Forum members
The attached pic shows a Naval group which has puzzled me for some time. At first glance, the China 1900 medal would be considered as being mounted out of sequence; however, contact marks on the edges of both the China 1900 medal and the QSA are quite consistent with them being worn in that sequence. And worn for quite a long time and polished too.
The recipient is "H.STEVENS, ORD., H.M.S. REDPOLL" (on China)
"177844 ORD: H.STEVENS, H:M:S: TERRIBLE" (on QSA)
"177844 H.STEVENS A.B/. R.N." (on trio)
H.M.S. REDPOLL was a river gunboat- supposedly on the Yangste patrol. The
Fevyer-Wilson roll shows "STEPHENS H ORD 177.844" as entitled to TH/RofL (note different spelling but number agrees) on his QSA and a "seaman Stevens" is shown in an appendix of "The Commission of H.M.S. TERRIBLE" as being a member of Lt. Drummond's 6-inch gun crew when it landed with the Naval Brigade.
An ex-RAN colleague tells me that "medals would be worn" at Divisions and at least once a month. Further, he opines that H.STEVENS would often have been quizzed as to his "out-of-sequence" wearing of medals. The only answer I can think of is that Ordinary Seaman STEVENS was awarded his China 1900 medal first and his QSA some time later. That being sufficient reason to wear them in the sequence awarded.
Has any forum member seen China/QSA medals mounted this way? Or have a better reason than mine for so wearing them.
Ian Linney

Hello Ian,
I have seen a similar group mounted for wear in the same order and as they were on old original ribbons, I would think that was how they were worn by the recipient.
When I first looked at your photo, I just thought who ever mounted them with the modern ribbon has just made an error, but if there are contact marks all over the QSA from the bronze star, then you can't really argue about how they had been worn!
Regards Frank.

Frank
Thanks for the reply. At least you have seen one other so mounted!! In the case of the Stevens group, no matter if he wore them with the obverse or the reverse showing, the "witness" marks on China and QSA clearly show his order of wearing. Must have been because the China medal issue was first, I think.
Thanks again, Ian Linney.

Hello Ian,
I am not a navy man, the group I referred to belongs to a friend and is not mine, I agree with you, the condition of the QSA should tell you in what order these were worn, much like a Egypt pair, at is the bronze star that does the damage, a close look at the recipients Seamans Statement of Service or HMS Terrible's Ships Description Book may well prove worth while here.
But either way I would not worry about it, still a good group, medals to members of Terrible's crew who served ashore in Natal are worth having whatever their condition, the third China War medal is a bonus in my opinion!
A very good honest group and well worth having, I should be very pleased with it if I were you, the QSA its self is nice but you have all the other medals too!
Regards Frank

Perhaps the "Order of Wear" of medals issued at that time had not been established, or was not rigidly enforced. I was surprised when I first learned that Jubilee and Coronation medals circa 1900 were worn ahead of campaign medals. Groups mounted in this way look 'wrong' but, in fact, it was the accepted practise.

Regards
Brett