Jump to content


Photo

1866 - 1899 Belts with Plates & Cartridge Boxes


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Greg Sebring

Greg Sebring
  • Members
    • Member ID: 118
  • 579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tecumseh, Michigan

Posted 08 January 2007 - 07:48 PM

I had someone turn this into the State Police Post I was working at in the early 1980's. They said it belonged to their grandfather and they did not want it in the house where their kids could find it. They added they knew we (Michigan State Police) would know how to dispose of it or find a home for it. I asked him a few times if he was sure he did not want to hold on to it and he replied NO as he was walking out the lobby door and said I could have it if I wanted it. It was full of vintage ammo of at least 3 different calibres. Most were 30/40 Krag rounds all dated in the late 1890's. I still have it today and feel fortunate. I simply can't imagine anyone wanting to part with such a family treasure.

Greg

McKeever_case_closed.JPG
McKeever_belt_plate_front.JPG

#2 rayg

rayg
  • Members
    • Member ID: 89
  • 1,141 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 06:25 AM

Could we see a shot of the back of the plate and the keeper end of the belt. The plate appears to be a Civil War enlisted man's belt plate commonily used on Artillery and Cavalry sword belts.

#3 Greg Sebring

Greg Sebring
  • Members
    • Member ID: 118
  • 579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tecumseh, Michigan

Posted 09 January 2007 - 08:14 AM

Here are the photos....not the matching keeper end that I've seen other places.

Copy_of_1851_pattern_eagle___wreath_belt_plate_backside.JPG
Copy_of_DSC03710.JPG

#4 bilko *Deceased*

bilko *Deceased*

    IN MEMORIAM

  • IN MEMORIAM
    • Member ID: 39
  • 786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:YE OLD ENGLAND

Posted 09 January 2007 - 11:25 AM

Is the number in the lower left a batch or serial number to a particular time frame or unit?or just the maker mark!

#5 rayg

rayg
  • Members
    • Member ID: 89
  • 1,141 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 12:19 PM

The belt plate is a CW EM plate. The keeper is not the correct one for the plate and not even the same style/pattern and it's possibly a Post war addition. The number on the plate was to match up the plate and keeper so they stay together. Ray

#6 Greg Sebring

Greg Sebring
  • Members
    • Member ID: 118
  • 579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tecumseh, Michigan

Posted 09 January 2007 - 03:40 PM

Do you think it was a one of a kind special order ?? Here are a couple more pix

Greg

DSC03708.JPG
Copy_of_McKeever_ammo.JPG

#7 rayg

rayg
  • Members
    • Member ID: 89
  • 1,141 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 12:40 PM

Lets see the other belt end and what attachment is on that, Ray

#8 Greg Sebring

Greg Sebring
  • Members
    • Member ID: 118
  • 579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tecumseh, Michigan

Posted 10 January 2007 - 07:23 PM

Post # 6 shows both ends. Is there something else or another angle you would like to see? Here are two views of the case.

Copy_of_McKeever_case_backside.JPG
Copy_of_McKeever_case_open_edge.JPG

#9 rayg

rayg
  • Members
    • Member ID: 89
  • 1,141 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 09:12 PM

Greg, I need to see the end/tip of the belt. #6 only shows the belt plate not the tip or end of the belt. I need to see what type of hook or attachment there is on the end of the belt, Ray

#10 Greg Sebring

Greg Sebring
  • Members
    • Member ID: 118
  • 579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tecumseh, Michigan

Posted 12 January 2007 - 06:31 AM

I gotcha now,... I'm away from home at this moment. I'll make sure you get a good view soon.

Edited by craig_pickrall, 28 March 2007 - 07:57 AM.


#11 Greg Sebring

Greg Sebring
  • Members
    • Member ID: 118
  • 579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tecumseh, Michigan

Posted 14 January 2007 - 07:55 AM

Here are the separate ends of the belt.

