1830-1840 Militia breast plate

[pwcguy]

Found this a few weeks ago but wasn't sure if it was or wasn't of any importance. Had a professional look at it and confirmed that it was indeed a breast plate. I wasn't too impressed with it when I found it, but the more I learn about it the better it looks. The pro took some pictures and measurements and may put it in an upcoming book. It looks pretty plain but when it was all polished up it would have looked real good.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[vayank54]

Nice find Does PWC stand for the county you live in? Just wondering as I live in Fauquier

 

[pwcguy]

No PWC stands for Personal Water Craft. Thats what I do for a living I fix jet skis and motor cycles. I live in Hanover.

 

[vayank54]

oh ok. I thought maybe it stood for Prince William County.

 

[BuckleBoy]

That's odd that there aren't any attachments to the back of that plate--either made of brass or iron. Did your expert explain why? I don't have the O'Donnell book nearby right now, so I can't take a look--but I'm sure someone has a copy on here...


Best Wishes,


Buckles

 

[pwcguy]

He said that there would have been small wire hooks and that they probally rusted away or broke off over the years. He did ask if I found any peices of wire in the hole when I found the plate. I have to admit I didn't check to carefully when I dug this because it didn't look like much to me. When I go back I'll try to recheck the hole.

 

[BuckleBoy]

He said that there would have been small wire hooks and that they probally rusted away or broke off over the years. He did ask if I found any peices of wire in the hole when I found the plate. I have to admit I didn't check to carefully when I dug this because it didn't look like much to me. When I go back I'll try to recheck the hole.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Normally plates like this are brass-faced and lead-filled. This one looks like solid brass. Also, you can 99.99% of the time see rust spots where the iron attachments were.

In other words, I don't think it is very likely that this is a breastplate.

 

[Bradley137]

Nice save. Keep on diggin.

 

[pwcguy]

I appreciate your skepticism Buckleboy. Michael J. O'Donnell was guest speaker at this months Detector club meeting and examind it him self and assured me that it was a breast plate. When the author of this book says it's a plate I have to take his word for it.

 

[{Sentinel}]

Looks like you got you a nice early plate there bud Congrats. I'd like to have one of those in the Arsenal!

 

[BuckleBoy]

I appreciate your skepticism Buckleboy. Michael J. O'Donnell was guest speaker at this months Detector club meeting and examind it him self and assured me that it was a breast plate. When the author of this book says it's a plate I have to take his word for it.

Ok, if that's the case then who is Buckleboy to argue with the Expert? All I know is that it doesn't look like any plate I have ever seen or dug before. The back looks like it was braised onto another piece of metal. It has no attachments, and it has no lead filling. Did O'Donnell say which plate in his book it was? Please tell me which page number I can find it on.


Best Wishes,


Buck

 

[CRUSADER]

I appreciate your skepticism Buckleboy. Michael J. O'Donnell was guest speaker at this months Detector club meeting and examind it him self and assured me that it was a breast plate. When the author of this book says it's a plate I have to take his word for it.

Welcome to Tnet Stick around, you won't find a better site & more knowledge folk on the web

OK, firstly I'm not trying to rubbish your find, although sometimes I feel a little mean giving the truth (however, this one is a little grey & the facts are uncertain).

What I want to share with you is, Buckleboy doesn't speak from skepticism, he speaks from a knowledgeable background & experience in the field.

Also what you need to realised is that book writers & self made experts get it wrong all the time, I know this from first hand experience & I know most UK book writers on detecting finds. Never blindly believe anyone, even if they have done a book, get more opinions & do the research yourself (although by putting it on here you get the combined knowledge of hundreds of keen eyes), thats how you become on par with them.

Lastly, I don't have enough experience in these to make a valued judgement, however even with my limited knowledge, I would have raised the same concerns as BB.

Keep an open mind, & yes I might be a Skeptic too

 

[hogge]

In order for this to be a breast plate, or rosette, there HAS to be braise marks for the attachments. Even if these were worn off, there WILL still be marks where the attachments were, or where the braise marks wore off. On your piece there is no evidence of this. I'm not a skeptic, I'm a realist. I agree with Buckles and Crusader no matter what the "expert" says. I'm not very good a "sugar coating" the truth. I think Mr. "Expert", better take a closer look because he is wrong. If there are marks where these attachments were, please point them out.

 

[ColonialDude]

I will play devils advocate on this one.

I too would expect to see some sign of attachment, but admit I have a couple pieces that I know had an attachment at one time of which there is absolutely no trace of...that being said, they are much rougher looking on the back than yours. Being yours looks very clean on the back I would think some sign of attachment would be visible.

All that said, I don't know the author of the book...at all. I would THINK however the guy must have a love for such things, and thus would have handled MANY plates over the years, much more so than the average detectorist. I don't care what kind of detector you are swinging, or for how long...you don't find nearly as many plates as are listed in that book. Not even close.

So, perhaps there is something about this style of plate we don't know? I personally am completely unfamiliar with plates of this design, so can't say much myself. I would like to hear the authors thought process on this one however. It would be nice if he were able to post here to defend his stance on this one rather than people simply stating he is wrong. I'm not questioning the possibility he is wrong, as we all get it wrong sometimes...but I would like to know his reasons for thinking it IS a plate.

 

[pwcguy]

This plate isn't in the book but Michael O'Donnell said he would have put in the book if he had seen it. I appreciate everyones comments and veiws. That's why I like this site over the others. I invite anyone in the Richmond area that would like to see this item for them selves set up a time and place and you can examine it for your self. In the mean time I'll try to contact Mr O'Donnell and get a more detailed explenation of his thaught process.

 

[BuckleBoy]

This plate isn't in the book but Michael O'Donnell said he would have put in the book if he had seen it. I appreciate everyones comments and veiws. That's why I like this site over the others. I invite anyone in the Richmond area that would like to see this item for them selves set up a time and place and you can examine it for your self. In the mean time I'll try to contact Mr O'Donnell and get a more detailed explenation of his thaught process.

Thank you, pwc. I'd love to hear what he has to say about this item. I need to know what I'm looking for when I dig--and I wouldn't have recognized that as a plate if I dug it, unfortunately. Hopefully Mr. O'Donnell will share some of his insight so that I can learn something, too.

Best Wishes,


Buckles

 

[CRUSADER]

This plate isn't in the book but Michael O'Donnell said he would have put in the book if he had seen it. I appreciate everyones comments and veiws. That's why I like this site over the others. I invite anyone in the Richmond area that would like to see this item for them selves set up a time and place and you can examine it for your self. In the mean time I'll try to contact Mr O'Donnell and get a more detailed explenation of his thaught process.

Good luck, I would like to find out as well.

Just to clarify, although I kinda implied he was wrong, what I was trying to get across was that it's never good taking or believing 1 opinion even if they wrote a book on it. (understanding is deeper than that, so we all wait patiently)