Medal of Honor

[lastpost]

I was wondering if anyone else might have an opinion regarding the overall look of the Medal of Honor.

 

Over the years the medal (an its branch of service variations) has gone through several metamorphoses and it is simply a matter of aesthetics as to which version looks better – perhaps dignified might be a better word.

 

I personally thing that the 19th Century version of the medal looks better than the current ones. Its bronze simplicity had a quiet dignity much like the British Victoria Cross. The gold and enamel on the current Air Force and Army medals seem in my opinion to be a bit on the flashy side. The Navy’s version - much to their credit - has maintained the closest fidelity to its original Civil War ancestry.

 

Originally the medal was worn on the chest and took precedence over all other medals. Later the medal was redesigned to be worn around the neck. Personally I feel that no medal wears particularly well when worn about the neck unless it is with a closed or standing collar and looks plain awkward when worn over a shirt and tie and in the Air Force and Army. Neck worn decorations also seem too much like all those various orders of nobility that we fought the Revolution to get away from in the first place.

 

Also I think that there should only be one version of the medal for all the services. The idea of a Medal of Honor should supercede the individual services, again in much the same way as the Victoria Cross does.

 

So pretending that I just became head of the Institute of Heraldry I did a redesign of the medal taking the original solid broanze planchette and combining it with the modern stars/blue ribbon but moving the medal back to being worn on the chest. A simple yet dignified design was my goal.

 

 

Any opinions either pro, con or indifferent?

[Jim Baker]

Interesting. I do agree the medal should be the same with all services.

[DwightPruitt]

Personally, I like the simple, elegant design of the Navy MoH. The Army MoH is fine, but I can't say that for the Air Force. In typical Air Force fashion, it's not only unattractive, but larger than the other two.

[lastpost]

Personally, I like the simple, elegant design of the Navy MoH. The Army MoH is fine, but I can't say that for the Air Force. In typical Air Force fashion, it's not only unattractive, but larger than the other two.

 

The Navy version - aside from the neck ribbon - is almost exaclty the same as it was during the Cival War. The main difference in the medal itself is the color. The Civil War medal had a dark almost chocolate brown patina. The current Navy medal has a more golden bronze patina. This really does not surpise me all that mush since the Navy and Marines - as far a uniforms go - seem to have the storngest sense of tradition in the armed services.

[IMPERIAL QUEST]

I must say that I absolutely agree with you 100% on all points, and have discussed the idea of the neck suspension NOT being a favorable method of wear many times with fellow collectors.

[IMPERIAL QUEST]

Personally, I like the simple, elegant design of the Navy MoH. The Army MoH is fine, but I can't say that for the Air Force. In typical Air Force fashion, it's not only unattractive, but larger than the other two.

 

In my opinion, the whole design of the Air Force MOH is incredibly gaudy and cheap looking to me. It looks like it was designed so GIGANTIC in an attempt to outdo the smaller Army version . I do like the Navy/Marine version as it remained true to the original design.

[Jim Baker]

It's hard to not like this. Beautiful.

 

 

[brandon_rss18]

I know this is only opinion but I have to say that I think it looks pretty sharp worn around the neck, athough probably not that comfortable. I DO agree with you that they should all be the same though. I would have to say my favorite is the WW2 era ARMY MOH.

[Larry D.]

Do we have pix for side-by-side comparisons?

[Jim Baker]

[Johndanger]

I gotta say that I like it worn around the neck , it shows that it is different and a big deal like the German Iron Cross and Blue Max , and I think that a soldier that earns one should stand out and be noticed, but it also does look weird over a tie and dress shirt. I think it displays much better on the older stand up collar on the WWI uniform.

 

I also agree that it should be the same for all the services.

 

CAPTAIN NELSON M. HOLDERMAN

Command of right flank of "Lost Battalion"

[lastpost]

I gotta say that I like it worn around the neck , it shows that it is different and a big deal like the German Iron Cross and Blue Max , and I think that a soldier that earns one should stand out and be noticed, but it also does look weird over a tie and dress shirt. I think it displays much better on the older stand up collar on the WWI uniform.

 

I also agree that it should be the same for all the services.

 

CAPTAIN NELSON M. HOLDERMAN

Command of right flank of "Lost Battalion"

 

I agree that the medal look fine around the neck...when it is worn with a closed/standing collar as you stated.

[gdk]

My 2c:

 

I much prefer the Navy issue since the other two employ what I consider oddly sparse enameling. (that is, there's not enough enameling to make it look like an enameled order, like a LoM or a PLM, but too much for it to be a plain medal, which I think would be preferable) I also think the choice of two greens is a bit odd.

 

If it's to be a neck order, it feels like it should be worn very close to the collar. I always thought that the suspender pad should be about where the knot of a tie would be. So then you don't wear it over a tie, you wear it in the place of one.

 

I think the quality of the sculpting of the Statue of Liberty on the AF MoH is not quite up to scratch, apart from it being much too large.

 

Aesthetically, for me the Victoria Cross remains unchallenged by any decoration anywhere (I feel this way about the British medal system in terms of quality generally, although not in terms of some other things). However, even given these minor complaints the MoH being what it is just carries such immense awe and prestige that it doesn't really matter!

 

- Gdk.

