The 4 buttons of the Navy 1820 Uniform Regulations

[Father V]

From the start if some moderator wishes this to be moved to the posts on buttons, I have no objections. I posted in Naval & Sea Service because my sole interest in buttons has to do with the Navy and this is more about the implications of a particular uniform order, not Naval buttons in general.

 

First the most important primary source, the order itself:

https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/collection/pal/id/4409 The file is excessively large. Just go there to get the complete file if desired.

 

The sections that concern us:

“Captains of Five Years Standing…The buttons as described in the drawing No. 1. …

Captains Under Five Years Standing…Same as Captains of five years standing in all respects, excepting the anchors on the Epaulet…

Masters’ Commandant…buttons as described in the drawing No. 2. …

Lieutenants Commandant, and First Lieutenants of Line of Battle Ships…button No. 2. …

Lieutenants…Same as Lieutenants Commandant, excepting only that they are to wear the Epaulet on the left shoulder. …

Midshipmens’ Full Dress…the buttons according to the drawing No. 4. …

Hospital Surgeons’…button to be according to drawing No. 3. …

Surgeons’…buttons No. 3. …

Surgeons’ Mates…buttons No. 3. …

Sailing Masters’…button No. 4. …

Pursers’…button No. 3. …

Masters’ Mates, same as Midshipmen [No. 4]…

Boatswains, Gunners, Carpenters and Sail Makers…button No. 3.”

Bracketed text my addition.

All of this would be fine if there had not been for the historical perils of separating an order from its specifications or illustrations that has plagued the history of many such uniform orders, including the Royal Navy’s illustrations of 1825, the USN 1864, and 1941 to name a few.

 

From what I have been able to search and a now thoroughly outdated 1975 article in the Summer Edition of Military Collector & Historian (Vol. 27 No. 2), pg 70 “Uniform of the United States Navy, 1820,” no such official illustrations are extant. Tily, the author of the article, indicates a “typed” (pg. 71)  attachment to the Navy Department’s copy of order:

“Captain of the Navy — Eagle perched on anchor stock surrounded by 13 stars and looking over his left shoulder. [Button No. 1]

Masters Commandant, Lieutenants Commandant and Lieutenants — Eagle perched on a branch, holding a shield with his left wing and looking over his own right shoulder. [Button No. 2]

Surgeons, Surgeon’s Mates, Pursers and all non-combatants— Buttons same as Captain except there are no encircling stars. [Button No. 3]

Sailing Masters, Midshipmen and other warrant officers — Similar to that of Master Commandant except as to minor details. Eagle looks over own right shoulder. [Button No. 4]”

 

The author doesn’t clarify if he added the brackets or they were included, but I’ll be clear that I didn’t add them this time.

 

What are we to make of this note? Of immediate interest is the author’s characterization of this note being “typed.” While Captain Tily was an acknowledged authority on US Naval Uniform History, he had no such expertise on printing history, but from his inexpert point of view, the note was the product of a typewriter. A survey of common knowledge about the typewriter puts the first commercially viable typewriters for general use in the 1870’s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter and from the point of view of non-blind users, that’s basically the Sholes & Glidden c. 1874 (see this article on a surviving example here: https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Article/CS2697). This was also the first to use the QUERTY keyboard, apparently. That’s a bare minimum of 50 some years after the issuance of the order and likely more without being able to submit the original to a typewriter expert.
 

Second, even if we take the unknown author of the note as having accurate knowledge, there are very strong limitations in the detail given. What sort of shield for button No. 2? Even when limited to Johnson’s original button books (1848), there are at least 2 different types of shields in extant buttons. Is the shield one of the “minor details” of No. 4? What are the “minor details” exactly?

 

Other historical visual evidence

Given the unknowns on this note, are there any historical sources we can turn to? 
 

Most readily available are historical painted or drawn portraits. Many of these have been digitized as well. The *accuracy* of such depictions will always be in question, though, so the safest route is to seek trends in depiction from various artists or from various points in their careers. Greatest chances of accuracy eliminates later portraits based on previous work. In the various listings such derivative works are called “after X” where X is the previous artist. Engravings, except under rare circumstances, are a further step removed from the original art and so, along with “after X” images, they are of little utility here.

 

Another source is surviving artifacts that have some sort of authoritative chain of possession that can be traced from the point of use up until the present possessor. In this the listings this generally goes under the heading of “provenance” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance  but sometimes is just noted in the text of the description. For our purposes, actual uniforms with buttons sewn on would be most useful. This provides a dating context for the attached buttons, assuming the original buttons are attached.

 

Of least use are buttons by themselves, as they have often no reliable provenance or context, but they do often possess makers marks which in some cases can be helpful in dating them. Note, however, that all 3 modern definitive secondary treatments of US Naval buttons, Johnson (1948 and beyond), Albert (1969, 1973 Supplement), and Tice (1997) are not willing to commit to dates for most of the American Navy buttons cataloged except in very limited cases, Johnson committing more often. I don’t possess a copy of Tice’s Dating Buttons, so I couldn’t consult it. For a complete bibliography of the generally acknowledged authorities, please consult our Forum: (by dag)

All my references to books are found on the list there.

 

Portraits:

This category is by no means a definitive list. For one, the generous folks making digital images of their collections available to the public aren’t always able to provide a high resolution photo, for another they aren’t button specialists. Their main concern is the overall image. Many more will become theoretically available whenever a better fidelity image is taken, especially in government or semi-official buildings where collections of portraits of the famous figures of the War of 1812 are housed (NY City Hall, Smithsonian, etc). Since many of those individuals were alive in the 1820’s, and some still connected to the Navy, their likenesses are preserved. The limitations are also present in that we’re looking for information on 4 different buttons worn by different classes of individuals, and most of the most detailed portraits are of Captains (or Commodores) which would only yield the No. 1 button at most, and only if the officer was following the uniform guidance as written.

 

Commodore James Barron c. 1828 by Neagle.

We owe a fortunate exchange of hands for this one via Christie’s. A helpful Wikimedia person uploaded it for the community and it’s in remarkable condition. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Commodore_James_Barron_(1768-1851)_2022_NYR_19907_0347.jpg Check that link for the original Christie’s listing. Far inferior engravings are on the official Navy History site, e.g. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-56000/NH-56817.html.

A detail (the academic word for an enlarged part of a bigger image):

You can see a left facing bird (from its own perspective) standing on an anchor. Not all of the buttons are so clearly depicted.

 

Lieutenant Franklin Buchanan c. 1828 by Peale. Try as I might, I can’t find a copy of the color original, only a black and white photo.

You can tell he’s not a Captain or Master Commandant as he only has one epaulet (as it was spelled in the 1820 order). For the detail, I’ve modified the original by using basic settings available standard through iOS and marked two points of interest to the side of two buttons.

The upper of the two has a beak clearly visible and pointing to its own right. The lower has a decently clear triangular shield, which since Victorian times has been called a “heater shield” in English https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heater_shield. The other buttons are less clear in this photo.

 

Unfortunately, with the state of the digital evidence, these are all that are clear that I have gathered. This means we are stuck correlating as many bits of information as we can at least in regards to the 1820’s.

 

Surviving uniforms.

Matthew Brenckle, when he was public historian at the USS Constitution did some marvelous work. His article on hats & caps included an entry from the currently few digitized collection photos at the Naval Academy which also contains the collections of the former Lyceum & Boston Naval Institute. As far as I know this article has the only digital footprint of a surviving cocked hat of unknown provenance with a clearly visible button: https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2015/09/02/hats-caps-and-chapeaux/

Here’s the detail. Brenckle’s purpose wasn’t to provide a detailed examination of this item, so the extreme magnification is a little unfocused:

There are some more, a coat with a preliminary date of 1820’s at the Smithsonian and a fascinating full dress coat belonging to Thomas MacDonough donated by a MacDonough family member which has the triple upright triangles in the back that were illustrated in the uniform order of 1820 (the only illustration to be integrated) at the Connecticut Museum of Art and Culture but both of these items have photos that are incapable of being zoomed on the buttons. See for example the Connecticut item: http://emuseum.chs.org/emuseum/objects/5067/mans-uniform-coat;jsessionid=5023D7C869991EE755D0A74117D1340A

The scholar (unnamed) who performed the analysis on the garment blithely states it has “United States Navy button(s)” upon it but never describes them, as if the specifications for buttons in 1802, 1813, and 1820 were all common knowledge which they definitely are not. http://emuseum.chs.org/emuseum/objects/details.detail.detailactions.detailviewreportscontroller:generatereport/2/Objects/635623?sid=Xic1vNPAOTeOdTdb&t:ac=5067. That author also seems unaware of the 1820 diagram:

I’ve asked for an improved photo but such requests usually go slowly.

 

Individual buttons.

Johnson, Albert, and Tice all seem unaware of the 4-button schema of 1820 order, nevertheless Tice gives a rare definitive time frame for the one button of this era he chose to cover. Since his book is the most recent of the 3, let’s take a look on page 156 (poor focus is my unsteady hand, not the source material):

:

 

From the text he says that it’s a single two-piece button not listed by Albert made just before 1830 in the old style (pg 155). It is uncertain how he made the determination without a specific maker mark.

 

The best image of this type of design, which according to the typewritten note is the No. 2, comes from an auction site. They cite a listing in Albert, but checking there, he doesn’t commit to a date for the design. The 1820’s assessment is thus the auction site’s own estimation. https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/c-1820-set-of-24-mint-unused-united-states-naval--226-c-b4e45e6bc3

To check the maker’s mark on that button, consult the website.
 

