I am not sure if this sort of thread is allowed but I feel the need to highlight this "Chindit" item being offered for sale on a well known auction site. The claim made for it is as follows: "Original Named British ww2 Far East Asia chindits Burma medal and army book". It is an AB64 and an unrelated Burma Star offered as being a Chindit related item. It has no relation to either Chindit expedition and here, very simply, is why. The soldier enlisted into the R.E.M.E. on 21st January 1943 and was discharged as physically unfit on the 28th September 1943. At the moment the bidding has reached £17 which is not bad for a Pay Book and a Burma Star, but it has no Chindit connection whatsoever. It seems quite a common practice to add the "C" word when selling Burma related items but this one stands out for its blatant failure to understand the dates of the two Chindit operations.
Not surprisingly I had noticed this one, when I saw the campaigns as blank I wrote it off as not for me. I've seen a fair few Far East books listed as Chindit and in the main I take it as ignorance rather than underhanded - a lot of the paybooks that get listed are sold by people selling a relatives bits or who have found it clearing out a house or have picked it up at a car boot sale etc so militaria isn't their thing and occasionally groups get mixed in a family and end up a jumble of items from different relatives. On this one the seller seems to only sell militaria so should have at least a general knowledge - going by the name I'm not sure if they are an offshoot of the widely discussed Von Gold which would add another dimension to the listing and wording. As well as Far East = Chindits, I have also seen SAS (Small Arms School) notes being interpreted as Special Air Service & "Para" entries as in Paragraph being sold as Parachute regiment. With all these things its buyer beware (although that shouldn't give sellers free reign to deceive, chance their arm or generally make it difficult)
This particular seller does have an unsavoury reputation for making outrageous claims about the items that he sells. In this particular case, the dates of the soldier's enlistment and discharge make it impossible for him to have served on either expedition. Others sellers seem to think that only the Chindits wore slouch hats, and that therefore any soldier wearing a slouch hat must be a Chindit. This is often due to their lack of knowledge rather than to any attempt to deceive. There are some gems to be had out there but you have to know your onions.
Surely only Australians wore slouch hats - only joking but a very frequent comment when I wore jungle kit at Regiment Day displays at Carlisle castle - OOooo look at the Australian - trying to be diplomatic when some adult is telling their kids absolute bollocks about what is on display can be challenging (just to add I have heard reenactors who are miles out describing their displays too)
On line sales of anything to do with the Burma campaign seem to throw the C word into the description of the item as a matter of course. Very frustrating and as you say, somewhat underhand.
It really is a case of 'Buyer Beware'. Best to proceed on the basis that almost everything on ebay is fake, forged, manipulated or repro. Some vendors have particularly bad reputations, including this guy. Most cloth badges look dodgy to me, most metal badges are restrikes, most helmets are re-paint jobs, etc, etc. Undoubtedly I have items in my collection that are fakes; if I never know it can't worry me and if I subsequently find out - well, at least I have learned something. The overuse of the term 'Chindit' is a different problem, and one that, if you'll forgive me, we might be guilty of too. Everything is Chindit-this and Chindit-that, as if they were an overwhelmingly significant and decisive element of the war in Burma. They weren't. Maybe it is time for a bit more balance. The Chindits were largely British, in a war that was mainly fought by Indian and African divisions and of course they have the cachet of 'Special Forces', even though they really weren't in the modern sense of the phrase. But it is what people think they know. For example over on FB people have said Captain Tom might have been a Chindit because he was in the DWR. It could have been worse - they might have thought he was an Australian.
Funny enough, away from this forum, the first thing I was asked, was whether Captain Tom might have been a Chindit.
It's not just eBay et al who suffer from 'acquired knowledge', it's just about everything else as well to a degree. I was at Arromanches last June during the commemorations overlooking the Mulberry Harbour aka Port Winston when a stereotypically loud mouthed Yank proudly announced to his family that the Mulberry Harbours were designed, fabricated and installed by the American Corps of Engineers on D Day. A British Veteran was present - 'had a word' - could have heard a pin drop. Problem is that if lies are repeated often enough it becomes the truth.
