1930 Enlisted service cover & collars

[Bob Hudson]

Picked up these today from the same place. One of the large enlisted EGA's and the large officer's EGA came from some very, very nasty old caps that went straight to the trash (and based on the growth on them, probably should have gone to a hazmat site.)

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob Hudson]

 

 

[IMPERIAL QUEST]

I know almost nothing about these (but I am wanting to learn as I see these all the time at shows). Am I correct in saying that the examples with the "dropped" wings are pre-WWII period?

[Bob Hudson]

Those droopy wing EGA's date from the late 20's, very early 30's. They are sometimes called "China Marine" EGA's because of their supposed popularity among Marines serving in pre-Olympics China. Some Marines hated them - but they are nice collectibles and the "large ones" (the size for visor caps) can sell for hundreds of dollars (if one ever actually comes up for sale).

[doyler]

Steven,

You are correct.These are an earlier pattern.Pre war and some call them China marine EGAs,as I have been told these were often seen worn in the 30s by Marines in China.

 

RON

[Bob Hudson]

By the way, these two are a style introduced in about 1930.

 

And as for the small droopy wing EGA's: it just occurred to me this is the first time I've come across any for the service uniform: before it has always been the brass-toned ones for the dress uniform.

[Bob Hudson]

I know almost nothing about these (but I am wanting to learn as I see these all the time at shows). Am I correct in saying that the examples with the "dropped" wings are pre-WWII period?

 

Almost forgot: we have an EGA reference section which has some nice examples of many types of EGA's: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...p?showforum=390

 

Probably no other piece of US military metal insignia went through so many permutations until they stabilized the designs in about 1955 (the first eagle, globe and anchor design was approved in 1868).

[Bob Hudson]

 

I almost missed the hallmark on this one: it's a Hilborn Hamburger H&H 1937 pattern. I had to use a loupe to see the logo (in the area circled in red in the photo below) and for those who don't know the H&H mark, I overlaid one from another piece:

 

[teufelhunde.ret]

Steve, these "gooneys" or "drooped wing" or "China Marine" are undoubtley the most popular amoung today's EGA collectors. An so widely misunderstood, as to the actual circumstances of introduction for Officer's then enlisted, the mis-information is simply amazing.

 

In December 1926 General Lejune approved the adoption of a new emblem for use on all uniforms of Officer and enlisted. "To be obligatory on July 1927 for winter service and January 1928 for summer service" - for Officer's". These became known as the "droopy wing" series and not all were happy with this emblems character, as it has been said many Marines continued to where those previously prescribed. While those newly minted officers entering the Corps were making private purchase of these outfitter emblems or jeweler made.

 

In 1929 additional uniform reg's were prepared; issued in 1930, this is the first directive for adoption of the "droopy wing" variety on enlisted uniforms and thus began actual service issue of these. At this point, I believe no one has uncovered who was the maker of these under the procument contract for the issue emblems for the service dress uniform. And I'm of the thought, there was never a contract for issue emblems for the dress blues... as I believe those were of private purchase, again my 2 cents.

 

The photo's depicted here show two of the unique varieties that can be found in this series for enlisted emblems. One is with wing touching the anchor, the other with the wing of the anchor. I cannot tell from the front photo's... one appears to be of English origin's. Typical of English emblems the details are superb on all facets of these examples. I have seen these with a H&H hallmark, Made in England and Pasquale marks, that said its not to say there are not other hallmarks out there waiting to be discovered. We can presume those with the made in england were made by Firman or JR Gaunt. I think there is outside possibly of NS Meyer as the manufacture of some of these, and thus others cannot eliminated until further research surfaces or is done.

[Bob Hudson]

As always, thanks for the details. I cannot begin to describe what a thrill it was to come across five of these at one time, strewn across the surface of a dusty workbench in a carport.

 

I will take some photos of the backs later today. There are no hallmarks on these. I'm still trying to decide if these are mates, with one having been rubbed a lot:

 

[Kurt Barickman]

Great find Bob and thanks for sharing. I too would be very thrilled to find them in a dusty carport

 

Kurt Barickman

[Bob Hudson]

They were mixed in with some clutchback Korean era EGA's but these were all I wanted. I already had a nice pair of the dress uniform droop wings in my collection so I'll keep that matched pair of service uniform goonies to complement the dress pair, and if anyone needs a match for a single, the other three are available (I'm also going to keep one of the enlisted barracks cover EGA's and the officer one).

[themick]

Darrell,

You made what is to me a rather surprising comment above, when you said that you are of the belief that the government never contracted out for the enlisted dress droop-wing emblems. Why is that? Forgetting for a moment that my Dad told me his were issued to him in 1936, the photographic evidence of younger Marines in the mid-thirties show that most of these guys were wearing them. Also, why would the government contract out for the service ones and not the dress ones? Whereas most of the service ones we find are unmarked, so it is with the dress ones. It doesn't make sense in my alleged mind that the government didn't have these made. After all, in those days, all Marines were issued blues, and they appear to have been worn much more than during the war and post-war period. Moreover, today the dress ones are more common than the service ones. To me it just doesn't make sense that these were all private purchase.

