Droop Wing Cover Emblem

[Brig]

Sold for $660 tonight...I ducked out of the running because of something else I'm gunning for, unfortunately, because someone got a pretty good deal considering these use to fetch 800-1000 when the market was up

[normaninvasion]

Interesting final price. A piece that rarely comes up and would have created a bloodbath at auction several years ago.

[EGA-DOG]

Is that the same one that just sold on eBay for $753?

[Spearhead]

No. The $753 was the H&H marked device sold around the same time.

[Bob Hudson]

I once tried for a year to find one for a client and during that time not a one came up for sale: we'd glady have paid $1200 for one.

[Alec]

Just an FYI in regards to these items. They were not sanctioned by the Marine Corps. I have documentation that the Marine Corps specifically did not have dies made for these as they did not like the droop wing eagle. They only had the us mint make collar emblems. Any of these will be private companies made and NOT be Marine Corps approved. So the question is, are they a real USMC collectible item?

[Bob Hudson]

So the question is, are they a real USMC collectible item?

 

Very much so. The interesting thing about EGA's is that for decades manufacturers were allowed a lot of artistic license so there is a huge number of variants among pre-1958 EGA's, especially pre-WWII. When the "modern" pattern started in the late 1950's, the Corps did start enforcing standardization and there were approval numbers on EGA (and other USMC items), but before then I think it's safe to say that all EGA's were given tacit approval for wear for at least a while.

[normaninvasion]

Agree. Lot's of pics of these being worn. Another example would be French/German made emblems being worn during the war and occupation, not regs but used none the less.

[Brig]

Theater made and private purchase items are always highly collectible

 

And for not liking the design, they sure didn't mind using it as a seal on documents...I've seen it on lots of paperwork

[usmcaviator]

Theater made and private purchase items are always highly collectible

 

And for not liking the design, they sure didn't mind using it as a seal on documents...I've seen it on lots of paperwork

 

Brig,

Alec means to say that the USMC didn't sanction the making of the droop wing (1925 version) hat device. They are all private purchase. The droop wing emblem was the official seal approved in 1925 (used on official correspondence, etc), however the Commandant John Russell expressed a "regret" that it was changed after the emblem received harsh criticism. In 1935 they opted to return to the "old" version, the version prior to 1925. By 1936 it was approved after some back and forth.

 

I have noticed that even though the droop wing was official in late 1925, it took a long time (about 3 years) for it to show up as the official seal, for instance in magazines like Leatherneck. Ads for this version of officer collar devices I believe first show up in 1928/1929.

 

Mike

[Alec]

Ditto

[themick]

Is Alec suggesting the Corps never issued the droop wings? I don't think that is correct with respect to the collar emblems. With the cover/hat emblems, I could go with that.

Steve

[Alec]

No, the Marine Corps had collar droop wings made, but did not have cap droop wings made nor did they want them to be made.

[themick]

No, the Marine Corps had collar droop wings made, but did not have cap droop wings made nor did they want them to be made.

Thank you Alec. That makes sense from the years back when I contacted vets, including my own relatives who served well before WWII. Many droop wing collars, but no cap ones. My own father who went in the Corps in 1936 told me about the these emblems, and in fact still had some of them, which I now have. However I never found a large droop wing from a vet.

 

Alec, as a side note, in all that great research you have done uncovering changes in Marine insignia regulations, have you ever uncovered notes/documents revealing the reasoning behind these changes? It's one thing to show that as of 1937 EGAs will look like this, but it's something else if we could find documentation as to why a particular style was changed. Were you able to find anything like that?

 

Steve

[Alec]

I think the original document from 1935 sums all of this much better.

[Alec]

This I believe shows that the 1925 changes did not make it to the private market for duplication until late. I have a similar document from another vendor as well.

[Alec]

Here is Gemsco asking for same information about new EGA pattern and they note that they have an order in house form the POST EXCHANGE at Quantico.

[themick]

Alec, that is outstanding. The first document you posted from 1935 indeed, as you suggest, "sum it all up." As one who as done historical research on other topics, I always wondered if there would be evidence to why the change was implemented. You have indeed provided the "smoking gun." The docs from Meyers and Gemsco through the PX at Quantico are instructive as well, as these companies made private purchase emblems, i.e., the large cover emblems.

 

Thank you very much Alec. You've answered a question which as been long on my mind.

 

Steve

[themick]

Addendum to above: Now, if we can just find the letter as to why the design was switched to the droop wing. I think that today the vocabulary would call it "stylizing" the design, just as Pepsi has regularly done since it's inception -- from detailed script of the word Pepsi to what they have now - no words, just odd shapes and the three basic colors. Had the Marines continued "stylizing" with the EGA, the design would now just be a circle. What do you think?

 

Steve

[bobgee]

Great correspondence, Alec! It would be interesting to see the correspondence which led to the 1925 changes. There is no question that this insignia was worn as hat badges by both officers and enlisted. I'm fortunate to have both emblems in my collection. What I have heard was that they were disliked by most Marines. If the hat badges were sold at PXs and uniform shops circa the1930s they may not have been authorized by regulation but they were sanctioned and therefore became a matter of choice for the Marine buyer. Older guys like me have always referred to the droopy collars as 'China emblems' which of course is a myth. The droopy hat emblems continue to be highly sought after even in the 'soft market'. Thanks Alec, for shedding additional light on this fascinating subject. Semper Fi......Bob

[Brig]

Seems sort of like what went on with the current boots when they were first phased in over a decade ago. I recall that there were not enough being produced with the EGA's on the heel available at the PX, and the Marine Corps provided a list of authorized manufacturers making them without the EGA that could be found online, in town, etc. We had to look for a number in the tongue, which was likely an NSN number but I cannot recall. I remember hearing @$$chewings of Marines who had the authorized private purchase because some lesser informed highers simply saw boots lacking the emblems

[usmcaviator]

I amend my last post where I stated 1928/1929, the first ad for NS Meyer is depicted in Jan 1932.

Mike