Confederate Staff Button

[VMI88]

I picked up a Confederate staff officer's button yesterday and I wanted to get some opinions on it. The face is the Albert CS1A / Tice 201A pattern. I'm about 99% sure it's original because of the fine detail and remaining gilt (as far as I know they don't even make a reproduction of this button?). The reverse is a little unusual though: it's blank apart from a small ring around the shank and it's constructed of a contrasting dark material.

Tice does list a blank version of this button, but the few examples I've been able to find online have the standard gold-colored back. Mine is a darkened bronze color. The finish is so regular and even that it had to have been made this way. I tested it with a magnet and it's not iron or steel. Is this a known variation? Any information would be appreciated.

 

[bobinwmass]

Firmin apparently made a restrike of this button. Harry Ridgeway discusses and shows the Firmin restrikes on his website Relicman.com (section regarding Fakes) and apparently they are supposed to have a Firmin backmark. Don't know if anyone else did.

 

[VMI88]

Firmin apparently made a restrike of this button. Harry Ridgeway discusses and shows the Firmin restrikes on his website Relicman.com (section regarding Fakes) and apparently they are supposed to have a Firmin backmark. Don't know if anyone else did.

Thanks - that's interesting information. I looked at original buttons on this site but didn't find the information on the Firmin restrikes. To my eye, the pictured restrikes don't look what I have. The backmark is obviously different, but also the shank looks different than mine, and even the modern electro gilding is off. Here's the link to Harry's site if anyone wants to judge for themselves:

http://relicman.com/fakes/zfakeButtonConfederateFirmin.htm

 

[scooter748driver]

Paging @UCVRelics

 

[Salterr]

They do make reproductions of this button. Original ones are past $1000 with varying back marks. I saw you've checked tice, how about Albert's book? I can check my confederate button book as well for you but most times a tin back is a post war attribute and your shank appears to not be soldered onto the back and if it's floating that's also a good indication of post war buttons too. Yours is closest to CS102A2 that I've seen however. That ones made by isaacs but is marked with the same style back.

 

[VMI88]

Thanks for the additional information. I did check Albert, but he doesn't list a blank back variant. He also lists a couple of backmarks that Tice said he has never seen, and doubts they exist. Tice, however, does list a blank back, and I found a couple for sale by dealers, though they don't look exactly like mine.

If by "floating" you mean that the shank has some play in it, then my example is not floating. I can't see any solder from the outside but there is no wiggle in the shank like I've seen on later buttons. To my non-expert eye the shank looks period, definitely not like the one on the Firmin restrikes shown on Harry Ridgeway's page.

I can't tell you for certain what material the back is, just that it isn't magnetic. It doesn't look like tin backs that I've seen and definitely seems to have some thickness to it. When I think of tin back buttons I think flimsy, and this one is not that at all.

Anyway, I appreciate everyone's time in helping me track this down!

 

[Package4]

Thanks for the additional information. I did check Albert, but he doesn't list a blank back variant. He also lists a couple of backmarks that Tice said he has never seen, and doubts they exist. Tice, however, does list a blank back, and I found a couple for sale by dealers, though they don't look exactly like mine.

If by "floating" you mean that the shank has some play in it, then my example is not floating. I can't see any solder from the outside but there is no wiggle in the shank like I've seen on later buttons. To my non-expert eye the shank looks period, definitely not like the one on the Firmin restrikes shown on Harry Ridgeway's page.

I can't tell you for certain what material the back is, just that it isn't magnetic. It doesn't look like tin backs that I've seen and definitely seems to have some thickness to it. When I think of tin back buttons I think flimsy, and this one is not that at all.

Anyway, I appreciate everyone's time in helping me track this down!

Yours is a floating shank, regardless of play, there is also indication of serious scouring on the back, possibly an attempt to obscure a lightly stamped backmark.

 

[VMI88]

Yours is a floating shank, regardless of play, there is also indication of serious scouring on the back, possibly an attempt to obscure a lightly stamped backmark.

Thanks for the response! So what determines a floating shank versus a non-floating shank? I'm not sure I understand the difference in construction.

