Tim B

Hi Darrell, No, I am meaning to pick up the expanded edition of Call of Duty anytime. It looks very good and I actually had a copy of US Navy & Marine Corps Campaign & Commemorative Medals coming, then was told it was OOS but I should be getting a copy of that as soon as it comes in. I agree, this style brooch/catch is legit on service and campaign medals of the period, but there appears to be a consensus in certain circles that feel this style is NOT legit for decorations like the Silver Star or DSC. So...again, I would like to hear facts here with a reference called out. Does Call of Duty show these versions being legit for decorations, or do they spell out re-ribboned items? Tim The other book; anyone have it and if so, how good is it?

Yes, always nice to see new blood here! This thread is extensive and, dare I say it, almost too long and diverse. You can search countless pages to find that "one something" you're actually looking for. I wonder if we would have enough support at this point to separate WW1 Victory Medals into it's own sub-forum? It would certainly make it easier to separate issues like clasps and medal variations, perhaps by country. We could expand it from there. General concensus? Tim

And here's a numbered DSC with the same concern.

What about this one? I thought perhaps it was a case of different manufacturers/contracts, but have been told no. It indicates a re-ribboned medal. Okay, who, why, when? How do we explain the Air Medal? I have also seen Legion of Merits and even a DSC that had this type clasp and no one said anything bad about those when discussed. So, are these legit or is there more infomation here? Thanks! Tim

And, a slotted-brooch version (later WWII/Korea/?), Again, accepted as correct.

Then we see a Full-wrap version, attributed to the US Mint by the style of brooch (probably WWII era). Again, accepted as correct.

Using some PIC's that I saved for file references, here's a case in point: First up, is an early (probably circa post-WW1 - 1930's) Silver Star. It has the split-wrap brooch. Everything is correct IMO.

Hii guys, I am getting conflicting information pertaining to the style of full-wrap brooches being used on older US Decorations. I am aware that some of the earliest medals/decorations would have a split-wrap brooch and then there are full-wrap brooches that have the same rotating knob/ball type catch identified as US MInt production. I am also aware of the other style full wrap that we see on olde service/campaign medals like the WW1 Victory Medal with a different style rotating catch. PIC attached shows: Top: brooch in question Center: Split-wrap style Bottom: US Mint style Full-wrap style My question pertains to the style shown on top. I have been told that you should not see this type brooch on decorations like the DSC, Silver Star, etc., and often indicates a medal that has been re-ribboned, probably from a slot-brooch style medal. However, it is often seen and considered correct, for medals like the Air Medal. So, what's the truth here and is there an actual reference? Thanks, Tim

Thought I would post a recent pick-up. It's truely a beautiful decoration and you don't see these early examples with the wrap brooch too often anymore. Enjoy! Tim :beer:

In December 1916, the swords device was introduced for decorations awarded for frontline service. Tim

And again, another Art Metal Works clasp. Enjoy, it's all I have for now. Tim

And an Armed Guard example:

Looks a bit coppery in the PIC's but is lighter than the previous one.

Another Navy one; Atlantic Fleet with the Art Metal Works type clasp.

A close-up of the clasp. You can see the Reddish Copper color and the narrow silver backstrap. It also has the correct number of rope segments. According to Laslo, after all the production numbers evened out, about 7500 of these clasps were produced by Fulford. Tim

Here's a nice Navy Grand Fleet with a Fulford IIa type clasp. :love:

The 33rd or 80th Div.

One that matches up to either the 27th or 30th Div.

