Col. Frederick S. Bass, 1st Texas Infantry

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Things have been slow, so let's talk controversy, er, discuss!

Colonel Frederick S. Bass was originally the Captain of Company "E," of the 1st Texas Infantry. He was promoted Major October 18, 1861, and assigned to Regimental Headquarters. He was promoted Lt. Col. in the Spring of 1864. He was promoted Colonel in the Summer of 1864, and was given command of "Hood's Texas Brigade" as the senior colonel when Brig. General John Gregg was killed at Darbeytown Road on October 7, 1864 Bass was bumped back down when more senior Colonel Robert Powell rejoined the regiment after his release from Federal POW camp in February 1865- his having been wounded and captured on July 2, 1863 at Gettysburg.
Somewhere after that, Bass was promoted to Brigadier General but apparently was never told. He was paroled at Appomattox on April 12, 1865.
Bass died at the Texas Confederate Home in Austin on July 9, 1897 and was buried in the State Cemtery there.

This set is attributed to Bass.

Let's start out with getting the negatives aside:

1. That provenance is wrong.
2. That this is something Bass "assembled" after the War.
3. That is something a dealer or collector assembled from pieces/parts after the War.

Here goes...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/Col%20F%20S%20%20Bass%201st%20Texas%20Inf/CWColFSBass1stTexasInf5.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/Col%20F%20S%20%20Bass%201st%20Texas%20Inf/CWColFSBass1stTexasInf.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/Col%20F%20S%20%20Bass%201st%20Texas%20Inf/CWColFSBass1stTexasInf3.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/Col%20F%20S%20%20Bass%201st%20Texas%20Inf/CWColFSBass1stTexasInf4.jpg

CHS

[flattop32355]

If it's a real set, it gives the lie to the idea of "no spare cylinders" for pistol packers, at least for this infantry officer.

[indguard]

I'm confused. When you write...

1. That provenance is wrong.
2. That this is something Bass "assembled" after the War.
3. That is something a dealer or collector assembled from pieces/parts after the War.

Is there any doubt or proof for your concerns? Is the provenance in question by anyone? Why assume it is if you have no proof at all that there is?

WTH
The Confused Boys mess

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

When I wrote:

"This set is attributed to Bass.

Let's start out with getting the negatives aside:

1. That provenance is wrong.
2. That this is something Bass "assembled" after the War.
3. That is something a dealer or collector assembled from pieces/parts after the War."


it was to say just that, starting with the the possibility of the glass being half empty rather than half full...

IMHO, we have a collection of images with only the owner's/seller's statement of provenance. No "evidence trail." No "chain of custody." No history. No story of any kind.
IMHO, we have an assemblage of artifacts with inconsistent age and patina for items to have been contemporary with or to each other.
IMHO, we have a somewhat untypical and somewhat inconsistent attribution to an brigade commanding infantry colonel that gives the appearance that he was well concerned for his own personal safety and offensive potential.

Sure, could have been. May well possibly have been. Is. The glass half full is that everything is as presented and asserted.

But, IMHO still, from the POV of say as a potential buyer, in the absence of provenence, I would not buy without some research and documentation as to its history and chain of custody.

Others mileage, and views of how they would spend their money for the satisfaction returned, will vary...

CHS

[roundshot]

Curt: Plus, that's a lot of gear for one person to be toting around on that narrow belt without the buckle loops being distended. And for a Colonel at that! This looks to be "too good." All that's missing is a ticket stub to a Texas Longhorns game. Bob

[Phil McBride]

Would this be the same belt on which he hung his sword? If so, is there any evidence of it? If not, did he wear two belts in battle?

Phil McBride
The Alamo Rifles

[indguard]

Hang his sword? You assume he bothered with one? They didn't all insist on having swords, you know?

I am finding the wild speculation here absurd. Research the guy first. Maybe there is an eyewitness account of him? Maybe there is more info on the rig itself from the family? We have nothing but a couple of pictures here and people are building an entire set of probabilities on practically nothing.

I mean, "narrow belt"? Come on. That belt is as wide as any. Further it would have been heavier and studier 145 friggin years ago, ya know?

The problem here is that we have nothing at all to go on.

If I were a buyer I would not accept the claim that this IS the rig as worn in the war necessarily and the price should reflect that. Short of some photo of the Col. wearing it or some written account of his rig or other family info I'd not accept it at the say-so of a seller. On the other hand there is no reason to insist it isn't "right" based on just these photos. The leather work and construction all looks to fit the same era. at least. The wear is similar. There is nothing there that screams fake necessarily.

What was the guy's pre war history? West Point? Western pioneer? Did he have military experience pre-war? Yes, no?

There simply isn't enough info here to make an informed opinion on anything with this other than to say that all the items in the photo are likely contemporary one to the other. That's it.

WTH
The ColdWater mess

[Spinster]

Okay, because this board is 'built with the beginner in mind', please color with bigger crayons here ;)

What kind of pistol is that?

What's the proper name for that style of knife?

Does that buckle predate the War?

I seem to see a top on the knife scabbard. Is that right?

I see a box with a tin in it and an extra cylinder in that box. What would normally be in that box?

What's the other container on the belt?

Doesnot hang around with soldiers Mess.

[Rob Weaver]

Okay, because this board is 'built with the beginner in mind', please color with bigger crayons here ;)

What kind of pistol is that?

What's the proper name for that style of knife?

Does that buckle predate the War?

I seem to see a top on the knife scabbard. Is that right?

I see a box with a tin in it and an extra cylinder in that box. What would normally be in that box?

What's the other container on the belt?

Doesnot hang around with soldiers Mess.

OK - this seems about my speed. The pistol is an 1851 Colt Navy Revolver. It was a very common pistol, and this one certainly looks period. But they were made for years and years and there are lots of them around. I'm suspicious of the scratched name in the backstrap. It looks uncharacteristically crude compared to other period pieces I've seen, and in an awkward location. (It has the look of something a reenactor might do.) The knife is an almost perfect example of the "Bowie knife" famous on the frontier after Jim Bowie "The Braggart" was given one by his brother. (The knife he used in the famous fight was a sharpened file.) The blade looks heavily pitted, lie it was poorly cared for. The handle is staghorn. It looks good, maybe too good. Bowie knives were a fad, and any big knife was called a Bowie. The knob on the top of the handle looks suspicious. Again, it has a reproduction kind of look to it. I'm not really up on pistol belt boxes, but there is no written evidence that soldiers (or civilians for that matter) carried multiple cylinders. They just carried extra pistols. Jesse James had 4 on his belt the day he died. With no solid provenance (a letter, a photo, an inventory of some sort) I'm suspicious that this group was assembled from authentic pieces and reproduction pieces after the war. (It doesn't take long for leather to degrade under bad conditions. Leather goods made in the 1970s could look that bad by now.)

[Peter Sivak]

Does the tin containing the extra cylinder look really shiny for something that is nearly 150 years old?

Finally, is the top of the knife bone? I'm curious how common bone handles were to wood handles for knives.

The pistol, holster, and spare cylinder seem to be things an officer might carry, but I don't see why an officer would carry a knife. Maybe this is the one case that an officer did carry a knife.

Peter

[indguard]

Pitting on the knife? Or is it a Damascas-type metal working?

Again, doing this on the basis of pictures is just not recommended.

WTH
The Yerwatinertime mess

[Rob Weaver]

I could see an old tin box still being that shiny if it were not used for all those years. There were "presentation grade" bowie knives made back then, with very fancy handles and sheaths, i.e. ivory and staghorn grips, silver chasings, etc. This bowie looks to fall more in that category than in the utilitarian "hunting knife" category. In that case, I could see an officer carrying one, although I can't think of a single piece of photographic or written evidence to substantiate it. I'm also curious about the marks on the back of the sheath that look like the leather's rubbed or torn - in the manner that tape scuffs leather. Without evidence, in the end it's still just a collection of pieces.

