|
Peter Ewart
| Joined: 31 Aug 2005 |
| Posts: 1797 |
| Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England. |
|
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:50 pm |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Coll
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself as clear as I should have done. What I meant to say was that I agree with you that the chap sitting centre-right in the group photo of B Coy on p72 of Barthorp (immediately behind the lounging soldier whose boot sole faces the camera) bears a very striking resemblance to the portrait of Hook on the facing page (73) - shape of head, hairstyle, moustache etc. I also agree that it appears there may be something on his chest which is absent from his comrades' chests.
I also agree that in this immediate post-war photo Hook may well have worn his VC, as I believe it had already been presented to him. However, as it was bronze, and the object or mark appearing on his tunic appears light-coloured or white, I had wondered if the bronze would have shown up quite so brightly as it appears to do in the photo, bronze being dull - and so I wondered if it might not, after all, be the VC? A campaign medal would have shown up much more brightly than the VC as it wasn't bronze, but he didn't have that yet.
Looking at the VCs in the portraits on p73, they do show up as light against dark in black & white studio photos (& so perhaps would, after all, show up in sunlight) but, there again, a bright flash was no doubt used for these portraits, as you say. In the same (or opposite) way, b&w photos often show blond people as apparently dark haired. I think there's a very good chance it is Hook (surely there must be other versions of this snap published with a few identified men?) and agree there does seem to be something on his chest - if not a photographic blemish - but is it shining a bit more than a VC would? Also, if it was his VC, and provided what is showing up is the bronze & not the ribbon, then he is wearing it much higher on his chest than he does in the studio portrait.
Peter
|
