Aggie Ring Day on the Jersey Shore!
I recently broke my Class of 1984 Texas A&M Aggie Ring and had to have it replaced with a new one. The new one is still a Class of ’84 ring, but it is of the newer one-piece cast design specification that all Texas Aggie Rings have been manufactured to since 1998. So, in effect, it is a 2014 ring with my old class year on it. (I’ll refer to it as the 2014 ring throughout this text).
While enjoying a wonderful Mason Jar full of Maker’s Mark at my favorite dive bar on the Jersey Shore, I was looking at my new ring (she’s a beautiful thing) and a Class of 1942 A&M College of Texas ring that I purchased from an estate sale a couple of years ago. The Class of ’42 ring apparently was never worn by the Texas Aggie who purchased it. I did the research on him (his name is inside the ring) and he won some very distinguished awards during WW II. He survived the war in Europe and died an old man in the early 2000s. The old ring is way too small for ANY of my fingers so I wear it occasionally on a leather cord around my neck.
While examining my new (2014) model Aggie Ring and the “experienced” 1942 Aggie Ring, I was taken back by the vast number of differences there are in the design of the two rings. There are many!!! I then went online and found out a few facts that helped to explain why the rings are so different:
1) My original Class of 1984 Aggie Ring (and the new 2014 replacement for it) were manufactured by Balfour Corporation of Austin, Texas which has been the sole manufacturer of Aggie rings since 1949.
2) My older Aggie decorated combat veteran’s ring from the Class of 1942 was manufactured by Josten’s Ring Division headquartered in Owatonna, Minnesota which was the sole manufacturer of Texas A&M Rings from 1940 to 1948.
As the two companies aren’t connected, it stands to reason that when Balfour Corporation was awarded the contract, their designer would have had to make new patterns for the A&M ring. Over the years, Balfour has continued to modify the “patterns” that are used to cast the Aggie rings.
While I’m sure I’m missing some of the differences in the two Aggie rings, here are some things that immediately jumped out at me while I was casually observing the two rings next to each other.
Beginning with the ring crest:
1) The large oval around the eagle and inner art is much more prominent on the Balfour 2014 model than the older Jostens one. In fact it’s almost sharp to the touch and stands up way above the crest content. The oval on the 1942 Jostens model is much lower (almost even with the eagle) and smoother. The only way I can explain the tactile feel of the difference between the two would be that the 2014 oval band feels like the top of a beer can while the band on the 1942 ring feels like the smooth bottom of a beer can. The 2014 ring is more of a long oval while the 1942 oval is more round as typical of most older college class rings. If I were to need to punch anyone in the face with one of these rings on, I’d definitely wear the Balfour model as that sharp edge on the oval could definitely do more damage to a human skull than the smooth edge on the older ring.
2) The text font on the two rings are totally different. While both rings use a serif font, the font on the 1942 ring is easier to read and not as harsh as the font on the 2014 ring. The font on the 2014 ring almost seems to be cast in a “false perspective” as if it were designed on a computer. The ampersand “&” on the 1942 ring is clearly distinguishable as such while the ampersand on the 2014 ring in the “A&M” is almost unrecognizable as that character and looks more like the cousin of a “6” or a “B.”
3) The class year on the 1942 ring is set in a font that is low and wide and blends into the background of the crest quite well. The 2014 ring class year is a bit harsh and tall. It almost looks like a sans-serif font and is so set apart from the art on the rest of the crest that it looks like the class year was added as an afterthought.
4) The shield in front of the eagle on both of the rings are very different. While both have 13 stripes in the shield that refer to the 13 original states and symbolize the intense patriotism of graduates and undergraduates of A&M and five stars in the shield refer to phases of development of the student; mind or intellect, body, spiritual attainment, emotional poise, and integrity of character, the aspect ratio and size of the two shields are completely different. The shield on the 1942 ring is much smaller and looks how a shield was depicted in artwork I have seen from the 1800s and early 1900s. The shield on the 1942 ring has five stars with the center of the five stars larger than the two stars on either side of it. The 2014 ring has a much taller and larger shield which unfortunately, obscures much more of the body of the eagle. Also, the stars on the newer ring are all of the same size and are almost distinguishable as stars. They almost look like “dots.”