[LibertyHallVols]

This grouping aside...
Can anyone cite any reference to anyone carrying spare cylinders during the war?
(Yes, the sound you just heard was my gauntlet hitting the floor)

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Someone, sometime, added or had added, a dove-tailed rear sight and front sight to the Navy.

"Texas" star belt plates/buckles/buttons can go back to the Republic of Texas daze, were popular among Texas miitia, and were still/initially popular among some Texans for the CW. 1861/62 images of Texas Brigade officers often feature them.
(That gets complicated as other states also "liked" them such as Mississippi.

The other box is a pistol cartridge box. Typically, paper type revolver cartridges came in packets fo say six to protect them and could be carried in .36 or .44 size cartridge boxes. In the case of a .36 revolver, that could give a lad three convenient packs of six cartridges for a total of 18.

Top of the knife sheath? I am not sure of the question. It is just the folded loop style of sheath.

"Damascus" is not normally, usually, generally a common form of factory or smith forged blade in this Period. The technique is to hammer the iron flat, and then fold it over, and hammer it flat. Then fold it again, and hammer it flat. The net effect, depending upon the skill of the smith and the number of folds is to produce the look of many small "wavy bands." Some modern smiths then treat the blade with acid or chemicals to highlight the contrast between the "ripple" look effect.

Oh, I think the previous reference was to William Quantrill (Bill Anderson?) rather than Jesse James. James was unarmed when shot in the back of the head by Robert Ford in April of 1882.

CHS

[Blair]

Curt,

Good eye on the '51 Colt sight variation!
I was looking at the serial number (what I can see of it), looks like it might be 04014 or perhaps 04074 on the base of the back strap.
If I am reading/seeing this correctly that would put the production/manufacturing of this revolver at about/around 1853 or '54, a prewar production revolver, but, just post production of the type I & II square back trigger guard variation.

I also believe the cylinder depicted (inside the box), in the last image, is not a "Spare Cylinder" at all. But rather the cylinder off the revolver within the group image of artifacts. (again the last photograph in this treead will show this)
I find the fit of the cylinder to this particular box to be a very intersting display image. But, is that what this unusual box was used for? I have no idea!

[Rob Weaver]

I never thought of the cylinder being the same one off the revolver! (It was me who mentioned Jesse James. He had just removed his pistol belt and laid it on the bed in the parlor, before Bob Ford killed him. Even as late as 1882, he was still carrying multiple revolvers, like he had during the war.) I don't think the pattern on the knife blade necessarily indicates that it is damascene. I think it's just old and at some point perhaps corroded. Just doing this kind of detective work from photos alone is nigh on to impossible, albeit a lot of fun.

[hanktrent]

The handle is staghorn. It looks good, maybe too good. Bowie knives were a fad, and any big knife was called a Bowie. The knob on the top of the handle looks suspicious. Again, it has a reproduction kind of look to it.
There were "presentation grade" bowie knives made back then, with very fancy handles and sheaths, i.e. ivory and staghorn grips, silver chasings, etc. This bowie looks to fall more in that category than in the utilitarian "hunting knife" category.

I agree that it's not damascus, just tarnish/pitting over the years. But what are you seeing that makes you think this is a presentation grade knife? It looks utilitarian to me. If that's the original sheath, it also looks plain, not even a metal tip, nor any metal at the top to reinforce it and help hold the knife in with pressure, though it's possible it came off; can't really tell if there's a mark on the leather where it used to be. Having a belt hanger is a little unusual for the period, but not unknown.

I do think the knob at the back of the handle, where the tang has been made round and drilled to hold a string, is unusual and might be useful for identifying the knife to a particular maker or style of maker. Don't know anything about it.

Between the belt hanger, and the hole for the string, this guy really didn't want to lose his knife!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Ah, how nice it would be have this items in hand for observation and analysis.