What of the oval/circular shield design? I can go through the photos of the 1802 & 1813 era portraits if there is interest, of which there are currently far more clear images online, but it appears as if that design was from that era. The clearest image:

Captain Isaac Hull by Stuart c. 1807. https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/collection-items/portrait-of-captain-isaac-hull/. This portrait belongs to a private collector, according to the note on the website, and was on loan at the time of digitization.

Detail with my marks:

Remembering that no one portrait image can be considered definitive and that this portrait is being cited as an exemplar, not as the complete evidence, we see the oval and the right shoulder (from the eagle’s perspective) orientation.

 

There is some tangential information related to later orders that yields probable information at best, that being later order evidence. From the 1830 order (consult the forum here for the text: 

“BUTTONS. 
The buttons to be worn by all officers, are to be the present pattern for Captains, or what is called No. 1. when small buttons are not specified, the large ones are to be worn.”

 

From the 1841 official illustration, Sgt. Booker’s digitized collection on Internet archive, the specific image being: https://ia801206.us.archive.org/33/items/Picture001a/Picture 013.jpg and my enlargement using iOS!

It is thus probable that the same design of button was in service from 1820-1852 in one form or another (when the 1841 order was superseded).

 

Conclusions:

We are firmly on the bed of probability at best, there being no definitive evidence in any of the categories we listed, though that could change as digitization improves. Numbers given ignore the number of stars and are concerned only with the design, not attempting to give an actual date.

No. 1: Eagle with its wings extended to its left & right, looking to its left, holding in its two claws the stock of an upright & straight fouled anchor. [Albert NA 86-87, 106A, 107-109, Tice NA190, Johnson 289, 314, 317-319, 322-323

No. 2: Eagle with its wings extended to its left and right, looking to its right, a heater shield with a top curving to the bottom to its immediate left which bears the emblem of a fouled anchor, its right claw visibly perched upon an oblong object, perhaps a branch. [Albert NA 61, 62, 66-75, Johnson 306-309]

No. 3: Same as No. 1 but with no encircling stars [Albert NA 88, Johnson 315]

No. 4: Inconclusive as to how it differs from No. 2. Perhaps both claws are visible on the thin branch or the anchor isn’t fouled? Too little evidence available. Albert NA 62G is the closest to the Naval Academy example.

No. 1 & 2 rest upon better evidence, No 3 & 4 least.

[Father V]

For some reason it has the maker’s mark photo posted of the auction site 1820 buttons without my revised comments, so let me remark upon it here. According to American Military Button Makers and Dealers (2006 expanded from 2001), Aaron M. Peasley had his last City Directory listing in 1823, so the chances of these being from the 1820’s is exceedingly high.

[Justin B.]

21 hours ago, Father V said:

What are we to make of this note? Of immediate interest is the author’s characterization of this note being “typed.” While Captain Tily was an acknowledged authority on US Naval Uniform History, he had no such expertise on printing history, but from his inexpert point of view, the note was the product of a typewriter.

 

You see typewritten stuff quite a bit in the Navy Department Library uniform material. I believe it comes from researchers in the days before wide access to photocopiers. I think Cdr. William Edwards, whose collection is the backbone of the library's uniform material, re-typed whole regulations and orders for his own reference and use. Some of which is pretty impressive work, formatting and typing tables on a manual typewriter! But I think he was a former yeoman, so that would be second nature to him.

I have one or two other regulation copies from the '60s that were re-typed in whole by researchers. Are they the original documents? No, but there is little reason to doubt their credibility (outside of possible minor transcription errors) as there would be no motive to present the text inaccurately.

That said, I have no information on the provenance of the 1820 button note.

Very interesting article, thanks once again!

Justin

[Father V]

Generally, I’m for scrutinizing all pieces of historical evidence. The person who wrote the note might have seen the original illustration, but that makes one wonder why Tily in 1975 hadn’t been able to find a copy. Edwards died in 1977 so he was alive then. In the preface to his 1964 book, he printed a preface he dated 1962 in which he noted at least some contact with Edwards (pg 12). It’s possible Edwards’ collected materials weren’t generally available until he died. I hope to eventually make it out there for a research trip to see if it’s in there, but who knows when that might be. It’s also a bit odd that Tily was still using Johnson as a reference in 1975 when Albert’s book was out in 1973 and had been reprinted in 1974. As it was, he monumentally flubbed the reconstruction, not even following the text of the note on his No. 4. I completely omitted his graphic on this because I didn’t want those errors to be “out there” via Google search.

 

Speaking of scrutiny, I noticed I included the one Tice button under “No. 1” (eagle perched on anchor stock) when, given how I discuss it in the article, it should be listed under “No. 2.” (eagle with heater shield to its left). My apologies to those who read it earlier.

