Uniform ?

[Stickmarsh]

I found this picture in a box of paper documents. Anyone recognize the uniform?

 

[trikikiwi]

The cap badge looks similar to a Fusiliers badge,
such as this example


from http://www.messdress-britishmilitaria.com/scots/scot_capbadges.html

I don't know if similar badges were/are used by USA Forces

Mike

 

[Montana Jim]

The cap badge looks similar to a Fusiliers badge.

Mike

I agree... and that hair! I just want to run my fingers through it!

We saw a uniform like that here recently... with the similar cap.

 

[johnnyi]

Good eye Triki. The America Militia addopted the badge around 1832, and I believe it was in use until at least 1840. (This device was also used by the French, and earlier also by the British).

Stickmarsh, if it is this is this early it was probably reproduced on paper from a daguerreotype. Very often a photograph will show amazing detail if you blow up a portion of it. I don't know if that works well on a transferred image (if this is one). You might want to try to blow up the badge, and as well, one of the buttons to see if they can be identified to confirm if this date seems right.

 

[Stickmarsh]

Trikikiwi, It does look similar to the Fusiliers badge.

Johnnyi, I tried blowing up the picture to get better detail of the badge and buttons; however, the picture is not clear enough to make out any detail.

Montana Jim, thanks for your input. Thanks to all for your thoughts.

I have posted a picture of another uniform as a separate post. It is from the same box of documents.

 

[Montana Jim]

I do believe it's a well worn Model 1895 enlisted man's forage cap.

That is - if this soldier is in fact American.

 

[johnnyi]

I do believe it's a well worn Model 1895 enlisted man's forage cap.

That is - if this soldier is in fact American.

Now that another photograph has been posted from the same documents which is British, it might mean this uiform is British also, as they did use the flaming bomb insignia. The shoulder straps, which don't seem to match Americn ones that I've been able to find at least, , also might mean British.

Although the insignia was used in 1895, the uiform is much older. The forage cap is very different, as the caps of 1895 resembled very much the civil war kipi (squashed down in front, etc.) with only a few small differences. Also the hair style is older, as it was worn very short by U.S. soldiers near the end of the 19th century. Again, the shoulder straps don't match anything U.S. that I think we can find. I guess we'll have to send some British guys over here to identify this using their resources.

 

[DCMatt]

The uniform seems very simple and the face is young. Possibly a cadet?

Just my observation...

DCMatt

 

[johnnyi]

The uniform seems very simple and the face is young. Possibly a cadet?

Just my observation...

DCMatt

If it is Matt, it wouldn't be U.S. Cadet, as the uniforms was different, double breasted early on, etc. . This young guy has already become part of some branch related to ordnance, he's received what look like the lowest grade of shoulder straps, etc.. Of course even in the USMA you can specialize in a branch, but there are distinguishing features that remain constant with the war college. He's taking some liberites with his uniform also for the photograph; watch chain, hankerchief in unbuttoned jacket, etc., which would seem unusual for a Cadet who was steeped in discipline, but not unusual for a proud junior officer. By the way, the sleeves, particularly the shoulders of this sleeves, are "puffy", not tailored like later uniforms we see after the 1860's. (just an observation)

 

[DCMatt]

The uniform seems very simple and the face is young. Possibly a cadet?

Just my observation...

DCMatt

If it is Matt, it wouldn't be U.S. Cadet, as the uniforms was different, double breasted early on, etc. . This young guy has already become part of some branch related to ordnance, he's received what look like the lowest grade of shoulder straps, etc.. Of course even in the USMA you can specialize in a branch, but there are distinguishing features that remain constant with the war college. He's taking some liberites with his uniform also for the photograph; watch chain, hankerchief in unbuttoned jacket, etc., which would seem unusual for a Cadet who was steeped in discipline, but not unusual for a proud junior officer. By the way, the sleeves, particularly the shoulders of this sleeves, are "puffy", not tailored like later uniforms we see after the 1860's. (just an observation)

Good observations. It makes me wonder if such "liberties" indicate he is not military at all. At the very least, I'm not convinced the cap badge is a fusilier... Maybe a railwayman? Telegraph operator? Merchant seaman? Lots of folks wore uniforms for their jobs back then.

Whatever he is, he seems very smug about it...

DCMatt

 

[Unicorn]

I think that the crown on the badge might indicate that he could be a British soldier.

 

[johnnyi]

I think that the crown on the badge might indicate that he could be a British soldier.

Agreed unicorn, it is more likely he is a British soldier, particularly as the other picture from what are apparently family papers indicates another British officer among them (as well as the absense of a u.S. uniform that seems to match this one).

Regarding the badge, there are many different designs of the fusiliiers badge and similar badges of related ordnance branches such as artillery, some of which show an identical outline as this one (with the flames going more upright then spread out sideways). Here's a link which shows several examples of a matching outline...

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...ges?q=british+fusiliers+badge&hl=en&sa=X&um=1