Field of Dreams II -British tudor rose

[Palmetto]

Just getting around to posting this from a few weeks back, but headed back down for 3 days to my Low Country field of Dreams and it did not disappoint. We hit some other areas this year as well and it turned out quite productive-My Dad dug 5 eagle buttons and an 1843 half dime and my uncle recovered (on top of ground) a very nice Porter Military Academy cuff (out of Charleston).

The field is an awesome array of relics and time periods. From early 1700's on up to civil war. I dug over 100 flats again and this time hit some real nice finds with a gold gilded British Lieutenant Tudor Rose button, 1812 Artillery and a 1775 half reale (worn with exception of date)-Some real nice dandy buttons, beautiful saddle shield, and many others.

thanks for looking.

 

[Silver Searcher]

Seeing that, I now will bring up a point I had planned to make until I started getting accused of my posts being of the troll variety.


In Troiani's latest book he refers to it as "the rose - the symbol of royal feuds" while in the first book he calls it a Tudor Rose. I wonder if he made the change for a reason. Does a 6 petal rose also have the same meaning? I didn't think so.

I'd like to know why there's 6 petals on that button. It may be a clue in deciding whether the one in question could be Navy... because as I said it's made exactly right.

I can only assume that his quote ..the symbol of royal feuds...he meant the battle for the throne of England between the houses of Lancaster and York, in the rein of the House of Plantagenet.
As for the button posted, it has seven petals, perhaps not even British as all the ones on the UKFD seem to have five, or six like the one I posted. The decorative type seem all to have five, as do the cuff-link and shirt stud type ...cool find though, I wonder what the back looks like and if there is any thing on it.

SS

 

[Silver Searcher]

Good news... you must have got smarter!

Just older...can't afford the time now

SS

 

[Iron Patch]

I can only assume that his quote ..the symbol of royal feuds...he meant the battle for the throne of England between the houses of Lancaster and York, in the rein of the House of Plantagenet.
As for the button posted, it has seven petals, perhaps not even British as all the ones on the UKFD seem to have five, or six like the one I posted. The decorative type seem all to have five, as do the cuff-link and shirt stud type ...cool find though, I wonder what the back looks like and if there is any thing on it.

SS

My question is why do basically all of the military ones have 5 petals, and the one you posted 6. Civilian buttons I'm sure anything would go, but you don't just screw up a military button and add one too many petals, so there has to be a reason.

 

[Iron Patch]

Just older...can't afford the time now

SS

I figured you'd say I just got dumber.


But I hear you on older. I lose interest pretty fast in these forum battles, or whatever you want to call them.

 

[Palmetto]

I can only assume that his quote ..the symbol of royal feuds...he meant the battle for the throne of England between the houses of Lancaster and York, in the rein of the House of Plantagenet.
As for the button posted, it has seven petals, perhaps not even British as all the ones on the UKFD seem to have five, or six like the one I posted. The decorative type seem all to have five, as do the cuff-link and shirt stud type ...cool find though, I wonder what the back looks like and if there is any thing on it.



SS

No backmark-full gilt, broken shank. Not where I can get a picture of it.

 

[detroitdigger]

Great finds, what site to hunt!!

 

[CRUSADER]

Oh god... I cannot believe the number of arrogant people on this forum who think they are experts just because they found a few rare relics. Now, how does it affect YOU in any way if this man is hopeful that his button is a Tudor Rose. It's his relic and it's in his collection. I joined this forum to meet some new and different friends in the relic community but all I've encountered is a bunch of crusty old farts who have nothing better to do but argue all day. Now I know why I'm the only one out of my friends who is on this site. Oh and you must wonder who my friends are... Well they are the actual experts in this hobby, not a bunch of wannabes. I'm not gonna say there names on here but go to relicman.com and you'll get the idea.

Grasshoppa,

I have to reply to this one, I laughed so hard I neally pulled a muscule - thanks.
Theres a few points I would like to address:
Firstly I'm sad this post is tainted by your hate campaign of those that want to freely share their knowledge.
If 'experts' leave this site, I'm unsure of the relevance to the OP's post, but in my opinion it's their loss.
In answer to the question; 'how does it affect YOU in any way if this man is hopeful that his button is a Tudor Rose' - Doesn't affect me at all, it's not a Tudor Rose - 'Fact'.
'Crusty Old Farts' - Very funny, that's a first for me, not sure how the Crusties will feel though.
Who's 'Arguing', other than you trying to inflame one.
Glad you have expert friends, it helps me no end, I have many as well, although most I would call contacts rather than actual friends.
'Wannabe' - another first, wow 2 firsts in one post - All I 'wannabe' is detecting & accurate, can't be that all the time but I try.

