WW1 Button?

Woodland Detectors

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
12,712
Reaction score
142
Golden Thread
0
Location
Toll Free ~ 855~966~3563
🏆 Honorable Mentions:
1
Primary Interest:
Relic Hunting

Attachments

  • DSC00021.webp
    DSC00021.webp
    24.4 KB · Views: 278
  • DSC00022.webp
    DSC00022.webp
    27.7 KB · Views: 266
I agree - and I think your backmark pre-dates the 1902 button design... most likely very early 20th c.
 

Upvote 0
Yes 4-H, it is 1902.
 

Upvote 0
4-H said:
But, I thought the great seal wasn't used on buttons pre- 1902? :dontknow:
Thats a good question and one that I asked myself when I bought a bag of Great Seal buttons with this 1850 backmark. :icon_scratch: http://pw1.netcom.com/~jimyce/bm.html

After 7 months, I finally found the answer. Read reply # 53. http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,212590.0.html

I discovered why 1865 SCOVILLE MF'G CO. WATERBURY backmarks are showing up on WWI Great Seal buttons. This link explains it.

http://inkspotantiques.com/shop/index.php?main_page=page&id=1 http://inkspotantiques.com/shop/index.php?main_page=page&id=1

Keep in mind that using Scovill backmark lettering (including dots and stars) is not a foolproof method because Scovill often used old backmark dies to make newer buttons. Thus it is possible to have a World War I "Great Seal" button with an 1850 backmark.




I think your backmark is 1860-1880 with the ring of dots but its a 1902 button. :icon_thumright:
 

Attachments

  • SCOVILL MF\'G CO. WATERBURY.webp
    SCOVILL MF\'G CO. WATERBURY.webp
    28.6 KB · Views: 253
  • button scovill-marks-waterbury.webp
    button scovill-marks-waterbury.webp
    29.1 KB · Views: 274
  • SCOVILL MF\'G CO. WATERBURY.webp
    SCOVILL MF\'G CO. WATERBURY.webp
    28.6 KB · Views: 229
  • button scovill-marks-waterbury.webp
    button scovill-marks-waterbury.webp
    29.1 KB · Views: 254
Upvote 0
Thanks 4H, Ive decided to add your 1860-1880? Scovill ring of dots variety to my list of Great Seal button backmarks (with your permission)because it is different. I thinks its the first I have seen.
 

Upvote 0
Of course. Please put it on your list. I use your list for refference sometimes.
~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~

--Keep in mind that using Scovill backmark lettering (including dots and stars) is not a foolproof method because Scovill often used old backmark dies to make newer buttons. Thus it is possible to have a World War I "Great Seal" button with an 1850 backmark. Another nuance is that while text may remain the same, other embellishments on Scovill buttons change with time. An 1850 backmark may have the name in a groove or one or two rings made of fine lines or tiny dots, whereas a later button may have no ring of dots ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Upvote 0
Thanks Jim. I was just wanting to know a little history as to why the "Quality or,makers mark" Pre-dated the 1902 great seal. We need to get the whole history if we teach the kids this stuff. Most of them don't care but, you always get a couple that ask"what,why? when? and how come?lol Thanks Big Cypress :thumbsup:
 

Upvote 0
Montana Jim said:
4-H said:
But, I thought the great seal wasn't used on buttons pre- 1902? :dontknow:

Right... I said: "I think your backmark pre-dates the 1902 button design".
Correct you are Jim. It took me 7 months to figure that out. :D I thought the backmark link that everyone uses was incorrect but it is indeed an old backmark. http://pw1.netcom.com/~jimyce/bm.html
 

Upvote 0
I figured it was 1902 but, we need to learn a little history to go with it so, when we show Children and their parents we wan't to be accurate in all history aspects...Thank you Big Cypress for helping. I think you know when we post what were looking for. Sincerely, Staff
 

Upvote 0
I would assume 4-H that they simply decided to mix "old stock" backs with "new stock" faces... I dunno.

The other possibility is that he backmark information available to us is just plain wrong.
 

Upvote 0
Montana Jim said:
I would assume 4-H that they simply decided to mix "old stock" backs with "new stock" faces... I dunno.

The other possibility is that he backmark information available to us is just plain wrong.
I think your first assumption is correct. :icon_thumright: They used the old backmark dies as well. http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,212590.0.html Reply #14 and #53
 

Upvote 0

Top Member Reactions

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom