War Terror Medal

[Tim B]

Capt Albert,

Believe me when I say you are far from the only person that hated that design. I always called it the "hand-out" medal. So many other possible scenes to depict for humanitarian relief, other than a hand.

Tim

[Chris Boonzaier]

Totally agree! The design process has went down the tubes since circa Viet Nam. You can compare just about any US service or campaign medal of the past to those made post '75 and see there is very little thought or effort that goes into these modern pieces of crap.

Here's a case in point; show me one current medal that even compares to the quality of strike or overall design to these pre-WWII medals. Shame really, considering the meaning they are supposed to hold. We could/should do better!

Tim

Tim Nails it in this post....

The first medal comes from the age of artisans... the second from the age of Industry.

Comparing the French Overseas/Colinial medal as made 30 years ago, compared to now... what a difference!

It may be that some current designs are not really that bad, but the finished product is terrible...

Maybe even the ultimate industrial age clunker , the Saudi Arabian gulf war medal, looked good on paper, and would have been fantastic if made by Deschler in 1934.... fact is, they were mad by a company that stamps out keyrings most of the time....

[Chris Boonzaier]

looking at the 2 medals originally posted...

If they had been made by one of the engravers taht made the British ca,mpaign medals 100 years ago, or like TimBs first medal, they may actually not have been bad at all... but noone does that kind of work anymore, simple fact of the industrial age.

It is also evident that the world ran out of possible colour combinations for ribbons some time ago... imagine in 15 years time, to have an unused colour combination they will have to include dayglo orange and egg shell blue...

[Chris Boonzaier]

Many of our US military medals are cheaply made. Even our Medal of Honor is not made of precious metals made by famous jewelers hanging from expensive silk. It is made of cheap materials. Why? Because acts of valor and courage speak for themselves in America.

Maybe as collectors we see it differently, but as any WW2 German collector will say, you choose between an early die struck badge and a later one made out of zink... and the Zink one looses out 99% of the time.

We are not talking about creating medals out of gold, enamle and silk made from virgin silk worms... we are talking about medals that will be issued to 500 000 men. seen that way... if you spread the cost... is it unrealistic to hope that they will pay a couple of extra bucks to have a really nice die cut? Maybe it costs USD10 000 instead of USD 5 000....

And I will bet that the difference between Nylon Ribbon and WW2 quality is about 0.25c a medal.... and using a metal and finish like my WW1 Silver stars instead of coating that covers modern medals may cost a buck or two more....

It would be interesting to know what the army pays for a medal... maybe they pay more for clunkers than it would cost if a civilian designed and had medals made by the same firm.

Anyway, as I said, Tims post 24 basically shows the difference night and day.

Anyone collecting modern German, comparing WW1 EKS to what S+L turned out in the 70s and 80s with their staybright terrible metals.... sigh...... S+L may be "quality" by todays standards... but then quality has slipped....

[Tim B]

I used to study American medals more when I was a kid and enjoyed not only the history behind the awards but, also the design and thought that went into the medal and ribbon colors.

The two medals I posted above (well, 1 1/2 actually) were good examples to use. The center and right reverses were simple designs and each carried over to several different medals. The designs were basic for the appropriate service, well executed in strike, and when viewed in hand, conveyed a sense of worth. Obviously, they were popular and go to show that you don't have to reinvent the wheel each time a new medal comes out.

The reverse (left) was originally designed by the firm of Bailey, Banks, & Biddle for the Navy & Marine Corps version of the Civil War Medal. An eagle in the center, wings spread, and resting on an anchor with a draped chain; a classic symbol of both services. Below, the simple inscription "For Service". Below that are a branch of oak on the left (symbolizing strength and lifesaving) and branch of laurel on the right (symbolizing achievement, honor, and victory), joined by a knot. In the top arc, the description reads the branch of service, in this case "United States Navy", (alternatively "United States Marine Corps"). The half blue/half gray ribbon, obvious.

This reverse design remained in effect up through 1916 and had only a few exceptions (Dewey & Sampson medals mostly).

The reverse design was eventually changed (right) for the 1916 Dominican Campaign Medal. This new design, by A.A. Weinman, shows an eagle perched on an anchor, over sprigs of laurel leaves between the words "For Service". Inscribed in the top semicircle, United States Navy (or United States Marine Corps). The ribbon is scarlet with two center blue stripes (colors were a reverse of the earlier Haitian Campaign Medal (navy blue with two red scarlet stripes in the center, which symbolized the colors of Haiti). This second reverse design remained common for Navy and Marine Corps medals up to circa 1941, and included both versions of the Expeditionary Medals. The reverse changed again during WWII but, this second reverse design was used once more on the post-WWII Navy/Marine Corps Occupation Medals.