5) The eagle which stands for agility and power is vastly different on the two different rings. The 1942 ring eagle’s head, while smaller than the one on the 2014 ring rises much higher in the crest and is more easily identifiable as an eagle than the one on the 2014 ring. The eagle’s wings on the 1942 ring are much higher on the crest and show distinctly three layers of the eagle’s wings while the wings on the 2014 ring are almost two dimensional at the bottom of the crest and an observer really has to look hard to distinguish any detail. The eagle on the 1942 ring is clearly perched on a rock and you can quite easily see its feet and talons. On the 2014 ring, I can’t really make out the eagle’s feet because of the size of the class year font and the larger shield. It “might” be perched on a branch, but I can’t really tell. It definitely isn’t on a large rock like it is on the 1942 ring. You can even seek the belly of the eagle on the 1942 ring. [Look at the photos of the two crests and note how significant the difference is between the two eagles and shields on the different rings!]
Moving on to the side of the ring with the Great Seal of the Republic (State) of Texas which includes the five-pointed star surrounded by a wreath of olive or laurel leaves symbolizing the strength to fight joined at the bottom by a circled ribbon indicating the necessity of joining the two traits to accomplish one’s ambition to serve [the military and the Republic of Texas.]:
1) The two “Lone Stars of Texas” on both rings are virtually identical. The olive / laurel leaves on the 1942 ring are more defined and not as obscured with other embellishment as the 2014 ring. The background behind the “Lone Star” on the 1942 ring is plain and simple which makes the star stand out more than on the 2014 ring where there are all sorts of indeterminate lines behind the star which tend to detract from it.
2) The ribbon tying the two pieces of vegetation on the 1942 ring is more “three dimensional” where the one on the 2014 ring looks just like a series of lines.
3) The American flag on the left of the wreath of the 1942 ring is much easier to identify. While you can only see three stars on the flag and even though they are much smaller on the older ring, they are much sharper than the ones on the 2014 ring which look more like three “dots” or even a raised triangle.
4) The “chevrons” at the bottom of the crest are of different proportions on the two rings. The 1942 ring having proportions more like one would have seen on military rank back in the 1800s/1900s.
The other side of the ring includes an artillery cannon, a saber, and an infantry rifle which allow us to remember that the men of the Republic of Texas fought for their land and are determined to defend the Republic.
1) This side of the ring is were both the 1942 ring and the 2014 ring are the most similar with only minor variations. One of note is that the 2014 ring correctly shows the opening on the cannon where the fuze would have been inserted while the 1942 ring omits this detail.
2) The cannon on the 1942 ring is in better proportion to a real cannon and looks slightly better than the cannon on the 2014 ring.
3) The “Lone Star” on the Texas flag is bigger on the 2014 ring which I like better than the smaller one on the 1942 ring while the stars on the 1942 ring US flag are more recognizable as stars than their counterparts on the 2014 ring.
4) There are minor differences between the rifle and saber on both rings, but they are trivial in nature.
The “holes” or pits on the bottom of the ring which any Aggie can tell you stand for “certain individuals who went to Texas University” are effectively identical.
Finally, the inside of the ring:
1) Both rings contain a mark indicating the gold content of the ring and the manufacturer’s symbol. The Balfour ring has “Balfour” spelled out and some additional letters and numbers that have no meaning to myself.
2) The inscribed name of the owner is in different places on the two rings. On the 1942 ring, the name inscription starts at the area that is effectively directly behind the top of the cannon and continues down towards the bottom of the left side of the ring. The 2014 ring inscribed owner’s name is centered underneath the crest so that the owner’s middle initial is effectively underneath the shield. The font on the 2014 ring is much larger than the font on the 1942 ring and a bit “rough.” The font on the 1942 ring is very smooth and formal. Almost reminiscent of old calling cards.
Either way, both rings work their “Aggie Magic” and I consider myself lucky to have more than one!!!