[Brig]

I agree with the MOH being worn on the neck. It helps it to stand out, much as the recipient stands out among his peers for uncommon valor above and beyond

[barker944]

QUOTE(DwightPruitt @ Jun 27 2008, 04:45 PM)

Personally, I like the simple, elegant design of the Navy MoH. The Army MoH is fine, but I can't say that for the Air Force. In typical Air Force fashion, it's not only unattractive, but larger than the other two.

 

Actually,with the exception of the suspension devise both the Navy and AF stars have about the same circumscribing diameter.

 

If you want gaudy, look up the AF's current Space Operations Badge. I think I once had a Buck Rogers badge that look similar. Whoever designed that one had all his taste in his mouth.

 

Jim

[brandon_rss18]

Actually,with the exception of the suspension devise both the Navy and AF stars have about the same circumscribing diameter.

 

If you want gaudy, look up the AF's current Space Operations Badge. I think I once had a Buck Rogers badge that look similar. Whoever designed that one had all his taste in his mouth.

 

Jim

 

Is this the badge you speak of?

 

Reminds me of Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a 1/2 century! Please tell me im not the only one who remembers that looney tunes cartoon!

[Lee Ragan]

Is this the badge you speak of?

 

Reminds me of Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a 1/2 century! Please tell me im not the only one who remembers that looney tunes cartoon!

No you are not the only one that remembers that cartoon!

I agree that the space badge is pretty lame looking. They just should have kept the old "Pocket Rocket", and called it good1 JMHO

[hhbooker2]

I was wondering if anyone else might have an opinion regarding the overall look of the Medal of Honor.

 

Over the years the medal (an its branch of service variations) has gone through several metamorphoses and it is simply a matter of aesthetics as to which version looks better – perhaps dignified might be a better word.

 

I personally thing that the 19th Century version of the medal looks better than the current ones. Its bronze simplicity had a quiet dignity much like the British Victoria Cross. The gold and enamel on the current Air Force and Army medals seem in my opinion to be a bit on the flashy side. The Navy’s version - much to their credit - has maintained the closest fidelity to its original Civil War ancestry.

 

Originally the medal was worn on the chest and took precedence over all other medals. Later the medal was redesigned to be worn around the neck. Personally I feel that no medal wears particularly well when worn about the neck unless it is with a closed or standing collar and looks plain awkward when worn over a shirt and tie and in the Air Force and Army. Neck worn decorations also seem too much like all those various orders of nobility that we fought the Revolution to get away from in the first place.

 

Also I think that there should only be one version of the medal for all the services. The idea of a Medal of Honor should supercede the individual services, again in much the same way as the Victoria Cross does.

 

So pretending that I just became head of the Institute of Heraldry I did a redesign of the medal taking the original solid broanze planchette and combining it with the modern stars/blue ribbon but moving the medal back to being worn on the chest. A simple yet dignified design was my goal.

 

 

Any opinions either pro, con or indifferent?

 

"Greetings & Salutations!" Found an old encyclopaedia and took out this page showing an early Medal of Honor in colour too!

[USMCRECON]

I must say that I absolutely agree with you 100% on all points, and have discussed the idea of the neck suspension NOT being a favorable method of wear many times with fellow collectors.

 

Just out of my own ignorance and curiosity....how many collectors wear the MoH?

[MPage]

Roy Benavidez wearing his MoH under the collar, which I think looks sharp:

 

http://lachlanirvine.tripod.com/sitebuilde...ures/whp027.jpg

[FightenIrish35]

I was at the Saratoga Museum in Upstate NY and took an image of this....1st Design of the MOH

 

[johnnyrocket]

It's hard to not like this. Beautiful.

 

That is a beautiful medal for sure.

 

Johnny R.

[johnnyrocket]

This is a great thread. I'm learning allot here on this forum. Thanks.

 

Johnny R.

[johnnyrocket]

Someone on the Forum must know the answer to this question? I have search desperately and have never been able to get a definite answer to this question.

 

HLI Lordship Industries Inc., Hauppauge, NY had the contract to produce the "Medal of Honor" for the Government from the time span of what dates?

 

(i.e. between 1950 to 1998 etc.)

 

Thank you,

 

Johnny R.

 

Ps: I believe that Lordship Industries, Inc., did manufacture Military medals for the Government from WWI to the present date. But, what were the year time span (years from and to) for the Medal of Honor manufacturing?

 

And yes, I do know they lost their contract for the MoH. Just need to know the years they did produce the MoH.

[FrankEaton01]

I don't have a definitive answer, but it can be narrowed down a little. His Lordship Products changed their company's name to Lordship Industries in the 1970's (1973?), and their hallmark changed from HLP to LI. So, generally any medal hallmarked HLP would date from the 1970's or earlier. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any medals or medal boxes in my collection marked by HLP that date from earlier than the 1960's, which would put the HLP MoH contracts into about a 10 - 15 year time period during roughly the Vietnam era. Again, this is not official, just an estimate based on my personal observations of medal hallmarks. Also, HLP had at least two different contracts for the Army MoH. The earlier one has the "HLP NYC" hallmark shown on the Pittman medal you posted (which is consistent with the pre-1964 smaller cravet pad), and the later one is hallmarked "HLP-GI".