General Service, Real or Repro?

[Andylit]

The Albert book warns of repros with blank backs. The examples are all for very early buttons, and it would seem kind of foolish to repro a fairly common button. Kind of like counterfeiting nickles (really happened).

 

Is this an original or is it a later repro? If repro, WHY would anyone bother? 

 

 

[268th C.A.]

its real how ever I believe its from the 1890's 

They do bother and like you said ? Why ? I sewed original buttons on my frock coats back in the day. I used dental floss to keep from loosing them. 40 years later there still there. 

[Bob B]

As stated, they have been making reproductions for use by reenactors for at least 75 years. And again as stated, it is an original, but with that tinned iron back I would date it to about 1870-1875. Around 1875 they changed the style of the general service button to one where the shield on the eagle's chest is raised, and the neck/head on the eagle are a bit different.

[Andylit]

57 minutes ago, Bob B said:

As stated, they have been making reproductions for use by reenactors for at least 75 years. And again as stated, it is an original, but with that tinned iron back I would date it to about 1870-1875. Around 1875 they changed the style of the general service button to one where the shield on the eagle's chest is raised, and the neck/head on the eagle are a bit different.

 

Raised beyond what is there? Can you show a photo so I can see the difference? The buttons I have certainly look and feel "raised". Perhaps we are using the term differently?

[Bob B]

1 hour ago, Andylit said:

 

Raised beyond what is there? Can you show a photo so I can see the difference? The buttons I have certainly look and feel "raised". Perhaps we are using the term differently?

Much more raised. You say in another post you have Albert's book, so take a look at the photo and description of GS 98.

[Andylit]

31 minutes ago, Bob B said:

Much more raised. You say in another post you have Albert's book, so take a look at the photo and description of GS 98.

98? Only goes up to 22

[Andylit]

38 minutes ago, Bob B said:

Much more raised. You say in another post you have Albert's book, so take a look at the photo and description of GS 98.

 

I must be missing something here. The button appears to be a GI94. Lacking a physical copy of the 98 I am not seeing a pronounced difference in the 94, 95, 97 & 98. The details of the eagles are obviously pronounced but the height/depth of the stamping seems to be nearly identical in the photos.

 

The point of my original post is that I'm not finding the blank back listed as an option for any of the variants except for the cast lead piece (96).

[Bob B]

5 minutes ago, Andylit said:

 

I must be missing something here. The button appears to be a GI94. Lacking a physical copy of the 98 I am not seeing a pronounced difference in the 94, 95, 97 & 98. The details of the eagles are obviously pronounced but the height/depth of the stamping seems to be nearly identical in the photos.

 

The point of my original post is that I'm not finding the blank back listed as an option for any of the variants except for the cast lead piece (96).

Sorry, do mean GI98. The shield is much more raised and the eagle neck is straight as opposed to curved. Here is the GI 98, which Albert's description says began in 1875.

Your button, GI 94 is the style made up to 1875. Albert's is an old book and does not come close to showing all the backmarks. But tinned iron backs were very common in the 1870's.

[Andylit]

Ahhhh. Much higher. Thank you.