Old U.S. military Civil or Indian war Buckle? Or not?

[CCDAMEEK]

Trying to definitively identify this buckle or plate I dug up while metal detecting on 12-31-20 in central Florida. Posted it to Today's Finds, and What is It, but found this military related forum and thought this would be a good place to ask.

Made from Lead and possibly nickel (it will leave a lead mark when rubbed on concrete) weighing 122.9 grams (4.33 ounces).

Have had suggestions it was made in the 60's - 70's as a toy or replica, but that stuff I remember as being mostly flimsy stamped metal.

What say you?







After just softly filing a corner with a fine file:

photo through a jewelers loupe. You can see the file marks the metal is so soft, yet firm. Not hard like zinc.






Thanks all!

 

[troutbum]

I 'm pretty sure it's not CW. looks more Indian war or later. I can't find my buckle book, but someone with better knowledge will be along soon.

 

[gunsil]

The naysayers including myself are correct. I don't understand why you make a new post when you disagree with experts in your other post asking about this item. It is NOT a US military belt buckle.

 

[smokeythecat]

Third post doesn't change the outcome. It is modeled after the 1874 plate, BUT the back and material it is made out of is incorrect for one that period. it wasn't clean in the original thread what it was made of, or I missed it.

 

[CCDAMEEK]

The naysayers including myself are correct. I don't understand why you make a new post when you disagree with experts in your other post asking about this item. It is NOT a US military belt buckle.

I have never claimed to 'disagree' that this may not be authentic. My posts do 'disagree' with the notion that this is 'pot metal'. What my posts, yes all three, request, is for 'definitive' identification of exactly what this piece is. And the 'three' separate posts are meant to merely reach the proper audience. And if you have read all three posts, then you would have also read reference to to it POSSIBLY being authentic, with semi-specific dates mentioned.
Is it WRONG of me to try to identify this with a known reference? Why would you take offense to this? I have asked for opinions of those I do not know, who you claim to be experts, yourself possibly included. Maybe they and you are, but experts can usually substantiate their positions, not just insist on it.
I am sorry you have taken my quest to 'definitively' identify this piece so personally. Guess maybe it's my law enforcement background where hard evidence is the burden of proof.

Peace.

 

[gunsil]

You disagree that it is a modern "flea market" item, which it is. Many are cast, not made of stamped metal. The belt loop and ridiculous pin are common on modern cheap buckles, never seen on real US military buckles of any age. Pot metal will also leave the same mark on concrete as lead. Were it pure lead the belt loop would easily bend. Nickel is very shiny. None of your points for it being anything other than what you have been told are valid. I take offense to nothing you say, I am just incredulous that you seem to refuse to believe what you have been told. Why would you expect to see another exactly like yours with provenance? One does not have to see another example, one merely needs to look at the construction and materials which are common among modern cheap buckles and never seen on US military buckles. Get yourself out to some museums and flea markets, buy a bunch of books on US military buckles, and learn like many of us have. Cannonball guy is a published military artifact expert, Smokey is well versed in military artifacts also, and I used to have the largest collection of civil war belt buckles in the northeast and also had many indian wars buckles and have studied US buckles for 60 years. I also hunt many flea markets and know what modern cheap buckles look like. Perhaps I am not an "expert", but I do know how to tell silk from a sow's ear. The "evidence" is right in front of you, it's called "construction and materials".

 

[dougachim]

This buckle came from Fort Fillmore about 10 miles from my house near the Rio Grande. They were off fighting Apaches when they returned they had to rebuild the fort while doing that they heard the Civil War had started. Some left to go to Texas and some went back to fighting the Apache. Confederates came back from Texas and Fillmore was the first fort taken by the Confederates if I remember my history correctly. I have the drawings from the dig NMSU did in the 1960s. A guy detecting found a gold coin so the owner fearing to many people planted pecans. They made the fort 12 miles from the town of Dona Ana so the soldiers wouldn't sneak off to town to get drunk and visit the whores, they did anyway. The town of Mesilla was a couple miles away but was then in Mexico. The Mexicans wouldn't let the soldiers into Mesilla for any reason but when the Apaches were around the soldiers and people of Mesilla banded together to fight them off no mater what side of the border.