What are some good sources for Union brass (belt buckle, box plate, belt plate)?

'Good' meaning high quality and high authenticity...

Most dealers carry similar ones so it doesn't really matter which one you patronize as far as manufacture quality.

However: I might mention something here regarding US plates. During the war there were about 40 different die designs being manufactured and issued out. Today there are only TWO die designs available....and one of them is NOT a copy of an original wartime plate.

The most common repoduction stems from an original die I believe came from Bannermans many years ago and presently I think belongs to S&S Firearms out of New York City--or at least they are the major wholesale supplier of this design these days (there may heve been new dies cut from this original design configuration in more recent years).
These reproductions go back at least as far as the Centennial and can easily be identified by the flat tongue hook--not wrong in itself and many types of plates had flat sheet metal tongues, but this particular design plate originally had a thick 'nail-like' hook. A small detail, but makes the reproductions easy to spot now that some of them are pushing 50 years old and can look pretty salty. (The very first of these had 'REPLICA' stamped on the tongue hook--but was so commonly filed off that they stopped stamping them).
Incidently the box plates of this design can also be spotted by the fact that the loops are noticably closer together than the originals.

The second common reproduction is the one more preferred by the 'Kewl' set and  can be found with a variety of backs; sheet metal arrows, smaller round studs (not a true 'puppy paw'), cast hooks, and of course box plates. They look somewhat between the W.H. Smith, Brooklyn plate and the J. I. Pittman one (Dingee used the same die as Pittman so some can be found with their mark also). But the repros are neither...as a matter of fact they are unlike any wartime original. There are differences quite noticable to anyone really familiar with US plates, mostly around the 'S', the sarifs being much more pronounced on the new made ones (I cannot call them true reproductions).

So the bottom line here is, in answer to the question, there is really only ONE authentic US plate reproduction available today and it is readily available from most sutlers and dealers so it really doesn't matter which one you get your plates from if you don't mind the difference in the tongue hook.

I was going to go further into the different eagle breast plates presently available, and how one tells them from the authentic ones, but I fear I have belaboured the point far enough.

Spence~  

--Last edited by bummer on 2008-07-16 12:07:51 --

I think some of us would love a follow up essay on the eagle plate.  I mean, finding out you have a fictive repro is kind of embarassing (I've been focussing on nibs the last few years, that's my excuse), but better to learn later than not at all.

Spence,

I would love to hear more information on the eagle plates.
Also how is your Dance crashing going?    

Spence, you have found you audience.  This is not the time to be holding back.

Spence, you have this mods permission to belabor on; this is something many would love to hear and what this orum is all about.  

--Last edited by toptimlrd on 2008-07-17 16:37:49 --

The first of the common reproduction eagle breast plates came out along with the centennial US plates discussed above. They were as good a quality in construction but are recognized by the less detail relief of the feather design of the (viewer's) right wing. Another distictive feature of this plate is that the arrow feathers are a row of small dots rather then the fletching they are supposed to represent. But even though this was not a true copy of a known original plate, it was good enough to pass so the makers put the wires in at a 90 degree variance to be able to tell the difference.

The original design of this plate was purposely such that it did not have to be oriented exactly right to be 'correct'. It was round and did not have to be exactly 'upside up'. If one looks at the eagle's legs--the 'drumsticks' parts of the bird--and thinking of the round plate as a clock face, you can see that the original orientation can cause the 'drumsticks', if they were a clock hand, could be pointing anywhere from '6 o'clock' to about 4 o'clock depending on how the box sling is worn (men are different heights), and how exacting the manufactor put in the wires--they vary, and still be oriented in a correct, visualy pleasing way. However, these centennial plates had the wires put in at 90 degrees off causing folks to have to put the holes in their slings really catiwumpas if the eagle was to anywhere approach being in the correct orientation. Maybe recently this has been changed, I don't know.
That is those plates. They are still widely used and easily recognized for what they are.

About the same time (the early 1960's) W. Stokes Kirk of Philadelphia had an original die and used it to make a few plates--with the correct orientation of the wires. These have incredible detail and I'm sure most are in collections as 'originals' today. I have one that, believe it or not is now a clock pendelum in an antique clock. But what Stokes Kirk did was to mark their plates like the original manufacturs did; stamped in the lead fill. So if one finds a nice plate ('dug' or otherwise) with the maker's stamp: 'W. Stokes Kirk, Phila.' it's one of those. But they also had another flaw; as is common with many repros, the used a little too much lead (pewter) in them so they tend to look a little too 'full'...but this had it's downside in that folks simply filed them down a bit--which conveniently took of the name too. To be honest, I wouldn't know how to tell one of these early plates from the real thing, other than comparing it to the marked one in my antique clock and staying away from that particular design eagle. Luckily these are not often encountered today.

Later they marketed another one--with equally fine detail, with the same eagle die design, but this one was quite flat--too flat. The eagle was nicely done, but the backround was absolutely flat and not ever so slightly domed as originals are, a trait not found in any original. One still sees some of these Stokes Kirk plates in use by older NSSA shooters. I don't think too many modern reenactors have either of these plates--but they are out there.
(Incidently I have heard that it was Stokes Kirk who first fabricated the 'fat' US plate I spoke of above, but I don't believe so. I first saw them marketed by Frank Burgess in 1975 along with the first repro sword belt plates with the applied silver wreath--but then that's another story yet.)

