Jump to content

Two Civil War Campaign Medals


tsgalloway
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm posting pics of 2 CIvil War campaign medals that I recently picked up. One is an army medal and the other is the navy one. I purchased them as a lot from a dealer friend of mine. I believe the navy medal is spot on, though maybe a later strike. The numbering looks correct to me.

 

The army medal supposedly had a new ribbon put on at some point. I have a few concerns about it. It seems a bit off to me and I can't quite put my finger on it. The numbering also makes me question the authenticity.

 

What is the value of these medals? How would I go about trying to identify their original owners? Thanks much.

post-10444-1346220618.jpg

post-10444-1346220648.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which medal has which number? Is the No prefixed number on the Navy? Navy medals shouldn't have that. However, whichever medal has that No prefixed number is no good. An Army CW Medal with an No prefix is a rare and valuable medal. However, I don't care for that numbering.

 

If the small unprefixed # is on the Army, it "might" be ok, as some later contract medals had numbering similar to that.

 

The Navy medal definitely has fake numbering, as the words, "For Service" on the reverse are straight, not curved. An original numbered Navy should have those words, curved, not straight. And, the numbering on a Navy CW medal was very distinctive, as done by BB&B. Neither of these numbers are in the correct style for a Navy medal.

 

Good thing the dealer is a friend, as you need to get your money back on at least the Navy Medal. Not sure about the Army (if that one has the small numbers, it "may" be ok, but I'm not sure).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. I did some research before the purchase, but obviously didn't pick up the details that you pointed out. The army one indeed has no prefix, while the navy one does. I can very easily get my money back on the transaction, which is why I did purchased them in the first place.

 

Which medal has which number? Is the No prefixed number on the Navy? Navy medals shouldn't have that. However, whichever medal has that No prefixed number is no good. An Army CW Medal with an No prefix is a rare and valuable medal. However, I don't care for that numbering.

 

If the small unprefixed # is on the Army, it "might" be ok, as some later contract medals had numbering similar to that.

 

The Navy medal definitely has fake numbering, as the words, "For Service" on the reverse are straight, not curved. An original numbered Navy should have those words, curved, not straight. And, the numbering on a Navy CW medal was very distinctive, as done by BB&B. Neither of these numbers are in the correct style for a Navy medal.

 

Good thing the dealer is a friend, as you need to get your money back on at least the Navy Medal. Not sure about the Army (if that one has the small numbers, it "may" be ok, but I'm not sure).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Army Civil War is a 1930's contract piece and looks OK. The numbre is not traceable.

 

I agree with KURTA that the Navy medal is bad and you need to get your money back. Someone is getting creative with numbering.

 

Kurt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This link:http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=74470 seems to indicate that there was one company that produced a straight "For Service." Is that true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FrankEaton01

Yes, it's true that the US Mint did produce Navy campaign medals with a straight "For Service" on the reverse. However, I agree with the two Kurts that this medal isn't one of them. The coppery finish, suspension ring, numbering, and WWI Victory Medal style wrap brooch are not consistent with Mint pieces.

 

Based on the style of numbering, your Army Civil War was manufactured by the Joseph Mayer Co. Values are always subjective, but I've seen examples in similar condition sell in the $250 - $300 range.

 

This link:http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=74470 seems to indicate that there was one company that produced a straight "For Service." Is that true?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...