Aggie Ring Day on the Jersey Shore!
I recently broke my Class of 1984 Texas A&M Aggie Ring and had to have it replaced with a new one. The new one is still a Class of ’84 ring, but it is of the newer one-piece cast design specification that all Texas Aggie Rings have been manufactured to since 1998. So, in effect, it is a 2014 ring with my old class year on it. (I’ll refer to it as the 2014 ring throughout this text).
While enjoying a wonderful Mason Jar full of Maker’s Mark at my favorite dive bar on the Jersey Shore, I was looking at my new ring (she’s a beautiful thing) and a Class of 1942 A&M College of Texas ring that I purchased from an estate sale a couple of years ago. The Class of ’42 ring apparently was never worn by the Texas Aggie who purchased it. I did the research on him (his name is inside the ring) and he won some very distinguished awards during WW II. He survived the war in Europe and died an old man in the early 2000s. The old ring is way too small for ANY of my fingers so I wear it occasionally on a leather cord around my neck.
While examining my new (2014) model Aggie Ring and the “experienced” 1942 Aggie Ring, I was taken back by the vast number of differences there are in the design of the two rings. There are many!!! I then went online and found out a few facts that helped to explain why the rings are so different:
1) My original Class of 1984 Aggie Ring (and the new 2014 replacement for it) were manufactured by Balfour Corporation of Austin, Texas which has been the sole manufacturer of Aggie rings since 1949.
2) My older Aggie decorated combat veteran’s ring from the Class of 1942 was manufactured by Josten’s Ring Division headquartered in Owatonna, Minnesota which was the sole manufacturer of Texas A&M Rings from 1940 to 1948.
As the two companies aren’t connected, it stands to reason that when Balfour Corporation was awarded the contract, their designer would have had to make new patterns for the A&M ring. Over the years, Balfour has continued to modify the “patterns” that are used to cast the Aggie rings.
While I’m sure I’m missing some of the differences in the two Aggie rings, here are some things that immediately jumped out at me while I was casually observing the two rings next to each other.
Beginning with the ring crest:
1) The large oval around the eagle and inner art is much more prominent on the Balfour 2014 model than the older Jostens one. In fact it’s almost sharp to the touch and stands up way above the crest content. The oval on the 1942 Jostens model is much lower (almost even with the eagle) and smoother. The only way I can explain the tactile feel of the difference between the two would be that the 2014 oval band feels like the top of a beer can while the band on the 1942 ring feels like the smooth bottom of a beer can. The 2014 ring is more of a long oval while the 1942 oval is more round as typical of most older college class rings. If I were to need to punch anyone in the face with one of these rings on, I’d definitely wear the Balfour model as that sharp edge on the oval could definitely do more damage to a human skull than the smooth edge on the older ring.
2) The text font on the two rings are totally different. While both rings use a serif font, the font on the 1942 ring is easier to read and not as harsh as the font on the 2014 ring. The font on the 2014 ring almost seems to be cast in a “false perspective” as if it were designed on a computer. The ampersand “&” on the 1942 ring is clearly distinguishable as such while the ampersand on the 2014 ring in the “A&M” is almost unrecognizable as that character and looks more like the cousin of a “6” or a “B.”
3) The class year on the 1942 ring is set in a font that is low and wide and blends into the background of the crest quite well. The 2014 ring class year is a bit harsh and tall. It almost looks like a sans-serif font and is so set apart from the art on the rest of the crest that it looks like the class year was added as an afterthought.
4) The shield in front of the eagle on both of the rings are very different. While both have 13 stripes in the shield that refer to the 13 original states and symbolize the intense patriotism of graduates and undergraduates of A&M and five stars in the shield refer to phases of development of the student; mind or intellect, body, spiritual attainment, emotional poise, and integrity of character, the aspect ratio and size of the two shields are completely different. The shield on the 1942 ring is much smaller and looks how a shield was depicted in artwork I have seen from the 1800s and early 1900s. The shield on the 1942 ring has five stars with the center of the five stars larger than the two stars on either side of it. The 2014 ring has a much taller and larger shield which unfortunately, obscures much more of the body of the eagle. Also, the stars on the newer ring are all of the same size and are almost distinguishable as stars. They almost look like “dots.”
