Dug a beauty today!

[PhillyMike68]

This thing is in great shape, the mud is drying and flaking off and its like new, everything moves on it still... Amazing!!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Erik in NJ]

There may have been some vestigial uses of i as j in the 1700s especially when casting an initial in a mold as it was easier to make an i and it fit better in confined spaces. Someone said f was used as s in the 1700s. This is incorrect as the s with the crossbar looked a bit like an f but was elongated and had a curved bottom.

J - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree the mark is I S. but when the I was used as a J in the 18th century, the I usually had a horizontal crossbar through it Look at this scribed coin I found. It has John spelled with an I with crossbar. It also has the date 1758 scribed into it. I have a better picture at work with some coloring that makes it easier to read.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[CASPER-2]

I think it may be.. IS ...which usually would mean... JS
awesome buckle

 

[ajaj]

Nice find. I'm still waiting to find a buckle like that.

 

[OWK]

I agree the mark is I S. but when the I was used as a J in the 18th century, the I usually had a horizontal crossbar through it.

I hate to quibble, but this is technically untrue.

A barred "I" was not uncommon, but it was used less often, and not more often than an unbarred "I"








Here for example, are the marks of Joseph Richardson, John McMullin, and John Leacock, all 18th century Philadelphia silversmiths

(I'm actually somewhat of an authority on U.S. Coin Silver marks, and have contributed example marks to many online and printed references)

 

[CRUSADER]

The mark looks to me like "I" and "S".

Possibly the mark of John Syng (an early Philadelphia Silversmith working in the 1730's)

Early marks used an "I" for a "J".

Silversmiths often made buckles in base metal as well as silver.

I agree its IS/JS but its British made not US.

 

[OWK]

I agree its IS/JS but its British made not US.

It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely that it is an English piece. There were more imported buckles in the colonies in 1730, than there were locally made ones.

But it is by no means a certainty.

Given that it is a base metal buckle, and therefore bears no assay marks, there's no way to be certain other than absolute attribution of the mark (which is oftentimes impossible)

 

[Bill D. (VA)]

Here's a comprehensive list of British "IS" maker's marks, but none of them are given in reference to the manufacture of buckles.

London Makers Marks - IS-IZ

 

[JerseyDigger19]

This is a mindblowingly beautiful shoe buckle. MEGA congratulations!!!

 

[DMN]

That is one nice buckle. Makes you wonder if the whole shoe was there at one time and deteriorated. Incredible find.

The hallmarks look like an "I" and "S". I'm no expert on colonial manufacturing hallmarks but I do find it interesting that the makers marks shown have the initials as a set rather than separate. Might be good to see an example of John Syng's mark. Might settle the guesswork.

No matter, the buckle is a royal find, who ever made it!

 

[HCW]

I'm positive it's not silver, i'm pretty sure it's brass..

Your holding it, not me.
Just looked that way from here.
Congratulations! Great find.

 

[CRUSADER]

Here's a comprehensive list of British "IS" maker's marks, but none of them are given in reference to the manufacture of buckles.

London Makers Marks - IS-IZ

Firstly, its not a hallmark & as far as I'm aware there is no connection between a hallmark & a base metal makers mark. Also, I'm not aware of any records of base metal marks because there was not Law to record & assay them.

 

[park pirate]

Awesome..