[Father V]

Update on the MacDonough Full Dress Coat buttons from the Connecticut Museum of Art and Culture. About the button the Assistant in charge said it measured 7/8” which roughly corresponds to 22-23 mm (22.23 actually)

As usual with such images, and indeed the vast majority of photos and images I have provided up until now, I don’t possess the rights to the images and if you are wanting to use them for anything other than private, non-commercial use, you must seek permission from the original right holders. This is one of the reasons I try to give full references wherever I can, and on this image in particular as it is not located on their official website and might never be at their own discretion.

 

Analyzing the button, it is consistent with the 1820 No. 1 button and appears to my inexpert eye to be Albert’s NA 86A/Johnson 311 or 314 who both say 23mm (Tice doesn’t cover buttons this old), which is a one-piece flat button. From the apparent tightness of the buttons on the uniform, I doubt backmarks would be visible, so I didn’t ask for a follow-up photo.
 

As an aside, the order also said on Captain’s vests: “The vest to be single-breasted, and to have nine buttons, and there are to be four buttons on and 4 under each of the pocket flaps, the pattern of the button to correspond with the drawing No. 1, but the button to be smaller so as to correspond with the garment.” That explains Albert’s NA 86Av/Bv/Cv and Johnson’s 314G-J as they are said to be between 15mm-16mm probably corresponding to 5/8” (compare to portrait of Commodore Barron).  A similar direction was given to the other vests with their corresponding buttons thus we see 15-16mm buttons in the No. 2 as well (Albert NA 70-73 and perhaps 74/ Johnson 308C-D).
 

No button dimensions were given in Uniform Orders until 1852, but it is interesting to note that in 1852 the illustration gives the large button a diameter of 7/8” and a survey of all known & probable official USN button designs of the types we have been discussing are all of about 7/8” in the large size.

[Father V]

I finally found a beautiful example of the No. 3 button from a surviving artifact (chapeau bras style cocked hat) that I probably should have noticed at the USS Constitution museum. It belonged to Surgeon William Swift and was estimated to be in our time frame:

https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/collection-items/william-swifts-cocked-hat/

And the detail:

Just as described in the note, the No. 1 but without the stars. Definitely Albert NA 88 though it would be nice to confirm the size. As with these older buttons, it appears to be flat, one-piece. 

[Father V]

Had a nice note from the Manager of the Research Center at the Connecticut Museum of Culture and History granting permission to use the photo posted above. She asked that the following citation be made:

Man's Uniform Coat, Made by Camillo Vignati (Italian), Media: Hand-stitched of deep blue fine wool broadcloth, with white or pale buff fine wool broadcloth facing, silk taffeta sleeve lining, glazed linen pocket bags, linen buckram collar stiffener, metallic gold lace edging, iron wire hooks, and gilt buttons. The epaulets are gold lace straps with gold boullion fringe, silk lining, steele stiffener, wool attachment straps, silk satin bolsters, cotton tape, and buttons. Gift of Charles S. MacDonough, OBJECT NUMBER 1847.12.0, The Connecticut Museum of Culture and History. I purposely omitted the posited date as I have serious doubts about that portion of the analysis.

 

I failed to notice when I posted the front image of the button, that they had printed the maker’s mark already: Wise Bielby Hyde & Co.

According to McGuinn & Bazelon, 2006, this was a British maker (pg. 244) that did business mostly in the 1820’s. The directory listings are mixed because the button mark never matches the directory listings. M & B list two separate NA-86 die variants:

The MacDonough coat most likely has the middle one noted in Albert as variant 7. Note the last one is apparently a new variant discovered by M & B, as it isn’t listed in Albert and Tice didn’t cover these early buttons. They included the NA-86 as an indication of pattern, I think. Incidentally, Johnson records the “No. 2” variant as 307A, completing the No. 1, 2, 3 set. Johnson had a couple of other supplements so I can’t guarantee he didn’t list the No. 3 variant in one. 

 

 

[Father V]

Another #2 from a portrait photograph at the Navy site I missed the first time, this time Master Commandant Joseph James Nicholson. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-47000/NH-47515.html

The detail:

They’re not all clear so I’ve marked the clearest one to the side. It’s clear the bird is curving towards its own right shoulder. The original was in the hands of the family when the photo was taken, and no other photos show up on a Google search. The lace detail is almost photographic in quality. Compare to the actual photograph of MacDonough’s coat. Note, the Academy has a portrait of the same officer as a Lieutenant c. 1807-8. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-47000/NH-47516.html
 

The ever-helpful folks at the historical command have put text in the caption estimating this portrait to have been taken when he was stationed at the Navy Yard on the basis of the Navy Register, I think (e.g. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/r/registers-of-the-navy/1823.html)

 

Nicholson, Jos. J.
Midshipman, 2 April, 1804. Lieutenant, 4 June, 1810. Master Commandant, 5 March, 1817. Captain, 3 March, 1827. Died 12 December, 1838.