5) The eagle which stands for agility and power is vastly different on the two different rings. The 1942 ring eagle’s head, while smaller than the one on the 2014 ring rises much higher in the crest and is more easily identifiable as an eagle than the one on the 2014 ring. The eagle’s wings on the 1942 ring are much higher on the crest and show distinctly three layers of the eagle’s wings while the wings on the 2014 ring are almost two dimensional at the bottom of the crest and an observer really has to look hard to distinguish any detail. The eagle on the 1942 ring is clearly perched on a rock and you can quite easily see its feet and talons. On the 2014 ring, I can’t really make out the eagle’s feet because of the size of the class year font and the larger shield. It “might” be perched on a branch, but I can’t really tell. It definitely isn’t on a large rock like it is on the 1942 ring. You can even seek the belly of the eagle on the 1942 ring. [Look at the photos of the two crests and note how significant the difference is between the two eagles and shields on the different rings!]
Moving on to the side of the ring with the Great Seal of the Republic (State) of Texas which includes the five-pointed star surrounded by a wreath of olive or laurel leaves symbolizing the strength to fight joined at the bottom by a circled ribbon indicating the necessity of joining the two traits to accomplish one’s ambition to serve [the military and the Republic of Texas.]:
1) The two “Lone Stars of Texas” on both rings are virtually identical. The olive / laurel leaves on the 1942 ring are more defined and not as obscured with other embellishment as the 2014 ring. The background behind the “Lone Star” on the 1942 ring is plain and simple which makes the star stand out more than on the 2014 ring where there are all sorts of indeterminate lines behind the star which tend to detract from it.
2) The ribbon tying the two pieces of vegetation on the 1942 ring is more “three dimensional” where the one on the 2014 ring looks just like a series of lines.
3) The American flag on the left of the wreath of the 1942 ring is much easier to identify. While you can only see three stars on the flag and even though they are much smaller on the older ring, they are much sharper than the ones on the 2014 ring which look more like three “dots” or even a raised triangle.
4) The “chevrons” at the bottom of the crest are of different proportions on the two rings. The 1942 ring having proportions more like one would have seen on military rank back in the 1800s/1900s.
The other side of the ring includes an artillery cannon, a saber, and an infantry rifle which allow us to remember that the men of the Republic of Texas fought for their land and are determined to defend the Republic.
1) This side of the ring is were both the 1942 ring and the 2014 ring are the most similar with only minor variations. One of note is that the 2014 ring correctly shows the opening on the cannon where the fuze would have been inserted while the 1942 ring omits this detail.
2) The cannon on the 1942 ring is in better proportion to a real cannon and looks slightly better than the cannon on the 2014 ring.
3) The “Lone Star” on the Texas flag is bigger on the 2014 ring which I like better than the smaller one on the 1942 ring while the stars on the 1942 ring US flag are more recognizable as stars than their counterparts on the 2014 ring.
4) There are minor differences between the rifle and saber on both rings, but they are trivial in nature.
The “holes” or pits on the bottom of the ring which any Aggie can tell you stand for “certain individuals who went to Texas University” are effectively identical.
Finally, the inside of the ring:
1) Both rings contain a mark indicating the gold content of the ring and the manufacturer’s symbol. The Balfour ring has “Balfour” spelled out and some additional letters and numbers that have no meaning to myself.
2) The inscribed name of the owner is in different places on the two rings. On the 1942 ring, the name inscription starts at the area that is effectively directly behind the top of the cannon and continues down towards the bottom of the left side of the ring. The 2014 ring inscribed owner’s name is centered underneath the crest so that the owner’s middle initial is effectively underneath the shield. The font on the 2014 ring is much larger than the font on the 1942 ring and a bit “rough.” The font on the 1942 ring is very smooth and formal. Almost reminiscent of old calling cards.
Either way, both rings work their “Aggie Magic” and I consider myself lucky to have more than one!!!