Belt Keepers - How Common?

[Dkjarnagin]

To answer Bill’s question the answer is no. The belt was not invented yet.


Curt,
Before you dive in an area that is shark infested let it go. There is no way to really prove one plate being from one period more than another. The egg shaped one is thought to be Watertown Arsenal due to the fact most Watertown belts have showed up with that plate but there is no proof behind this one.

To understand the shape of plates you need to know how they were made. One side of the stamp was steel and the other side was solder. The solder was a tin lead mix and it was what went into the buckle when filling it. They would cast the solder side and use it until it wore out, melt it down and re-cast again. This would cause plates to have different shape through the life of the dye. The early 1839 plates are flatter but these did not have solder filling. There is way too much contractor variation along with the dye variations to call one plate one thing and another something else.

[Bummer]

I apologize for sorta hijacking this thread for a minute....but....
I'm a real US plate freak and have literally scores of them and yet I have yet to see an honest to god original example if the larger flat style US so popular with reenactors and just mentioned above. I assume they must have existed then--I have been led to believe the new ones are made from an old die saved by W. Stokes Kirk. I have even seen a paperweight with that design way back in 1961. But while that style plate somewhat resembles something between the W. H. Smith die and ones marked J. I. Pittman or Dingee, they are in fact neither, and frankly I have never seen an original (and believe me I have looked!). I seriously wonder if any significant number, if any at all, of that style was in fact ever actually used in the war.

If they are in fact a replica of an actual plate, those plates must have been almost unseen during the war yet 50% of Union reenactors have them. I wish someone would come out with a new accurate representation of an actual plate more commonly used back then. We only have two to choose from out of over forty designs commonly used then--and one of them is problematical to say the least.
Just a pet peeve of mine as a US plate nut, don't mind me.

Or am I wrong and some of you diggers and collectors have dozens of them? If so I would love to be proven wrong--please.
I'm not campaigning for anything, nor even suggesting--just making an observation.

Anyway, thanks for allowing me to interrupt--back to the original topic.

[FloridaHoosier]

Moderator Note: Mr. Waldron, your every-so-slight hyjacking is well tolerated and in fact encouraged. Your knowledge has directly contributed to many of in this hobby who care and I thank you for piping in on any and all subjects you are infintely familiar with

[Bummer]

Why thank you for the compliment and confidence.

Obliged,
Spence~

[Dkjarnagin]

23frntplate.jpg

I think you mean this plate (see picture attached). When this first came up 10 or 15 years ago I looked through my original plates and found one on an original box. The plate itself is very thin and could have only been a box plate just like the repros.

Sorry but I have been busy.

David Jarnagin
Leather researcher.