✅ SOLVED Any Ideas what this Brass item is??

[BuckleBoy]

Hello All,

I found two of these items--flat brass items with two holes for rivets/nails in them. They looked at the time like they would have some sort of stamping on them, but both are plain... The older one has some design and it is cast. It also has a part of an old nail still in one hole of it...








I found this one online that was stamped "CS" from a CW camp--the finder at the site says that it's a "watch fob" but it obviously isn't...and it's the same dimensions as the plain oval one I found (pictured above). I'm not suggesting that these are war related, but I'm just wondering what the heck they are...



http://www.midtenrelics.com/buttons.htm (See #2, second photo...)


Regards,


Buckleboy

 

[BuckleBoy]

Thank you 4-H. No, all we have is one more person in the field of archeology guessing what it might be just as we have been guessing. The fact is, these have been found by the hundreds right here in the U.S. and we still can't match them to any known harness (yet) nor can anyone in Britton apparently.

Many of us already supposed that a strap of leather went through the loop. Yet we have a wide piece of brass that had to be mounted on an even wider piece of leather, and then had to accept a small strap of leather through it. On top of that, these are virtually all decorative, despite them being found on even humble homesteads where fittings were often as humble. We should be able to find conclusive evidence of what this object did, but we definately haven't yet. I say remove the green check and keep trying.

Pages 5 and 6--the U-shaped pieces identified as strap guides in the finds database:

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/ukdfddata/showcat.php?cat=169&page=5

And the companion piece is listed as an unknown artifact on page 10 here:

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/ukdfddata/showcat.php?cat=231&page=10


The pages in the database, aside from the unknown artifact pages, are correctly attributed by the archaeological community from what I understand.

Someone should send them a letter or e-mail to let them know of our findings here.


Regards,



Buckles

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I like the way the archeaologists work together with metal detecting community in the UK. (unlike here in USA)

 

[johnnyi]

Buckleboy my friend, perhaps I am not explaining this clearly.

The purpose of your post was to identify this object, correct?

Despite the majority of us taking it for granted that a piece of leather went through the loop of your object; something fairly obvious, we still did not know what it was used for. Right now we still have no idea how it was used. We are no farther than we would be if we tried to distinguish a shoe buckle from a belt buckle from a breast buckle, had they not been identified and documented with proofs of each one before we found them.

All we have discovered in the final posts is that some people are giving this object a name now, but still are only guessing as to its use. (just like we did with our "harness shields) . Frankly it defies logic to believe one can create a name for an object, and in the same breath not know, other than by a guess, on what it belonged, and believe you have solved the riddle.

I did read the "answer"on pages 5 and 6 which read, "strap guide posted by sidrossiter". The description goes on to say (and this is important) "PROBABLY used on harness.." Again, this is no more of an identification than saying one of the meriad of distinctly different buckles of different uses "probably went on a human."

The archeological community has decided to give this object a name, but are still unable to provide any information about what it was used on, other than a GUESS that it might be used on a harness. That's what we were doing too, guessing. The word "probably" denotes a guess.
It's like the brass object yesterday which obviously went on a strap. It was ironspikes proof though in the form of a photograph which actuallly proved what it was and how it was used. It is now a strap end to a suitcase.

Until we can find something substanitive to support the guess; a painting, an object in a museum, anything at all that shows these objects that we find here in the U.S. by the hundreds, and in the form they were used, we are doing no more than giving a "question mark" a name and then calling it quits.

These are far too interesting and enigmatic to dismiss with a new name if we still have virtually no proof of what manner they were used. We have no proof. the links supplied no proof. I say, remove the green check and let's prove what this thing is used on once and for all,....... and when we discover the answer enjoy the satisfaction of sharing it.

 

[Silver Searcher]

Buckleboy my friend, perhaps I am not explaining this clearly.

The purpose of your post was to identify this object, correct?

Despite the majority of us taking it for granted that a piece of leather went through the loop of your object; something fairly obvious, we still did not know what it was used for. Right now we still have no idea how it was used. We are no farther than we would be if we tried to distinguish a shoe buckle from a belt buckle from a breast buckle, had they not been identified and documented with proofs of each one before we found them.

All we have discovered in the final posts is that some people are giving this object a name now, but still are only guessing as to its use. (just like we did with our "harness shields) . Frankly it defies logic to believe one can create a name for an object, and in the same breath not know, other than by a guess, on what it belonged, and believe you have solved the riddle.

I did read the "answer"on pages 5 and 6 which read, "strap guide posted by sidrossiter". The description goes on to say (and this is important) "PROBABLY used on harness.." Again, this is no more of an identification than saying one of the meriad of distinctly different buckles of different uses "probably went on a human."

The archaeological community has decided to give this object a name, but are still unable to provide any information about what it was used on, other than a GUESS that it might be used on a harness. That's what we were doing too, guessing. The word "probably" denotes a guess.
It's like the brass object yesterday which obviously went on a strap. It was ironspikes proof though in the form of a photograph which actually proved what it was and how it was used. It is now a strap end to a suitcase.

