Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Sherwood Foresters (Notts and Derby)


mikebriggs

Recommended Posts

How about 68** numbers?? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about 68** numbers?? :lol:

Anthony - check your e-mail!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't do those in green do you?

Suppose me medal is in the post :D

THANK YOU

Anything you want!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest geoff501
Thank you from me also :D

stevem

A virtual medal, Thanks! will look good next to my Disgraceful Conduct Medal.

Patina, unpolished, just as I like them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff

Absolutely outstanding ! :D

I'm lost for words :blink:

Many thanks

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff,

May i add a MASSIVE THANK YOU aswell!!

Absolutely stunning!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking further on what Andrew posted re: Cliff's dad in the 1/7th, 9th etc

Here is an update on the 7**** numbers in that I've added dates for the men's transfers

post-4619-1177012426.jpg

Now what we really need is more dates of transfers to tie down when these numbers were issued

You can find these on Army Form B103 or "Statement of Service", which are found in the Army Pension Records.

So if you come accross these numbers for Notts and Derby men, please see if this information is there ;)

cheers

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Geoff, thank you. :rolleyes:

You are going to have to attend the next East Midlands meet, just so that we can all fall to the floor in front of you and worship. We might even buy you a drink*.

This is brilliant. Some time soon, when I have a little time, I'm going to have to try to figure out how I / we (the SF mob) can merge all this data into something 'big'. Right now I'm feeling a tad overwhelmed.

(* a small one - we're tight)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bother - i was just about to start that !!!! ;)

Well done that man.

I have a number of the headstones, mainly 9th men but a few others as well.

9th men - all in Belgium. Sebourg area, mazingarbe, Loos. Hopefully finish Somme in August. Then just the coastal ones, gallipoli and some oddd cemeteries in France to do.

Treat yourself to half a shandy and I will let you have the money after I have made my first million as an author (be lucky if I break even)

stevem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest geoff501
Bother - i was just about to start that !!!! ;)

Well done that man.

I blame Alan Turing.

Treat yourself to half a shandy and I will let you have the money after I have made my first million as an author (be lucky if I break even)

He's right, you are tight. No signed first edition copy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I blame Alan Turing.

He's right, you are tight. No signed first edition copy?

For a large price i will sign it in blood :blink: I have to pay for the Rolls Royce my wife ordered.

I want to join Skindles but cannot afford to by everyone a drink :( being a War Pensioner ( violin music begins)

stevem (hard up Chelsea out pensioner, spinster of this parish)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest geoff501
This is brilliant. Some time soon, when I have a little time, I'm going to have to try to figure out how I / we (the SF mob) can merge all this data into something 'big'. Right now I'm feeling a tad overwhelmed.

I've run a check of this data against my previous MIC data. Actually I stopped it at around 2000 record. It seems that about 4% either don't have MIC entries (matching name and number) or have errors. Manually checking the first 10 of the missing entries, four had wrong numbers (this is errors in the MIC indexing, one digit wrong or missing) and 6 I could not find a MIC at all. Tried searching for the numbers to see if it pulled up a badly transcribed name but found none. All were oversea deaths. All were OK in SDGW. If you want a full list of the mismatched records - there'll be around 400-500 :( ....if I run it to the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...If you want a full list of the mismatched records - there'll be around 400-500....

Geoff, do you really need to ask? Have you not already figured that we SF folk are grasping types?

On a serious note though, some of us have discussed how best to deal with all this data that you have so marvellously supplied without, it has to be said, coming up with much of an answer. I've not been a great help as I've been a bit bogged down with work over the last few weeks and I know Mike is the same.

We've now got the massive MIC data-set and the massive CWGC data-set. And some of us have got our own databases too. How do we merge them? What do we do now? :unsure:

Chaps, I feel that this summer's meet should have an agenda that is slightly more detailed than i) curry ii) pub iii) er...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaps, I feel that this summer's meet should have an agenda that is slightly more detailed than i) curry ii) pub iii) er...

I agree. Although not a Forester aficionado (but a regimental numbering saddo), I would like to hear a bit more about the numbering system, how it was used, how you have all went about researching it and also it would be good to tease out from Geoff the technical know-how of extracting this type of data to set up a web site with links.

