✅ SOLVED Small button with fouled anchor

[baytraderbutch]

Can anyone help me identify this button. Its brass and has the remains of a ring on the back. It was found in an area where I have been finding coins from the mid 1800s up to modern coins. The material is a dredge pile from the MS Sound. There was a naval battle just days before the Battle Of New Orleans near here and activity during the civil war. Any help would be appreciated. This is my first post with a photo so lets see how it worked out. The button is very dark with a lot a wear or so it appears.
Thanks

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[CRUSADER]

As long as its a 1 piece button, I'm 99% sure you have a late 18th C British Navy Button, see similar:
Navy buttons

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

I agree with Crusader -- it is a late-1700s British Navy button. Additional details are below.

Just some info to keep in mind in the future:
Actually, your button is not a "fouled anchor" button. In regard to Navy buttons the term "fouled" means a rope curls down around the anchor. There is no such rope on your button. That is an extremely important clue for correctly identifying it.

Crusader has already given you the Link to the historical British Navy buttons at the Colchester (England) Treasure Hunting club's website. Scroll down to the British Navy's 1774-Design buttons section, and yours is shown on the far right in the second row. By comparing its very plain front (a simple brass flatbutton, lacking a raised rim or a lined background) with the very few other "ropeless" British Navy buttons, I would guess it is a Surgeon or Physician-At-Sea British Navy button. That guess is supported by it seeming to be a very rare button, which indicates there were very few people in the British Navy who wore it. Conversely, there were lots of captains, lieutenants, gunners, midshipmen, enlisted-men, etc... and it is much too plain to be a high-ranking officer's button.

Lastly... from 1787 onward, all the other versions British Navy buttons seem to have had a raised rim, so I think your button dates from sometime between 1774 to 1787.

 

[Napper]

If you take a closer look at the photo the button is clearly is dated 1902.....Don't think it's a British Navel button as it would have a crown on the top of the anchor....

 

[Iron Patch]

I agree with Crusader -- it is a late-1700s British Navy button. Additional details are below.

Just some info to keep in mind in the future:
Actually, your button is not a "fouled anchor" button. In regard to Navy buttons the term "fouled" means a rope curls down around the anchor. There is no such rope on your button. That is an extremely important clue for correctly identifying it.

Crusader has already given you the Link to the historical British Navy buttons at the Colchester (England) Treasure Hunting club's website. Scroll down to the British Navy's 1774-Design buttons section, and yours is shown on the far right in the second row. By comparing its very plain front (a simple brass flatbutton, lacking a raised rim or a lined background) with the very few other "ropeless" British Navy buttons, I would guess it is a Surgeon or Physician-At-Sea British Navy button. That guess is supported by it seeming to be a very rare button, which indicates there were very few people in the British Navy who wore it. Conversely, there were lots of captains, lieutenants, gunners, midshipmen, enlisted-men, etc... and it is much too plain to be a high-ranking officer's button.

Lastly... from 1787 onward, all the other versions British Navy buttons seem to have had a raised rim, so I think your button dates from sometime between 1774 to 1787.

They are merchant Navy, about 1774-1812, and actually quite common.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Iron Patch, please send your proof of that button's ID as a British Merchant Navy button to the Colchester Treasure Hunting club's webmaster, so he will move it out of the Royal Navy buttons section into the Merchant Navy buttons section on the British Navy buttons webpage. That webpage is my primary button-research reference on that subject. It is a "serious" British Historical Buttons website, so I'm sure its webmaster would want to know it has an incorrect button ID. Thanks.

 

[baytraderbutch]

Crusader it is a one piece button. After reading another post I looked on the Navy Buttons site but only saw a larger one, guess its time for new glasses.

 

[baytraderbutch]

Thank you CannonballGuy, before I photographed it I thought I saw the rope and obviously my eyes failed me when I posted the same as they did when I
looked at the button site.

 

[baytraderbutch]

Iron patch could you possibly post a website so I can save some information along with the button? I appreciate all you guys helping out.

 

[baytraderbutch]

Iron Patch, please send your proof of that button's ID as a British Merchant Navy button to the Colchester Treasure Hunting club's webmaster, so he will move it out of the Royal Navy buttons section into the Merchant Navy buttons section on the British Navy buttons webpage. That webpage is my primary button-research reference on that subject. It is a "serious" British Historical Buttons website, so I'm sure its webmaster would want to know it has an incorrect button ID. Thanks.

Cannonballguy I scrolled down about 3/4 down the page and found the same photo with this id. Thanks again guys.
Britain - Canada
Merchant Navy
Private Purchase - 1774-1812

 

[TNGUNS]

Napper...... the button not the coin. One picture with both in it. Not a front and back.

