I think its appalling that Lisa blowing Bart has been immortalised on the medals... 
Why can't they come up with a nice classic design and stick with it, instead of having these awful logos plastered over the medals?
I suppose the problem is getting agreement.
More worrying for me is the physical inflation over the years (highlighted in another thread). They look like plastic toys now, and it's cleary going to get worse over time. The actually medal-sized ones of 50years ago were much cooler and tasteful.
The IOC lays down a minimum size: 60mm diameter & 3mm thickness. I don't know when it was introduced, but medals from before 1960 were mostly smaller, so it must have been after 1956. Up to 1956, the size varied from 33 to 59mm by 1.5 to 5.7mm, with no particular pattern: the 1896 medals were 48mm, the 1912 medals the thinnest by far & only 0.4 mm from having the smallest diameter. The biggest were in 1920, the thickest in 1932.
From 1960 to 2004 there was no inflation. 68 x 6.5 mm in 1960, 60 x 5 mm in 2004, maximum (in 1992) 70 x 9.8mm. The 2008 medals were 70mm, the same diameter as 1992 & 1996, & thinner than most since 1960.
This lack of inflationary trend has been blown out of the water by LOCOG. The 2012 medals are 85 x 7mm, & the heaviest ever, by far, over 50% heavier than the previous record set in 1992.
Winter Olympics medals are bloody enormous. though. They hit 100mm in 1936, & after a bit of relative moderation have gone wild since 1992. They topped half a kilo in 2002 & 2010, & the last two have been 107 & 100 mm.
