OT: How Do You Feel About Collecting Old War Medals?

[Dej 17]

It's the commoditisation that would upset me, it I were going to be upset by it at all. I've no criticism of Lou's actions... as Steve points out, medals are saved from that fate when someone like Lou buys them. And I can have no criticism of a veteran or his widow or his family selling his/her medals because they need the money.

 

The thought of those medals becoming mere currency though, trading hands again and again for profit is uncomfortable. Even where their documented history goes with them, it seems sullied when Mammon gets his grimy hands on them.

 

Lou, thank you for your kind words. I too wish I could have them back, but it cannot be. None of them was so rare as to stand out, except his North Atlantic Star... and that only because he was in the Royal Artillery... making the story a little more interesting, especially as he was the World's worst sailor!

[rwmarth 0]

To be brutally honest, we play a game in which thousands of people died doing so and went hell through doing so while we sit here and enjoy it immensely. (eg. burning to death in a cockpit while slowly plummeting to earth; can't be much of a worse way to go.) Can't say collecting medals is any worse than this..... (And no I'm not criticizing enjoying the game as I am very guilty of that myself. It's just that human nature is kind of dark when you think of it....)

Edited October 22, 2009 by rwmarth

[DEL60 0]

I remember,as a young boy,finding small boxes containing medals in my mother's closet. The only one I remember was the Purple Heart. They were my father's from WW2. I still recall the special connection I felt holding them.

There are sons,daughters and grandsons now. What was once only the past is now important.

I petitioned my government for replacement of my awards and decorations. Bought ones that were awarded by a government no longer in existence. I keep them in a case on my wall. From time to time I'll hold one or two.

Perhaps someday after i'm long gone a little boy might hold them,wonder and feel connected.

 

Ever time you save a man's history, and thats what medals are, you save a small piece of him.

[NS13Jarhead 6]

Ever time you save a man's history, and thats what medals are, you save a small piece of him.

Absolutely! That's why if you ever collect a "set" of medals, keep them together as a "set". It truly is somebody's history.

Edited October 22, 2009 by NS13Jarhead

[Baldric 42]

I'm just glad they are in Lou's hands, someone who does give a damn about them and will have an idea and understanding of their meaning.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Whether the medal is no longer in his possession, these other values remain forever. The medal itself is just a trinket.

 

Flyby PC, while I whole-heartedly agree with the first part of your statement, I must respectfully disagree with the latter portion. The medal itself is not just a trinket. It only degrades to such if we ignore that which was vested into the honor upon its award. Indeed, the very medal itself is imbued with the gratitude of a beholden nation when it is pinned to the uniform of its deserving recipient. A citation for bravery and heroism carries a spirit akin to that of a flag that drapes the casket of a fallen soldier and is then reverenlty folded and given to the surviving wife or mother. They are each physical symbols of human values we deeply cherish. Yes, the symbol can vanish and the values remain. But to remove the values from the symbol does a grave injustice, not only to the symbol itself, but more importantly to its recipient, and to the country which presented it.

 

 

 

Every time you save a man's history, and thats what medals are, you save a small piece of him.

 

DEL60, that is an incredibly powerful statement Sir.

 

 

 

Thank you again everyone for your heartfelt comments and opinions on this subject. They are very much appreciated.

 

Lou

 

.

[Flyby PC 23]

My fault, but we're not quite connecting 100% Lou. There's no disagreement here.

 

By calling it a trinket, I mean the medal itself is not supposed to be worth anything. That's not the point of it.

 

It's value is the history and deed which saw it earned, but not the price it costs to make or buy it.

 

That's why we issue medals, not cheques.

[NS13Jarhead 6]

It's value is the history and deed which saw it earned, but not the price it costs to make or buy it.

Completely agree. During the U.S. Civil War, right after it was created, the north issued the Medal of Honor for almost everything, from heroism to reenlisting. The Medals that were not awarded for valor were later recinded and the Medal of Honor remains as the award that indicates a degree of bravery "above and beyond the call of duty". So far, since the end of the Vietnam War, no American has survived to receive his Medal of Honor.

 

It is against U.S. law to buy or sell one or to wear one if you have not been awarded it.

[JimAttrill 24]

In answer to RAF_Louvert re the Belgian order of Leopold 1 - it is a very pretty medal and that might not be in its favour as an award for gallantry (compare it to the VC which is very dull) also most people don't even know that the Belgians fought in WWI, thinking that Belgium was totally occupied by the Germans.

 

And also because Leopold 1 was a complete sh1t so I would not consider wearing a medal bearing his name to be a particularly wonderful experience.

 

The rarity of the award of a medal does make a difference, the British Army made this mistake at Rourke's drift (as those who have seen 'Zulu' will know), but they have issued the VC less frequently as time passes. It seems that medals suffer from inflation and devaluation as well as currencies.

 

As an aside, am I right in thinking that the first British (or maybe RN) medal was awarded to those officers who survived the Battle of the Nile?

Edited October 23, 2009 by JimAttrill

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Aaaah, roger that Flyby PC, I misunderstood your intent Sir.

 

 

JimAttrill, I'm not sure what you have against Leopold I. A decorated general in the Russian army by his early 20's, he became a very diplomatic leader who more often than not worked towards peaceful solutions to disputes rather than plunging his newly-formed country into war. He was also responsible for building the first railway in Europe. Apart from a couple of indiscretions in his love life I don't know what you could hold against the man. Now his war-mongering, self-serving son on the other hand, Leopold II. Well, he should have been hung, shot and burned for what he did with the Congo Free State.

 

 

Lou

 

.

[NS13Jarhead 6]

JimAttrill, I'm not sure what you have against Leopold I. A decorated general in the Russian army by his early 20's, he became a very diplomatic leader who more often than not worked towards peaceful solutions to disputes rather than plunging his newly-formed country into war. He was also responsible for building the first railway in Europe. Apart from a couple of indiscretions in his love life I don't know what you could hold against the man. Now his war-mongering, self-serving son on the other hand, Leopold II. Well, he should have been hung, shot and burned for what he did with the Congo Free State.

 

I don't know if he's descended from I and II or if he's in the line for the throne (or even if they still do that) so I don't know if he's got a number, but I met Prince Leopold d'Arenberg of Belgium a couple of years ago when he came to visit the U.S. Marine Corps Museum in Quantico, VA. He seemed like a nice enough guy. Even posed for pictures with my kids. Bonus was my elementary school-aged daughter got to meet a real prince rather than the Disney kind.