I am trying to put together a collection of the major evolutionary changes in the U.S. Marine insignia from the Eagle and Fouled Anchor of the Continental Marines through the current Eagle Globe and Anchor.

 

Any input is appreciated. Here is what I have so far:

The first picture depicts what is thought to be the oldest U.S. military insignia in continuous use. I have many brass buttons with this emblem on my current uniforms, but I have yet to find any authentic period items from the 18th Century containing a metal example.
 

The second picture is what I believe to be a reproduction brass/copper Shako Plate depicting the design used by U.S. Marines in the early 19th Century around the time of the famed Battle of Derne/“Shores of Tripoli” in the 1805 Barbary Pirate Wars and the Battle of New Orleans in 1814. The plate in my collection is a shiny brass repro. I do not believe any complete authentic specimens with the octagonal shape are known to survive.

 

The third picture is a side-by-side comparison of an 1859 shako plate and another from the post-Civil War era after the EGA was developed to replace the gothic “M”. Both of these are from my personal collection. I am unsure about the EGA itself, although it is the right silver color and proper general design. It might be a tad small and lacks any patina.

I almost forgot to mention the “Don’t Tread On Me” motto and image on the Continental Marine Drums and flags. I have never seen authentic specimens of the rattlesnake from that era and only know them from written descriptions and artists’ renditions.
 

Of course, Ben Franklin’s suggestion that the National Symbol should be the image of a coiled rattlesnake like the one the Marines were using at the time was superseded by the image of a Bald Eagle. The Marines would also eventually transition to an Eagle, albeit a Crested Eagle rather than the Bald Eagle used in the above “Eagle on a Fouled Anchor” emblem and the more recent Eagle Globe and Anchor (EGA).

https://www.gadsden.info/history.html

 

30 minutes ago, Dsizzle said:

The first picture depicts what is thought to be the oldest U.S. military insignia in continuous use. I have many brass buttons with this emblem on my current uniforms, but I have yet to find any authentic period items from the 18th Century containing a metal example.
 

The second picture is what I believe to be a reproduction brass/copper Shako Plate depicting the design used by U.S. Marines in the early 19th Century around the time of the famed Battle of Derne/“Shores of Tripoli” in the 1805 Barbary Pirate Wars and the Battle of New Orleans in 1814. The plate in my collection is a shiny brass repro. I do not believe any complete authentic specimens with the octagonal shape are known to survive.

 

The third picture is a side-by-side comparison of an 1859 shako plate and another from the post-Civil War era after the EGA was developed to replace the gothic “M”. Both of these are from my personal collection. I am unsure about the EGA itself, although it is the right silver color and proper general design. It might be a tad small and lacks any patina.

 

I have handled an original of the top emblem...it obviously didn't have stars when worn as a cap badge.

 

1859 plate appears to be a Bannerman's restrike. I'd have to see the rear of the plate on the right to know more

 

This official site offers a quick timeline snapshot of the evolution of Marine Corps emblems... https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/ousmcc/Units/Marine-Corps-Trademark-Licensing-Program/History/

23 minutes ago, Brig said:

 

I have handled an original of the top emblem...it obviously didn't have stars when worn as a cap badge.

 

1859 plate appears to be a Bannerman's restrike. I'd have to see the rear of the plate on the right to know more

 

This official site offers a quick timeline snapshot of the evolution of Marine Corps emblems... https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/ousmcc/Units/Marine-Corps-Trademark-Licensing-Program/History/

Here is the side-by-side of the two 1859 plates. The left has the proper rings, three rectangular holes, and the expected patina, whereas the right ones has posts soldered and round holes. If it is a red trike, it is a darned good one that I am proud to have. However, I also found the attached write-up that suggest posts may have been added. I also heard through the grapevine from the seller that an old stock plate may have been paired with a newer EGA and put together for a Marine Band Uniform in later years:

 

“These shako plates were not offered in his regular catalog. (He only sold wholesale to less than 10 dealers).  Knowing he had the largest collection of U.S. Military Insignia in the U.S. and had Bannerman Dies, also from Horstmann

Bros. and W. Stokes Kirk. these are more than likely originals made for a Marine Band.  Originals had attaching pins but these are outfitted with bolts (they did not come to us with the washers and nuts.)  I cannot say for certain but they are for sure very old store stock.“

 

 

I don't like the patina on the left emblem...looks artificially aged to me. Horribly messy solder...and the loops look too clean for something with that much patina. The only loops that look old are the ones on the bugle, which incidentally by repro also has older looking bugle prongs.