From https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/o/officers-continental-usnavy-mc-1775-1900/navy-officers-1798-1900-n.html

[Father V]

Upon inquiring at the museum that houses the original, they were willing to make a new photo of this portrait for a fee. Here’s the result. By their request, this is the citation: Courtesy of the Maryland Center for History and Culture, 1958.44.3. They say it will eventually be available on their digital site, but who knows when that will be exactly.

 

And the detail:

It’s so clear that it’s a heater/ triangular shield so often, I don’t even need to mark it, as well as the curving to its own right shoulder.

 

Beautiful piece. You can even see all the small ridges on the gold lace as you can on the MacDonough coat.

[USMCHisoryBuff]

On 3/27/2024 at 10:15 AM, Father V said:

For some reason it has the maker’s mark photo posted of the auction site 1820 buttons without my revised comments, so let me remark upon it here. According to American Military Button Makers and Dealers (2006 expanded from 2001), Aaron M. Peasley had his last City Directory listing in 1823, so the chances of these being from the 1820’s is exceedingly high.

I am very new to this forum and came here completely for a different post, but I know more about Aaron M. Peasley than any historian at this moment. I am currently doing my own research on Marine Corps buttons and believe him to be the first one to make the Marine Corps insignia, but unsure if it was for a Naval or Marine Corps officer.

 

Peasley made most of his buttons from 1810-1823. Through property records I believe he sold his shop on Middle street in 1822 and his other property in Middle street in 1828, but is confirmed to be a resident of Dover NH in 1826.

[Father V]

Do you consider the auction house’s 1820’s estimate reasonable?

[USMCHisoryBuff]

Kinda, Peasley had a pretty good run and advertised in newspapers as well. He worked with tailors in the area, as their die sinker.

 

I believe it to be prior to the 1820s due to his Navy buttons not having numbers incorporated in the backmarks.

[USMCHisoryBuff]

On 5/2/2024 at 3:16 PM, Father V said:

Do you consider the auction house’s 1820’s estimate reasonable?

Thinking about your question more, I am almost certain that the buttons from the auction site predates the 1820's. Peasley obtained a large amount of business in his day, to the point where the absence of numbers and other examples of numbers 1, 3, and 4 indicate that he did not make Navy buttons after 1820. He did make a great deal of Maine militia buttons post 1820 due to Maine becoming a state that year. He also has the most variation to backmarks made for the Marine Corps. Bruce Bazelon and William Leigh's book showcase 4 which are:

 

MC-1: "A.M. Peasley Boston"

MC-3: "Ne Plus Ultra - Treble Gilt Stand Col", "C. Newman Tailor Boston", "Extra Rich Orange"

 

Not in the book are two other backmarks of:

MC-1: "C. Newman Tailor Boston"

MC-3: "Clapp and Nichols Tailor Boston Mass - A.M.P - D.S.

 

These buttons were essentially made from the same front die, with little to no variation be sides die ware.

 

One problem I am running into with this research is the variations of dates, I can get pretty close but that's about it. I do know that Peasley made the Corps' insignia before the 1820 uniform regulations because of the Clapp and Nichols backmark, which would be between 1810-1816. So the quote of "Regulations follow practice" is very true in this case, but it is frustrating. As well example of Marine buttons possess the "No 5" on the backmark, indicating there was an amendment to this uniform regulation.

 

[Father V]

I was unaware of this reference, so I looked it up online and saw that it was just published this year, 2024, and is currently sold through the publisher, Mowbray. Here’s a review for all those interested in cutting edge information on buttons. https://www.coinbooks.org/v27/esylum_v27n20a05.html . I will wait to comment fully until I have received my own copy and can compare the information to previous books, including Bazelon’s own 2006 work and Tice’s 2 books.

[Father V]

Been poring over the new book, and I see the authors have a section specifically on the 1820 Navy regulations as well as photos of the original order (pg. 176-179 for their article on the 1820 order, pg 180 for the order itself which is the same as already cited, and then photos of actual buttons for pages 183-186. The authors discuss the Peasley version of the No. 2 button in various places in the text with photos including two with a front like the auction house’s and an identical back but without the “Treble/ *Gilt*,” even including the dot after Peasley, but not in front of the name. I provide some photos for the many who don’t have this book seeing as it’s brand new (pg 183, but also pg 48, labeled 22-a19 thru 22-b19 with no label that these are repeated later in either location)

By the textual description, a2 & b2 are both Peasley fronts. The authors have the following to say about the dating of these buttons: “As Peasley is believed to have ceased his button making business by 1823, this piece would likely have either been made around 1820-23 or must predate the Regulations of 1820.”

