Belgian dog-tag of the year 1964

Haydamaka wrote:Mike, I found on http://paracdo1968.skynetblogs.be/archive/2009/11/16/ma-plaque-d-identification-militaire.html
the pic of the belgian dog-tag with convex type of inscription instead of usual bulged-in inscriptions....

Or this is just an optical illusion and the inscriptions are just bulged-in...

No Idea, looks most odd, but the break off slots, and the chain holes look all wrong too. Looks to me like the image has been processed in some way.

Antarmike wrote:

No Idea, looks most odd, but the break off slots, and the chain holes look all wrong too.

Mike, I see on the pics, that the earlier Belgian dog-tags (of the 1950s) have several smaller slots for braking, while later ones (1960-s...) yfvt just two slots, but longer.

On https://www.2ememain.be I found pics for comparison, and the dog-tags, that bear the data correction marks:

Wolverine wrote:Nice tag - here is an earlier style, worn as a bracelet, and never marked in this case.

Wolverine,

At a first glance the older Belgian bracelet-type tags look very similar the French ones, but one can see the difference in shape and the French ones have one more hole in the plate.

Haydamaka wrote:

Antarmike wrote:

No Idea, looks most odd, but the break off slots, and the chain holes look all wrong too.

Mike, I see on the pics, that the earlier Belgian dog-tags (of the 1950s) have several smaller slots for braking, while later ones (1960-s...) yfvt just two slots, but longer.

On https://www.2ememain.be I found pics for comparison, and the dog-tags, that bear the data correction marks:

Maybe re-enlisted after conscription and was given a new service number perhaps?

The year of conscription 1950 was changed to 1955.
After 5 years of service...?

Haydamaka wrote:The year of conscription 1950 was changed to 1955.
After 5 years of service...?

2 years of service and a three year post graduate degree course, then join the regular army again... It is highly unlikely someone stamped the wrong year and service number on by mistake, clearly the dog tag has been reused for the same person, but with a different induction date and Service number.

or 2 years national service, three years in a crap job / no job available, and then the decision that maybe the Army is a better option than what I have been doing these last three years????

This makes sense, Mike, I'd rather agree with your arguments!

A similar narrative may apply in this case - two sets of tags for the same man, but with different induction dates (1960/1963) and service numbers.

Note the differences in tag design.

Thanks for posting Andrew, this subject gets more interesting all the time......

I don't have enough tags to form anything like a statistically significant sample, but the ones with five slots seem to show earlier dates than the ones with two slots, although in Lemense's case, the reverise is true.

Thank you, guys, for your comments and photos!

Another finding (dated February 1977) in old uniform pockets is shown below, I decided to post it here, and not to create an additional new topic.

toegangskaart voor soldijtrekkenden
troepen huishouding
i.e.
admission ticket for the recruited
  troops housekeeping

Nothing unusual here exept possibble the I and the J satmp do not match the rest of the punches used?

Thanks!

Perhaps, the plates were used from the stocks available at the moment on the place.

In such a way, sometimes newer markings could be made on older type steel plates.

Haydamaka wrote:Thanks!

Perhaps, the plates were used from the stocks available at the moment on the place.

In such a way, sometimes newer markings could be made on older type steel plates.

It looks like two individual letter punches,,, The I and the J were damaged becaise the I and The J stamped do not match the other letters. They are very slightly larger and seem sharper so they punch deeper into the metal.