Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

Sign in to follow this  
pgis

Protocol in respect of MiD Oak Leaf

Recommended Posts

pgis

Hi all,

As a family, we have recently discovered/rediscovered our Grandfathers WW1 medals. As well as his campaign medals, he was awarded a DSM and was MiD(mentioned in despatches). We have all his medals but not his MiD Oak Leaf. We have a few questions to which we would appreciate advice.

1 Was a MiD Oak Leaf automatically sent to the person or did the recipient/potential recipient have to apply for it?

2 Did it have the recipient's name and service number on it, like the medals?

3 If it was never sent to/applied for by the recipient, can it now be claimed? (I know WW1 medals can no longer be issued)

4 If the recipient's name is not etched on it, is it acceptable protocol to simply purchase one (anyone) at auction to 'complete' the set?

Thanks.

Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Owl

Hi Paul,

I think that the recipient of an MID was sent an MID Certificate automatically, but had to apply for the emblem.

No, the emblem has no identifying mark on it, so yes you could aquire one quite easily from a medal dealer and fasten this to the ribbon of the Victory Medal. The certificate is however named to the recipient with his number, rank and unit.

I am not certain if you can still apply for the emblem, but I would suggest most probably not.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Robert

PS There are many copies of the emblem, but it is still possible to buy original ones from reputable dealers. Be aware also that WW1 and WW2 emblems are quite different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pgis

Hi Robert, thanks for taking the time to reply. An answer just the way I like it, concise, unambiguous and to the point.

Thats again.

Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan

Would only add that IF you have the ORIGINAL ribbon for the medal it would be a shame and rather unethical to add the MID leaf to it even if the recipient was entitled to it - unless, that is, you can see that he did have one attached to the ribbon which has since been lost. The point being that if he never applied for one, then he would never have worn one on the ribon, and so you would be altering the way that he wore his medals...

Trajan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bill24chev

I agree with Trajan about not changing the medals now after all this time. If your Grandfather was still serving when he received the Victory medal he may have received one oak leaf and used this on tunic medal ribbons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
auchonvillerssomme

On this occassion I am going to disagree, if you are going to display the medals then add the MID emblem, it doesn't matter how or what he did in his lifetime you are displaying his entitlement with pride, if it was awarded during WW1 put it on the Victory where it belongs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
centurion

On this occassion I am going to disagree, if you are going to display the medals then add the MID emblem, it doesn't matter how or what he did in his lifetime you are displaying his entitlement with pride, if it was awarded during WW1 put it on the Victory where it belongs.

Exactly fully agree - I fail to understand why it would be "unethical", indeed the term appears OTT. If you were to sell the set then it would be wrong not to mention that it's not the original oak leaf but not wrong to display it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crunchy

On this occassion I am going to disagree, if you are going to display the medals then add the MID emblem, it doesn't matter how or what he did in his lifetime you are displaying his entitlement with pride, if it was awarded during WW1 put it on the Victory where it belongs.

I agree too. The MID emblem should be on the Medal Ribbon, it is part of the set.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
...I fail to understand why it would be "unethical", indeed the term appears OTT...

OK - bear in mind I come from the archaeological/historical side! Now, when stating it would be unethical to add one I did stress the matter of IF it is the original ribbon with NO piercings for an MID oak leaf. It would be unethical because it is altering the historical record regarding the medal set - and how the person so honoured choose to wear them (how he wore his ribbons is a different matter).

To elaborate. One relative of mine discovered that he had a third MID (WWII) only after he retired and was clearing out his papers - but he choose not to alter his medal set nor to apply for the retrospective DSO he was theoretically entitled to (three MID's). Why? Because these were the medals he had happily worn for over 40 years and he saw no reason to change what was his own personal military record. Another relative (again WWII and a MC) sent back one campaign medal (Korea) because he did not feel he was entitled to it - he was, but this was his view regarding the wearing of his medals.

The point being, it is (was) the view of the person entitled to the medals how he or she chose to wear them. To alter the record - when original ribbons are involved - is unethical and dishonest to the memory of the person who was entitled to them.

