Thread: I need a uniform IDed

I collect military uniforms and recently received one from my grandparents that someone had left with them a long long time ago. Problem is: I don't know which country it came from.
Unfortunately, I cannot upload pictures of the uniform; so I will describe it best I can.
The buttons on the uniform have a design on them that looks as if a coat of arms is being held up by a horse and a lion. At the top of the coat of arms is a crown and atop the crown is another animal (looks like a lion but is too small to be sure).
The coat of arms itself is circular and is split into four sections.
At the bottom of the jacket itself, the two sides come upward diagonally and meet a bit below the bottom button.
The color of the jacket is a dull green.
The jacket has four pockets but only the two on the torso have buttons. The two pockets at the waist have neither buttons nor holes.
The last detail I can offer is that there is a split that travels a quarter of the way up the back of the jacket.
The uniform is dated 1953.

Does anyone have any idea which country it came from?

Originally Posted by Chariot

I collect military uniforms and recently received one from my grandparents that someone had left with them a long long time ago. Problem is: I don't know which country it came from.
Unfortunately, I cannot upload pictures of the uniform; so I will describe it best I can.
The buttons on the uniform have a design on them that looks as if a coat of arms is being held up by a horse and a lion. At the top of the coat of arms is a crown and atop the crown is another animal (looks like a lion but is too small to be sure).
The coat of arms itself is circular and is split into four sections.
At the bottom of the jacket itself, the two sides come upward diagonally and meet a bit below the bottom button.
The color of the jacket is a dull green.
The jacket has four pockets but only the two on the torso have buttons. The two pockets at the waist have neither buttons nor holes.
The last detail I can offer is that there is a split that travels a quarter of the way up the back of the jacket.
The uniform is dated 1953.

Does anyone have any idea which country it came from?

Well, without seeing a photo, I can only give you a general idea.

For one, that is not a horse, it is a Unicorn. Because what you have described is "Victoria's Crown".



Now for obvious reasons, I tend to think that this is not "real military". Vicky's Crown had already fallen out of use by the time of WWII, let alone 1953. I suspect it was probably either some regional militia, law enforcement, or belonging to a member of some Veteran Organization who had participated in one of Vicky's Little Wars.

If you can get us pictures of the buttons, or any crests and maker marks, I could probably give you a better answer.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Well, without seeing a photo, I can only give you a general idea.

For one, that is not a horse, it is a Unicorn. Because what you have described is "Victoria's Crown".



Now for obvious reasons, I tend to think that this is not "real military". Vicky's Crown had already fallen out of use by the time of WWII, let alone 1953. I suspect it was probably either some regional militia, law enforcement, or belonging to a member of some Veteran Organization who had participated in one of Vicky's Little Wars.

If you can get us pictures of the buttons, or any crests and maker marks, I could probably give you a better answer.

That button looks extremely like the ones on the jacket but the tops of the crowns on the jacket are curved and there is an animal standing on them.

Originally Posted by Chariot

That button looks extremely like the ones on the jacket but the tops of the crowns on the jacket are curved and there is an animal standing on them.

OK, British Royal Army, General Service Button



This is just a general "British Army Number 2 Service Uniform", with the buttons that is issued to everybody.



Looking more closely for the animal over helps place it to the Post-1953 era, after the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

OK, British Royal Army, General Service Button



This is just a general "British Army Number 2 Service Uniform", with the buttons that is issued to everybody.



Looking more closely for the animal over helps place it to the Post-1953 era, after the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.

The button is correct but the jacket is a bit different from the one you posted. At the bottom of the jacket; the two sides curve upward and meet about an inch below the 4th button.

The Scottish regiments (there's only one now!) of the British Army wore/wear cutaway jackets over a kilt or tartan trews.

I found a pic. The colour won't be the same, these are from a reject batch!



http://www.denbigharmysurplus.co.uk/...h-Pattern.html

Originally Posted by Colonel K

The Scottish regiments (there's only one now!) of the British Army wore/wear cutaway jackets over a kilt or tartan trews.

