Dating and rating please

[North Shields]

Hello members-I've been using your previous replies to a photo enquiry to help answer my question but would like clarification please.

The man in this photo has a badge on his right upper arm showing what looks to be a propellor with a star above and below-I can't make out if they are gold or red. Does this make him a Stoker? The anchors on his left arm are crossed but I can't see if there is anything above-is he a P.O? He has two GC chevrons below. Could this picture be pre 1900?

Thaks for any help

Regards

Andrew

[Batstiger]

Stoker 2nd class and an acting Petty Officer or Petty Officer depending on the year it was taken with two good conduct stripes.

Bob.

[John O'Callaghan]

Hi North shields.I concur with Batstigers opinion.The badges appear to be red embroidered rather than gold.It's difficult to be certain as to age but judging by the 'cut' of his suit,the style of his wearing his silk and the construction of the background ladder and other ships details I would believe the photo to be pre WW1 possibly 1900 or about.
Cheers John O'C.

[North Shields]

Thanks Bob and glad you liked those other pics. Two more questions if I may?
1.Would men have been allowed/likely to wear wedding rings during the course of their duties onboard?
2.Could the rating of Acting Petty Officer have been abbreviated to "apo" on a man's service record and would a change in rating from Ordinary Seaman to
Acting Petty Officer have been possible/likely?

Regards

Andrew

[North Shields]

Thank you John-I've fired a couple more questions at Bob but aimed at all.

Regards

Andrew

[Scurs]

Andrew - adding my penneth, this is sheer speculation and those more "educated" on the subject may disagree.

However..........I think the picture shows 1st class Stoker PO.

Quite possible, Acting PO, would be written A/PO or even apo if writer feeling lazy!!
I would consider it very unlikely for anyone to leap from Ordinary rate, to PO, without first going through Able Rate, then Leading Rate.......but willing to stand corrected.

Bob is likely to have forgotten more than I know....but hope it helps! :)

[Batstiger]

Wedding rings were a definate No, No! Fingers can be lost too easily especially when handling wires. When ashore they would be permitted but would have to be removed when returning on board.

Bob.

[North Shields]

Thanks Bob and thanks Scurs for your input-much appreciated.

Regards

Andrew

[jbryce1437]

I got married in 1965 and left the RN in 1974 and no one EVER told me to remove either my signet ring or wedding ring. I understood the Seamen wore gloves when handling the steel wires, etc.

[Dave Hutson]

All sparkers were warned that rings on fingers were a definite no no if you were working on replacing wire aerials. I remember a poignant reminder when one slipped and the wire caught between ring and finger - the finger came second. Eek and Agh:eek:

Having said that I can't remember rings being banned [1953-1977]

Dave H

[emason]

I remember a student wearing a wedding ring (gold-a good conductor of electricity) at Technical College who, while adjusting a dual (parallel, side by side) rheostat controlling a large electric motor, accidently bridged the two rheostats with his ring. The result was a flash, a loud BANG! and one very shaken student. The windings of both rheostats (they were of the exposed type) had melted and stripped from their former up to the point of contact with the ring.

Both the student and his ring were unharmed. But he had to calculate how much current actually flowed through his ring to make amends for damaging college equipment. I think it worked out to be about 350 amps.

He never wore his ring again for practical experiments.

[Guz rating]

Hi Andrew I think that photo was before PO's were issued with Fore and Aft uniforms. And I have known a man to lose his finger because of a wedding ring. He was throwing heavy timbers on the back of a lorry and a nail caught in the ring and took his finger off. A good reason to take it off while working.

Regards

Alan.

[Guz rating]

I remember a student wearing a wedding ring (gold-a good conductor of electricity) at Technical College who, while adjusting a dual (parallel, side by side) rheostat controlling a large electric motor, accidently bridged the two rheostats with his ring. The result was a flash, a loud BANG! and one very shaken student. The windings of both rheostats (they were of the exposed type) had melted and stripped from their former up to the point of contact with the ring.

Both the student and his ring were unharmed. But he had to calculate how much current actually flowed through his ring to make amends for damaging college equipment. I think it worked out to be about 350 amps.