Now I've answered your questions, I want to explain why I came to my conclusions based on the evidence I have discovered:

Designs of Flowers on buttons has been a popular choice for hundreds of years, & the Rose is right up there with the most popular on British Button, no guesses why.
A design very similar to the ones we are politely debating 'I think first' came on to the scene in the 17th C. I added a picture - the 4 buttons.
They seemed to fall out of fashion in the early 1700's but got a revival in the end of the second half of the 1700s. These buttons included 'Tombac' types (see picture of different variants) & also on 'linked buttons' (Cufflinks) & some early 2 piece types.(in silver & other metals like pewter)
I've yet to see them on Dandy Buttons, but would not be surprised if they were.

Now my last piece of logic. Military buttons even of this early period would be part of a 'uniform' & to be 'uniform' they have to be made of a 'standard'. I see no such evidence.

I hope this helps everyone in this interesting post which has helped to highlight what we can add as detectorist, not experts.

 

[CRUSADER]

Sorry to post again, it's got my researching blood up & I thought I would look for Dandy version, as that would be the final game changer.
Couldn't find one but found a few more reasons why its not 'uniform':

Look at this one, do we now believe the Navy wore hexagon versions as well?
UK Finds Database - - - UKDFD

This one has a hatched border, which in Military terms would have meant something different from one without:
UK Finds Database - - - UKDFD

Another different one, this Navy as well?
UK Finds Database - - - UKDFD

Another?
UK Finds Database - - - UKDFD

Lastly Gordon Bailey in his 'Buttons & Fasteners 500BC-AD1840' doesn't mention them as being Navy but has them on the same pages as the Civvies. Are we calling into question his research?

 

[Iron Patch]

Sorry to post again, it's got my researching blood up & I thought I would look for Dandy version, as that would be the final game changer.
Couldn't find one but found a few more reasons why its not 'uniform':

Look at this one, do we now believe the Navy wore hexagon versions as well?
UK Finds Database - - - UKDFD

This one has a hatched border, which in Military terms would have meant something different from one without:
UK Finds Database - - - UKDFD

Another different one, this Navy as well?
UK Finds Database - - - UKDFD

Another?
UK Finds Database - - - UKDFD

Lastly Gordon Bailey in his 'Buttons & Fasteners 500BC-AD1840' doesn't mention them as being Navy but has them on the same pages as the Civvies. Are we calling into question his research?

1, 2 & 4, no... but number 3 I would lean yes.

 

[CRUSADER]

1, 2 & 4, no... but number 3 I would lean yes.

This is why I like the debate, the early officers did wear a 'tudor rose button' but I've yet to read a source that KNOWS the pattern or patterns.

My conclusion is still the same, not every Tudor Rose Button/cuff link is Navy.

 

[Iron Patch]

My conclusion is still the same, not every Tudor Rose Button/cuff link is Navy.

5-10 years ago the information online was better, because the only ones who really talked about these are the ones who were familiar with the listings in the book. Then through the years more and more people became familiar with the connection, but never took the time to really look into it.... then sites like the Colchester one really mess people up because too many people believe if you see it on the internet it must be true!


The #3 button is very similar to the pewter in the book with the "BOND" backmark. Maybe it's the only pewter in there because it's the only one he could make the military connection with.

 

[CRUSADER]

5-10 years ago the information online was better, because the only ones who really talked about these are the ones who were familiar with the listings in the book. Then through the years more and more people became familiar with the connection, but never took the time to really look into it.... then sites like the Colchester one really mess people up because too many people believe if you see it on the internet it must be true!


The #3 button is very similar to the pewter in the book with the "BOND" backmark. Maybe it's the only pewter in there because it's the only one he could make the military connection with.

I know the US book writer has done a really excellent/professional job, but like I hinted on, it seems to be a little guess work or are we saying that the 'bond' backmark is the only true type because we have some source/document that said Officers/Navy commission it from this maker?