 

Happily, the authors discuss the buttons that pre-date the Regulations using primary sources, specifically a document to which buttons have been attached and hand-labeled and which is dated 1817 by the author of the source.

 

Detail of the particular button in question:

 

Notice the extra-long neck. That particular design feature was more typical of the earlier time period as well as the very narrow object upon which the claw is perched. Fortunately, we have surviving Peasley buttons of the earlier design that can be reliably dated in the 1812-1820 era. The authors show quite a few of these, but for fair use, I think I should restrict the photo to some of the clearer examples: (pg. 173, with text discussion that continues to pg. 174)

Even the Tice button doesn’t have the neck out so far. Given that Peasley has deliberately changed his eagle’s design, I think I’m going to lean in the direction of the auction button being 1820-1823 as Bazelon & Leigh first suggest. There are no absolutes in the realm of such a sparsely documented design, since an official illustration was probably drawn up but hasn’t survived.

 

The information in this new book on the no. 4 button (Midshipmen etc) is also relevant. I’ll admit freely that if I’d known this book was out/coming out before I posted, I probably wouldn’t have written about the 1820’s buttons at all since it would have looked like a needless repetition. I wrote it on March 27, 2024 precisely because I thought it hadn’t been widely known and Tily’s 1975 article seemed inadequate. Given that I did do all the research, though, I’ll have to take exception to something the authors say on page 177:

 

“…The No. 4 button, which was described as ‘Similar to that of Master Commandant except as to minor details—that detail being the use of a round shield rather than a spade shield. Eagle looks over own right shoulder…’…” [emphasis added] The only source of a text included in the endnotes is Tily’s 1975 article cited in the original post, and as noted in the original post, the typewritten note that Tily references doesn’t have that bold text. I’m including an electronic copy of the Military Collector & Historian: Journal of the Company of Military Historians article’s text as sent to me by the publisher, page 71:

Remember that this is merely a typewritten note in the files of the Navy Department’s copy, not a primary source.

 

Fortunately, the accuracy of the description is not the author’s best evidence for the circular shield design for midshipmen. That comes from another period document with buttons attached, this time from 1826 and labeled as such by the owner, A.W. Spies (pg. 74)

Mr. Spies wasn’t putting this card together for posterity but for business. As was the practice at the time, some of the buttons on the card have a Spies backmark, though manufactured by British businesses. Allegedly the cards & attached buttons are in the collection of the New York Historical Society, but the only images they currently have up are the least important parts of the collection. https://emuseum.nyhistory.org/objects/36670/military-button-samples?
 

Bazelon first wrote about this document in an 1976 issue of Military Collector & Historian, vol. 27, no. 1, pg. 37-39, less than a year from when Tily published his article on the 1820 uniform regulations in the same journal, but as I hadn’t seen it mentioned in any other source since then, I hope I may be excused not having known it earlier. The authors reference that earlier article in endnote #67 but as the photos in that article are black & white and not very extensive, the new full-color photos are a huge improvement. The relevant excerpt (pg 74):

As you can see, the abbreviation for Midshipmen, MIDN, is of very old origin. That’s about as clear a piece of evidence as can possibly be found. Remember our photo of the small MIDN button was quite out of focus in extreme closeup, so it’s possible it was also circular. I will attempt to contact the Academy Museum to see if a clearer photo can be had.

 

I go to all this detail because I value others opinions on my posts, and I didn’t want to come to a different conclusion than you, USMCHistoryBuff, without thoroughly investigating this wonderful book you told me about, knowing that your interests are primarily with the USMC. Bazelon & Leigh have their material about Peasley scattered all over their book which makes it quite chaotic to read. In the case of 1820’s uniforms, my conclusions about almost everything can fall apart (note my potential blunder on Midshipmen’s buttons) if the evidence changes slightly, so I don’t want to be too confident without being reviewed by others.

[USMCHisoryBuff]

Father V,

 

Your research is great and I appreciate your opinion too and see exactly where you’re coming from. I cannot argue with your logic here, I don’t know when this button was made, especially since Peasley was mention in the Boston directory until 1823 as you mentioned. Another obscure factor is we know Peasley was making buttons post 1820 due to the existence of Maine Militia buttons, because Maine wasn’t a state until 1820.

 

One thing that has me stumped though is despite Peasley being a button powerhouse into the early 1820’s there are currently no verifiable examples of Peasley making a No 1 or No 3 example of Navy buttons. I find this to be very intriguing and despite it not proving anything really, it is interesting.

 

I have a publication coming out soon regarding the earliest Marine Corps emblem and I want to write about how this emblem right now is actually tied to a Naval Surgeons mate through circumstantial evidence. It’s mentioned briefly in the article, but I want to do more research into it.

 

I also appreciate you diving into great detail regarding the 1820 regulations. This time period is brushed over despite it being an important factor of the US Navy’s evolution.

[Father V]

19 minutes ago, USMCHisoryBuff said:

I have a publication coming out soon regarding the earliest Marine Corps emblem and I want to write about how this emblem right now is actually tied to a Naval Surgeons mate through circumstantial evidence. It’s mentioned briefly in the article, but I want to do more research into it.

 

I also appreciate you diving into great detail regarding the 1820 regulations. This time period is brushed over despite it being an important factor of the US Navy’s evolution.

You should definitely tell us where to find that after it’s published! :-)

 

Many seem to be unaware of the existence of surviving 1820 regulations, and the lack of an equivalent to a Review of Periodical Literature for the relevant uniform articles in the highly specialized magazines means that unless someone knows about the digitization of the entire run of Military Collector & Historian and actually checks it, they will be missing important sources, not to mention the usual difficulties in getting relevant information out of a search of their index. I mean on the M1830 USN Officer’s sword there are many standard and respected books that were completely unaware of a 1958 article by Tily that showed period illustrations. That’s complicated by such old articles sometimes being wrong, such as Tily’s later 1975 article cited above.

[USMCHisoryBuff]

I will for sure! That is one thing I found out conducting research for the earliest confirmed Marine Corps emblem, I even joined the CMH, bought all the previous issues and ensured I wasn’t conducting research already done. There are so many great reads in there. I chose Marine Corps University Press’ Marine Corps History due to it being digitized and more accessible.

[BadBeagle]

Like everyone who is aware of the existence of the General Order of June 10, 1820 that sets down a complicated series of new uniform regulations including four (4) new regulations for navy uniform buttons, I, too, wish that the General Order had included an illustration of each of the buttons, identified as "button No. 1," button No. 2," button No. 3" and button No. 4."  There was no "button No. 5."  The Marine Corps button was later prescribed in 1821 and three Marine buttons were produced during the 1820s with the "No. 5" on the back of the button.  But, alas, this drawing has never surfaced.  No one has yet found the period drawings that correspond with the General Order of 1820.  Someone later added drawing (probably a tracing) along with a type-written explanation for the buttons, but this drawing cannot be considered part of the General Order of 1820, despite it being correct.  It's just a later note included in the records.

 

This being said, we still have the General Order of June 10, 1820 along with perhaps over a hundred buttons that were prescribed by this order, were produced during the 1820s, and were worn by Navy officers, a good number of them with numbers (No. 1 thru No.5) consistently stamped on the backs.  These two artifacts –– the General Order and the existing buttons –– give us a sort of Rosetta Stone to determine what buttons were worn by which officers of the U.S. Navy during the decade of the 1820s.

 

The Firm of Lewis & Tomes was in business in England from 1816-1833 and in New York from 1819-1826.  The vast majority of their American buttons listed are for the US Navy.  They produced a series of five (5) buttons with identical backmarks (No. 1 thru No.5), and the only change was the number.  If you are fortunate enough to possess one of each in your collection, you can line them up and understand intuitively that each number corresponds to the numbers on the General Order (except for the later Marine button that was added later).  These five buttons were the official buttons of the United States Navy during the 1820s.  They were the INTENTION of the drafters of the General Order of 1820.  Can I say this any stronger or with any more certainty?

 

If you don't like Lewis & Tome, then you can do the same with the five (5) buttons of Wise, Bielby, and Hyde, a partnership dating around the mid-1820s that produced ONLY these five (5) "numbered" buttons, no others listed of any kind.  These, too, are in perfect concordance with the General Order.  And then you have William Wallace who produced the same series, most with numbers (I'm unsure about No.2, though Wallace did produce two (2) them without numbers).  And then you have Adam Spies and Joseph Mann who worked together to produce their own series of the No.1 thru No.4, most of them with numbers.  The only difference between in all these five buttons in four production lines is that one of the Marine buttons has 15 stars instead of 13.  This, to me, seems pretty conclusive.  Don't you agree?  The fronts and the backs are consistent.

 

Then you have other buttons of the period that follow the pattern but without numbers, some of them produced by the same four (4) companies listed above.  Lewis & Tomes, for example, produced a number of buttons with "No. L&T" but no number.  One has "No. L&T" and "No. 4!"  Mann produced numbered "quality marked" buttons without the firm's name.  And then you have a number of buttons apparently produced before 1820, many of them with 16 stars (as opposed to the quasi-official 13 stars) produced by the firms listed above.  And, of course, you have the No. 1 buttons that were probably only produced after 1830 in accordance with the new order prescribing only one button (the No. 1 button) for all officers of the U.S. Navy.  It helps if you have a good selection of these buttons to actually look at as opposed to written words and comments that are outside the General Order and the buttons themselves.

 

The General Order of 1820 is an important document in the sense that it identifies the navy buttons of 1820, the early navy buttons on the 1830s, and is brings in many buttons with round and spade shields that are often confused with pre-1815 buttons.  We have to remember the Albert knew virtually nothing of the General Order of 1820 in 1976 when his last book was published, and I do not recall ever hearing of this before 2010 when most navy collectors sort of shrugged it off as speculation.  "Nice theory," they said.

 

Perhaps the missing "original" drawings of 1820 will show up one day.  Perhaps not.  Perhaps never.  You also have to remember that the General Order was given, at the time, to newly commissioned officers in order to get their uniforms correctly made.  They were instructions!  And the proper numbered button could be found on the back of the button.  People in the business knew what this meant.  Today, all we can do is keep a sharp eye out for any unlisted buttons of this period that have not been identified and fold them into the mix.  There are still unknown navy buttons out there.

 

We know exactly what the numbered buttons of the General Order of June 10, 1820 look like!

 

 

[Father V]

The evidence you cite of several hundred buttons surviving wasn’t actually published when I wrote my initial article and remains unpublished until you write your post going through the actual examples. What was available was quite sketchy indeed until Bazelon’s book cited above. He had published the Spies’ card in the 70’s but the photo was quite bad at the time. That card to my mind solves the problem and it was a great contribution that new full-color photos came out after I wrote the article, and he has not fortunately asked the site to remove my clips of them. Like I said above, I wouldn’t have written this article at all if the new book had come out earlier, but such accidents are constantly occurring in history, so why not here? Thanks for contributing your knowledge of surviving examples. Often experienced collectors know things that haven’t been published and sometimes the knowledge dies with them.

[BadBeagle]

On the Subject of Actual Buttons

 

I did not cite "several hundred buttons surviving," but referred to " perhaps over a hundred buttons that were prescribed by this order, were produced during the 1820s, and were worn by Navy officers, a good number of them with numbers (No. 1 thru No.5) consistently stamped on the backs."   I was talking about the different "types" or "examples" of known, distinct buttons that could be listed under the rubric of 1820s buttons relating to the General Order of June 10, 1820.  There are perhaps over 50 examples or types that had numbers on them, some of them post-1830 under the Regulations of 1830.  I cannot know the exact number that were produced.  As for "buttons surviving," there must be thousands of US Navy buttons out there, in various conditions, all as a result of the June 10, 1820 General Order.  This is a "spitball number," but it comes from my experience with real buttons.  Imagine how many buttons Leigh and Bazelon must have held in their hands over the years!

 

I am a Navy button collector because I love the buttons.  My interest in regulations and other historical documents is secondary, though interesting in terms of background information.  Real buttons will lead one to the undeniable existence and reality of their being, while words, or their absence, will generally lead to rabbit holes.  For years, I puzzled over the meaning of these backmark numbers on some of my old US Navy buttons and what they might have meant.  I did notice their consistency relating to the front devices.  And then I got a copy of Tily's book and discovered the General Order of 1820.  "The numbered buttons!"  It made sense after that.  But there was still work to do.  Still is...

 

I can only suggest, if one wants to understand military buttons of a certain category and period, to start collecting buttons, or information on them.  Buttons can be expensive.  If you wanted to buy the Lewis & Tomes numbered series of Navy buttons (No. 1 thru No.5) in decent condition, a full set could easily cost you over $1,000!  The lion's share of this cost would be the MC4 No.5 button, alone, if you were ever lucky enough to see one for sale.  It's a rare button.  But there is always the "thrill of the hunt," and great buttons can be found anywhere in the oddest of places, and for a reasonable price, or "small sum," as Luis Fenollosa Emilio liked to say in his book.  A lot depends on personal finances and how much one chooses to devote to this hobby.

 

Another possibility is Ebay.  There are at least two regular sellers who sell a wide variety of military buttons, including US Navy, in their "Ebay Store" who are very knowledgeable and who curate their offerings.  They also provide sharp photographs, front and back, of their buttons.  Ebay is easy to search.  You can even search how much they sell for.  Nothing stops you from downloading these images or taking photos of these images if you want them for your personal research, even though it violates the strict rule of "copying" off the internet.  There are also Civil War websites that sell pre-CW Navy buttons.  They, too, provide great images, front and back.  With enough good images, or actual buttons, it is easier to see patterns and similarities in the buttons that were once for sale in the naval tailor shops and lace shops of the Eastern Seaboard Navy ports in the 1820s and 1830s.  The images are out there, as are the buttons.  And, of course, there are the backmark lists in McGuinn & Bazelon, Tice, Albert, Johnson, Emilio, etc., that work best when you have real buttons, or their images, in front of you.  And there must be military relic shows in your neck of the woods.  "No price for looking," as they say in Egyptian bazaars.  Have no regrets about trying to figure this out or for writing about it.  It's arcane.  And it's research, after all.