Might be a controversial question and I’ll preface by saying I mean absolutely no disrespect to those service members and families who earnt the medals. However, I’ve been thinking about this for a while and wondered what other people thought: All other things being equal, does the lack of engraving/stamping make a WW2 medal less collectible and desirable (to a collector) than, say, a WW1 medal, the majority of which are stamped with the soldier’s name and serial number? It seems to me that the provenance and background is clearly easier to ascertain with a WW1 medal, and the medal is more difficult to replace. Of course, though, stamped or not, medals issued to an individual should carry the same significance and therefore as long as there’s some provenance to show where the medal came from and who it was issued to, maybe the stamping doesn’t matter? Is this important to a collector? What does the group think?