, made of the same material, with a leather strap, brass fitting and secured with two small brass buttons. Puttees were worn round the ankles, and ammunition boots with hobnail soles on the feet. Normally brown, they were made of reversed hide and had steel toe-caps, and a steel plate on the heel."

This is the image they have next to it:

 wiki.JPG   35.66K   1 downloads

I have a platoon photo my granddad's platoon 6th Seaforths taken Feb 1916 and it looks like their puttees are a little above the ankle

[mconrad]

Back to the ghillie hat, Wilkinson in 1978 (Source Book of World War 1 Weapons and Uniforms) published this: