Garabaldi
Bronze Member
- Jun 28, 2009
- 2,382
- 91
- Detector(s) used
- Whites M6, Whites Pulse Diver, ETRAC.
Looks colonial era. You think its a horse tack?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Good link. It resembles many English Roses on that page.Timekiller said:I agree with CRU, looks like some kind of harness mount/decoration.The attachment,size of it,& flower looks funny too more like the ones here from the 19th century.
http://www.colchestertreasurehunting.co.uk/H/harnessmounts.htm
Take Care,
Pete,
Timekiller said:I agree with CRU, looks like some kind of harness mount/decoration.The attachment,size of it,& flower looks funny too more like the ones here from the 19th century.
http://www.colchestertreasurehunting.co.uk/H/harnessmounts.htm
Take Care,
Pete,
Timekiller said:I hope in the future that you will help a little more on your post it may help everyone trying to help you. Now that you are so sure it was found on a colonial site makes me at least look further into it.And now doing so came up with your mount.It's just so much different looking then ones I'm use to finding it through me off.Below are a link to my post showing the type I find which are small two lug.And a site to your 17th century mount.
Take Care,
Pete,
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,390586.0.html
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/ukdfddata/showrecords.php?product=26578&cat=45
Ill take your word for it but could you be kind enough to explain the difference? The UK database calles it Rose-shaped.Silver Searcher said:
Horse decoration, but it doesn't depict the Tudor Rose....Nice find
SS
I know that baby is in great condition for sure had me all over the place. But I guess it's 17th century as here is another in a little better shape.CRUSADER said:Timekiller said:I hope in the future that you will help a little more on your post it may help everyone trying to help you. Now that you are so sure it was found on a colonial site makes me at least look further into it.And now doing so came up with your mount.It's just so much different looking then ones I'm use to finding it through me off.Below are a link to my post showing the type I find which are small two lug.And a site to your 17th century mount.
Take Care,
Pete,
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,390586.0.html
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/ukdfddata/showrecords.php?product=26578&cat=45
I've flitted about one this one, at first I thought 17th C but not liking the reverse attachments, I changed my mind. The preservation & crispness of design seem too good for an early period piece. But the bottom link is quite convincing, as I've never seen the stepped raised & 3 prongs in this period.
So we know its a horse harness mount & is best dated in line with your other finds? (whats the date range)
OK thanks. I have seen a lot of different variations portrayed and I figured it was not a real flower, just symbolic.. Just google "tudor rose" and look at all the different varieties claimed to be tudor.. Kinda hard for me to tell but thanks for the explanation.Silver Searcher said:
The Tudor Rose is a amalgamation of two Roses, The Red Rose of Lancaster, and the White Rose of Yorkshire. This was brought about by Henry Tudor after he defeated Richard111, bringing to a end the war of the Roses.
His father was Edmund Tudor from the House of Richmond, and his mother was Margaret Beaufort from the House of Lancaster; he married Elizabeth of York to bring all factions together.
SS
I agree, I get lazy with details and spoiled by the quick ID's from you experts on this site.Timekiller said:I hope in the future that you will help a little more on your post it may help everyone trying to help you. Now that you are so sure it was found on a colonial site makes me at least look further into it.And now doing so came up with your mount.It's just so much different looking then ones I'm use to finding it through me off.Below are a link to my post showing the type I find which are small two lug.And a site to your 17th century mount.
Take Care,
Pete,
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,390586.0.html
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/ukdfddata/showrecords.php?product=26578&cat=45
You can call it the Yellow Rose of texas...for all I care.bigcypresshunter said:OK thanks. I have seen a lot of different variations portrayed and I figured it was not a real flower, just symbolic.. Just google "tudor rose" and look at all the different varieties claimed to be tudor.. Kinda hard for me to tell but thanks for the explanation.Silver Searcher said:
The Tudor Rose is a amalgamation of two Roses, The Red Rose of Lancaster, and the White Rose of Yorkshire. This was brought about by Henry Tudor after he defeated Richard111, bringing to a end the war of the Roses.
His father was Edmund Tudor from the House of Richmond, and his mother was Margaret Beaufort from the House of Lancaster; he married Elizabeth of York to bring all factions together.
SS
Can we call it an "English Rose", "Red Rose" or "White Rose"?