✅ SOLVED Could someone help identify or date these?

[Williamsce24]

The first one says rich gilt and looks to be blank on the front. The 2nd one appears to be blank on the back with a missing shank. Thank you

View attachment 2110867

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Blackfoot58]

Welcome to the forums. I’d guess the first one to be from around 1800. Your photo of the back is clear, but a side view of the shank is the best age identifier for me. Your photo is straight on, making it difficult to be certain. They are both very nice finds. The rose ornamentation on the back may allow someone with a button catalog to give more info.
Where did you find them? just a rough location.

 

[Williamsce24]

Welcome to the forums. I’d guess the first one to be from around 1800. Your photo of the back is clear, but a side view of the shank is the best age identifier for me. Your photo is straight on, making it difficult to be certain. They are both very nice finds. The rose ornamentation on the back may allow someone with a button catalog to give more info.
Where did you find them? just a rough location.

Thank you for the info! I'll try to post a better Pic from the side view in a bit. They were found in central Pennsylvania

 

[Red-Coat]

Welcome to Tnet.

If you look more closely at the first button, in addition to the rose (for England) there is also a shamrock (for Ireland) to the left, and a thistle (for Scotland) to the right. I don’t think there’s much doubt it’s a British button.

Britain legislated the minimum amount of gold required for a button to be called “Gilt”, “Double Gilt” or “Treble/Triple Gilt” in 1796 and terms such as “Rich Gilt” then began appearing as a way of circumventing the legislation.

The backmark is indented, and those types of backmark began appearing around 1810 but, as a result of various embargos on trade followed by the War of 1812, almost no British buttons were exported to America between 1808 and 1816 (apart from a brief period in 1810). When trade resumed in 1816 most British manufacturers had removed backmarks that identified their buttons as British to avoid them being rejected by those with lingering anti-British sentiments. Some of them began using eagle backmarks to increase their acceptance in the American market.

It was a while before things ‘settled down’ so I think it unlikely that a button with such overt emblems for Britain would be prior to about 1820, and more likely post 1830-ish… assuming it was exported as such rather than a ‘personal import’ on a coat someone was wearing.

 

[Williamsce24]

Welcome to Tnet.

If you look more closely at the first button, in addition to the rose (for England) there is also a shamrock (for Ireland) to the left, and a thistle (for Scotland) to the right. I don’t think there’s much doubt it’s a British button.

View attachment 2110882

Britain legislated the minimum amount of gold required for a button to be called “Gilt”, “Double Gilt” or “Treble/Triple Gilt” in 1796 and terms such as “Rich Gilt” then began appearing as way of circumventing the legislation.

The backmark is indented, and those types of backmark began appearing around 1810 but, as a result of various embargos on trade followed by the War of 1812, almost no British buttons were exported to America between 1808 and 1816 (apart from a brief period in 1810). When trade resumed in 1816 most British manufacturers had removed backmarks that identified their buttons as British to avoid them being rejected by those with lingering anti-British sentiments. Some of them began using eagle backmarks to increase their acceptance in the American market.

It was a while before things ‘settled down’ so I think it unlikely that a button with such overt emblems for Britain would be prior to about 1820, and more likely post 1830-ish… assuming it was exported as such rather than a ‘personal import’ on a coat someone was wearing.

I appreciate the info! I didn't even notice the shamrock and thistle, thank you for that.

 

[Blackfoot58]

Welcome to Tnet.

If you look more closely at the first button, in addition to the rose (for England) there is also a shamrock (for Ireland) to the left, and a thistle (for Scotland) to the right. I don’t think there’s much doubt it’s a British button.

View attachment 2110882

Britain legislated the minimum amount of gold required for a button to be called “Gilt”, “Double Gilt” or “Treble/Triple Gilt” in 1796 and terms such as “Rich Gilt” then began appearing as way of circumventing the legislation.

The backmark is indented, and those types of backmark began appearing around 1810 but, as a result of various embargos on trade followed by the War of 1812, almost no British buttons were exported to America between 1808 and 1816 (apart from a brief period in 1810). When trade resumed in 1816 most British manufacturers had removed backmarks that identified their buttons as British to avoid them being rejected by those with lingering anti-British sentiments. Some of them began using eagle backmarks to increase their acceptance in the American market.

It was a while before things ‘settled down’ so I think it unlikely that a button with such overt emblems for Britain would be prior to about 1820, and more likely post 1830-ish… assuming it was exported as such rather than a ‘personal import’ on a coat someone was wearing.

That makes sense. I get confused at times by the eye attachment. I’ve been lead to believe a soldered eye, with no foot, is 1800 or older. I couldn’t see the attachment well. Did I misjudge or was that style made for more years? The embargo info is very reliable for a timeline. I love that type of history. Thanks. 👍🏼

 

[Red-Coat]

That makes sense. I get confused at times by the eye attachment. I’ve been lead to believe a soldered eye, with no foot, is 1800 or older. I couldn’t see the attachment well. Did I misjudge or was that style made for more years? The embargo info is very reliable for a timeline. I love that type of history. Thanks. 👍🏼

You're welcome. Personally, I don't place too much credence on the so-called 'cut-off' dates for particular styles of manufacturing... particularly on generic buttons where the manufacturer can't be reliably identified. Too many variables and too much overlapping for my liking, except when accompanied by words such as 'likely', 'approximately' etc.

I find the other clues, including contemporary history, to be more reliable. Even for identified manufacturers, I see many buttons given a date which is completely at odds with other historical information. Things like the genealogy of the people who ran the companies involved... eg when "...& Son" could have become "...& Sons" or whatever.