Until we can find something substanitive to support the guess; a painting, an object in a museum, anything at all that shows these objects that we find here in the U.S. by the hundreds, and in the form they were used, we are doing no more than giving a "question mark" a name and then calling it quits.

These are far too interesting and enigmatic to dismiss with a new name if we still have virtually no proof of what manner they were used. We have no proof. the links supplied no proof. I say, remove the green check and let's prove what this thing is used on once and for all,....... and when we discover the answer enjoy the satisfaction of sharing it.

Johnnyi...

we could say this about all Archaeological finds, unless you have living proof from some one from that era, example, Roman Bow Broach, used to attach the cloak worn by Roman soldiers, how do we know has anybody seen one used in this way....no, it's what we choose to believe from scholars who research a given era are we going to go down this route with all the whatsits that come on this thread unless some one has seen or has a picture with the item in question, we have to except what the scholars, Archy's, and Professors say on there given fields.... outherwise we might as well not bother having these web sites..... that decribe things that we find in the soil.

SS.

 

[johnnyi]

Silver searcher, let's be realistic, this is not a case of being unable to prove the usage of an ancient antiquity like a Roman broach, which may or may not have been proven through sculpture, tombs etc.. We are talking about an ambiguous object used in fairly recent times. We find these here in the U.S. by the hundreds, within the short span of the last 200 years, yet we cannot yet place their usage.

Of course we don't require a picture of everything, yet when an almost unlimited number of pictures, texts, paintings, as well as genuine artifacts of harness furniture of the last 200 years exist (which of course they do) , then clearly we should be able to identify a fitting which we find on virtually every colonial and post colonial home site.

I appreciate the fact that you found some links that show where others have found the same objects in Europe. As well, it is probably useful that someone there has decided recently to give these objects a name. Unfortunately giving an object a name when one does not have any reliable proof of its usage is useless; particularly when such an object is clearly functional, not decorative.

Silver searcher, ask yourself honestly, has the "archeological community" identified this object;? an object which possibly would have had to have been mounted on a wide enough piece of leather to accomodate it, yet designed to receive a strap of leather of a much smaller uniform size? An object which is so obviously visible that virtually every example we find is decorated or even plated? The answer is no, even though we have a wealth of harness resources that span the last 200 years.

In addition, we have found a number of these objects intact which show prongs that extend well beyond the thickness of leather. We have other jury rigged examples that show staples in place of the original cast U that extend also. We have the added challenge of figuring out why such simple objects were made of three elements (two of brass, drilled for steel pins), and why, if these were such universal fittings, we've never seen them manufactured at a later date, as virtually every functioning harness fitting has been manufactured.

Again, we are not attempting to identify an ancient relic. We are trying to identify something that is probably staring us in the face if we knew where to look. All I am asking is to have the opportunity for us ALL to look, and use the unique resources of a board of hundreds of people to do it. We can't do that if we passively put up a check mark and give up. Otherwise we are left with, "what is that?" "why, it's a strap guide" "How do you know it's a strap guide?" "Because it's a harness fitting" "How do you know it's a harness fitting?" "Because we call it a strap guide".

 

[johnnyi]

Thanks Buckles. We WILL eventually identify this one!

 

[IronSpike]

That's the spirit But aren't we talking about more than one

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

"what is that?" "why, it's a strap guide" "How do you know it's a strap guide?" "Because it's a harness fitting" "How do you know it's a harness fitting?" "Because we call it a strap guide".

Wasnt it called a "furniture drawer pull" on another site?

 

[CRUSADER]

"what is that?" "why, it's a strap guide" "How do you know it's a strap guide?" "Because it's a harness fitting" "How do you know it's a harness fitting?" "Because we call it a strap guide".

Wasnt it called a "furniture drawer pull" on another site?

No, but the U shaped bits have been wrongly?? called the above in Gordon Baileys Book.

 

[Silver Searcher]

Silver searcher, let's be realistic, this is not a case of being unable to prove the usage of an ancient antiquity like a Roman broach, which may or may not have been proven through sculpture, tombs etc.. We are talking about an ambiguous object used in fairly recent times. We find these here in the U.S. by the hundreds, within the short span of the last 200 years, yet we cannot yet place their usage.

Of course we don't require a picture of everything, yet when an almost unlimited number of pictures, texts, paintings, as well as genuine artifacts of harness furniture of the last 200 years exist (which of course they do) , then clearly we should be able to identify a fitting which we find on virtually every colonial and post colonial home site.

I appreciate the fact that you found some links that show where others have found the same objects in Europe. As well, it is probably useful that someone there has decided recently to give these objects a name. Unfortunately giving an object a name when one does not have any reliable proof of its usage is useless; particularly when such an object is clearly functional, not decorative.

Silver searcher, ask yourself honestly, has the "archeological community" identified this object;? an object which possibly would have had to have been mounted on a wide enough piece of leather to accomodate it, yet designed to receive a strap of leather of a much smaller uniform size? An object which is so obviously visible that virtually every example we find is decorated or even plated? The answer is no, even though we have a wealth of harness resources that span the last 200 years.