And if the government wasn't issuing them, which dress emblems were they issuing during this period?

 

Steve

[teufelhunde.ret]

Steve, Its good to hear from you. I should have known you would be the one to pick-up on my “two cents” comment. So let me share with you how I've arrived at this thought. While Gary was still with us, we shared a number of PM’s regarding the predominate number of English made EGA’s that were always popping up at auction and why they seemingly always were in larger numbers than those we felt were of or perhaps best said, issue types. I do not recall us reaching consensus as to why it appeared to be and neither of us set about with any formal tracking. Some months latter the topic came back and included an exchange regarding the complete absence of any service or dress “issue” gooney cap badges. And I one point I suggested these issues or perhaps best said questions were likely answered by “the times”. Many of us tend to forget the nation was in the grip of a real depression—not the sort of recession’s we’ve witnessed during our life. Therefore, given the sort of monetary restrictions placed upon the services and how significant the draw down was on Marines serving at that time - the end strength numbers for 1934 fell to 14,000+ for the whole Marine Corps - acquisitions were most likely targeted to only those things that served the fleet and niceties were at the bottom of the list.

 

I reached the conclusion (my 2 cents as noted above) after giving allot of thought to; 1) there where never any issue gooneys for the barracks cover. 2) Most of use do agree, there was a follow-up design (and not a gooney as specified in the reg's) for the barracks cover (dress and service) that was issued around 1930. 3) Active duty forces were at there all time low from the mid 20-30s. 4) I suspect on-hand stocks were used, completely, before any thoughts were given to ordering more and likely only what was needed to “get us through” the period. 4) The obvious delays for adoption of the new design as noted above. And the obvious dislike of the new design, by those whom served during the period is well known. Thus, I am leaning to the suggestion (or opinion) above. An yes there are “issue dress emblems” that fact cannot be debated, it’s a question when, how and why, which leads to my last clue.

 

Last January, during one of long-winded PM’s between us EGA fanatic's, Bobgee forwarded to us an incredible picture of significant quality taken of the Marine Detachment of the USS Asheville in January 1936, in dress blues. I do not recall who else beside Gary, Jeremiah and I were included, but, it became the topic of allot of chatter after… and obviously included the topic of the varied EGA’s included. I am not at liberty to post this picture, its Bob’s property and when her returns from the show this weekend its his choice to post or not. However, I will share with you some interesting numbers on the diversity of emblems. There are 29 enlisted in the picture, here are my observations of the collar emblems worn; 13 are wearing the 1920 issue emblem, 2 are wearing the Meyer private purchase emblem of the 20’s, 1 is wearing the clipped wing of the 20’s, 3 are not identifiable and 10 are wearing the gooneys. It beg’s the question right away, how many of those 10 gooneys are “English hallmarked”

 

I’ll wrap up this old testament, sorry for rambling, but its been a long time and I miss sharing these sort of conversation with Gary. So... why are the "dress service issue gooneys” so prevalent at auction, why not more English? and why are "dress blue English Gooneys” so prevalent at auction? and why were there so many non-period dress collar emblems on the Marines in this photo? BTW, the barracks cover emblems in this photo, was also a grab bag, the 20’s issue, 30’s issue, at least two Meyers and only one private purchase Gooney. So where does this leave us, likely no further along in an answer to one of the “EGA mysteries” than before this thread started, but, I hope to have raised some doubt… even a little about, what has been accepted belief.

 

Semper Fi, Darrell

[Bob Hudson]

I reached the conclusion (my 2 cents as noted above) after giving allot of thought to; 1) there where never any issue gooneys for the barracks cover.

 

Those five goonies and other EGA's I picked up Friday had all belonged to one Marine and they had been in a trunk since at least 1958. One of the 1930 vintage barracks cover EGA's was still on a cap. There were other collar EGA's, mostly the clutchback models, but only the two large service cap EGA's. After I saw the first gooney I search all through the stash (which also included ribbons and shooting badges) hoping to find that holy grail, a large gooney.

 

What I began to realize was that he did not have one: that 1930 style cover EGA was what he wore with the gooney's in the 1930's, at least. It's clear he later on got some newer styles of collar EGA's which may explain why they gooney's kept their nice sharp detail, except for the one bronze one.

