Help I’d this button for a friend

[BigWaveDave]

At my club meeting… I think it’s a winner…

 

[Jeff H]

Hmmmm.....reminds me of a funerary button

 

[GaRebel1861]

I hope you get an ID on it. I’ve got the same button.

 

[sibbley]

I've found similar buttons searching the interwebs, they show as Civil War U.S. Navy.

 

[sibbley]

According to the "Record of American Uniform and Historical Buttons" by Alphaeus H. Albert, Page 102, # 118 Navy; 2 piece with border. The device upper fluke of anchor in front of left wing. 23MM

 

[oldmxrat]

Cool old button!

 

[Trezurehunter]

Very nice !

 

[grasshopper]

I think it's a more modern fashion button....but that's just my 2 cents

 

[BigWaveDave]

I think it's a more modern fashion button....but that's just my 2 cents

Ahhh grasshopper….You owe my friend 2 cents….

 

[E-Trac-Ohio]

Nice one !

 

[sibbley]

I think it's a more modern fashion button....but that's just my 2 cents

I thought that too at first. The eagle looks almost cartoonish. But, it the same eagle in the book and on a couple of the websites.

 

[ncsuwolf]

Looks like the back is tin? If so that could help id. Haven’t gone through books yet, but based on my unfortunate history, most “navy” buttons and tin back buttons don’t end up being military. Hope this one is different (is military).

 

[ncsuwolf]

I looked in tice and Albert……don’t see a match. 118 in Albert is close, but not it (my opinion). Not being in tice makes sense, as that book stops at 1865. Where was this found? If found out west, it limits the pre-1865 opportunities.

Im going to have to agree with grasshopper, unless some else (hopefully) proves me wrong.

 

[fyrffytr1]

There are a few clues that this button is civilian. One, the eagle lacks detail. Two, the rounded off wings. Three, the anchor eye does not extend through the rope border, and four, the tin or iron back is a no-no for a military button, especially Navy. Imagine what it would do to a sailors uniform after exposure to salt water.
The first "Navy" button I found looked just like this one and I was excited until some of the knowledgeable people here set me straight.
If I had my old computer I would post a picture, but it died on me so I can't.

 

[Fredneck]

While this button doesn't match to a military button, one should not be so quick to write it off because of a tin back. Actually button #118 in Albert's states that the button had a similar back to Confederate Locals which would certainly include a tin back. If not for a couple inconsistencies with the posted button and #118, this button could have been that winner, still a cool old keeper button.

 

[fyrffytr1]

Button 118 in Albert;s book is not the same as the OPs button. The stock on the anchor on the OPs button is straight up and down while the one on 118 is diagonal. Both feet on the OPs eagle rest on the shank. On 118 the right talons grip the diagonal stock. And the armof the anchor is a smooth curved one without flukes. 118 has an angular arm with flukes. I also don't believe any CW period buttons had a self shank like the one on the OPs.

 

[Davers]

I hope you get an ID on it. I’ve got the same button.

I dug one similar last Fall ( cuff Size ) I can not recall if it has a Tin Back or not The little study I did on it said " Marines or Navy " but 'Early Marines sticks out in my Old Mind .