TS Allen Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 Hello all,I was thinking about mini medals earlier after reading a long exposition on how beautiful they complemented the mess uniform of the 4th Gurkha Rifles in Bugles and a Tiger, by John Masters, an account of pre-war and WWII service with that regiment. What year were miniature medals introduced? I've seen them, occasionally as Victorian pieces but it seems that for the British Army miniature medals are largely a modern phenomenon? I know that full-size medals were never worn with mess dress, but I assume that the miniature medals that I see for early campaigns (i.e. the Mutiny) are later strikes for officers who earned the medals.Or is this another case of the American collector who likes red coats getting confused? Thanks!~TS
JBFloyd Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 I've seen miniature Waterloo Medals that seemed contemporary with the full-size issue.
paul wood Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 I've seen miniature Waterloo Medals that seemed contemporary with the full-size issue.See Morton and Eden 12 December 2008 lot 795 which clearly date prior to 1838 (Sir Neil Douglas) see wwwmortonandeden.com and follow the links.All the best,Paul
TS Allen Posted May 20, 2009 Author Posted May 20, 2009 Thanks! This is clearly just another case of the American not knowing what he's talking about. Ah well, at least I have this forum to clear this sort of stuff up for me!Now, another questions, are miniatures much in desire by collectors? I personally like them, but do they have anything like comparable desirability to their full-size counterparts as far as price is concerned?~TS
paul wood Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Thanks! This is clearly just another case of the American not knowing what he's talking about. Ah well, at least I have this forum to clear this sort of stuff up for me!Now, another questions, are miniatures much in desire by collectors? I personally like them, but do they have anything like comparable desirability to their full-size counterparts as far as price is concerned?~TSTop quality early or clearly attributed groups can make very good prices. There is a sizeable number of miniature collectors. For example a good quality attributed field officers peninsular miniature group with Waterloo, Gold medal, Peninsualr Cross and orders can make a couple of thousand pounds.The highest price I can record for a single miniature is an Order of the Crown of India which made a staggering ?1,700.Paul
Mervyn Mitton Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 The ones Paul describes are valuable and very sought after. However, we have found in recent years that more general collectors are now turning to miniatures. There are probably two reasons - prices have rocketed for good full size ones - and with mins. you can include gallantry and other rare ones to make interesting sets. Prices can rise quite steeply if mins. can be attribute to a person - the M.C. set I posted is a good example. Earlier mins. - particularly, if silver- will be worth more. A Zulu war example starts at ?50. $85.
peter monahan Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) If there are minatures clearly attributable to pre-1838, then they must go back almost as far as medals themselves, as the service medal (as opposed to wearable honours and awards) don't go back too much further than that. There are, apparently, Elizabethan naval medals from c1650 but the Waterloo Medal was Britain's first "campaign medal". That is to say, the first British medal expressly made for issue to ALL the participants of a battle or campaign.Not strictly relevant, perhaps, but the use of minatures may have been spurred at least in part by the fact that early campaign medals were typically sewndirectly to the owner's tunic. This would have been awkward for officers who owned more than one tunic and chose not to buy up the medals of others so as to have one per uniform. Which later practice, BTW, is the explanation for at least some name erased medals. I read, years ago, the details of court martial charge against a time-expired British private in the Victorian period (1870ish?) who sold his gong, only to have it "found" on the uniform of a serving NCO. Interestingly, the second owner does not appear to have been charged.My tuppence worth!Peter Edited May 21, 2009 by peter monahan
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now