Airborne BD - Opinions please

[DJT]

Hi Kenny,

That is not a wartime beret.

[max7474]

I agree - more like 1992 than 1942.

Alan

[kenny andrew]

Thanks guys that what I thought, what is the main give away? just for future reference? will change the description of the beret tomorrow to replica.

thanks for your help

Kenny

[DJT]

Kenny,

Compare it to the berets Jack showed. The differences are fairly obvious. Not only are the materials/construction different from wartime spec, the markings scream fake. I mean since when does the MK1 noggin apply different degrees of wear to the inside of a beret?

[kenny andrew]

Cheers Jack, thanks for your help

Kenny

[force136]

Best BD

While I agree that it is very difficult to tell a uniform whithout it being in hand and I also agree that despite what it looks like, you really need prov to be sure or at least for it to be worth more than its parts, I do not beleive there is any way to ID a best dress unless it is plastered with an assortment of embriodered badges. Printed badges were worn in action but they were also worn on best dress. I am still not absolutely clear on the dress reg differences ( if any ) between 6th and 1st Airborne etc to make a def statement. From personal experience, I have seen tunics from veterans who had straight printed on their Best or mixtures of embroidered and printed or completely embroidered. However depending on dress regs ( ie unit, formation etc. ) workdress usually had printed. If this was attributed to 6th AB Div this could either be best or work dress. You HAD to have printed insignia in the field if a member of the PR - at least part of 6th AD. Wear is NOT an indicator of best or work dress as mentioned. Some best were worn after the war. I know veterans of 9th Para Bn who were late war additions and their work dress had little wear and tear because they only took part in the last few months of the war. I am sure their best dress may have been in worse shape due to all the party going at the end of the war. Horizontal combat and the after effects of drink.

Cheers Jack, thanks for your help

Kenny

[AB64]

Printed badges were worn in action but they were also worn on best dress.

I would agree with that, Cpl Jim Swan in my Avater has printed insignia, and the photo shows him outside Buckingham Palace after receiving his MM so he would be in his absolutely tip top best BD for an occasion like that. I have other pics of Borderers in Best BD where the insignia is clearly printed.

Alistair

[Mons 1914]

I would agree with that, Cpl Jim Swan in my Avater has printed insignia, and the photo shows him outside Buckingham Palace after receiving his MM so he would be in his absolutely tip top best BD for an occasion like that. I have other pics of Borderers in Best BD where the insignia is clearly printed.

Alistair

Private J. Mc Cluskie, Border Regt, receiving the MM

Rev Jenkins, meeting king George

Both have Printed Insignia, apart from the Borders Title.

Scott

[Mons 1914]

2.

[Old Smelly]

FYI
53rd Div book 'Team Spirit' states that between June 44 and May 45 ordnance issued 40,569 bd blouses, 46,628 trousers, 113,693 pairs of socks, 29,050 shirts, 40,569 pairs of boots. I have more figures on other items if you need them
Lee

[Old Smelly]

Comes on guys any good..
1940 Pattern.

Insignia is ok but I have a little niggle, the title, wing, & patch does look to have the same colour & style of stitching, I don't suppose it's wrong but would you expect to see a different style/colour?

Just a few thoughts.

Thanks
Scott

I think the insignia and the stitching are ok. Sometimes each patch has different stitching but if it was put on by the unit tailor there is no reason to think he wouldn't have used the same throughout especially if its been machine applied.
Lee

[DJT]

Well Ken there is wear and then there is wear. Would you not agree that activities in the field would produce different wear than activities on the parade ground/post war ceremonies and so on? I obviously agree with you that some late war issue BD's may have very little field wear but equally some could exhibit quite heavy wear. I have a late war issued BD jacket with provenance that is quite heavily worn. I know it was worn by the veteran post war (even have a photo of him doing do) but some of the wear present (like tears to insignia and heavy soiling/wear around the collar) would be indicative of field use rather than him simply using it occasionally for best dress. Thoughts?

[force136]

Wear as an indicator

Hi Des

Hope your trip to Canada worked out well for you. Sorry we could not hook up. Maybe next time.

I guess I was just pointing out that wear is not a really good indicator of Best or work dress for the reasons that you and I brought forward. I also know of some 1 Cdn Para Trng Battion vets that never saw action and arrived in the UK only a few months before the end of the war. One or two had hung up their BD in bad places after the war, ie. garages and attics. This alone created significant wear ie. stretching of the fabric, sun fading which includes loss of colour to patches, threads popping and layers of dust and dirt.

So you can have work dress in crap condition or in good condition. You can have best dress in crap condition or good condition. It all depends on the life of the garment. How much trauma it has seen.

Regards

Ken

Well Ken there is wear and then there is wear. Would you not agree that activities in the field would produce different wear than activities on the parade ground/post war ceremonies and so on? I obviously agree with you that some late war issue BD's may have very little field wear but equally some could exhibit quite heavy wear. I have a late war issued BD jacket with provenance that is quite heavily worn. I know it was worn by the veteran post war (even have a photo of him doing do) but some of the wear present (like tears to insignia and heavy soiling/wear around the collar) would be indicative of field use rather than him simply using it occasionally for best dress. Thoughts?