Been somewhat quiet lately so thought I would post some recent and somewhat recent additions. Here's a 32nd Div piece, though it could also have been someone in the 28th that came in after the Champagne-Marne campaign. Tim

Rob, I may get a clue to pass on to you in a couple of days. I have another collector making me copies of the applicable pages out of a 1930's era Studley catalog. Studley's refer to the medals sold by George Studley to veterans. He was a retired Navy man whose business was selling insignia and medals to veteran's starting in the 30's. Studley had a catalog as late as 1939. The Studley catalogs didn't give prices for full-sized decorations but on request he would quote everything up to the MOH. However, the guy was in the business a long time and knew the suppliers, so it's likely that a lot of what he sold was from the same people supplying the government and indistinguishable from issue pieces. What I understand, he did business into the 60's. Initially he bought unnumbered planchets from companies who made the medals for the US government. Real studley medals are very nice pieces with good detail, reasonable quality and were bought and worn by real veterans. The planchet is usually thicker than government issue. The term Studley has been applied to all manner of reproductions, generally the thick crude repros with the coppery finish you find at shows. Some of these have been remounted with wrap brooches and attempts have been made to stamp numbers on the rim. George Studley obtained most of his medals from J.K. Davison Co. and apparently from other (official) government medal supplies with permission from the Feds. He also had struck the Medal of Honor as he could not obtain these and he had campaign bars for the WWI Victory Medal that were never actually made. Some consider him a part of American Medallic history, as no other individual was sanctioned to sell federal medals. Unfortunatley the word "studley" has been used by many to mean any reproduction or fake US decoration. Tim

Hi Rob, First, I don't think you're going to find any original Navy Department General Orders (N.D.G.O.'s) of that period. I'm not sure if the Navy even have these anymore, though you would think so, buried somewhere in Washington D.C. The same can be said of the original ALL Navy (ALNAV) messages that would have the same information. With that said, you can try the old monthly "Bureau of Naval Personnel Information Bulletins", later renamed "All Hands Bulletins" to get some of the information, though they don't go back past August 1922. Here's a link: http://www.navy.mil/...ds.asp?x=search It also leads to other areas if you go back to it's homepage. Unfortunately, the monthly ALNAV's are not called out specifically until early 1944. If you check out the March 1943 issue (pg 41), it lists the then current list of medals and discusses the WW1 Victory Medal. It calls out a "change 13, part A, Chapter 1, of the Bureau of Naval Personnel (BUPERS) Manual of 1925" that designates what clasps and what each ship, between the limiting dates, qualified for. You might have a better chance of locating the BUPERS Manual, or at least that portion of it, than any ALNAV or N.D.G.O. at this point. There are also old Navy Decoration Board (NDB) documents as well, but again, most of these have either been destroyed as they became superceded over time or have not been converted to online files as of yet. IMO, the BUPERS Manual would give the most concise information as that was the ruling regulation. Another link that could lead somewhere and you might be able to email questions to: https://awards.navy....tm?OpenDocument You can use the document library to see old information but again, most of it only goes back to WW2. Hope that helps some. Oh, on a side note; you need to contact Mike. He forgot about a couple of vic's and listed at least that one with the (AISNE) clasp by mistake. I had him pull it this morning and hold for you again, but please follow-up with him on those other items as well. Hopefully my haul arrives today or tomorrow. Regards, Tim I meant to add this link to BUPERS, though I don't see any old references listed. You could ask if a file still exists: http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/Instructions/BUPERSInstructions/Pages/default.aspx

For ease of reader's comparison, here's an original compared to one of these "other" versions. You can see the die differences. I might add that the details are a bit softer and I think the case of the lettering appearing different, might be just "fill" in the areas surrounding those letters in question, making them appear slightly different due to lighting. Dirty or cheaper die? Still, the spacing and orientation is clearly different between the two examples. Thanks for pointing that out as it's another point to look for when shopping for a Cuban Vic. Tim

Jim, Yes, an interesting observation. I have never noticed the slight differences here and checking my file PIC's have seen other examples similar to the one Herman has shown. Interesting that Laslo does not mention this type in his reference, though I suspect he either didn't know of this version or it came out after his reference. Based on the condition of the examples shown however, I suspect they are period and Laslo was not aware of these variations at time of his work. Tim Here's another one:

Hello Herman, Welcome to the thread and nice to see a couple new members adding to the thread! You Cuban example looks quite nice and correct in my opinion, congrats! I still need to add one to my own collection one day. Tim

Hi Rich, PM sent. Tim