WHY THE TITLE “GLOBE and ANCHOR”? Many have asked why I have not indicated, eagle, globe and anchor, rather than just “GLOBE and ANCHOR,” implying that I have erred. No error, it reads as I intended. Apparently unknown to most Marines of today, there was a time in the Corps when Marines referred to their emblem (EMBLEM, not “ega”–but that’s yet another story) as simply the “Globe and Anchor,” and there are still some old timers and writers around who use the term.
There are many writings available, most of them older writings, but some more recent, where you will find this. One of the best examples of this, perhaps, may be–and there are many more–a quote in the recent book by Colonel Jon T. Hoffman, USMCR, Chesty. It reads as follows:”Colonel Robert D. Heinl, the premier historian of the Old Corps and a former subordinate of Puller, believed that Chesty was one of the greatest raconteurs that ever wore the Globe and Anchor.”
(Random House, 2001, Preface, page xi)Globe and Anchor was still a common expression even in this old boot’s first days in the Corps of the early 1950s. (I find the term similar to the term used by the Royal Marines for their emblem, known as the Globe and Laurel).
Matter of fact, I do not recall our emblem being specifically referred to as an eagle, globe and anchor until the very late 1950s or early ’60s, on TV recruiting promotions, ads, etc. To be sure, the popular term has now become eagle, globe and anchor, and considered by the majority to be the correct term, and, apparently, anything else being incorrect in their eyes. Not this Marine, as always, I’ll fall in w/the old salts. Besides, “Globe and Anchor” has a fine ring to it, it clicks!