Please help identify

[CW1234]

Thank you in advance!

 

[M E Wolf]

http://www.history.army.mil/html/museums/uniforms/survey_uwa.pdf

I am not able to find a 'match' for the hat/kepi 'plate/decoration' in front for this photograph, using the US Army's uniform survey information above.

I believe it is a tintype, as the sash should be on the left hip. So, the image is in 'reverse' or 'reflective.' The shoulder boards look to be that of a Second Lieutenant yet, I am unable to see the middle of the shoulder board as to see if a star is there for a Brigadier General.

What I do believe though, it is post Civil War from 1868-1878 era. They were still using Civil War surplus.

Just some thoughts and opinions.

M. E. Wolf

 

[CW1234]

thank you!

 

[TinCan]

I don't know, the hat says post CW to me.

 

[James N.]

I believe it is a tintype, as the sash should be on the left hip. So, the image is in 'reverse' or 'reflective.' The shoulder boards look to be that of a Second Lieutenant yet, I am unable to see the middle of the shoulder board as to see if a star is there for a Brigadier General.

Of course this image isn't a tintype; you can see the edge and tears on the cardstock of the CDV. Having said that, tintypes and ambrotypes WERE sometimes copied onto CDV's and other photographic prints. However, that isn't the case here, since a man's shirt, coat, or tunic has buttons on the right and buttonholes on the left - exactly what we have here, showing that this is NOT a reversed image, though for some unknown reason the subject has his sash tied on the WRONG side. ( Perhaps he THOUGHT a CDV would reverse the image and tied it that way for the picture? )

As for this being a "brigadier general", this is a single-breasted uniform coat, regulation for company-grade officers, eg. lt., 1st lt., or captain; any rank other than lieutenant for him is extremely unlikely. The cap ornament appears to be an eagle; there were several different types available, usually from the sutlers, since this is definitely a non-reg item. Below is an ambrotype from my collection showing a definite Union soldier wearing a different style on his cap.

 

[noman]

If that is an "castle" on the Kepi possibly an US Army Corps of Engineers...

 

[Toccoa101506]

The eagle looks like the eagle insignia that was used in the early 1800s. (1821-1830s)

 

[James N.]

I don't know, the hat says post CW to me.

The eagle looks like the eagle insignia that was used in the early 1800s. (1821-1830s)

This kepi or forage cap is too tall in front to be the M.1872, the next regulation style. As with the photo above from my collection, during the war ( especially moreso than later ), it's not unusual to see all sorts of combinations of letters, numbers, and non-regulation gee-gaws like this which were intended to differentiate various volunteer units added to headgear.

Another pecularity nobody's noticed is that he's wearing his belt and its eagle buckle UPSIDE DOWN. This is another type of "reversal" for the camera along with the sash; it places the sword straps on the "wrong" side along with the sash tassels. ( Gilding as was often done on hard images would've obscured this fact. ) Obviously this fellow must've thought his would be a reversed image!

 

[TerryB]

CW1234; do you know what a CDV is? Is this a CDV (carte de visite, usually about 4 by 2 1/2 inches), or is it larger than that? Does it have a logo on the back?

 

[Toccoa101506]

This kepi or forage cap is too tall in front to be the M.1872, the next regulation style. As with the photo above from my collection, during the war ( especially moreso than later ), it's not unusual to see all sorts of combinations of letters, numbers, and non-regulation gee-gaws like this which were intended to differentiate various volunteer units added to headgear.

Another pecularity nobody's noticed is that he's wearing his belt and its eagle buckle UPSIDE DOWN. This is another type of "reversal" for the camera along with the sash; it places the sword straps on the "wrong" side along with the sash tassels. ( Gilding as was often done on hard images would've obscured this fact. ) Obviously this fellow must've thought his would be a reversed image!

The image is not reversed, look at the buttons on the jacket. The buttons are on the right side with the button holes on the left

 

[James N.]

The image is not reversed, look at the buttons on the jacket. The buttons are on the right side with the button holes on the left

If you will read the OTHER posts on this thread, you will see that fact has already been established. It would seem, however, that the subject has ANTICIPATED reversal for some reason, as discussed above. Perhaps he had ambrotype or tintype "likenesses" of himself taken before and merely thought CDV's were the same.

 

[James N.]

CW1234; do you know what a CDV is? Is this a CDV (carte de visite, usually about 4 by 2 1/2 inches), or is it larger than that? Does it have a logo on the back?

This is obviously a CDV - larger cabinet card photos come later, around the end of the 1860's into early 1870's. Note the margin around the photo paper and the edge of the cardstock; it's much narrower than on a cabinet card. Also, the DOUBLE LINE inscribed at the edge is a way of dating CDV's to the Civil War period - later period CDV's do NOT have this feature. For this, as well as the uniform details I've mentioned above, I see NO reason this is not a fairly "typical" Union company grade officer of the Civil War. But TerryB is right: CW1234 could confirm this, and the backmark, if any, might tell us a lot more, especially WHERE it was made!

 

[TerryB]

This is obviously a CDV - larger cabinet card photos come later, around the end of the 1860's into early 1870's. Note the margin around the photo paper and the edge of the cardstock; it's much narrower than on a cabinet card. Also, the DOUBLE LINE inscribed at the edge is a way of dating CDV's to the Civil War period - later period CDV's do NOT have this feature. For this, as well as the uniform details I've mentioned above, I see NO reason this is not a fairly "typical" Union company grade officer of the Civil War. But TerryB is right: CW1234 could confirm this, and the backmark, if any, might tell us a lot more, especially WHERE it was made!

It would be nice to see it life size. I've seen one or two square pictures that were larger than CDVs but copied from earlier pictures. There's a famous one from a Tennessee Battery that fought at Shiloh and is in most illustrated books about the battle. By the way, all those caps sound awfully loud coming this way. Makes me wanna duck in my hole.