Medals and awards

White metal medals (gilt or silver-frosted)

 

 

To date (Jan 2022), no report of a presentation has been found.

 

 

Obverse with double portrait of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra: "KING EDWARD VII / QUEEN ALEXANDRA / JUNE 26 / 1902 / [signed] SALE".

Reverse with the civic arms of Birmingham: "IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE OF SERVICE NOBLY DONE / BIRMINGHAM / SOUTH AFRICA" / [signed] SALE".

Suspension bar: "1899 [crown] 1902".

Ribbon: "ER".

 

The dies used for the obverse were those utilised by H.B. Sale & Co. for their Coronation medals. Due to the last-minute postponement of the Coronation these dies had to be altered/re-cut and the date erased before a second issue was minted. The June 26 1902 date on the Brirmingham medal suggests a pre-postponement mintage, and, perhaps, an intended distribution on Coronation Day.

 

The City Council passed a resolution on 4th June 1901 thanking the volunteers for their self-sacrifice, and agreed to forward signed copies of the said resolution to all volunteers who had left for the front from the City of Birmingham. IMPORTANTLY, HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO PROPOSAL FOR A DISTRIBUTION OF MEDALS.

An extant example of the resolution includes a cut-out in the shape of a medal (though not of the size or form of the medal above). Hibbard suggests that this might have been a paper representation of the Birmingham tribute, but this seems highly unlikely as the medals were conceived over a year after the passing of the resolution. See Hibbard, p. 16.

 

As things stand, I have been unable to find any source that identifies the issuer of these medals. It seems odd that the City Council meeting approving the presentation of copies of the resolution is well covered in the press, whereas no report has (as yet) come to light regarding a distribution of medals. Contrast this with the plethora of newspaper articles covering the distribution of children's medals on Coronation Day, detailing their cost, the number purchased, etc., etc. This seems to cast doubt on the assumption that the City Council was the issuing authority. Smethwick has suggested that the medals may have been sold as souvenirs by the makers, H.B. Sale & Co., allowing them to cash in on the celebrations associated with the Coronation and the ending of the war.

 
Today (26 Jun 2022) no fewer than four examples are available to purchase online. The number encountered suggests a very large mintage, and further supports the theory that these were commercial souvenirs rather than medals commissioned by Birmingham City Council for presentation to returned active servicemen. 

Taking the above into account, I lean towards the idea that these were commercial souvenirs and not "tribute medals" as defined by Hibbard's criteria:

i) a tribute medal must be clearly identifiable by the name of the town, borough, county, regiment or other official issuing body.
ii) there must be evidence, preferably in the form of an inscription on the medal, to indicate it was presented by the issuing authority.
iii) the medal should be inscribed with the name of the recipient although this must not be regarded as an absolute requirement.

The Birmingham medal fails to meet criteria ii and iii. Despite this, Hibbard did accept it as a tribute medal and included it in his book as Medal #A4 (Scarce; 11 to 25 examples known).

 

Contradicting the above, a small number of groups have been seen that include the Birmingham medal. For instance, City Coins sold a 2-clasp QSA to 6363 Private W. RUSSELL, 6th Bn. Royal Warwickshire Regiment, together with the Birmingham medal (Lot 140, 27/11/2009). And Noonan's sold a framed group to 3377 Private Henry Alfred BARTLETT, Royal Welsh Fusiliers (Reservist), which again included the Birmingham medal (17/05/2016 & 18/01/2023).

 

 

 

Forum - Birmingham Tribute Medal (includes discussion regarding the nature of this medal - was it a souvenir or tribute medal?)

 

 

__________________________________

 

 

 

Birmingham Daily Mail, 4th June 1901

 

More agreeable was the next duty which devolved upon his lordship [the Lord Mayor] – to move a resolution recording the appreciation of the Council of the self-sacrificing spirit in which all ranks of the Service Company of the Volunteers of the city and county volunteered for service in South Africa, and of the manner in which they maintained the good name of Birmingham in the campaign. So moderately was the motion worded that the Lord Mayor anticipated its unanimous approval by the Council. It followed, he claimed, quite naturally after the welcome he, in his official capacity, had already addressed to the Volunteers on behalf of his fellow-citizens. The men had freely offered their services in a spirit of patriotic self-sacrifice, and the Lord Mayor felt they were bound publicly to recognise this in a definite manner. Each officer and man would receive a signed copy of the resolution.

Alderman Beale, in seconding, remarked that whatever view they might take of the circumstances of the last two or three years, it must be admitted that the war had been characterised by a higher class of conduct on the part of the troops than on any occasion previously.