Leather people - ever seen an original item dated like this?

[Jimmayo]

Picked this up at the Fredricksburg show yesterday. Thought it was interesting. It is an enfield buckle frog for use on the saber bayonets and often seen on original socket bayonets. There is a date stamped in the leather of Aug 2 1864. There are no other markings. Would like opinions based on previous similar items you may have seen. Please, no WAGs.

[ACo.]

Re: Leather people - ever seen an original item dated like this?

Jim, no. While this may come under your "WAG" category, the type font looks more like Aug. 21, 1964. I'm afraid the mark looks fake to me. Shame, it is a nice frog.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Leather people - ever seen an original item dated like this?

Hallo!

In my experience and exposure, no "never."

Curt

[Jimmayo]

Re: Leather people - ever seen an original item dated like this?

It is definately an 8 (1864) The manufacturing, stitching, smell, buckle and finish are all period. Had an accouterment expert look at it and he also thought it was period but the date stamping was somewhat of a oddity. Seems foolish for someone to add a date stamp to a period piece. It may end up as e-bay fodder but the price was right and my curiosity was aroused.

[David Fox]

Re: Leather people - ever seen an original item dated like this?

Educated guess: A British outfit calling itself "CSS Alabama, Ltd." exported scads of stuff in the late '60s and early '70s. They advertised regularly in "The Shotgun News" and elsewhere. Their wares included a plethora of fake and fantasy Confederate belt plates (allegedly shipped over in barrels of brine to acquire patina) and genuine vintage British leather with fake stampings. I have (I blush to say) a ball bag cartouched "C.S. / Montgomery / Inspected" and a quite respectable snake belt stamped "S. Isaac Campbell & Co.", but with a possibly intentional misspelling. Out of curiosity I just Googled this company and it might still be in business in London.

[August77]

Re: Leather people - ever seen an original item dated like this?

Jim,

I have a frogg with an identical stamp, but it's on the front. The back is marked 'B.H&G.21'. My dad has one marked on the back 'HIATT - B'HAM - 1872'. Soldiers' Accoutrements of the British Army by Pierre Turner is not too clear on dating them but does have nice drawings of each variety. I would conclude that this style of frogg was used in the British Army from 1864 through the 1870's maybe 1882 when they started putting rivets to reinforce the straps. I don't really have anything solid as far as these froggs with this marking being used here during the war. I will post some pics when I get a chance.

[ACo.]

Re: Leather people - ever seen an original item dated like this?

It is definately an 8 (1864) The manufacturing, stitching, smell, buckle and finish are all period. Had an accouterment expert look at it and he also thought it was period but the date stamping was somewhat of a oddity. Seems foolish for someone to add a date stamp to a period piece. It may end up as e-bay fodder but the price was right and my curiosity was aroused.

Oh, no doubt about the frog being original to the 1850 - 1890 period, I should have said that. What I meant by my above statement is that the stamping is modern using commonly available modern stamps - the font of the type is all wrong for the 19th Century so it looks like it was done in 1964 rather than in 1864. Sorry to have been unclear. It is a good late 19th Century frog that was stamped sometime in the late 20th Century. I apologize for my lack of clarity. :o

[Jimmayo]

Re: Leather people - ever seen an original item dated like this?

Bill: That sounds like what it is. Look forward to the pictures

Thanks

[CS Ensign]

Re: Leather people - ever seen an original item dated like this?

I also have a similar frog with the marking B.H.&G.20 stamped into the back (middle of the bottom part of the back). Sorry these scans aren't any better; I'll try to take better photos when I can use natural light. Another identical to this was sold in 1974 as supposed to have been a CW Enfield frog, but just the dealer's statement. It seems to correspond to the type shown in Capt. Petrie's 1865 "Equipment of Infantry," though of course as mentioned above it was meant for the sword bayonet.

The issue I have is the B.H.&G.20 marking. B.H.&G. seems to relate to the Barrow, Hepburn and Gale company, a prolific tanner and leather goods maker in Bermondsey, London; but not formed under that name until 1920. I haven't yet found any other leather goods companies that seem to correspond to those initials. Why would a leather goods maker in 1920 be making frogs like this ... I would think this pattern would have been long superceded by the 1903 bandolier pattern of accoutrements or something similar.

I would like to see documentation of the actual use of this type of frog in the CW. I haven't been able to find any period photos that clearly show exactly this type ... similar ones, but not just like this. I'm aware of the photos of original examples in books and pamphlets (one with the SIC&C mark), but would like to see period images that clearly show this type.

Regards,
Greg