It is possible that the pommel cap is salvaged from a brass dresser drawer pull, with the ring or handle removed. Such would be easy to screw on the threaded end of the blade tang.

CHS

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Herr Blair, all...

A better look at the Colt:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/CWColFSBass1stTexasInf6.jpg

CHS

[Rob Weaver]

I agree that it's not damascus, just tarnish/pitting over the years. But what are you seeing that makes you think this is a presentation grade knife? It looks utilitarian to me. If that's the original sheath, it also looks plain, not even a metal tip, nor any metal at the top to reinforce it and help hold the knife in with pressure, though it's possible it came off; can't really tell if there's a mark on the leather where it used to be. Having a belt hanger is a little unusual for the period, but not unknown.

I do think the knob at the back of the handle, where the tang has been made round and drilled to hold a string, is unusual and might be useful for identifying the knife to a particular maker or style of maker. Don't know anything about it.

Between the belt hanger, and the hole for the string, this guy really didn't want to lose his knife!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com
Yeah, it is pretty plain compared to Joe Shelby's knife. Maybe it's not a presentation knife after all. I was really just reacting to the suggestion that it was too fancy and that bowie knives should look rougher n tougher than that. Of course, at this point do we even know if that's the original sheath?

[Peter Sivak]

Rob,
Thanks for the explainations. I still think the items are in too good of shape to have been carried by Bass during the war. That and an officer wearing a belt without any hooks for a sabre/sword just don't seem to fit. Which leads me to wonder if these items all belonged to Bass, but they were acquired either before or after the war?

[Forrestcavalryman]

I find the fit of the cylinder to this particular box to be a very intersting display image. But, is that what this unusual box was used for? I have no idea!


Blair, I could be WAY off here but going by pattern and construction; that box appears to be an Enfield cartridge box. Which brings up thequestion as to why an officer would carry a cartridge box!

[Blair]

Andrew,

It sure does have the appearance of Brit. pattern cartridge box. It also appears to be too small for the standard P-53 cartridges.
Could it have been a revolver Cart. box for one of Brit. revolvers?
Again, I just don't know.

[Rob Weaver]

Andrew,

It sure does have the appearance of Brit. pattern cartridge box. It also appears to be too small for the standard P-53 cartridges.
Could it have been a revolver Cart. box for one of Brit. revolvers?
Again, I just don't know.
British officers purchased their own sidearms, and there were a bunch of makers and models that were popular. I don't recall that they even issued a pistol cartridge box. British cavalry was still heavy and light, with a great reliance on the sword and lance, with the carbine for skirmishing. Weren't British belt items white leather (like the cap pouch)?

[Forrestcavalryman]

Weren't British belt items white leather (like the cap pouch)?


Yes, the cap pouch, baldric, cartridge bow strap, and bayonet scabard were to be of whit buff leather; however, the cartridge box was black (bridle leather I believe).

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

That would be a long discussion of its own. The color of leather varies in the English Army over time, with brown (russett), and black coming in and out according to corps and time.

The British, like the U.S. (except for ther Marines) had dumped the white stuff in the early 1850's, but some lingered on with the British. And then they brought it back with the P1871 Valise, P1882 Valise and P1888 Valise kit (aka Slade-Wallace). The P1871 was natural, it was made white.

In brief and to over generalize... normally, usually, generally that would be sets for the line regiments and rifle regiments made both in black and in russett. Guard regiments had black boxes and pouches, but buff leather straps. Volunteer/miitia were brown.
That gets messed up a bit with natural or white expense pouches (aka ball bags).

Trivia...

