The Issue of British Crimea War Medals 1854-56
By John Hayward

Where have all the unnamed medals gone? Dishonest naming up of genuine unnamed campaign medals in an official or in a private but contemporary style has been noted by the numismatically minded since the 1880s or earlier. British Crimea War Medals, many of which were issued unnamed, have been like manna from heaven to the dishonest medal artisan and, because of the large numbers involved, have always been a popular target for their unwelcome attentions. As part of the generous, but seemingly one-sided inter-change of medals and decorations which followed the conclusion of the Eastern War of 1854-56, something over 300,000 British Crimea War Medals, together with the related clasps, were struck and prepared by the Royal Mint or their subcontractors for distribution to the Military and Naval Forces of the Allies - Britain, France, Sardinia and Turkey. Medals despatched to representatives of the French, Sardinian and Turkish Governments, which comprised well over half of the Mint striking, were issued unnamed, as indeed were many of those issued to British service personnel.

It was the Duke of Newcastle's intention that all medals to British troops should be named at the Royal Mint. However, Lord Panmure, Secretary of State for War in the succeeding Palmerston administration, was more concerned with a speedy issue of the medals than the time-consuming operation of having them named. After being informed that about 6,000 medals could be struck in a week and only 1,200-1,500 could be lettered in the same period, Panmure, after discussion, dispensed with his earlier idea just to number each medal and instructed "that the rim of the medal usually set apart for the name of the wearer should be kept plain and free of the number in order that the wearer might if he please have his name engraved there hereafter...". This instruction was followed with the first issue of Crimea Medals to a small number of British troops which took place at Horse Guards on 18 May 1855 where Queen Victoria presented the awards to wounded and other veterans representing each Regiment and Corps of the British Army as well as to members of the Naval Brigade and Royal Marines. These medals were presented unnamed, but the fact that they were pinned on by the Queen herself is the probable reason that many recipients never returned their "Royal Medals" for naming when the policy changed and they were subsequently invited to do so. They feared a different medal would be named and returned. Hence most of this first issue has come down to us unnamed or named in a variety of unofficial styles and often dated to commemorate this special event in the lives of recipients.

Large numbers of these unnamed pieces were sent in batches to the Army in the Crimea, but then came a change of heart. Part of a War Office Memorandum dated 5 December 1855 reads "Officers and men who have received medals in the Crimea, if they require their names to be engraved on them, and send them in for the purpose, Lord Panmure has no objection to it being done". For the record, the word 'engraved' should have read impressed, stamped or machine lettered - the machines for the purpose were already at the Mint and the Master had also given his assurance that a new and improved machine for impressing the medals together with additional types "have been long since ordered".

Like those veterans presented with their medals at Horse Guards, many other recipients from the mass of British troops who received unnamed medals decided not to return them for naming, preferring to retain the medal with which they were originally issued. Some retained them in their unnamed state, others had them named unofficially which explains the variety of styles - some crudely and some finely executed - and the incidence of regimental depot impressing. Only a relatively small number were returned to the Royal Mint or Hunt & Roskill, its main subcontractor, for naming. In contrast and importantly, virtually all Crimea Medals granted posthumously to individuals killed in action, mortally wounded or died of disease were officially impressed with naming details.

To summarize, British Crimea War Medals are commonly to be found named in the following styles:

i. Official impressing - similar to the Military General Service Medal 1793-1814 and the Naval General Service Medal 1793-1840 in serif Roman capitals. Apart from the fraudulent Light Brigade Medals covered in the article in the OMRS Journal, it has not been noticed that this particular style has been widely copied by the unscrupulous.

ii. Depot or local station impressing (that is, regimental naming) - the difficulty of emulating depot naming has not closed this avenue to those with an interest in producing fraudulently named items because the sheer diversity of the private impressing styles used on Crimea Medals has created an opening to those with ill intent. Hence it is necessary to be aware that some medals offered as depot-named awards have been named with the intention to deceive. Experience and comparison with known regimental styles are the only ways to distinguish the correct from the incorrect and even among experts this can be a matter of opinion.

iii. Engraved naming - here there are a considerable number of styles and again it is a matter of experience and comparison. It may not be inaccurate to regard some medals as 'officially' engraved as some awards, mainly to officers, were subcontracted for naming to Hunt & Roskill.

British Crimea War Medals: Issues of Consideration
This account of the issue of Crimea Medals leaves us with the conclusion that there should be a significant number of unnamed Crimea Medals on the market and indeed this is confirmed by the fact that about 35 years ago they were available in large numbers, today they rarely appear. Where are they now?. It is worth considering that crude naming on medals, often undertaken by local jewellers on behalf of recipients who did not wish to return their medals, may in itself be a mark of authenticity. Also, when attempting to establish the authenticity of medals that are depot impressed or engraved, it is worth examining areas of wear and contact marks, and be very cautious of apparent depot impressing or engraving which overlies such imperfections. The fact that medals issued to the next-of-kin of those killed in action or died of other causes were issued impressed (though on rare occasions an engraved medal can appear that, for specific and proven reasons, is correct - I have noticed less than six such casualty medals in over 40 years), has not deterred tamperers from producing engraved medals to those killed in action (such as those to the Light Brigade covered in the OMRS article).

Terminology can often be misleading and collectors will do well to bear this in mind when seeing the words 'Light Brigade' against a Crimea Medal in an auction catalogue or sales list. Indeed the medal may well be that to a member of the Light Brigade, but remember that this simply means he served with the Light Brigade, not that he 'charged'. Those definitely identified as charged, as a result of such factors as being killed in action, being the recipients of gallantry awards or being noted by a comrade, have their names recorded in capital letters in the standard reference work Honour the Light Brigade by Lummis and Wynn (J.B. Hayward & Son, 1973). Just over 500 names of the 2000 'Light Brigade' members listed in the work are thus recorded, leaving well over 100 others who charged not identified due to lack of evidence. Although one can bring logic to bear, for example it might be thought that one could discount Farriers of all ranks who would have been needed to attend to the horses, there are still significant pitfalls. For example, who would have imagined that the colourful Private John Vahey, the regimental butcher of the 17th Lancers, would have participated in the Charge. Similarly another medal that appeared at auction was to a Light Brigade man under arrest at the time of the Charge, yet, against the odds he escaped, charged and subsequently was sentenced to 20 lashes - logic would have excluded an imprisoned man from appearing on the Roll of Light Brigade Chargers. Clearly evidence is more reliable than logic, but it is for each individual to determine his own standards of proof.

We would be interested to hear from website readers if they would like a particular medal or topic to be examined in these notes, but please note that no correspondence can be entered into although your suggestions will be given serious consideration.