Ringgold saddle
Trying to do a little research on Ringgolds, not much info out there. I can account for about 9 surviving specimens , 3 in private collections unless they changed hands, have lost track of two of them. Anyone have any info or comments on this? All saddles found seem to be in good condition, have not found any relic condition ones. Nebraska
I've noticed there are several different "models", from the West Point saddle to the ones in museum photos, do you have a "list" of surviving saddles, most seem to be in museums, I have had the chance to purchase 4 ringgolds since 1978, 2 were exact models and the other two had slight differences, wish I had all four. The records are vague as to how many were made, they seem to have been sent out west to the dragoons but most examples found seem to be in the north east states. Comments?
Just some musings on my part, but I have to think that this is one of those areas where (despite a lot of good work on his part) Randy Steffen's books really do confuse the scene. His first one, "US Military Saddles", lamentably old and out-of-date and perennially issued by University of Oklahoma Press ( 'Thanks Univ of OK Press!' ) shows the specimen that is in the collections of the West Point Museum. It was donated by the family of Col James Duncan, who had been a protege and jr. officer in Samuel Ringgold's light artillery company.
In Steffen's later work "The Horse Soldier, Vol 1", he revisits the Ringgold, and includes some drawings of a "later model", of which there are a variety of examples around - although I don't think anyone will be needing to take off a shoe to count those.
And that's about correct, so far as I can tell from all the bits and pieces I've managed to dredge up - Ringgold and another well-known early dragoon officer worked on this particular design as early as 1841, and were pushing for it's adoption by all the mounted services. It wasn't officially adopted until 1844, when the one known contract was made with John Fairbairn Co in Philadelphia for their production. I believe all of the existing specimens, outside of the West Point example, are Fairbairn contract pieces.** (edited this thought - substantive differences seen in two saddles' ground seats suggest at least two different contractors...)
The West Point specimen is marked with "Co. A 2nd Arty No. [??]" on the inner portion of near-side flap - which suggests that it's most likely one of the 'pre-production' saddles Ringgold was using with his light artillery company at Ft. McHenry, prior to 1844.
In Steffen's later work "The Horse Soldier, Vol 1", he revisits the Ringgold, and includes some drawings of a "later model", of which there are a variety of examples around - although I don't think anyone will be needing to take off a shoe to count those.
And that's about correct, so far as I can tell from all the bits and pieces I've managed to dredge up - Ringgold and another well-known early dragoon officer worked on this particular design as early as 1841, and were pushing for it's adoption by all the mounted services. It wasn't officially adopted until 1844, when the one known contract was made with John Fairbairn Co in Philadelphia for their production. I believe all of the existing specimens, outside of the West Point example, are Fairbairn contract pieces.** (edited this thought - substantive differences seen in two saddles' ground seats suggest at least two different contractors...)
The West Point specimen is marked with "Co. A 2nd Arty No. [??]" on the inner portion of near-side flap - which suggests that it's most likely one of the 'pre-production' saddles Ringgold was using with his light artillery company at Ft. McHenry, prior to 1844.
In reviewing various tidbits of information from various places - lets chart up what we think we know, and what we know about Ringgolds (I'm going to use rather judgmental terms, but this is only to point out evidence/documents that I haven't seen yet!)
1. Alleged: 261 made of a pre-approval pattern in 1841 (very likely West Point example is one of these)
2. Alleged: Total of 1,147 made of approved pattern
3. Alleged: three contractors: John Fairbairn and Co., Philadelphia, Magee, Tabor and Co, Philadelphia, and Isaac Young, Cincinnati.
4. Alleged: less than 500 made after 1844 (likely in 1845, so production was slow)
5. Known: Patent was specifically granted in 1844 after the approval of the saddle was received. The actual patent grant was for morticed wood pommel and cantle, and generally for the one-piece hussar-like construction. (In fairness, patent was mostly to allow for Ringgold to receive license fee, and not so much for the idea of morticing wood parts to strengthen them )
6. Known: At least THREE different types, pre-production (West Point), and two production variants
7. List of differences:
a) Alleged: minor stitching, flap shape, other?
b) Known: ground seat - stretched webbing, rawhide
c) Known: minor metal reinforcement shape
Post additional 'points' we can add to the list, and if we can document the 'Alleged' items, we can do that here as well - start digging in your old files, people, and let's see what we can firm up here!
