Help w/ very late 45-70 Mills Belt?

[BlueBookGuy]

hello all,

I've got longtime among others, a 'blue' 45-70 Mills ammo belt with the very later escutcheons (embracing both belt's ends) that do carry the list of Mills' patents, with the latest one dated mid-1894. A highly sophisticated way of fitting them to the belt: escutcheons (also having their hinged, securing wire placed between cartridge loops) have been riveted only after passing through the oval wire, and doubled through the adjusting friction strip. So, not a messed up belt in my opinion.

However the Witthemore plate, cast bronze pattern of November 1886, could theorically have been put anywhere after  -    the two integral triangular hooks allow it being totally independent.

 

My question is, could be historically correct having a 'US' marked plate (instead of any State Militias) on a post-1894 ammo belt w/ 45-70 cartridges? Should I have it in a small display comprising a blue Infantry 1890 blouse (white Sergeant chevrons) could make sense the type of ammo carried, Springfield Trapdoor in such a later timeframe?

Thanx for any helps !!!

 

 

 

 

 

[CAC1901]

The most straight to the point answer to your question is: if you are looking to represent a regular US army infantryman prior to the issue of the Krag rifle & belt in 1895, no, a blue 45/70 mills web belt with an arsenal plate is not correct.  Regulars did not wear that combination.  Up until companies were issued the Krag and 30/40 blue Mills belts with the 'C' catch fastener, the tan 45/70 belt (sewn ends) with the 1886 plate and wire keepers (not sheet brass) was the regulation US 45/70 belt.  What has caused so much confusion here is the plethora of different Mills belt styles made into the early 1900's, (and their imitators or look-a-likes), the growth of State National Guard units in the 1890's, the Spanish American war mass callup, contracts, and issues, the surplusing of all this gear to Bannermans and the like in the early 1900's, decades of the movie / costume house era, all capped off with later collector interest; much of it well meaning but misguided  -- and of course the usual deliberate misinformation by sellers wanting to sell piles of once cheap, plentiful web belts and plates.  It is dizzying in its scope and for collectors like myself that were doing this 40 years ago, the constant stream of misinformation wlll probably never stop.  The blue 45/70 belts were popular with some state guard units (although many still stuck to the tan color). By the mid 1890's the newly patented 'C-catch' fastener system with its riveted belt end keepers and two sheet brass slides for the C-catch were growing in popularity with state guard and quasi-military outfits.  Amongst thousands of photographs I've examined from this period what is conspicuous is that the C-catch system literally never not gussied up with a US H-plate buckle.  That seems to be a collector/dealer fantasy combination that came about in the 1960's. Understandably so as they look great together, but for those of us that like our history unadorned and as-is, something to be aware of! 

[BlueBookGuy]

On 9/17/2020 at 7:55 AM, CAC1901 said:

The most straight to the point answer to your question is: if you are looking to represent a regular US army infantryman prior to the issue of the Krag rifle & belt in 1895, no, a blue 45/70 mills web belt with an arsenal plate is not correct.  Regulars did not wear that combination.  Up until companies were issued the Krag and 30/40 blue Mills belts with the 'C' catch fastener, the tan 45/70 belt (sewn ends) with the 1886 plate and wire keepers (not sheet brass) was the regulation US 45/70 belt.  What has caused so much confusion here is the plethora of different Mills belt styles made into the early 1900's, (and their imitators or look-a-likes), the growth of State National Guard units in the 1890's, the Spanish American war mass callup, contracts, and issues, the surplusing of all this gear to Bannermans and the like in the early 1900's, decades of the movie / costume house era, all capped off with later collector interest; much of it well meaning but misguided  -- and of course the usual deliberate misinformation by sellers wanting to sell piles of once cheap, plentiful web belts and plates.  It is dizzying in its scope and for collectors like myself that were doing this 40 years ago, the constant stream of misinformation wlll probably never stop.  The blue 45/70 belts were popular with some state guard units (although many still stuck to the tan color). By the mid 1890's the newly patented 'C-catch' fastener system with its riveted belt end keepers and two sheet brass slides for the C-catch were growing in popularity with state guard and quasi-military outfits.  Amongst thousands of photographs I've examined from this period what is conspicuous is that the C-catch system literally never not gussied up with a US H-plate buckle.  That seems to be a collector/dealer fantasy combination that came about in the 1960's. Understandably so as they look great together, but for those of us that like our history unadorned and as-is, something to be aware of! 

 

Just noticed right now your reply. Interesting indeed,  thanx very much !!