In addition, we have found a number of these objects intact which show prongs that extend well beyond the thickness of leather. We have other jury rigged examples that show staples in place of the original cast U that extend also. We have the added challenge of figuring out why such simple objects were made of three elements (two of brass, drilled for steel pins), and why, if these were such universal fittings, we've never seen them manufactured at a later date, as virtually every functioning harness fitting has been manufactured.

Again, we are not attempting to identify an ancient relic. We are trying to identify something that is probably staring us in the face if we knew where to look. All I am asking is to have the opportunity for us ALL to look, and use the unique resources of a board of hundreds of people to do it. We can't do that if we passively put up a check mark and give up. Otherwise we are left with, "what is that?" "why, it's a strap guide" "How do you know it's a strap guide?" "Because it's a harness fitting" "How do you know it's a harness fitting?" "Because we call it a strap guide".

Like I said Jonnyi...I didn't green check it, I just threw in the reign guide picture, BB was happy with it now I see he has changed his mind that's his prerogative

but this is not the first time I have tried to help Iding US finds, only to meet with a negative so in the future I will refrain from trying, as it seems you US boys are only willing to except a US verification

Not trying to be petty or nothing, but there seems to be a lot of fuss over nothing

SS.

 

[johnnyi]

"but this is not the first time I have tried to help Iding US finds, only to meet with a negative so in the future I will refrain from trying, as it seems you US boys are only willing to except a US verification"

So sorry you feel that way silversearcher, as it was never my intention to speak negatively about your contribution. It "is what is" however, a "guess", but from the other side of the pond. There's no getting around that fact. The wording of the verification ("probably" is) is proof of that.

Please don't take personally something which is simply factual. In the short time I've been here I've been in awe of your contributions and it would be a shame if something like this were to end them.

 

[Silver Searcher]

"but this is not the first time I have tried to help Iding US finds, only to meet with a negative so in the future I will refrain from trying, as it seems you US boys are only willing to except a US verification"

So sorry you feel that way silversearcher, as it was never my intention to speak negatively about your contribution. It "is what is" however, a "guess", but from the other side of the pond. There's no getting around that fact. The wording of the verification ("probably" is) is proof of that.

Please don't take personally something which is simply factual. In the short time I've been here I've been in awe of your contributions and it would be a shame if something like this were to end them.

The word (proberbly) does'nt appear on all the listings made have you looked how many they are of them, they are listed as strap guides as well,(some with leather fragments attached) that site has over 18000 finds posted, and over a 1000 members, I never see anybody saying they are wrong, you say it's not solved, fine.....but you have'nt brought anything forward to endorse it.

SS.

 

[johnnyi]

Now we're getting somewhere silver searcher. All it took was some nudging. You've provided scans of a u shaped piece with leather and rivets still intact, yet no plate visible in that arrangement!

 

[Silver Searcher]

Now we're getting somewhere silver searcher. All it took was some nudging. You've provided scans of a u shaped piece with leather and rivets still intact, yet no plate visible in that arrangement!

Because there isn't one on the UKFD base the rivets obviously rust away that's (I guess how we get the two pieces) I suppose we need to find one that's intact

SS.

 

[Silver Searcher]

Now we're getting somewhere silver searcher. All it took was some nudging. You've provided scans of a u shaped piece with leather and rivets still intact, yet no plate visible in that arrangement!

Just to say the size range of these guides, is between 32mm-70mm these are the smallest and largest I have found so far

SS.

 

[johnnyi]

"Because there isn't one on the UKFD base the rivets obviously rust away that's (I guess how we get the two pieces) I suppose we need to find one that's intact"

SS, you're running on eight cylinders now. You've found a U shaped object similar to what we find with the leather intact as well as the rivets intact. Nothing has "rusted away" though? Unfortunately there is no plate between the u and the leather either to confirm our supposition of for what purpose these were designed. Nor is their any inkling why every U shaped piece we find is apparently drilled to accept iron as a fastener. Judging from your example, simply flaring the brass pins of the U over the rivet would accomplish the job. Could these actually have been mounted with iron to drive through a saddle into the wooden substructure?

We are also left with the problem of scratcher's first jury rigged example where the "pins" are far longer (even with a plate) than those which would go through harness leather; bigcypress's example where the pins extend much farther than the thickness of harness leather; and scratcher's last example which shows the same thing.

 

[johnnyi]

"Just to say the size range of these guides, is between 32mm-70mm these are the smallest and largest I have found so far"

SS I presume you're measuring the U's, not the plates which were actually the subject of the original posting? As far as I know everyone so far has posted plates which all have the same uniform spacing.

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

RPG posted this but its not conclusive and you cant see the oval piece.

 

[CRUSADER]

RPG posted this but its not conclusive and you cant see the oval piece.

Funny BB, I think I see a 'Saddle Shield' I thought they only went on the Harness

 

[Silver Searcher]

"Just to say the size range of these guides, is between 32mm-70mm these are the smallest and largest I have found so far"

SS I presume you're measuring the U's, not the plates which were actually the subject of the original posting? As far as I know everyone so far has posted plates which all have the same uniform spacing.

No Jonnyi...the actuall plates I posted are that size........ I found a more modern style of the U pieces, called stapples, don't no weather this helps any

SS.