 

[Iron Patch]

I know the US book writer has done a really excellent/professional job, but like I hinted on, it seems to be a little guess work or are we saying that the 'bond' backmark is the only true type because we have some source/document that said Officers/Navy commission it from this maker?

I would imagine he just uses the best info. he can come up with. How good that is, I have no idea.

 

[CRUSADER]

I would imagine he just uses the best info. he can come up with. How good that is, I have no idea.

oh well thanks, shame we don't have more button experts in the UK I could call on, if they are out there & know, I've yet to met/contact any. One day we may have the answers, but you know me, I not happy until I'm convinced by sound facts/logic.

It would be great to finally clear this up, because as you hinted at, the Colchester Business are sending people home with false hope/info.

 

[Palmetto]

There may be more known about Confederate buttons, but there is certain ones that are widely accepted as Lieut. Navy, and have been for a long time... and they are in the book. That said, there's one or two in the book that surprise me, and I never would have thought they would be, and would like to know why they are there. So if anything there's more reason to debate your button than a Confederate one.

You should write Don T. and see what he has to say. I'm more curious than I care, just to be honest, but I still hope it turns out to be one.

I sent Don T an email and here is reply: Russell, I guess it's a variant. Really hard to say either way and any discussion would be strictly guessing. dt

This has been a great thread and one I never expected when I posted it as I do enjoy the different opinions and research that it invokes. As is the point of these forums (when they started at least) is to post our finds and to share the vast amounts of knowledge and info that are out there.

 

[Ahab8]

I sent Don T an email and here is reply: Russell, I guess it's a variant. Really hard to say either way and any discussion would be strictly guessing. dt This has been a great thread and one I never expected when I posted it as I do enjoy the different opinions and research that it invokes. As is the point of these forums (when they started at least) is to post our finds and to share the vast amounts of knowledge and info that are out there.

That's a great attitude and the right attitude. Nothing wrong with knowing the truth about our discoveries even if it's not what we hoped or expected. Good for you for not getting sensitive when people are blunt and to the point and just trying to help with a correct id. I heard that Iron Patch is a real jerk though. Think he called me a punk yesterday. Ha ha :-)
Truth told he's helped me a ton since I started detecting in September.

 

[CRUSADER]

[/B]I sent Don T an email and here is reply: Russell, I guess it's a variant. Really hard to say either way and any discussion would be strictly guessing. dt

This has been a great thread and one I never expected when I posted it as I do enjoy the different opinions and research that it invokes. As is the point of these forums (when they started at least) is to post our finds and to share the vast amounts of knowledge and info that are out there.

Good attitude & I to enjoyed it, thanks for posting & keeping an open mind.

So, Don is guessing... (don't blame him)

 

[timekiller]

Saw this yesterday,it made me think about this one I found & believe if mine was in better shape it would look just like yours or at least be easier to tell.But it came from a site that produced the 10 reg button,lots of musket balls,& even a piece of what I think was a broken bayonet.Here's the post when I found it & what was found with it that day. http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/today-s-finds/151326-tried-again.html
Here's a pic of it with the other button that came from the same site.

I'm on nobodies side just thought it was neat & that I had found one also with other military items.
Take Care,
Pete,

 

[Iron Patch]

[/B]I sent Don T an email and here is reply: Russell, I guess it's a variant. Really hard to say either way and any discussion would be strictly guessing. dt

This has been a great thread and one I never expected when I posted it as I do enjoy the different opinions and research that it invokes. As is the point of these forums (when they started at least) is to post our finds and to share the vast amounts of knowledge and info that are out there.

I was hoping for something more clear cut, but to be honest I didn't expect it.... because like I said from the start everything looks so good except for the fact it's not a 5 petal tudor rose. But it is what it is... whatever that is!

 

[Iron Patch]

That's a great attitude and the right attitude. Nothing wrong with knowing the truth about our discoveries even if it's not what we hoped or expected. Good for you for not getting sensitive when people are blunt and to the point and just trying to help with a correct id. I heard that Iron Patch is a real jerk though. Think he called me a punk yesterday. Ha ha :-)
Truth told he's helped me a ton since I started detecting in September.

No, I called you a P _ _ _ k! LOL But punk is good too.