I found a pic. The colour won't be the same, these are from a reject batch!



http://www.denbigharmysurplus.co.uk/...h-Pattern.html

That's the jacket. I thank you both, Mushroom and Colonel K for helping me find out where the uniform came from.
And now I am off to see if I can find a kilt or a trew (which is going to be a pain in my rear end). Which is more appropriate? The Royal Stewart tartan or the 'Government sett' of the Black Watch?

They burn robustly when exposed to flame...

Navy uniforms are flammable, and the military knows it
January 9, 2013 — The Navy's standard-issue blue camouflage uniforms are highly flammable and will melt onto the skin when burning, a recent Navy test revealed.

A second revelation: This comes as no surprise to the Navy. "We knew when we designed this uniform that it wasn't flame-resistant," said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's top spokesman. "When we were making the uniform, sailors wanted a uniform that was comfortable, that didn't require maintenance and would stand up under a lot of washing, and one of the ways to get that is a nylon-cotton blend," Kirby said. "We realize that nylon does not react well to flame, but again, there was no requirement for a fire-resistant uniform in a working environment."

The Navy released findings in December of an impromptu test that showed that - unlike the Army and Marine Corps working uniforms - its working uniform is not designated flame-resistant and "when subjected to a flame, it will burn robustly until completely consumed." The Type I NWU, as it's known, is half cotton and half nylon. The nylon component "is a thermoplastic fiber that melts and drips as it burns," the report said. "If this sticky molten material came in contact with skin, it would contribute to increased burn injury."

Navy admirals said the uniform was never meant to be flame-retardant and there is fire gear throughout any ship in case sailors are exposed to flames. Only sailors with specific jobs such as airman, engineer or firefighter and those in combat are required to have fire-resistant clothing. Kirby noted that the Army and Marine uniforms are geared toward combat and the dangers of roadside bombs. That said, Vice Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, Chief of Naval Personnel and president of the Navy's Uniform Board, announced in a message to commanders on Dec. 12 that Fleet Forces commander Adm. Bill Gortney, working closely with Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Cecil Haney, has established working groups to review the fleet's uniform needs and to consider whether these uniforms do the job.

Buskirk said he also has expanded the Navy's uniform board, adding the Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command and the Naval Safety Center as technical advisers to the board. The test on the working uniform last month was conducted during research on materials and equipment at the Navy's safety center in Massachusetts. Kirby said one of the testers took it upon himself to check the flammability of the NWU. A video of the test, which the Navy posted online, shows the uniform quickly burning when exposed to flame. "Nobody asked for these tests," Kirby said. "Now that we have the results of this particular test - obviously, we are not surprised the fabric did not react well to flame - but now that we have specifics... we are going to take another look." Admirals, including Buskirk, Kirby and Gortney, all said they were still comfortable that the uniforms are appropriate to wear in the right environment.

MORE

Originally Posted by waltky

They burn robustly when exposed to flame...

Navy uniforms are flammable, and the military knows it
January 9, 2013 — The Navy's standard-issue blue camouflage uniforms are highly flammable and will melt onto the skin when burning, a recent Navy test revealed.

The problem with fire retardant uniforms/clothing, like Nomex, is that it's very hot. The fabric is not porous at all.

They'd have to meet in the middle to find a fabric that's reasonably fire retardant and still comfortable in warmer climates. The Navy spends a lot of time in warmer areas...typically.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

The problem with fire retardant uniforms/clothing, like Nomex, is that it's very hot. The fabric is not porous at all.

They'd have to meet in the middle to find a fabric that's reasonably fire retardant and still comfortable in warmer climates. The Navy spends a lot of time in warmer areas...typically.

This is the problem with almost all flame retardent clothing. Either it is thick and heavy, it does not breathe, or they are dangerous to the user. Those of us in our late 40's and older probably remember the furror over this in the 1970's when hundreds of thousands of sets of children's clothing was recalled because the government mandated fire retardent was discovered to be carcinogenic.

As a general rule, we do not wear fire retardent clothing unless we are doing something that leaves us at risk for being exposed to flames. Then we are mandated to wear them. Most soldiers wear standard ACUs, but people like fuelers have a special uniform they have to wear whenever they are fuelingbecause of the increased risk of fire.