Other ranks Service tunics (1930's)

[NickG]

Just wanted to know the difference between these tunics...(1) and (2)

They appear to be the same, standard Other ranks Service tunics...
both with non regimental General service Coat of Arms buttons...

[NickG]

The tag in (1) states it is a generic service dress tunic (for all troops except Scottish)
as the tag reads...

This one I did not obtain...

[NickG]

Now the second example. At first glance a twin of tunic number (1) with same non regimental buttons (UK Coat of arms)

This tunic (2) I DID get. At first glance it is practically same tunic as (1) but the collar is different and it comes with pleated chest pockets
for a smarter appearance... and a tag stating its made for the Household Cavalry Guards...

So what is the difference? Branch use? Different chest pockets (pleats) and collar shape...perhaps better quality for Palace guard troops?
The 1916 inked on date is real?? or bogus and added...I assume its a the 1930's piece this number (2) uniform . Correct?

Since it has general Service buttons it should it still be restored with Cavalry/Lifeguard insignia?
(generic austerity buttons?) or...

[NickG]

Compare!
I purchased number (2)... It should have Household Guards insignia for it to be correct? Again the buttons on it are generic austerity type...
but its tagged as a HHG Cavalry tunic...

or is (2) an earlier ww1 pattern (M1902) and the 1916 date is real ??
and (1) is a later inter war - WW2 pattern? (M1922)

I assume (2) is the better choice? Right?

[Seigfried]

Tunic No1 was on stand recently.

You seem to be getting Household Cavalry and Brigade of Guards mixed up - they are two entirely separate divisions - one cavalry, one infantry.

They are not just limited to Palace duties either but rotate with different squadrons/battalions ie Blues & Royals, Life Guards (Cav) and Grenadiers, Coldstreams, Welsh, irish and Scots Guards (Inf).

You are correct in that they have different Service Dress to everybody else though. I shall check my uniform books tonight.

[NickG]

Thanks for enlightening me so far. Yes palace guard duties is just
a side job for this (these) units all with ww1 and ww2 battle records
(And earlier)
So #2 is a model 1902 or 1922? Yes #1 was sold on estand.
I imagine tunic 2 is scarcer. Thanks for the help on these!

[Robert Shoaf]

Tunic # 2 's label says use includes King's Troop RHA. The troop was not named as such until 1947 , by King George VI. It was previously titled as the Riding Troop.
Thus, the tunic should be from circa 1947-1953.

Bob shoaf

[Seigfried]

I believe that Tunic 1 is a 'austerity' type as it is missing the pleated breast pockets, and that Tunic 2 is as Bob says a later tunic, with the private modification of collar for 'walking out'.

[NickG]

With the supplied info I looked into this a little further...

So RHA stands for Royal Horse Artillery.
Active 17 April 1946 – present

Branch: British Army
Type: Saluting Battery
Role : Ceremonial
Part of HQ London District Garrison/HQ
Royal Artillery Barracks, Woolwich, London
Nickname(s) : "The Troop"
Patron: King George VI
Anniversaries: Troop Day 24 October
Equipment: 13 pounder gun
(Website:The King's Troop RHA)

[John Bonnell]

The "1916" on the Size 13 jacket has been added to an otherwise preprinted label. It is in a different font to the rest of the label. It doesn't fit properly on the label. Something appears to have been scratched out under the broad arrow at the bottom of the label.

Now, bearing all that in mind, how genuine do you think that "1916" is?

[NickG]

The "1916" on the Size 13 jacket has been added to an otherwise preprinted label. It is in a different font to the rest of the label. It doesn't fit properly on the label. Something appears to have been scratched out under the broad arrow at the bottom of the label.

Now, bearing all that in mind, how genuine do you think that "1916" is?

Well that's easy to answer. Since it has already been established based on the nomenclature used on the tag (RHA) proving that the uniform dates from a period
between 1946 and 1953, I would say with 100% certainty that the 1916 date is bogus (as already stated in the thread). Not to mention the awkward location and spacing of the (added) date stamp...19 16

[John Bonnell]

I thought you might find those points useful for future reference in spotting the more obvious fakes.

All WW1 Service Dress jackets (and trousers) had paper labels. A stitched-in cloth label is always later, late 20s or early 30s on. Some very late war jackets have the closure, collar and pocket flaps lined with drill, but the vast majority are lined with the same serge as the rest of the jacket. Linings are usually white or off-white drill or glazed linen, though some later war jackets have brown or green pockets. Best of luck finding a real one.

[NickG]

I thought you might find those points useful for future reference in spotting the more obvious fakes.

All WW1 Service Dress jackets (and trousers) had paper labels. A stitched-in cloth label is always later, late 20s or early 30s on. Some very late war jackets have the closure, collar and pocket flaps lined with drill, but the vast majority are lined with the same serge as the rest of the jacket. Linings are usually white or off-white drill or glazed linen, though some later war jackets have brown or green pockets. Best of luck finding a real one.

Thanks that is helpful info and I was wondering about the true differences. This wannabee 1916 jacket was offered as a later one with dubious stamp added
priced as a non WW1 tunic, so I was totally fine with it (as a 1930's piece) now finding out its actually late 40's based on the tag nomenclature.
Learned something new today!