Tongue And Wreath Style Buckle ?

JerV3 · Sep 29, 2009

He everyone almost threw this one into the junque pyle.

Well actually I did and when I was going through a bunch of uncleaned bulk relics i found it. Is this a civilian buckle or military. Does any one know the time and date period for this type of buckle. And maybe what the other half looked like.

Thanks

Jeremy

Silver Searcher · Sep 29, 2009

glad you back :headbang:

The outher part would have been similar to this one :read2:

could it be a reproduction of a CW Buckle :dontknow:

SS

Ramitt · Sep 29, 2009

Silver Searcher said:
The outher part

outer or other? i assume you mean other since that looks to be the out part, right?

BuckleBoy · Sep 29, 2009

My educated guess is that this is a civilian buckle. I would guess pre-CW. Tnet member kuger is the person to ask about this style of buckle.

Regards,

BB

kuger · Sep 29, 2009

BuckleBoy said:
My educated guess is that this is a civilian buckle. I would guess pre-CW. Tnet member kuger is the person to ask about this style of buckle.

Regards,

Thanks Buckles!I am at work but when I get home I will post what your Pre-C.W.,wreath would look like complete.We have always reffered to that type as ladies buckles but due to the fact they are commonly ocurring in camps that a woman was a rarity in I dont know?We find them in 1850's sites but I cant say they were not made or used after that.Great find!!!Oh yea,thats one of the main reasons I occupy this site,because I am afraid all too often they are thrown away....not knowing what they are!!! Well,I thought I had that one complete but I too have dug only broken parts!!!Here is one of mine that is close though!
BB

kuger · Sep 30, 2009

You are so very welcome!!!!! $:-\$

JerV3 · Sep 30, 2009

Yes,

Thanks alot guys.

I thought pre 1850 for sure on this buckle. I was assuming it was a civilian buckle. Seems small for a man so a womens buckle woukld make alot of sence. I can't recall where it came from but I know it was a foundation site. Would have been nice to have it whole though.

Thnaks again guys

HH Jer

IronSpike · Oct 1, 2009

Nice buckle and great ID :icon_sunny:

Green check please :thumbsup:

kuger · Oct 1, 2009

JerDfx said:
Yes,

Thanks alot guys.

I thought pre 1850 for sure on this buckle. I was assuming it was a civilian buckle. Seems small for a man so a womens buckle woukld make alot of sence. I can't recall where it came from but I know it was a foundation site. Would have been nice to have it whole though.

Thnaks again guys

HH Jer

Thanks

Bigcypresshunter · Oct 1, 2009

Good ID Kuger. :icon_thumright:

kuger · Jan 16, 2013

...I want to point out...I realize now,I was wrong on this one....it is in fact Pre-CW,but likely is a buckle that has a tongue which features an applied Stag head.

kuger · Jan 16, 2013

....low and behold,my friend CC Hunter Id'ed one on here before!
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/w...buckle-vermont-militia-civil-war-earlier.html

nsdq · Jan 16, 2013

neat one

TheCannonballGuy · Jan 16, 2013

A strong indication of civilian-use intent is the presence of just swirly semi-floral designs on the buckle's front, instead of military-type emblems, designs, or motto, etc.

As JerV3 himself/herself mentioned, "Seems small for a man so a womens buckle would make alot of sense." The smaller ones tend to be a woman's sash-buckle or similar purpose.

Also, the thin stamped-brass ones would not withstand military service (especially, "in the field") very well, which is another indication of civilian-use intent.

kuger · Jan 16, 2013

TheCannonballGuy said:
A strong indication of civilian-use intent is the presence of just swirly semi-floral designs on the buckle's front, instead of military-type emblems, designs, or motto, etc.

As JerV3 himself/herself mentioned, "Seems small for a man so a womens buckle would make alot of sense." The smaller ones tend to be a woman's sash-buckle or similar purpose.

Also, the thin stamped-brass ones would not withstand military service (especially, "in the field") very well, which is another indication of civilian-use intent.

Great points CBG,def. not Military in any way.We do however notice in some cases that this type of buckle which we refereed to as a "ladies type", for a long time,was actually worn quite often by men!Given the number we have found in remote locations,and the lack of women in those sites,has led us to the fore-mentioned conclusion.I also off the top of my head recall at least one period Daguerreotype of a man wearing this very buckle andI beleive a pistol actually tucked in the belt(?)

TheCannonballGuy · Jan 16, 2013

Good points... but don't forget about the "camp-followers." (I assume you've heard about that name for certain women.) They would be the explanation for the so-called "Army Corps emblem" heel-plates -- which are actually from women's high-top shoes -- found in civil war military camps. Here's a photo of one on the distinctively female-type shoe, found in an 1870s dump.

kuger · Jan 16, 2013

TheCannonballGuy said:
Good points... but don't forget about the "camp-followers." (I assume you've heard about that name for certain women.) They would be the explanation for the so-called "Army Corps emblem" heel-plates -- which are actually from women's high-top shoes -- found in civil war military camps. Here's a photo of one on the distinctively female-type shoe, found in an 1870s dump.

...there were no females where these come from......