✅ SOLVED For the back mark experts

[McCDig]

Dug a uniform button today. It is vintage City of Baltimore Fire Department, a two-piece brass bearing the back mark "G. SUAREZ HABANA".


I'm thinking that G. Suarez was a maker of uniforms and they had their buttons made elsewhere, but not certain of this.

I've located one reference that identifies G. Suarez as a maker of Cuban military button.


Please lend your expertise on this story to fill in missing details.

Thanks!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[TheCannonballGuy]

According to the book "American Military Button Makers And Dealers; Their Backmarks & Dates", the Suarez backmarked buttons were made by the Waterbury Button Company, in the very-late 1800s and a bit later. The book also indicates this was a case of a button-maker using "leftover" button backs with an incorrect backmark. Suarez was a uniform maker, not a button maker. The info-source you found is incorrect about that. It's a common mistake among people who haven't read the backmark book... they assume the backmark tells who made the button. In a few cases, that's true, but in most cases, it's false.

 

[McCDig]

Thanks much! This is what my 'gut' was telling me. Like the "Cuban" cigar, they must have had a uniform industry that exported, and the U.S. represented a large market. Your explanation of back marks stating the clothier is one I've seen before in dug buttons. I have but one reference by Albert, so I appreciate your work in the book you cited; it helps narrow down the date of issue.

 

[creskol]

According to the book "American Military Button Makers And Dealers; Their Backmarks & Dates", the Suarez backmarked buttons were made by the Waterbury Button Company, in the very-late 1800s and a bit later. The book also indicates this was a case of a button-maker using "leftover" button backs with an incorrect backmark. Suarez was a uniform maker, not a button maker. The info-source you found is incorrect about that. It's a common mistake among people who haven't read the backmark book... they assume the backmark tells who made the button. In a few cases, that's true, but in most cases, it's false.

My book must differ from yours, or maybe it's user error on my part which is probably the case, but I can't seem to find all this great information. All I can find in my book is on page 125 where it lists a: "G. Suarez, Havana B/M on VT-10 ----- apparently was a tailor/dealer in uniforms" and on page 153 where it lists a "Suarz, H Habana" which I assume is the same even though the spelling differs.

 

[McCDig]

Thx creskol! This helps pin down the date. Oddly enough the tailoring of the uniform from which this button came may not have been a Cuban but may have been a Chinese who was generationally assimilated into Cuban culture, whose parents/grandparents may have been part of slave labor on Cuban sugar plantations.

 

[Joe-Dirt]

Awesome button!, nice job

 

[McCDig]

Thx Bob! From the input posted thus far and the follow-up reading I've done, a date from 1890 - 1910 seems reasonable for this button.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

My book must differ from yours, or maybe it's user error on my part which is probably the case, but I can't seem to find all this great information. All I can find in my book is on page 125 where it lists a: "G. Suarez, Havana B/M on VT-10 ----- apparently was a tailor/dealer in uniforms" and on page 153 where it lists a "Suarz, H Habana" which I assume is the same even though the spelling differs.

All of the following information is intended for everybody here, not just Creskol.

Because the text you quoted from the book doesn't match what's in my copy of the book, it seems you've got an earlier edition of the book. Authors McGuinn and Bezelon continually updated the book, offering a new edition every 5-to-10 years or so. Each new edition had a different colored linen cover than past editions. Mine is "butternut."

On page 125 my edition says "G Suarez, Havana. B/m on VT-10 which are on a Spanish-American War frock coat. Suarez was apparently a tailor/dealer in uniforms." That gives us the time-date info on the Suarez-backmarked buttons. BTW, a "frock coat" is one style of US Army officer uniform coat.

About who made the Suarez-backmarked Cuban Army and Vermont State Militia buttons:
The info on page 153 is from the "Waterbury Button Company back die list"... which proves that company made the Suarez buttons. Due to the typo error in Suarez's name (as Suarz) in that list, I suspect the "H" instead of "G" as his first initial is also a typo-error. Those two letters are right next to each other on a keyboard.

As Creskol mentioned, the Suarez backmark info on page 125 which says he apparently was a tailor/dealer in uniforms. The book contains many other such notations, saying the name in the backmark was a tailor/clothier. and some other notations point out a "mis-used" back.

