Button ID

[Keith123]

Any info on this button would be appreciated. Looks to me like an eagle holding an anchor. Also looks like stars around the outer edges. It's about the size of a dime.

 

[duggap]

I would say it is a copy of a US Navy button. The back shows signs of rust which would mean it is a fashion button, usually off a man's blazer.

 

[johnnyi]

I have to disagree with duggap on this one. I think it's an NA 113. The discoloration doesn't seem to cover the whole back, which would have been the case were this iron backed I think.

 

[Keith123]

NA 113?

 

[johnnyi]

Sorry for not being clear Keith. This is a numbering system was devised by Alphaeus Albert to classsify specific American uniform and historical buttons. On your button, I assume that is dirt or corrosion on the back?

 

[duggap]

I have to disagree with duggap on this one. I think it's an NA 113. The discoloration doesn't seem to cover the whole back, which would have been the case were this iron backed I think.

You may very well be correct. These old eyes have gotten pretty bad, but they get fixed next month.

 

[Keith123]

Sorry for not being clear Keith. This is a numbering system was devised by Alphaeus Albert to classsify specific American uniform and historical buttons. On your button, I assume that is dirt or corrosion on the back?

corrosion and pitting

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

I have to agree with Duggap's original post... it is a civilian-usage Fashion button. It's definitely not an Albert's-book NA-113 button, because the top of 113's eagle's wings have more of a V-shape, instead of being smoothly round as we see on Keith123's button. Also, his has an iron back, and the only actual US navy button which has an iron back is the kepi-strap size version (13mm). Keith says his is the size of a dime, which is 17mm.

 

[johnnyi]

Ha, Cannonball, thank you, you're no doubt right about N113. I had read Albert's comment after NA 112
"There are many post 1850 makers and variants, as this pattern was in use until 1941"
and I assumed he was refering to the eagle on anchor, head right, circle of rope etc., of which N113 seemed closest of those illustrated. I didn't take size into account as I probably should have. (we've seen illustrated variations of the Navy button of the era as small as 15 mil, so I don't know if this pertains to Albert's comment, but hopefully you can clarify for me.)
After reading Keith's last post regarding my question about the back was rusted , he had said "corrosion and pitting". Maybe he can come back and explain if he meant rust or run a magnet over it to be certain? Anyway, thanks again J.

 

[Keith123]

I will post some more pics of the back and runs magnet over it. Also, I can check the exact size tomorrow am. Thank you all for the discussion I do t know much about buttons so

 

[Keith123]

I appreciate the info.

 

[johnnyi]

Aye Keith, don't bother. These two men are 100% right, it is not Navy. I didn't know you could blow up the size, and after I just did by accident, it is clearly rust. Oh well, "no fool like an old fool" I say as I slink away. Thanks daggup and cannonball, you've got sharp eyes and sharper noggins.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Johnnyi, for whatever my opinion is worth... the label "fool" does not apply to you. Fools fail (or refuse) to learn from the experience of making mistakes. You've seen your error, and learned how it happened, and won't repeat it.

Humans seem to learn most effectively by making mistakes. That's how I've come to know a lot of what I know.

 

[Davers]

Always Learning....