THE SPECIALLY MERITORIOUS MEDAL Which Are The Originals? by Gary C. Krug

This rather obscure U.S. medal, which is actually a cross (the name used above is the official one), perhaps should more aptly be termed a "decoration". In the June 1962 issue of this journal (pp. 10-11) in an article by Mr. Thomas Capstick, there was an enlarged illustration of the engraved reverse of this award to Adam Jaggi, Coxwaino The article was a short summary of the very few facts kno~a about this award.

On Plate VI of "UoSo War Medals" (N.Y. 1916 and 1962 reprint) by Bauman Lo Belden, there is an illustration of this award to Louis Quen- tin, Landsman. In the text, there is very little to be said about it other than a description and the Resolution of Congress (Public Resolu- tion, No. 17) concerning ito

Turning to Kerrigan’s "American War Medals and Decorations" (NoTe, 1964), plate IV’s color depiction of the piece is too fuzzy to be of any use for study purposes. The text to it on pp. 72-73 goes on to state that only 93 awards were made to officers and men of the Navy and Marine Corps. Capstiek, in his article, had given the figure of 91.

Kerrigan goes on to back up Capstickts judgment that it was prob- ably only awarded to those who had rescued the Spanish sailors who were survivors of the Battle of Santiago° He also gives a description and a line drawing of the obverse design.

Consulting Blakeney’s "Heroes - UoS. Marine Corps - 1861-1955" (Washington, 1957), one finds similarly a limited text on pc 467. It does go on to state that a second award of this medal to the same indi- vidual would result in a bronze bar, "appropriately inscribed", to be attached to the suspension ribbon, instead of a second medal. Remember, this was before the oak leaf cluster was even thought about! However, no instance of a double award has ever come to light, and it is not kno~n if the bronze bar for this award wasever manufactured or ever de- signed. !/

On p. 502 of this same reference, there is a reduced photo of both sides. Curiously, the plain reverse is marked "sample". Since all pho- tos in this book are credited to either the National Archives or one of the Armed Forces services, the original specimen must be in some govern- ment collection. Not too much can be deduced from the photo, but it is my opinion that the ribbon is a fairly modern "bound-edge" type weave, and not the original ribbon contemporary to the medal.

Checking further, the National Geographic (June, 1943 and 1943 and 1944 reprints) shows a reduced color photo and a short text, which adds nothing to our knowledge~ The ribbon used in this illustration appears to me to be a later ribbon, based upon the limited detail this photo shows. However, going to p. 508 of the Dec. 1919 National Geographic Magazine, one finds a different colored illustration. I feel that this specimen does show the deep red moire ribbon with unbound edges.

Col. Wyllie, in his "Orders, Decorations and Insignia, Military and Civil" (NoVa, 1921), makes the point that although "The Meritorious Ser- vice Medal partakes somewhat of the qualities of a decoration in that it was bestowed on the personnel of the Navy who rendered particularly or hazardous services other than in battle during the Spanish War.", he goes on to state "However it was not awarded individually, but to all who took part in a oertai~ specified operation and this classifies it definitely as a service medal." The colored photo used here is the same from the 1919 National Geographic Magazine noted above.

The above opinion seems to be but partially borne out in official thinking° In consulting "United States Navy Uniform Regulations, 1951" (NAVPERS 15665 ((REV-S1))) one finds the medal ranking after the Purple Heart but before the Presidential Unit Citation in precedence (Chap. 15, AWARDS, Section 2, Precedence). Thus, at that time it was still ranked above all unit decorations, good conduct awards, campaign medals as well as both the Gold and Silver Life Saving Medals.

One of the best published illustrations of this medal is in Morganl "Military Medals and Insignia of the United States" (Glendale, 1941) on pc 49, where it is shown oversize.

was credlted with the photo. This obverse design shows the "ist die" (which I consider the original die for the issued and engraved pieces), but on a later "bound edge" ribbon. Here the figure of 93 awards is given, noteworthy in that most references mention no figure at all.

Another excellent illustration is to be found on Plate 63 of "Chan- ges In Uniform Regulations, U.S. Marine Corps, 1922" (Changes Nee 2, 6 Sept., 1924). It clearly shows the 1st die obverse on the original un- bound edge moire ribbon. The illustration of just the plain reverse, with no loop~ ring, or ribbon, presents an unusually blotchy surface.

’Checking with "Uniform Regulations, United States Navy" (Navy Dept., 1922 - Washington, 1923), there is a d~fference to be found from the pre- viously cited 1951 regulations. In 1922, the Specially Meritorious Med- al is listed as "(f)" in the order of wear. Pre-ranking it ks "(e)", the "Medal commemorating the naval engagements in the West Indies." (more commonly kno~n as the "Sampson Medal")° Immediately junior to it is "(g)", the Gold Lifesaving Medal.

A color photo (although rather darkly inked in my copy) of the ob- verse and reverse (this latter only ½ ring and below) to scale appears on Plate No. 85 in "Uniforms, Decorations, Medals and Badges of the Uni- ted States Navy, 1941" (Washington, 1941). The medal is definitely the 1st die and on the 1st ribbon. Even a portion of the brooch is evident in this photo.

So much for the various sources of printed references at my finger- tips. This is merely an introduction to my subsequent comments and ob- servations and is a suggestion to others as to where they might begin their comparative studies. If nothing else, it points up the precious little that is really known about this little-known U.S. award.

"Little-know,n" is really not the right term, as most collectors and students of U.S. awards know of it, as it is mentioned and illustrated in the most recently published and most commonly held reference sources.

A friend of mine once wrote the U.S. Navy Department to secure the complete list of the 91 or 93 recipients, both for his own edification and as a list to verify named pieces. In so many words, his reply was that such a list of recipients does not exist. This is why I feel that the line of inquiry initiated by Mr. Capstiek should be carried onward, and this article is my own attempt to further this purpose.

It was my fortunate experience to have visited Mr. Capstick quite a number of times prior to his death last year. Each time I would take great pleasure in examining his collection, all encased in wall frames, and each piece available for immediate inspection and examination. Our conversation would range from our newly acquired pieces, since our last visit, to our new found knowledge about pieces we may have had quite a while or ones we might be still looking for.

0n each visit, our conversation would somehow touch upon some as- pect of the Specially Meritorious Medal. He at this time, at least since I first met him in 1955, already had a named specimen, but it was net the Jaggi piece referred to previously. His first specimen was named to John W. Lewis, Ordinary Seaman. This will be in the illustration you see in conjunction with this article.

About six years ago, he acquired the Jaggi specimen, which was in some respects cleaner and sharper in appearance than the Lewis piece° He then kept the Jaggi specimen and the Lewis piece passed on into the hands of another collector. Subsequently, it has passed on at least once more and today it reposes in the collection of Mr. Sydney Johnstone of Winona, Minnesota, who has graciously allowed me to examine and photo- graph it for this article.

Up to now, then, we have discussed only three specific named speci- mens of this award. The Jaggi piece was presented in the June, 1960 is- Sue of this journal, the Lewis piece will be illustrated with this arti- cle, and the Quentin specimen (which I have never seen) is well kno~n from the plate in Belden’s 1916 edition and even better from the 1962 reprint.

However, I do know of at least three additional specimens, all of which appear to carry out the same style of die, ribbon, brooch and en-

which were considered by Mr. Capstick to be the marks of an

Die # 1 obverse, as described in the article. Please check the differ- ential points of comparison from the presentation in the text.

18