Trajan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
centurion

OK - bear in mind I come from the archaeological/historical side! Now, when stating it would be unethical to add one I did stress the matter of IF it is the original ribbon with NO piercings for an MID oak leaf. It would be unethical because it is altering the historical record regarding the medal set - and how the person so honoured choose to wear them (how he wore his ribbons is a different matter).

To elaborate. One relative of mine discovered that he had a third MID (WWII) only after he retired and was clearing out his papers - but he choose not to alter his medal set nor to apply for the retrospective DSO he was theoretically entitled to (three MID's). Why? Because these were the medals he had happily worn for over 40 years and he saw no reason to change what was his own personal military record. Another relative (again WWII and a MC) sent back one campaign medal (Korea) because he did not feel he was entitled to it - he was, but this was his view regarding the wearing of his medals.

The point being, it is (was) the view of the person entitled to the medals how he or she chose to wear them. To alter the record - when original ribbons are involved - is unethical and dishonest to the memory of the person who was entitled to them.

Trajan

Not sure I'd necessarily agree with all of that but even if I did I'd still consider "unethical" which implies immoral, cheating, corrupt, crooked, debauched, depraved, dirty, dirty-dealing, dishonorable, dishonest, dissipated, disreputable, double-crossing, sleazy, sneaky, sordid, underhanded well OTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bill24chev

Diferent professions will have different ethics.

An Historian or archeaologist would be unethical if they presented a research paper were they changed evidence from what was true to what looks right. In this case "IF" the Oak Leaf had never been worn it would be historicaly incorrect and in the mind of an historian/archeaologist untehical to display the medals with oak leaf.

This is how I underestood Trajans comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
...but even if I did I'd still consider "unethical" which implies immoral ... well OTT...

Oh come on Centurion! That reply and its language is way over the top! I think you know exactly what I mean by 'unethical' in this context!

And I also believe that you know well that I was not implying any of those things that you have attached in your post to the expression I used!!! E.g., 'ethical' in OED online is: "In accordance with the principles of ethics; morally right; honourable; virtuous; decent; spec. conforming to the ethics of a profession, etc."

So in this specific case IF the ribbons are ORIGINAL, as worn by the recipient , then it would not be "honourable" or "conforming to the ethics of a profession" to add something to the ORIGINAL ribbon that the recipient did not feel the need to do.

Trajan

EDIT: thanks Bill24chev, we cross-posted but you have interpreted my post correctly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnthonyStaunton
One relative of mine discovered that he had a third MID (WWII) only after he retired and was clearing out his papers - but he choose not to alter his medal set nor to apply for the retrospective DSO he was theoretically entitled to (three MID's). Why? Because these were the medals he had happily worn for over 40 years and he saw no reason to change what was his own personal military record.

A third WW2 MID would require no alteration to his medal set since only one MID oak leaf is placed on the War Medal 1939-1945. I presume you mean late DSO award since all awards are retrospective. Until about midway through WW2 a MID was required before a DSO was awarded but a MID or three MIDs did not mean you would be awarded the DSO. There were no late WW2 operational gallantry awards or DSO awards after 1949.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dsowerby

No DSO for 3 MiDs; as Anthony says, an MiD was a pre-requisite for the award of the DSO, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staffsyeoman

I agree with Trajan about not changing the medals now after all this time. If your Grandfather was still serving when he received the Victory medal he may have received one oak leaf and used this on tunic medal ribbons.

This would have been difficult, as the oak leaf for the medal is larger than that for the tunic ribbons - and was issued at the same time.

This photo shows the oakleaf intended for the tunic ribbons applied to the full size medal.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ajj2XboBZxg/TP95rENu-uI/AAAAAAAAABA/H52PzHnTGQ4/s1600/8928+Pratt.jpg

This shows the emblem as intended for the full size medal:

http://www.66squadron.co.uk/images/Sharp%20Medal%20001.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...