Private Anthony Lutz, Minorca Regiment, carrying the captured “Invincible” standard of the French 21st Demi-Brigade.For this feat, Lutz was given the honor of wearing a representation of the standard on the left breast of his jacket.
Some controversy surrounds Lutz’s capture of the standard. During the Battle of Alexandria on 21st March, 1801, the 42nd Highland regiment repulsed the 21st Demi-Brigade’s attack on the British position. In the process, a certain Major Stirling the Brigade’s ‘Invincible’ standard. Stirling then entrusted the care of the trophy to a Sergeant Sinclair. However, during its advance, the 42nd was counterattacked by French Cavalry, and forced to retire. The standard was then apparently retaken by the French before being captured again by Private Lutz.
Lutz was given official recognition as the sole capture of the standard. This greatly incensed the 42nd, who asserted that they had been unjustly deprived of the honor. Their cause was taken up by the Radical Pamphleteer (and former ranker) William Cobbet. Cobbet asserted that the standard had been retrieved by ‘a soldier of General Stuart’s foreign corps’, and taken from Sinclair whilst the sergeant was incapacitated by blow from a French cavalry sabre (saved, indeed by his neck cloth and his thick hair worn clubbed).
However, in an inquiry on the 28th of August, 1802, Lutz’s fellow soldiers Corporal Schmid and Private Wohlwend both claimed that they had seen the standard in the possession of the enemy, and that Lutz had courageously seized the standard.

Private Anthony Lutz, Minorca Regiment, carrying the captured “Invincible” standard of the French 21st Demi-Brigade.For this feat, Lutz was given the honor of wearing a representation of the standard on the left breast of his jacket.

Some controversy surrounds Lutz’s capture of the standard. During the Battle of Alexandria on 21st March, 1801, the 42nd Highland regiment repulsed the 21st Demi-Brigade’s attack on the British position. In the process, a certain Major Stirling the Brigade’s ‘Invincible’ standard. Stirling then entrusted the care of the trophy to a Sergeant Sinclair. However, during its advance, the 42nd was counterattacked by French Cavalry, and forced to retire. The standard was then apparently retaken by the French before being captured again by Private Lutz.

Lutz was given official recognition as the sole capture of the standard. This greatly incensed the 42nd, who asserted that they had been unjustly deprived of the honor. Their cause was taken up by the Radical Pamphleteer (and former ranker) William Cobbet. Cobbet asserted that the standard had been retrieved by ‘a soldier of General Stuart’s foreign corps’, and taken from Sinclair whilst the sergeant was incapacitated by blow from a French cavalry sabre (saved, indeed by his neck cloth and his thick hair worn clubbed).

However, in an inquiry on the 28th of August, 1802, Lutz’s fellow soldiers Corporal Schmid and Private Wohlwend both claimed that they had seen the standard in the possession of the enemy, and that Lutz had courageously seized the standard.

Light Co. NCO, 10th Regiment of Foot in full dress, 1810. 
This charming, if somewhat naive, watercolor shows some interesting uniform details. This soldier’s jacket appears to have only eight lace loops (in pairs). There are no apparent buttons (possibly a mistake on the part of the artist- Though their absence could indicate the jacket is closed via hooks and eyes), nor rank insignia. These notable omissions might indicate an imprecise observer, rather than a non-regulation uniform. 
However, the painting does capture the close fit of the coat, as well as certain prominent features- Namely, the large worsted ‘wings’ on his shoulders and the equally large tuft on his shako.

Light Co. NCO, 10th Regiment of Foot in full dress, 1810.

This charming, if somewhat naive, watercolor shows some interesting uniform details. This soldier’s jacket appears to have only eight lace loops (in pairs). There are no apparent buttons (possibly a mistake on the part of the artist- Though their absence could indicate the jacket is closed via hooks and eyes), nor rank insignia. These notable omissions might indicate an imprecise observer, rather than a non-regulation uniform.

However, the painting does capture the close fit of the coat, as well as certain prominent features- Namely, the large worsted ‘wings’ on his shoulders and the equally large tuft on his shako.