1. Alleged: 261 made of a pre-approval pattern in 1841 (very likely West Point example is one of these)
2. Alleged: Total of 1,147 made of approved pattern
3. Alleged: three contractors: John Fairbairn and Co., Philadelphia, Magee, Tabor and Co, Philadelphia, and Isaac Young, Cincinnati.
4. Alleged: less than 500 made after 1844 (likely in 1845, so production was slow)
5. Known: Patent was specifically granted in 1844 after the approval of the saddle was received. The actual patent grant was for morticed wood pommel and cantle, and generally for the one-piece hussar-like construction. (In fairness, patent was mostly to allow for Ringgold to receive license fee, and not so much for the idea of morticing wood parts to strengthen them )
6. Known: At least THREE different types, pre-production (West Point), and two production variants
7. List of differences:
a) Alleged: minor stitching, flap shape, other?
b) Known: ground seat - stretched webbing, rawhide
c) Known: minor metal reinforcement shape
Post additional 'points' we can add to the list, and if we can document the 'Alleged' items, we can do that here as well - start digging in your old files, people, and let's see what we can firm up here!
7. c) Here are images of the ground seat webbing support for three different specimens.
Early pre-approval specimen at West Point Museum - webbing seat
Post-approval Ringgold specimen - private collection
Post-approval Ringgold - Field Artillery Museum, Ft. Sill, OK
Early pre-approval specimen at West Point Museum - webbing seat
Post-approval Ringgold specimen - private collection
Post-approval Ringgold - Field Artillery Museum, Ft. Sill, OK
7. a) Skirt variations
Ringgolds' had interesting flaps, with the leading edge projecting forward to a greater or lesser degree, that gave them a somewhat more 'modern' look. Most Ringgolds have very distinct 'forward flaps', some less so - distinct enough that it is a likely characteristic of a 'variant'.
(This saddle, at Field Artillery Museum, Ft. Sill, shows a slightly fuller flap, less forward than others - it also has the rawhide ground seat, which some of these others do not have).
Ringgolds' had interesting flaps, with the leading edge projecting forward to a greater or lesser degree, that gave them a somewhat more 'modern' look. Most Ringgolds have very distinct 'forward flaps', some less so - distinct enough that it is a likely characteristic of a 'variant'.
(This saddle, at Field Artillery Museum, Ft. Sill, shows a slightly fuller flap, less forward than others - it also has the rawhide ground seat, which some of these others do not have).
-
- Society Member
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2001 12:59 pm
Hi Todd
Thank you for the information and photos explaining and showing the differences.
I have been keeping photos of Ringgold saddles for a good number of years now but have not researched the subject in any detail, I will have a look at the photos I have but doubt they any different to what you have, as yourself and Randy noted there are only a limited number of surviving examples.
Randy do you have photos of those you owned or know their whereabouts?
Kurt.
Thank you for the information and photos explaining and showing the differences.
I have been keeping photos of Ringgold saddles for a good number of years now but have not researched the subject in any detail, I will have a look at the photos I have but doubt they any different to what you have, as yourself and Randy noted there are only a limited number of surviving examples.
Randy do you have photos of those you owned or know their whereabouts?
Kurt.
A much better view of the one in the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum in OKC - the one at the link is interactive, and you can really see some close up details - like the stirrups are M1905 artillery stirrups with the jappanning removed, you can see the steel tread 'inserts', and the coat strap on the pommel is a cwp mcclellan strap. Most of the accoutrements seem to be whatever was handy.
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset ... WkVwmkox1w
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset ... WkVwmkox1w
The 1837 pattern holsters don't seem to sit snugly, despite being secured with the surcingle. I think the holsters were configured to fit the 1833 saddle horn. I wonder if any holsters were designed for the Ringgold equipments?
Ya gotta assume that's the case, but if they fit the Ringgold, they probably fit the Grimsley too, without any problem. Which means another 16+ years of hard use - finding an identifiable specimen now would be like finding a unicorn.
But then again, unicorns do appear now and again.