In more recent times a couple more good eagle breastplates have been made--including a 'Burnside' one!! Those are the correct smaller size--and have better die work detail than the originals...and that's the trouble, the originals all tend to be very weak strikes. The repros are sharp. But it doesn't matter because while the eagle is very nicely done, it is of a different pattern than the originals are so no one need be fooled. I have only seen (and have) shells of these, never a finished one, but certainly assume they exist--however they have to be about as uncommon as original 'Burnside' plates were during the war.

Which brings me to the best repro of today. I think we are all familiar with it, it appears to be made from an original die although I have not closely compared one to the original (need to do that). I also am not sure who made the original of this plate but they are often seen in relic shows etc.--I just haven't noticed a marked one yet. They are easily recognized by the very wide and very round (viewer's) left wing upper tip. At first these were made with brass loops (not unkown on original plates--but rarer than all get-out). And recently they have shown up with iron ones, but ever so slightly thinner wire--not enough to even notice actually. Some say that the wires on these too are put in at a wrong angle--maybe some are, but the ones I have had call to look at closely (and have) have the wires loops in the correct position...or I should say A correct position. If one is to examine bunches of original eagle breastplates it would be noticed that there is that '4 to 6 o'clock' varience.

Bottom line: (if there could be one--but for the present anyway) I would recommend getting the early tall letter US and the newer rounded wing eagle plate (if you can't find one of those old Stokes Kirk ones). These would be legitmate authentic reproductions...but then everyone would be having the same strike plates, something that original group photos show just didn't happen.

Meanwhile I'll make it a point to take a closer look for die differences between the round wing ones; the repro and the originals. I wish I could put up photos of all this stuff for comparison.

And I hope I didn't bore everyone...but remember, you asked.

  Hallo!

 Beware... although it may have changed recently...

 The last two plates I had purchased from S & S I had to send back.  They were filled with gray epoxy to be non-hazardous or bio-friendly.
 Sigh.

  Curt

While I am on a roll here, I see there was something 'important' I saw that I forgot to include concerning the US plates.

When they were first created they were for dragoon troops and because of the sabre weight on the left hip, the two belt fasteners of the buckle were (supposedly) under the S of the plate to help keep the leather from pulling on the single hook hole. And these were in the shape of round or slightly oval studs (the oval ones being termed 'puppy paws' by the early collectors, although there are perfectly round, domed ones too).

When the Eagle sword belt plate was adapted the large oval US was relegated to the infantry. Because the belt theoreticly only supported the cap box and bayonet and thus little weight, it no longer mattered which side the studs or hook was on. During the war the arrowhead hooks were adapted and buckles could now have either and be equally correct for most of the war. This is all well known to most reenactors.

But in keeping with the original query of this thread an observation must be made regarding the left/right, stud/arrow configurations.
During the war buckles of most patterns that are early enough to have been made for dragoon service (some of the US patterns date only from mid wartime--like that 'centennial' pattern I speak of above) can be found with either studs (puppy paws) or arrows, and the arrows can be equally found under either the U or the S (depending on style)....but studs are ONLY found under the S! In all my years if looking at this stuff I have only seen a single example of a puppy paw with the studs under the U--it was a well documented 76th NY piece still in the family's possession. And I cannot help believing this might have been simply a factory error.
The 'centennial' style buckle would never have been found with studs as the original design did not date to the pre-war period. the repros are all pretty much to standard.
The fat one is found with both. However, the fat one is often found with way too small studs (and way too long of a hook), and worse they are often under the U. Not an original configuration (with that single known exception--which was a different style die anyway).
So here is another thing to look for regarding authenticity. Stay away from a copy buckle that has studs on the U side--they didn't happen. Arrows can be either way (but not on the 'centennial buckle).

Now I know I am driving you all nuts with this anal stuff. I'll shut up now.

Thanks Spence,

Now, I have something else to worry about.  :/

I own an origional dug breast plate, that was probably taken from the ground forty years ago. That's roughly how long the Gentleman who gave it to me owned it. It still has intact iron wires. The lead backing is very rough and flush with the brass face.

I own two repops. One I purchased twenty years ago and one I purchased about two years ago. Neither of them look like my original. The early repop is only 2 3/8" in diameter, while the original is 2 1/2" in diameter. The wings of the eagle are the same; but the rest of the bird is far different, especially the drum sticks. The newer repop has that big round left wing you mentioned; but the rest of the bird looks much more like the original. The fletching on the arrows is really strange. It looks like little separate feathers on each arrow. Nothing at all like the original. On both the repops, the olive branch is far different from the origina. The placement of the leaves are very different and one has twelve leaves versus ten on the original. A big difference is the eagle's head. The beak on the original is far different and the eye is a dent. On the repops the eye is a bump, if that makes any sense. The details on both my repops are more "crisp" than the original. I don't know if that was how it was struck, the time in the ground, or the result of too many polishings with wood ash. Oh yeah, The wires on my early repop match the original, while the wires on the new repop are off by almost 90 degrees.

And all this time, I thought I had a pretty good Yankee impression!  

Spence,

We did ask and this is excellent information. Never hesitate to post such detail as it helps everyone become more knowledgeable about such details.