 

[Iron Patch]

Cannonballguy I scrolled down about 3/4 down the page and found the same photo with this id. Thanks again guys.
Britain - Canada
Merchant Navy
Private Purchase - 1774-1812

The reference material I have here is from the same person who ID's some of the Colchester buttons, so as long as he is correct you have your ID. I have personally dug about 15 of these over the years so they are around, at least in some places. I would think a very uncommon find down your way though.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Baytraderbutch wrote:
> Cannonballguy I scrolled down about 3/4 down the page and found the same photo with this id. Thanks again guys.
> Britain - Canada
> Merchant Navy
> Private Purchase - 1774-1812

Actually, that is not the same photo (meaning, it does not appear twice on the Colchester webpage). The photo in the Royal Navy section shows an anchor whose hooks-section is very V-shaped. The one in the Non Royal Navy section looks similar but the anchor's hooks-section is shaped like a wide smile. The button you found has the very V-shaped anchor. That is why I went with the Colchester website's ID of it as a Royal Navy button. Look closely and you'll see your button's anchor's hooks-section does not match the Britain-Canada Merchant Navy button. See the anchor's details in those two Colchester photos, below.

By the way, the anchor's crossbar is also different.

Compare the details in the two photos, below.

 

[Iron Patch]

Baytraderbutch wrote:
> Cannonballguy I scrolled down about 3/4 down the page and found the same photo with this id. Thanks again guys.
> Britain - Canada
> Merchant Navy
> Private Purchase - 1774-1812

Actually, that is not the same photo (meaning, it does not appear twice on the Colchester webpage). The photo in the Royal Navy section shows an anchor whose hooks-section is very V-shaped. The one in the Non Royal Navy section looks similar but the anchor's hooks-section is shaped like a wide smile. The button you found has the very V-shaped anchor. That is why I went with the Colchester website's ID of it as a Royal Navy button. Look closely and you'll see your button's anchor's hooks-section does not match the Britain-Canada Merchant Navy button. See the anchor's details in those two Colchester photos, below.

By the way, the anchor's crossbar is also different.

Compare the details in the two photos, below.

For starters you are giving way too much credit to that site, and you can start right at the top of the page as many of those tudor rose buttons are definitely not Lieutenant Navy. Heck some of them aren't even a tudor rose! That's why I said in my above post that if he has it correct you have your ID. It does make sense to me, I just can't say I'm 100% certain because I never really had a conversation about these with anyone who knew. I'm sure I've talked to people who did know, including a professional researcher for the Royal Navy, the topic just didn't come up.

As for the comparison they do vary a bit but the ID doesn't change. My reference material actually shows two similar to the one in the thread here, and both called merchant navy. There is no similar button listed as navy, because the discrepancy on the Colchester site is simply throwing buttons on and making a decent attempt at ID'ing them properly, but at the end of the day it's not for research, it's to attract customers. I would say it's a good starting point to ID something, but I would double check from another source.

 

[CRUSADER]

For starters you are giving way too much credit to that site, and you can start right at the top of the page as many of those tudor rose buttons are definitely not Lieutenant Navy. Heck some of them aren't even a tudor rose! That's why I said in my above post that if he has it correct you have your ID. It does make sense to me, I just can't say I'm 100% certain because I never really had a conversation about these with anyone who knew. I'm sure I've talked to people who did know, including a professional researcher for the Royal Navy, the topic just didn't come up.

As for the comparison they do vary a bit but the ID doesn't change. My reference material actually shows two similar to the one in the thread here, and both called merchant navy. There is no similar button listed as navy, because the discrepancy on the Colchester site is simply throwing buttons on and making a decent attempt at ID'ing them properly, but at the end of the day it's not for research, it's to attract customers. I would say it's a good starting point to ID something, but I would double check from another source.

I agree I have seen a number of ID mistakes on that site, mostly artefacts though. Plus I don't believe the rose story, like you mention.

Its a useful site but I take it with a pinch of salt. My issue is, I have no expensive early button books, & we were never that good at covering them all anyway.

 

[Silver Searcher]

I agree I have seen a number of ID mistakes on that site, mostly artefacts though. Plus I don't believe the rose story, like you mention.

Its a useful site but I take it with a pinch of salt. My issue is, I have no expensive early button books, & we were never that good at covering them all anyway.

Why don't you contact them and tell them they are wrong, along with the correct site, or information to justify what you have said.

SS

 

[CRUSADER]

Why don't you contact them and tell them they are wrong, along with the correct site, or information to justify what you have said.

SS

I have & they ignored me, nice try......

See a mistake on here?
http://www.colchestertreasurehunting.co.uk/s/swordanddagger.htm

 

[Silver Searcher]

I have & they ignored me, nice try......

See a mistake on here?
swordanddagger

I wonder why they ignored you, do they know who you are The rein guide, but they do say or harness fitting, or were you referring to something else, yes a silly mistake. But I seem to remember you saying the same about the UKFD. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

SS

 

[CRUSADER]

I wonder why they ignored you, do they know who you are The rein guide , yes a silly mistake. But I seem to remember you saying the same about the UKFD. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

SS

Its not the rein guide, maybe you spotted another.


its the - ''17thC gilded knife quillion'' Keep trying...

 

[Silver Searcher]

Its not the rein guide, maybe you spotted another.


its the - ''17thC gilded knife quillion'' Keep trying...

I spotted to with out trying, perhaps you better take another look.