 

So Darrell, I think you are on target and this is what would have been worn:

 

[themick]

Hey Darrell. Well, for "two cents worth," I get a lot for my money!! You raise a lot of good points, especially with the variations of the dress emblems worn during the 1930s. Permit me, though, to raise another point. Your points about scarcity of resources during the depression, various manufactures (Such as English made), etc, can also be said about the service emblems, yet we know those were issued in the gooney style in the 1930s. As we also know, up until WWII every enlisted Marine had issue blues in his seabag (unless they discarded those in favor of tailor made ones.) So, I think we have to conclude that every Marine was issued a set of dress emblems along with their service ones. Why would there be a distinction between which ones the government contracted out for in the 1930s, (distinction between service and dress) when, presumably, the same number of emblems were being issued? I have a platoon photo from my Dad's bootcamp platoon (9th Platoon, formed April, 1936, San Diego) and it shows very good detail to the point I was able to make out that it seems everyone in the outfit (51 men) was wearing gooney birds. There are a few I couldn't make out clearly, but the ones I could, which is most of them, were goonies. The obvious suggestion here is that they were issued. Since the government was issuing service goonies, it just seems logical that they were doing the same for the dress ones. Yes, I know simple logic doesn't always work on these matters, but given the numbers of unmarked dress goonies I've seen over the years, and they being identicle to their service counterparts, I find it hard to believe that the government didn't contract out for them.

 

Now, that's about a cent and a half's worth.

 

BTW, Darrell, you said you threw away the 1930s cap one of your emblems came off of. If it had the narrow chin strap, I hope you at least saved that!!!

 

Steve

[teufelhunde.ret]

Bob, these are indeed unique... because you seldom ever see a set of these (they are the wing-off) "Made in England" pattern! Without the hallmark, aside from the unmistakable wing-off design, the eagles head and anchor stock is bigger & thicker, than the "issue" or stateside varieties. The are "keepers", I've seenveryfew like these, early production run perhaps?

[teufelhunde.ret]

Those five goonies and other EGA's I picked up Friday had all belonged to one Marine and they had been in a trunk since at least 1958. One of the 1930 vintage barracks cover EGA's was still on a cap. There were other collar EGA's, mostly the clutchback models, but only the two large service cap EGA's. After I saw the first gooney I search all through the stash (which also included ribbons and shooting badges) hoping to find that holy grail, a large gooney.

 

What I began to realize was that he did not have one: that 1930 style cover EGA was what he wore with the gooney's in the 1930's, at least. It's clear he later on got some newer styles of collar EGA's which may explain why they gooney's kept their nice sharp detail, except for the one bronze one.

 

So Darrell, I think you are on target and this is what would have been worn:

 

 

Bob, you are dead on target, bullseye... these are pure as the driven snow. This is the set and patterns (cap & collars) that one should expect to see on a set of Service Alphas from a newly minted Marine in the years 32-37. And likely a few years beyond as the supplies were used and eventually replaced by the pattern of 37.

[jeremiahcable]

This is a great thread gents, thanks for all the information that has been posted.

 

One thing I'd like to add to Darrell's comments on the ship's det image we saw; only one marine, a corporal, had the visor version of the Goonie. All other marines were wearing the 1920 or 1930 pattern piece.

[teufelhunde.ret]

Steve, all very good points and accurate. Sadly I cannot speak to the seabag issue, as that is clearly outside of my area of interests. Thus, like you I should go onto presume that every Marine that came through boot camp during the entire ‘great depression” era received a complete issue... anything less I suppose is in the category of guessing. Still, I find myself a one-percent doubting-thomas. Its my hope someday, there will be someone to get to access the Quartermasters procurement records of the period, that will tell us allot. Notwithstanding, I do find it surprising (speaking of the photo again) the significant diversity of emblems in 1936. Thus, calls for the question, how long did the existing emblem stocks persist.... just more questions and no ready answers. After giving this more thought yesterday, I am still find myself wondering why there are such significant quantities of the “Made in England” type’s vice issue both in collections and at auction. And that my friend is what continues to nag at me... not speak of the English designed (and made there?) gooney’s FS has shown in this thread. And for the benefit of those who may read this someday, the number of Officer’s of the Corps had dropped below 1000, thus any relevance to their private purchase emblems and these “issue” must be taken into consideration regarding availability and present market values.

 

As you said “simple logic doesn't always work on these matters” can I get an Amen! s/f Darrell

[bobgee]

According to the 1937 USMC Uniform regulations all enlisted Marines were issued blues. And most assuredly they were also issued dress hat & collar ornaments as well. With this period being in the midst of the U.S. depression, I would doubt that the U.S. Govt. would have been been "issuing" foreign-made U.S. insignia.

 

Re: the droopy eagles, I have both, un-marked and "Made in England", in both service & in dress. No maker marks. I "think" (he thought, wondering if that might not be dangerous!) that the uniform stores frequented by service personnel perhaps had a contract with a supplier who bought from a UK maker, possibly JR Gaunt and we see the results of that in these emblems. Also, with many Marines in the Asiatic Fleet and ashore in China, UK manufacturer/sellers could have sold to those PX functions in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Pekin.......in the meantime, we can only discuss this world-altering event!!

My 2-cents! Semper Fi.....Bobgee