Stuart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest geoff501
there'll be around 400-500 :( ....if I run it to the end.

Actually 630. Although quite a number are home deaths, presumably no MIC, which bumped up the total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've run a check of this data against my previous MIC data. Actually I stopped it at around 2000 record. It seems that about 4% either don't have MIC entries (matching name and number) or have errors. Manually checking the first 10 of the missing entries, four had wrong numbers (this is errors in the MIC indexing, one digit wrong or missing) and 6 I could not find a MIC at all. Tried searching for the numbers to see if it pulled up a badly transcribed name but found none. All were oversea deaths. All were OK in SDGW. If you want a full list of the mismatched records - there'll be around 400-500 :( ....if I run it to the end.

Geoff great stuff - many thanks (I'll have to go away more often it this is what awaits my return :) )

Regarding missing MICs - all I can add is that 4% doesn't surpise me. In compiling a list of 6/Foresters I have about 40 men whom I can't find an MIC for, but I know they served in France because they were either wounded (and this is recorded) or arived in specific drafts (that were also recorded)............they must have just be lost over time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest geoff501
Regarding missing MICs - all I can add is that 4% doesn't surpise me. In compiling a list of 6/Foresters I have about 40 men whom I can't find an MIC for, but I know they served in France because they were either wounded (and this is recorded) or arived in specific drafts (that were also recorded)............they must have just be lost over time

I think around 2% are missing and 2% have indexing errors.

More issues, there seem to be quite a few duplicate regiment numbers, index errors? or do these belong to different battalions? - a few examples:

Adams 1561

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documen...p;resultcount=2

Peach 1561

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documen...p;resultcount=2

Diggle 4952

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documen...p;resultcount=1

Giles 4952

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documen...p;resultcount=2

I'v also noted several hundred (not sure yet, could be 200 - 400) instances where the name has a different spelling. Checking a random sample of 20 of these against SDGW, 7 are in agreement with MIC and 13 with CWGC.

examples: REDFERN, REDFEARN; KIRBY, KIRKBY; CANNON, GANNON; HOLLINGSWORTH, HOLLINGWORTH; COTTEE, COTTIE...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew,

Have you considered sharing your info with the Sherwood Foresters Musuem so they can add it to thier data base, the aim of which is to hold the details of as many sherwood foresters as possible. The Museum Data base currently runs in excess of 8000 names and varying details.

regards

Mark

Geoff, do you really need to ask? Have you not already figured that we SF folk are grasping types?

On a serious note though, some of us have discussed how best to deal with all this data that you have so marvellously supplied without, it has to be said, coming up with much of an answer. I've not been a great help as I've been a bit bogged down with work over the last few weeks and I know Mike is the same.

We've now got the massive MIC data-set and the massive CWGC data-set. And some of us have got our own databases too. How do we merge them? What do we do now? :unsure:

Chaps, I feel that this summer's meet should have an agenda that is slightly more detailed than i) curry ii) pub iii) er...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you considered sharing your info with the Sherwood Foresters Musuem so they can add it to thier data base, the aim of which is to hold the details of as many sherwood foresters as possible. The Museum Data base currently runs in excess of 8000 names and varying details.

Mark,

Several of us have (behind the scenes) been discussing ways forward for a little while. 'Our' collective database significantly exceeds that of the museum.

I, for one, have no desire to horde information jealously and I am sure that as part of our action plan, whenever this gets formulated, the museum will play an important role on both a give and take basis. Some of us have already benefitted from and contributed to their existing database.

Our problem for now is to find a way of merging our data and creating coherence.

It's a bit like juggling jelly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More issues, there seem to be quite a few duplicate regiment numbers, index errors? or do these belong to different battalions? - a few examples:

Geoff, more than likely they will be the different Battalions of the Territorial Force - 1/5, 1/6. 1/7, 1/8 and then the 2nd and 3rd line Battalions. Potential you could have four sets of numbers running up to about 5600, although quite a few of these men would have left the TF prior to 1914 or not served overseas so there will be gaps.

cheers

Mike

Andrew - I agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...