Late War Contractor Model of 1859 saddletree -
Hopefully, this will be useful to somebody. Discussing the
finer points of saddle and saddletree design and style can be a huge exercise in futility,
unless you've got the pieces (or photos) for comparison. Even then, you're likely to
find those with an inability to differentiate small but important differences, making the
effort that much more frustrating. It then becomes similar to trying to describe the
difference between a pink and red rose, to someone that is colorblind.
This particular saddletree was in relic condition when found.
From all indications it appears to be a late war contractor McClellan, with certain key
features of late war production, such as external stay thongs, forward-tilted pommel, relocated cantle arc, etc.
The next survey of this tree will be done after removing the rawhide cover, so that all wood and hardware details will be accessible.
This saddletree also shows the key weaknesses of pre-1897 manufactured McClellans, which
are the cantle and (especially) the pommel. These had a great propensity to break through the morticed
joints, and (as this example shows) through the rivet hole of the arc.
 |
In this side view, we can see the rather extreme forward
tilt of the pommel. Earlier McClellans' pommels tend to be nearly vertical. |
 |
Outlines from above and below. Some earlier
McClellans have 'straighter' outer edges, which were reshaped more like this
in later models. |
 |
The outer profile of the pommel is a bit fuller and
rounded, where many earlier McClellans have nearly straight edges along the
outer profile. A very minor differentiation, but it does exists in
late war saddletrees I've seen |
 |
Details of pommel and cantle breaks. Note that,
in this example, that the iron arcs are riveted to the tree, and cracks run
through these rivet holes. The pommel wood is actually broken through
the mortice, which appears to be a simple tenon mortice. Some earlier
trees used dovetail mortices, which were similarly prone to breakage.
You may note the inspectors ink marking on the cantle has been split apart, but is still nearly complete and legible. 'Inspected by G W ?OST' |
|
Interesting details in two places - the stay thong is
clearly visible along the rear face of the pommel and along front edge of
cantle. Most previous saddles, arsenal and contractor production, did
not use these.
One other unusual detail is the lack of a 'extension' from the sidebar to
the base of the cantle. This one shows a smooth sidebar, with
the base of the cantle sitting flush to it.
The third photo is an early war type tree with a very defined sidebar 'extension' (the rawhide is not original on this specimen) |
 |
View of lacing details, marks from footman staples
and saddlering staples. |
 |
Another view of lacing details and marks. |
 |
Interesting for a couple of details - the saddlering
staples were set and clinched after all the upper surfaces were in place.
After the points of the staples were bent over and clinched into the bottoms
of the sidebars, the bottom rawhide cover was installed. In this case,
the entire underside is one piece of rawhide, which is not always the case. |
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)