I've examined the back pretty closely under magnification and there is no evidence of a backmark. I do see the cleaning marks you mentioned but I think they might just be catching the light in my picture. In person they're very shallow, not deep enough to have removed any markings. Whatever cleaning was done wasn't deep enough to disturb the dark finish.

I appreciate the efforts to help me determine what I have here. Obviously I'd prefer it to be original but I'm learning a lot in the process.

 

[Salterr]

Thanks for the response! So what determines a floating shank versus a non-floating shank? I'm not sure I understand the difference in construction.

I've examined the back pretty closely under magnification and there is no evidence of a backmark. I do see the cleaning marks you mentioned but I think they might just be catching the light in my picture. In person they're very shallow, not deep enough to have removed any markings. Whatever cleaning was done wasn't deep enough to disturb the dark finish.

I appreciate the efforts to help me determine what I have here. Obviously I'd prefer it to be original but I'm learning a lot in the process.

Here are examples of floating shanks. They are protruding through a hole in the back. These are all post war buttons too. Normally the shank will be soldered or brazed on fixed in place. The backs are usually the same color as the front on civil war buttons

 

[Salterr]

Thanks for the response! So what determines a floating shank versus a non-floating shank? I'm not sure I understand the difference in construction.

I've examined the back pretty closely under magnification and there is no evidence of a backmark. I do see the cleaning marks you mentioned but I think they might just be catching the light in my picture. In person they're very shallow, not deep enough to have removed any markings. Whatever cleaning was done wasn't deep enough to disturb the dark finish.

I appreciate the efforts to help me determine what I have here. Obviously I'd prefer it to be original but I'm learning a lot in the process.

If you could share the place you bought it from that will also help. You don't have to share your price but the CS1 styles are over $1,000 and the combination of a reputable dealer and a fair market value should also help you feel better if it was guaranteed and you paid around that price.

 

[VMI88]

Thanks! Okay, I think I understand the difference. But from what I've been able to find online it looks like at least some of the original buttons of this period also aren't soldered. Here's an example of a Courtney & Tennant marked CS1A1 button from the Civil War Buttons website (William Leigh). I'm also not seeing any solder on this button and I am seeing the same hourglass-shaped hole that the shank is inserted into. The hourglass-shaped hole doesn't show up clearly in the photo of my button above - I'll try to get a better photo and post it. I hope this doesn't come off as being argumentative - that's really not my intent. I'm fully prepared to accept the verdict on my button, whatever it is, but I do want to make sure I understand it.

Source: https://www.civilwarbuttons.com/cc100301024.JPG

 

[VMI88]

Here's a better photo showing the hourglass-shaped opening in the back of my button where the shank is inserted.

 

[Salterr]

Here's a better photo showing the hourglass-shaped opening in the back of the button where the shank is inserted.

View attachment 533159

It's totally fine, we're just having a discussion. I don't want to come across as argumentative either. I just wanted to share what I know of my own buttons in the collection. I have to preface that I'm an insignia and shoulder board collector. While I have buttons,they are not my expertise. I think it's totally possible (unless others chime in to the contrary), that it could just be an unmarked foreign maker. There are plenty of blank back buttons and I feel like it could be normal to also find a foreign made one have a blank back mark as well. The closest I found was the photo of that cs102. I'm not trying to say a tin back and floating shanks are only definitely post war buttons too those characteristics are predominant post war. You're correct that there are experental buttons during the war with floating shanks or tin backs as well. If not disproven I would venture a guess to say it's an unknown foreign maker perhaps in the style of Isaac's. If it is fake it's done rather well.

 

[VMI88]

I wanted to update this thread since I've had a chance to show the button in question to William Leigh. After an in-person examination he stated that he believes the button to be a reproduction of unknown origin. It's better done than the typical reproduction, but we compared it to an original in his case and the detail is noticeably less well-defined. Since Mr. Leigh literally wrote the book (or at least one of them!) I consider the matter settled. I appreciate the everyone's contributions to the discussion.