Anyway, sometimes a simple, but classic design is the easiest to convey the message.

Like Chris, I always took pride in uniform and appreciated the more classic designs in our military symbols. I was proud of the medals I earned but, often wondered why more effort wasn't put into many modern designs and knew I wasn't the only one that often felt cheapened by the poor, toy-quality, items actually being passed out. Not to worry though, we did the same thing to most of our coinage as well.

Enjoy! Almost makes me want to get back into US awards!

Tim

Edited January 4, 2011 by Tim B

[Chris Boonzaier]

Look here to see what quality used to be.....

http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=47109&pid=434400&st=0&#entry434400

[Doc Wilson]

I have read many of the posts in this thread. I feel the need to mention my point of view. Its not what they are made of or how garish they can be at times. It is what they represent that matters most.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Doc Wilson

[Chris Boonzaier]

I have read many of the posts in this thread. I feel the need to mention my point of view. Its not what they are made of or how garish they can be at times. It is what they represent that matters most.

Hi,

I guess everyone has a personal point of view, mine is still along the lines of, if you want to give someone a "token of appreciation" (for want of a better word) its a little bit insulting to go for the cheapest contractor.

You say, "We appretiate your service enough to give you this nice medal" or " thanks guy, here is a little something from the cheapest bidder".

The recent thread on the latest German medal shows the Germans (like everyone else) are leaning to the latter.

[Tim B]

Hi guys,

Doc, I can understand your point completely and you are correct of course. But, I just don't see why they can't put a little effort into producing a better quality product, it's not really that hard.

If you look at our coinage, the designs and efforts over the last couple of decades have really went down as well, though the US Mint can/does still produce some really beautiful designs on the commemorative coins. So, IMO, it's just a matter of someone saying, we want to put out a better product. Designers, artists, sculptors all compete to get their work actually accepted for the approved design, so it's not really a lack of effort when it comes to input. It all comes down to what that someone approves in the end. They need to step up their game, that's all.

Tim

[Doc Wilson]

Tim B my only reply is maybe we may get better medals when the Joint Strike Fighter actually makes budget? Seriously... DoD needs to really straighten the budget out and fix a few other things before they work on medals.

IMHO... The US has to many awards to begin with and the subjective political nonsense that goes along with the awards process is disheartening. ... if you come up with a cool acronym at the pentagon PRESTO.... you get the Legion of Merit. From what I concluded talking to my Canadian, Dutch, and French buddies from Afghanistan it is the same for them. Looking at my own medal bar I can see about three or four that are really redundant.

I like the elegant simplicity of the Croix de Guerre or Croix de Valeur Militarie with its citation system, but that is my opinion.

Hi guys,

Doc, I can understand your point completely and you are correct of course. But, I just don't see why they can't put a little effort into producing a better quality product, it's not really that hard.

If you look at our coinage, the designs and efforts over the last couple of decades have really went down as well, though the US Mint can/does still produce some really beautiful designs on the commemorative coins. So, IMO, it's just a matter of someone saying, we want to put out a better product. Designers, artists, sculptors all compete to get their work actually accepted for the approved design, so it's not really a lack of effort when it comes to input. It all comes down to what that someone approves in the end. They need to step up their game, that's all.

Tim

[Tim B]

Well, I agree that there are some awards out there that seem pretty ridiculous and sometimes think it's all a matter of trying to recognize each and every little accomplishment or event and serve little purpose other than building up someone's "fruit salad" bar. I thought that was the reason behind general type awards such as National Defense Service Medal and expeditionary medals to begin with, but ...

Still, you can't really call major budget items into this issue, as it's really a matter of producing a better end product than a strike of little quality. It is simply a matter of producing a better master die and from there, a set of production dies to use, nothing more. The costs in that alone would be negligible as you are already putting the costs of producing "an item" anyway. Can't compare apples to oranges, and budgets are set differently throughout government contracts for various items. At one time I routinely managed multi-million dollar service/repair contracts and later, budgets that were only a tenth of that. All depends on who's pocket it comes out of.

Tim

[speagle]

One thing I have seen in recent years are the "Challenge Coins". These are presented by commanders/senior NCOs to individuals and/or entire units in a gesture of appreciation instead of a medal. Many military members express appreciation for receiving them, but also point out that they are NOT worth any points on a promotion board.

This particular coin is from the Commander, 20th Air Force and is actually a bottle cap opener

Ed