He never wore his ring again for practical experiments.

Hello Bill

Your story reminds me of something I did at the beginning of the sixties, my television went wrong so I decided to see if I could fix it. I unplugged it and was checking the valves to see if one had blown, and I touched the coil with the ring, and got
such a belt. I don't think the ring was damaged but I had to go and lie down, I heard later that the power feeds back
through the coil even when the sets disconnected.

Alan.

[NSR]

I can't help with dating except to agree that the period is early in the 20th Century. The rig is that of an Acting Stoker Petty Officer. For the first year he would retain his square rig and change to fore and aft rig on confirmation of the rate. Confirmation would depend on having obtained a Boiler Room Watchkeeping Certificate.

Ken

[keblin]

I can't help with dating except to agree that the period is early in the 20th Century. The rig is that of an Acting Stoker Petty Officer. For the first year he would retain his square rig and change to fore and aft rig on confirmation of the rate. Confirmation would depend on having obtained a Boiler Room Watchkeeping Certificate.

Ken

I agree entirely, Ken.

His branch badge is, at first sight, "passed for leading stoker."
That is, a propellor; with a star above and below the prop.
He would'nt be a Stoker P/O wothout passing his fleet board. (BRWC)

However, in the Manual of Seamanship, Vol. 1., 1937, page 25; it indicates the distinguishing badges (#39) of Leading Stoker and Stoker 1st class, as being the same. i.e. One star only, and that's above the prop.
Chief Stoker and Stoker Petty Officer are also the same (#38), only a Crown above the prop.
Therefore this badge in the photo, with two stars, one above and one below the prop seems to be unusual, if the date is pre- 1937.
Maybe someone can elucidate?


Also, any engine room rating, who knowingly wore a ring on watch, or any other jewelrey, must have been insane.
There were a thousand reasons, and still are, why, for health and safety reasons, improper dress is not compatible with the safe operation of machinery.

[qprdave]

I understood the Seamen wore gloves when handling the steel wires, etc.

Gloves for seamen???

It never happened on the ships that I have been on (unless we requisitioned a pair from the Greenies)

Re Picture.

The only thing that I can think of is that he is a Leading Stoker and rated Acting Local P/O. He might have been promoted if a P.O.M.E had to leave the ship suddenly or a P.O.M.E. relief was late arriving. He would have reverted to L.M.E. as soon as the problem that gave him the rate was solved or he left the ship. Possibly for a P.O.M.E.s Course.

Dave

[Polycell]

Stoker 2nd class and an acting Petty Officer or Petty Officer depending on the year it was taken with two good conduct stripes.

Bob.No sorry he's a killick stoker passed for SPO ie A/SPO. Stoker 2nd class would have no stars above or below his branch badge Stoker 1 star above branch badge, killick stoker completed killicks course star above and below branch badge, SPO completed SPOs course crown above branch badge.
Two good conduct badges (stripe below rate badge) means he has served for 8 years and reached the age of 26 years.
I reckon the era is about 1920s , pure guess from other photos I have seen of a stoker uncle I had.

[Paddy]

No sorry he's a killick stoker passed for SPO ie A/SPO. Stoker 2nd class would have no stars above or below his branch badge Stoker 1 star above branch badge, killick stoker completed killicks course star above and below branch badge, SPO completed SPOs course crown above branch badge.
Two good conduct badges (stripe below rate badge) means he has served for 8 years and reached the age of 26 years.
I reckon the era is about 1920s , pure guess from other photos I have seen of a stoker uncle I had.

I agree with most that has gone before, my two penarth is that the cut of his jib is because he is wearing no 3s (his working rig), usually for a long service man a downgraded set of 1s to 2s to 3s, hense his shabby appearance with red badges and no lanyard.
either that or yuppy national service suit.

adding to the above, many on the troubridge posts will enlighten you (previouse post) as to what happened to the ships butcher when he decided to dispense with the steps on a downward ladder by swinging and dropping from the hatch edge, only to snag his wedding ring on a butterfly clip.
the finger flesh was shot from the bone like the insulation from a wire.
we searched for an hour but could not find it for the MO.
found it next day under the goffa machine.
Paddy.