1859 vs 1863 Saddle

[michael.shafto]

Hello!

I have been researching online, but cant seem to figure out what the basic difference is between an 1859 McClellan Tree, an 1863 tree, and a 1904 tree. I have an original saddle in great shape that needs the leathers replaced, but the tree and rawhide are in great shape. Somebody had covered it with black leather, but that has all since come off. The hardware was a mix of iron and brass. I am not sure what it is. Since I dont have pictures availible, any educated guesses would be appreciated. Thanks!

Mike Shafto

[GaWildcat]

Mike,

A good source on saddles is Randy Steffans United States Military Saddles, 1812-1943 I dont think there is much difference in the trees, and I may be preaching to the choir, but the '59 was rawhide covered with skirts. The '74 eliminated the skirts and was covered in black leather, as was the '85 (the difference between these being the sweat fenders on the '74 and removal of them from the '85) The '04 was covered in russet leather.

Hope I didnt point out what you already know and was some help.

GARRYOWEN!

[hussard7]

Hi Michael:

There is not much difference between the 1859 and 1863 saddle. The addition of the use of reviets and a spaded D ring are about it. Post war the surplus saddles started to receive modification like the removal of the sweat leathers and latter covering them in black leather. Removal of the leather hoods on the stirrups. They added leather safes to the girthing rings and changed the girth material from the worsted webbing to horse hair.

Once the vast surplus of CW saddles was reduced the new verisions had other changes to include slight modification to the shape of the pommel and cantle and larger saddlebags. The Whitman saddle appeared 1879 but did not last long. 1885 brought back the Mac with shape and equipment changes. The last large change was the 1904 with two piece quarter straps and brass fittings, in addition there were other small changes to the lines of the pommel, cantle and bottom of the side bars. Shape of the quarter-strap safes with larger rings and the stirruls were made larger and heavier.

My recommendationto you is to NOT try to use an old reworked 1904 tree. Spend the time and money to shop at the few good markers such as Glenn Pier or Doug Kidd. Stay away from the catolog complete saddle setups offered by mail order houses such as Sportsman and Cabelas.

Yours,
Wayne Gregory
Stafford, VA

[Dave Myrick]

Hello!

I have been researching online, but cant seem to figure out what the basic difference is between an 1859 McClellan Tree, an 1863 tree, and a 1904 tree. I have an original saddle in great shape that needs the leathers replaced, but the tree and rawhide are in great shape. Somebody had covered it with black leather, but that has all since come off. The hardware was a mix of iron and brass. I am not sure what it is. Since I dont have pictures availible, any educated guesses would be appreciated. Thanks!

Mike Shafto

Mike,
There are very few differences between the `59 and `63 saddles but quite alot between a `59 and an `04. The tree was essentially the same between the wartime models. Both are characterized by a high arched pommel and cantle. The chief difference is the distance between the bars. Later they seem to be slightly closer. The `59 and 04 differ in the shape of the pommel and cantle. The `59 was had hand shaped wooden parts. The `04's were machine shaped. This lead to an obvious contour change. The wood for the trees was changed also as well as the shape and method of attaching the stirrup hangers. Also all hardware with the exception of the pommel shield and mortise escutcheons (these were brass) on the wartime saddles was iron and as you are aware the trees were left uncovered rawhide.

Hope this helps.

Dave Myrick

[michael.shafto]

Thanks guys! That does help. Would the 1904 saddles have been rawhide covered, then covered again with leather? The reason I ask is the saddle I have had black leather on it, with no holes for skirts, while the rawhide underneath did have holes. The quarter straps were heavily modified (looks like they broke and were repaired) Right now I want to restore the saddle as a display piece, with maybe one day using it as a rider. (I am active Army so owning a horse has proven difficult) I just dont want to waste money if it is a 1904, but have had two people examine it with two different answers. I appologise for the lack of pictures. Thanks again for all of you advice, and I sure do look forward to seeing you all on the field (By the way Dave, I am hoping to get a chance to meet you. Dave Gink is a very good friend of mine)

Best Regards,

Mike

[Dave Myrick]

Mike,
If the black leather covering is old and arsenal marked, it is possible you could have an Indian War era saddle. From your description, it sounds as if you have a repaired `72 saddle. It is difficult to tell without photos however. I know you can't post photos, and I am assuming since you mentioned that you were deployed that you dont have the saddle with you. If it turns out that it is indeed an Indian War era saddle (`72 or `74) I wouldn't do too much to it at all. They are not as plentiful as the later versions and while they do not command the price of a true CW era saddle, they are still valuable.

A restoration job would be one thing, however turning the saddle back into riding condition might not be possible, it would depend on how sound the tree and stirrup hangers are. It would not be inexpensive however.

A side note, here if you will permit me. The reproduction trees that are available are not very good reproductions. I own a GPD saddle. I had a problem with the tree, and replaced it with a tree purchased from Doug Kidd. I do not know where the trees came from, but they are far too heavy and shaped incorrectly.

You might want to take a look at the Society of the Military Horse. They have some great info regarding military saddles.

I am honored that you would like to meet me and would most certainly look forward to meeting you as well and even more, to take the field with you.

Dave Myrick