About the use of "leftover" backs:
In reading through the backmark book, I have come across more than just a couple of examples of the use of "leftover" backs... either foreign company names (like Suarez), or backs with a backmark time-date used long after that company went out of business. I can't call to mind one to give you as an example, but trust me please, they ARE in the book.

Some of the info in my post came from the Introduction pages in the backmark book. For example, it says on page vii, "There was no hard and fast rule about either including or excluding the manufacturer's name from button backs." And, "Either the merchant [buttonmaker/button-seller] or his customer, the individual clothier, could have his name placed on the backs..."

Again, Creskol, this info is for all readers here... you probably already know the info:
The ultimate proof that most backmarks tell the name of a clothier/tailor's business rather than the button-maker is that the backmark book lists over 1,000 name-backmarks, but there have been only about 50 American manufacturers of metal buttons.

There is much additional noteworthy info in the McGuinn-&-Bazelon backmark book's Introduction section, well worth the time to read.

 

[diggummup]

All of the following information is intended for everybody here, not just Creskol.

Because the text you quoted from the book doesn't match what's in my copy of the book, it seems you've got an earlier edition of the book. Authors McGuinn and Bezelon continually updated the book, offering a new edition every 5-to-10 years or so. Each new edition had a different colored linen cover than past editions. Mine is "butternut."

On page 125 my edition says "G Suarez, Havana. B/m on VT-10 which are on a Spanish-American War frock coat. Suarez was apparently a tailor/dealer in uniforms." That gives us the time-date info on the Suarez-backmarked buttons. BTW, a "frock coat" is one style of US Army officer uniform coat.

About who made the Suarez-backmarked Cuban Army and Vermont State Militia buttons:
The info on page 153 is from the "Waterbury Button Company back die list"... which proves that company made the Suarez buttons. Due to the typo error in Suarez's name (as Suarz) in that list, I suspect the "H" instead of "G" as his first initial is also a typo-error. Those two letters are right next to each other on a keyboard.

As Creskol mentioned, the Suarez backmark info on page 125 which says he apparently was a tailor/dealer in uniforms. The book contains many other such notations, saying the name in the backmark was a tailor/clothier. and some other notations point out a "mis-used" back.

About the use of "leftover" backs:
In reading through the backmark book, I have come across more than just a couple of examples of the use of "leftover" backs... either foreign company names (like Suarez), or backs with a backmark time-date used long after that company went out of business. I can't call to mind one to give you as an example, but trust me please, they ARE in the book.

Some of the info in my post came from the Introduction pages in the backmark book. For example, it says on page vii, "There was no hard and fast rule about either including or excluding the manufacturer's name from button backs." And, "Either the merchant [buttonmaker/button-seller] or his customer, the individual clothier, could have his name placed on the backs..."

Again, Creskol, this info is for all readers here... you probably already know the info:
The ultimate proof that most backmarks tell the name of a clothier/tailor's business rather than the button-maker is that the backmark book lists over 1,000 name-backmarks, but there have been only about 50 American manufacturers of metal buttons.

There is much additional noteworthy info in the McGuinn-&-Bazelon backmark book's Introduction section, well worth the time to read.

I recently purchased the 2006 edition of this book myself. I look forward to studying it. It's only like $25 on ebay at the moment. Pretty cheap for this book.

Nice Baltimore Fire department button by the way.

 

[creskol]

Many thanks Pete! Like I have said before, I would make an incredibly lousy teacher at best. You, on the other hand, would make a wonderful professor.

 

[McCDig]

Really satisfying to hear from those of you who took an interest in the post and were willing to share with all of us about this button in particular and on the broader topic of back marks, in general. This is another evidence of the value of this forum.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

In a previous post in this discussion, I wrote:
> "About the use of "leftover" backs:
> In reading through the backmark book, I have come across more than just a couple of examples of the use of "leftover" backs... either
> foreign company names (like Suarez), or backs with a backmark time-date used long after that company went out of business.
> I can't call to mind one to give you as an example, but trust me please, they ARE in the book."

I found an example to give y'all. In checking a backmark's date today, I came across documentation of button-maker usage of "leftover" backs and backmarks.
On page 11 of the 2006 Edition of the backmark book, it says "Cuff size buttons with the Scovills [& Co.] backmark are common on Civil War [yankee uniform] shell jackets.
They are believed to result from continued use of old [obsolete Scovills & Co.] back dies."
Scovills & Co. changed its name to Scovill Manufacturing Company in 1850, and the civil war was 1861-65.