Naval button ID needed.

[artyfacts]

Dug this Navy button and could not find a match. Would like to find out the rarity and a round about date. There is only a partial back mark. Here goes, Top word looks like, ?ABECK with possible letters before the letter A cant tell but the abeck is visible. Bottom word, * PROV?? * . Thanks, Art

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I can think of about 5 button companies from PROVIDENCE R.I. but not of them fit ...ABECK.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Artyfacts wrote:
> There is only a partial back mark. Here goes, Top word looks like, ?ABECK with possible letters before the letter A.

When I read your post, my immediate guess about ABECK "with possible letters before the letter A" was Ridabock (Ridabock & Co.). So I looked up that company in the book on button-backmarks by McGuinn & Bazelon. That book says Ridabock & Co. was located in New York City, not Providence.

According to the backmark book, Ridabock & Co. was a firm of military outfitters from 1883 to 1975. Known backmarks are:
"Ridabock & Co. / New York"
"Ridabock & Co. / N.Y."

 

[artyfacts]

I know the E in ABECK is correct. At the start of a * at the bottom coming around the eye is a letter J, possibly a ., followed by a C. I removed the material from the eyelet. Everything else is blocked out by the eye. Art

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I know the E in ABECK is correct. At the start of a * at the bottom coming around the eye is a letter J, possibly a ., followed by a C. I removed the material from the eyelet. Everything else is blocked out by the eye. Art

Is there any way this will fit? J. C. DORAN & SONS PROV. R.I

 

[artyfacts]

Re: Naval button ID needed. New pics..

Thanks BIG C, After cleaning I think there is only one or two letters missing after the C, J.C. I or L maybe possibly followed by the & sign behind the eyelet. The J.C. ? ? HABECK . The PROV RI is right on too. Thanks for helping.
Art

 

[Dig em all]

http://relicman.com/buttons/zBackmarkScovillMfg.htm

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I believe the anchor flute behind the wings places this button CW era or perhaps older. Ill work on it when I get a chance. Its certainly solvable. Thanks for the additional pics.

I looked at your link, Dig em all, but there are many buttons and I didnt see the backmark. Is it there?

The Scovill US Navy fronts are similar but the anchor ring is not on the edge. Im wondering if this could be a blazer button?

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

This has becaome an interesting thread. The anchor flute behind the wing makes it old. The anchor ring looks blazer but the brass back is consistant with US Navy. The cheaper blazer buttons often have rusted backs.


Check through these button companies to see if anything fits. The HABECK or SCHABECK looks very familiar but I cant find it.


http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,212590.msg2872340.html#msg2872340

http://pw1.netcom.com/~jimyce/bm.html

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I got it lol Its J.C.L. Shabeck Prov. RI

 

[artyfacts]

Wow!!! Nice hunt Big C. Where did you find it? Any other info? Thank you. Art

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

Wow!!! Nice hunt Big C. Where did you find it? Any other info? Thank you. Art

The button pictured is a WWII Great Seal button on Etsy. http://www.etsy.com/listing/49008953/1930s-army-brass-uniform-buttons-jcl Apparently the company made Army and Navy buttons. I dont know how long the company has been in business but I always thought the "anchor flute tucked under wing" type button was CW era.

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

This rounded wing button reminds me of another but without the rusted backs. http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,209855.0.html

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

BigCypressHunter wrote:
> I dont know how long the company has been in business

According to the McGuinn-&-Bazelon book on backmark dating, John C. L. Shabeck was a jewelry-maker, and his company was in business from 1905 to 1930, and its "J.C.L. Shabeck / Prov RI" backmark is found on button NA-113, USMC buttons, and Great Seal buttons.

> but I always thought the "flute tucked under wing" type button was CW era.

That's a "general rule" ...but, confoundingly, there always seems to be some exceptions to the rules. Apparently, especially during wartime, not every supplier follows the established rules for insignia. The 1905-1930 Shabeck button also breaks the rule about the rope passing through the anchor's ring. Very frustrating for insignia-scholars and collectors.

By the way, I agree with you that this particular Navy button by Shabek shows the "heavy-duty" construction (and true gold gilting) of an actual US Navy button rather than the comparative flimsiness (and mere "gold-finish") seen on civilian-usage "Fashion" imitations of the US Navy button.

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

To add to the confusion, here is your J.C.L. Shabeck Prov. RI button with a nice old mercury guiding on the face. http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,414342.0.html

 

[fyrffytr1]

I read somewhere about the border rope not passing through the anchor loop, but, I can't remember what it was supposed to mean.

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I read somewhere about the border rope not passing through the anchor loop, but, I can't remember what it was supposed to mean.

Yea it supposed to mean blazer but this one breaks all the rules.

I wonder how long ago they stopped using mercury guilding because the last button I posted is a dead match with the same backmark.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Fyrffytr1, according to the Albert button-book, on literally almost every official version of US Navy button from the mid-1840s to the present day USN buttons, "the rule" is that the rope-border passes through the ring on the anchor's top.

 

[artyfacts]

Thank you all for the history lesson. Great job... Art

 

[fyrffytr1]

Fyrffytr1, according to the Albert button-book, on literally almost every official version of US Navy button from the mid-1840s to the present day USN buttons, "the rule" is that the rope-border passes through the ring on the anchor's top.

Albert's NA 114 is almost a perfect match. The only difference I see is the anchor fluke in front of the wing. This button may be a later version?