The British and the Americans used different concepts for their cartridge boxes. In the "Springfield system," a soldier opened two ammo packets and inserted the loose rounds in the top of the cartridge box tins,, with two intact packs stored in the bottom part of the times. In the "Enfield system," the cartridge box was just a cartridge carrier. The British soldier took two ammo packets from the carrtridge box, and then placed the loose cartridges in another pouch at the front of his belt called an "expense pouch" or sometimes a "ball bag."
For a spell, the British soldier had caps in a pouch sewn under the flap and on the front of the expense pouch. More commonly, though, the cap pouch went on the cartridge box shoulder strap.

IMHO, I suspect the "spare cylinder" box is a variation of the British 1855 or pre 1855 pattern expense pouch.

CHS

[Blair]

Curt,

That is as good an explanation as to the intent of this particular size box as any suggested thus far!
I knew the color was not an issue for this period of time. You also explained that very well.
This is the first of this type/size box I can recall having seen. Not that I have made British accouterments a major area of study.
Another words, Thanks!
I have trouble keeping up with American variations in this type of gear.

Also, the belt in this photo group does seem to have a "Sword" hanger adaptation applied to it's consruction... just on the wrong side (up-side-down?) from how all the other gear has been applied to the belt.
Can you get a better photo of the belt? Like you had with the revolver?
I would also like to get better images of the revolver scabbard (holster) as well. (providing you have access to this assemblage.)

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Sorry, no.

That was all that was available, and I don't have access to the set.

Yes, it myabe looks like the belt has three sliding leather "keepers" (rather than a sliding sword suspension) instead of two.

Alas, I am just "musing" along with everyone else over Unknowns. Plus, it is a big World out there. Meaning, the belt box could something from say Argentina or Portugal or the Papal State or Romania or a Swiss canton, etc., etc., of that era that is just outside of our Collective Knowledge pool.

But, IMHO, it is part of the fun as well as a venture or "learning experience" that can be applied to viewing, interpreting, and understanding other Period artifacts, assemblages, and discussions.

CHS

[Blair]

Curt,

Thanks.

Within Photos # 2 & # 3, One can see right where the sword hanger should be and is actually sown into the belt. (Not sliding loops, but sown into the belt loop for the sword.)
However, the belt is laid out up-side-down or back-wards (depending on ones point of view) to the way it should be warn compared to how the other artifacts are now arranged on the belt.
Another words, the sown side of the belt buckel attachments should be warn on the left side. Where the sword keeper/hanges are. There is no room for adjustment on that side of the belt.
The adjustable side of the belt should be warn on the right side!
The belt in this/these images are completely opposite that idea.

[TheQM]

Curt,

Also, the belt in this photo group does seem to have a "Sword" hanger adaptation applied to it's consruction... just on the wrong side (up-side-down?) from how all the other gear has been applied to the belt.

Everybody has an opinion. Here's mine. The good Colonel cut the hangers off his sword belt and used the belt to carry a pistol, cartridge box, and pistol post war. The British ball box could have been used to carry anything he wanted, or needed.

Based on both photo's and surviving officer's sword belts, it was rare for officers, in either Army, to wear a pistol on their sword belts. You can read first person accounts, where officers mention "strapping" on their pistol. It is my personal opinion that most officers carried their pistol in their baggage until they felt they might need it.

[bshajari]

This is my direct ancestor we are talking about (i have the evidence if no one believes me)...have we come to a conclusion on this?

Brian

[LibertyHallVols]

What is the issue for which you are seeking a conclusion?
... or perhaps, what is the conclusion you are seeking?

[JohnnyRebCSA]

The strap on the pistol has patina on it but the scratched name does not. Thats a big red flag. This suggests the inscribed name has been a late addition. I have a model 1860 sabre that was captured by a Confederate in the 15th Tennessee Cavalry. He scratched his initials and regimental designation into the brass guard. The scratched letters have a black patina color....showed this to Larry Hicklen from Murfreesboro whom had sold it to me. This made him sick as he had not noticed this and pointed out due to the dark patina on the initials that also matches the patina on the rest of the guard indicates the lettering to be authentic. You have to look close to see any 'scratching' at all because that dark patina all blends in together. This is not the case with the pistol.