 

Alec's message was referring to the P1892 cap emblems, not the shields. Never seen a screw-post shield, but I don't like the look of the posts. Your photos are smaller than I'd like to tell detail...how is the post patina compared to the shield? Are they sitting flush? I'm leaning towards a Bannerman's piece with posts added by a collector...a lot of the Stokes/Bannerman pieces were struck without any type of loops/posts/etc and it's not uncommon for people to add their own. The emblem appears to be an original 1892 enlisted special dress uniform shoulder epaulette emblem, which had dual-prongs on each side. Again the solder is horribly messy and older...

 

Did these come together? Wouldn't surprise me if the solder was done by the same hand.

No, they were separate orders from different vendors. Neither vender made any promises about authenticity other than to say that they were old and that they came from reputable collections. I don’t disagree with any of your analysis. I think they are likely good reproductions with perhaps some authentic elements added. I did not pay much for them compared with others I have seen in auction and they look about as good as many of those. 

These fooled a ton of reputable collectors back in the day, since they were struck on original dies and there wasn't an Internet or many originals to compare them to. It is very common to find Bannermans/Stokes pieces in old collections.

 

That said, as long as you don't pay the stupid eBay prices, they're good representative pieces. In the case of some early emblems, Bannermans are likely the only way most collectors will ever own them. I used to hang some of my Bannermans in the bricks back when I was a boot...made field day inspections easier when 1stSgt got distracted and motivated by whatever riker I had out that week.

Great story! I hope your username is not indicative of how you left the military. 
 

To your earlier point, I intend to use these as representative placeholders because I will not likely run across authentic period pieces at reasonable prices. Who knows, maybe something about these has some historical significance after all. 

 

Thanks for your insight.

20 hours ago, Dsizzle said:

Great story! I hope your username is not indicative of how you left the military. 
 

To your earlier point, I intend to use these as representative placeholders because I will not likely run across authentic period pieces at reasonable prices. Who knows, maybe something about these has some historical significance after all. 

 

Thanks for your insight.

My username is my last name, and I have not left the military

A complex topic if you want to "put together" a collection of representation from 1775 to the EGA. 

 

As you have already found, authentic insignia is virtually non existent from pre-1900.  You would also need to be more specfic about "through the EGA".  The "EGA" has existed since 1868 but has "changed" in appearance 100's of times with lack of standard samples and makers taking artistic license through 1962.  Technically the "standard example" or "seal of the United States Marine Corps" has officially (HQMC) changed just a few times, but collectors know that the vast amount of produced insignia did not conform.  With my collecting going on 30 years, I have the largest known collection of Marine cap and collar EGA insignia and dont know if I will ever have all the different changes.

 

If you want an evolutionary history of the earliest Marine Corps insignia, I suggest buying Volume 1 by Dr Frederick Briuer entitled "United States Marine Corps Emblems : 1804 to World War I".

 

Col Driscoll's 1968 book "The Eagle, Globe, and Anchor 1868-1968" is the very first book.  It is okay, but as the first book, is plagued with misinformation and errors.   It can be found online for free. 

 

Tim Klie's book "United States Marine Corps Eagle, Globe, and Anchor Emblem: 1868-1963 Pictorial Guide" (R. James Bender Publishing 2016) is another great source/must have on the EGA from inception to modern times.

 

Both Briuer and Klie are great friends and a wealth of knowledge.  Their books can both be found from $40-75 each.  Klie is also active on this forum.

 

Best of luck in your attempts,

 

Mike Manifor

 

 

I have a hat pin with the eagle perched on top of the Western Hemisphere globe, but with no anchor.  I acquired it several years ago from I do not remember where.  I recently acquired a cross-belt buckle with the same emblem.

 Somewhere I read that the new USMC commandant in 1867 authorized this design, but it did not take as the EGA was soon adopted in 1868.  Please let me know of any of your knowledge or findings on these artifacts.  Thank you,

Does it look like the eagle/globe in these?

Yes, the upper/first one. Thank you

As I view the lower one I find that I like it. Is it an early 1868 EGA?

There's a lot of debate on the top one, as there's no documented use of it in use, and almost all of them on the market are reproductions/fantasy pieces. It's believed by some that it's trying to pass itself off as a variant of this:

 

At some point, very briefly, officers used a Globe and Eagle of metal affixed to a bullion anchor. 

 

The second emblem is a complete fantasy emblem, didn't exist in that form, which contributes to the theory that the top pattern is fantasy, as well