Why don't more Soldiers wear their full size medals?

Full size medals can run hundreds of dollars depending on the size of the rack, even minnie medals can be pricey so ribbons for most is the way to go.

Short answer: they're expensive to buy and mount, they're noisy when you move and on a personal note, they're a little to flashy for my liking. Ribbons are fine, even the top three alone.

Because the damn things are heavy and pull your jacket off center, get caught on your wife's ball gown and are expensive to replace when they fall off and get stepped on, on the dance floor. But other than that they look cool.

Notice the full size medals of these USAF Airmen from Hanscom AFB, MA in a parade In Boston, MA These Airmen are members of the Base's Patriot Honor Guard from Hanscom AFB.

In short: they're expensive and they're noisy. Mounting even a modest amount of medals is an increasingly cost-prohibitive endeavor. Minis are alright, but even those aren't cheap. As far as the anodized medals the USMC wears, I've never been a fan of those or anything that has that much 'bling' to it. Too flashy for my taste, but to each his own. I don't remember the last time I wore full medals. I think it was when I was in my Seabee battalion. That's like 15 years ago now.

I've honestly never thought about it. Maybe I'll look into it.

I don't do wear because I personally think ribbons present a sharper and more professional image. Wearing medals to me looks a little too Italian opera. And then there not wanting to be "that guy".

1. It's very expensive to buy and mount what consists of a lot of medals. And, of course, as soon as you do all that, you get another one right in the middle of what you've already gotten mounted. 2. It's very noisy, if that gives you any idea how many of those things are awarded to service members nowadays. 3. In my opinion, again, in MY opinion, it's a little showboat-ish, for lack of a better term. It makes one look like a heavily-decorated war hero even when that may not be the case. Even if that is the case, it's what I'd call an overabundance of riches, especially from the point of view of first-termers.

Just like with ribbons, I elected to wear only the top row (three ribbons or five medals) on the rare occasion I actually trotted them out. Mini-medals are okay, but again, too many of those things is a little awkward for my liking. I was literally just thinking the other day when the last time I wore full medals was on active duty, and I really can't remember. I think it was either at the beginning of my Seabee battalion tour (2001-02) or perhaps even earlier during my first overseas tour in Japan (1996--98). Perhaps even on recruiting duty, 1998-2000. It's hard to say because the occasion to wear full medals is fairly uncommon and not one I took advantage of very often. My two cents.

True they are authorized for wear in the Class A. aside from The Navy and the Marines I never saw them worn on the Class A p, outside of the Old Guard inDC. Yes they are authorized and appropriate, however, they are also expensive and until relatively recently not available for purchase privately. I also,suspect the fact that each one had to be individually pinned to,the uniform made it easier to simply wear the ribbons.
Also, some badges would,not be visible if the medals were worn, as there is no alternative display option.
Given the above the ribbons offer the easiest option and permit all authorized badges to be worn as well.
I wore ribbons with my formal blues with bow tie and mini-medals with my Mess Dress.

The Navy, USMC and Coast Guard seem to wear them frequently to formal functions, but not the Army or Air Force.