DSC04352.JPG
DSC04353.JPG
DSC04354.JPG

#12 rayg

rayg
  • Members
    • Member ID: 89
  • 1,141 posts

Posted 14 January 2007 - 08:46 PM

Okay, I can't really see the hook that well but it looks like it is rounded in shape and not flatened. If so, it is probable post CW as that is the style/shape generally used beginning in the 1870's on the 1874 belts and the 45/70 rifle slings. The more flatened style brass wire hooks were seen on earlier belts. So this most likely puts the belt post 1870, Ray

#13 Greg Sebring

Greg Sebring
  • Members
    • Member ID: 118
  • 579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tecumseh, Michigan

Posted 15 January 2007 - 05:39 AM

Thanks Ray for your information,...I've had estimates for the whole rig put at several hundred dollars. Would you consider that in the ball park or put a different value on it? Obviously the belt plate would be worth the most.

#14 QED4

QED4
  • Members
    • Member ID: 55
  • 2,182 posts
  • Location:Orlando, Fla.

Posted 15 January 2007 - 07:40 AM

I saw this tread and it reminded me of a belt I have that I have never been able to nail down, I think it is SAW period but maybe you can tell me for sure. I took a picture of the markings but it did not come out very good, it is marked 5 H 39 and 14 G 41 I assume these are unit markings and 38 Rock Island Arsenal H.E.K. I thought the 38 was the size but when I measured it is not the waist size but the actual length before it is folded back and hooked, and of course the maker and inspector. What accoutrements would be used with this belt and when was it used.

IMG_2037.JPG IMG_2038.JPG IMG_2039.JPG

#15 QED4

QED4
  • Members
    • Member ID: 55
  • 2,182 posts
  • Location:Orlando, Fla.

Posted 15 January 2007 - 07:43 AM

Ran out of room, here are the rest.

IMG_2040.JPG IMG_2041.JPG

#16 QED4

QED4
  • Members
    • Member ID: 55
  • 2,182 posts
  • Location:Orlando, Fla.

Posted 15 January 2007 - 07:45 AM

One more.

IMG_2042.JPG

#17 rayg

rayg
  • Members
    • Member ID: 89
  • 1,141 posts

Posted 15 January 2007 - 12:54 PM

QED4, That's the post war hook I mentioned. Yours looks like 1880's to SAW period. Could even be turn of the century as that belt plate was used well into the twenth century but if the belt itself is originally black and the dye just worn off a bit, (can't tell), and the belt leather is not brown. Then it's most likely pre 1900. It's possibly an NCO belt and plate.
Greg, I think your CW plate alone on yours would bring $300 to $400 these days. I haven't priced these plates lately but they going for that a few years ago. Ray

#18 US CANTEEN GURU

US CANTEEN GURU

    BANNED

  • Banned
    • Member ID: 85
  • 266 posts

Posted 15 January 2007 - 06:04 PM

H.E.K. was an inspector at Rock Island Arsenal at the begining of the 20th Century. His initials are on alot of leather equipment manufactured in the 1900s.

Edited by US CANTEEN GURU, 15 January 2007 - 06:05 PM.


#19 rayg

rayg
  • Members
    • Member ID: 89
  • 1,141 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 03:25 AM

US Canteen is right. Those intials are on a lot of 20th century leather items, I missed that. I'm not sure when he started at RI as an inspector though. Maybe some one on the forum can advise.
The color of the belt, black or brown, might help as the Army changed to the color of brown for most of their leather in either 1902 or 1904. I always get those two dates mixed up. Ray

#20 US CANTEEN GURU

US CANTEEN GURU

    BANNED

  • Banned
    • Member ID: 85
  • 266 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 08:29 PM

Regarding the change to russet leather this may be of interest:

Extract from War Department Annual Reports 1904, Vol. II, Report of the Chief of Ordnance.:
Russet leather. Equipments made of the stuffed russet leather prescribed by General Orders, No. 81, 1902, soiled the soldiers’ clothing to such an extent that it was found necessary to adopt a leather containing even less oil than that referred to in my last report. The greater part of the leather equipment so far made during the present calendar year have been made of this new leather. It is believed that the khaki and olive-drab uniforms prescribed by the same order show grease stains much more plainly than the blue. A process was devised at Rock Island Arsenal by which nearly all the oil in the first leather can be removed, and orders have been given to apply it to a sufficient number of the different leather equipments, which with those made of the new leather, will enable all of the older in the service to be replaced. The equipments thus replaced will be cleaned and stored as part of the reserve supply since the oily leather keeps much better in storage.

R.I.A. continued to make black leather equipment contemporaneously with the brown leather items. The black leather probably went to the Militia so that they would not have a mix of brown and black leather.

The terms "Russet" and "Fair" leather were often used interchangeably. In the 1900s R.I.A. referred to the "Stuffed russet leather" described as "Russet." In 1904 the leather articles produced did not have the oil and were known as "Fair" leather.

The adjusting hook on the belt in question appears to be the hook from the standard musket sling or one of the hooks from a saber belt cross strap from the Civil War. The overall appearance of the belt is field or "saddler" made and not something that came from any contractor or arsenal.

The belt plate was known as the 1874 Army officer pattern, produced 1890-1920. These were manufactured and sold commercially as ohfficers were required to purchase their uniforms and those accouterments prescribed in unifom regulations.

The cartridge box is an early pattern of the McKeever box. It was made at either Watervliet Arsenal or Rock Island Arsenal. They were usually stamped just above where the closure flap is sewn to the back of the body. In fact the marking appears to be Watervliet Arsenal on this example which would mean it was made prior to 1891. Later patterns of this cartridge box had leather cartridge loops and the hole in the flap was reinforced with a brass washer.

Edited by craig_pickrall, 28 March 2007 - 08:02 AM.


#21 rayg

rayg
  • Members
    • Member ID: 89
  • 1,141 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 08:46 PM

H.E.K is Henry E. Kelsey. His initials are seen on leather goods in the early 1900's. But I don't know if he started before 1900 inspecting. Ray

#22 rayg

rayg
  • Members
    • Member ID: 89
  • 1,141 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 09:15 PM

The CW over the shoulder belt hooks and sling hook are different. The hook on the belt the standard hook used on all 1874 pattern waist belts. My opinion is that the belt and especally the style and quality of the keeper points to it being professionally made and most likely a private purchase item via a uniform supply house. And per US canteen's information, if the belt is black, it could be mititia or state used post 1902/4, Ray

#23 rayg

rayg
  • Members
    • Member ID: 89
  • 1,141 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 09:30 PM

Darn, disregard the above. I got the two belts mixed up. Canteen is right about the first belt. It looks like it could be "field made" using a privated purchased civilian style keeper.
The 2nd belt has the standard 1874 waist belt hook on it and is probably an NCO belt as it was arsenal issued where as officers purchased their belts from military unifom stores. Too late at night to think straight.

#24 rayg

rayg
  • Members
    • Member ID: 89
  • 1,141 posts

Posted 17 January 2007 - 04:06 AM

P.S. I might add that hook on the first belt could be from a rifle sling, as
US canteen states. But it would be a post CW sling as the hooks on both the CW slings and over the cross saber straps are not round but slightly flattened and squared. So that still puts the belt Post war. Here's an example of the style hooks on the CW cross straps and a musket sling. As you can see CW period hooks on these items and including waist belts of the period, are not round. The style for IW hooks on early slings and belts generally changed to a more rounded style. Ray
Posted Image

#25 Greg Sebring

Greg Sebring
  • Members
    • Member ID: 118
  • 579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tecumseh, Michigan

Posted 17 January 2007 - 06:32 AM

Here is a better photo of the hook. I have examined the cartridge box carefully with a magnifying glass and I can not find one mark on it.

Greg

DSC04373.JPG


2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users