https://www.militaryhorse.org/civil-war ... er-plates/
Who has seen different ones than these? Until I started digging on these earlier this year, I hadn't heard of Ambler or Condict, so I'm sure there are probably others...
TH
Civil War saddle tree makers tags or plates
It's inferred by the late '63 and early '64 ordnance circulars that these brass tags were SUPPOSED to be required on all trees fairly early in 1863 (March 23, iirc), but sub-inspectors weren't being completely accountable and "participation rates" clearly weren't up to snuff, so they had to beef up the process.
When Stanton placed Capt. George T. Balch as principal asst to Ordnance Chief Ramsey in '63**, the whip started getting cracked. They came up with some additional accountability methods and basically started holding sub-inspectors feet to the fire. By the end of '63 and first month or two of '64, it was very clear that all trees had to be inspected and marked/stamped by the sub-inspector, and that no further work would proceed on the saddle unless the tree had been inspected and stamped - and the inspector wasn't even to look at it if it did not have the brass tag.
The tree I photographed for this post ( https://www.militaryhorse.org/civil-war ... tion-mark/ ) appears to have been one of these '63 type saddles, where there were bold inspectors marks on both tree and rawhide, but no evidence of any kind of brass tag. It did not have the later forward-angled pommel or beefed up near- semi circular cantle profile that characterize what is sometimes called the Pattern of 1864.
** ( https://goordnance.army.mil/hof/2000/2001/balch.html )great link with info about Balch, and the drama he had to deal with in dispute with Ramsey, Stanton and Lincoln.
When Stanton placed Capt. George T. Balch as principal asst to Ordnance Chief Ramsey in '63**, the whip started getting cracked. They came up with some additional accountability methods and basically started holding sub-inspectors feet to the fire. By the end of '63 and first month or two of '64, it was very clear that all trees had to be inspected and marked/stamped by the sub-inspector, and that no further work would proceed on the saddle unless the tree had been inspected and stamped - and the inspector wasn't even to look at it if it did not have the brass tag.
The tree I photographed for this post ( https://www.militaryhorse.org/civil-war ... tion-mark/ ) appears to have been one of these '63 type saddles, where there were bold inspectors marks on both tree and rawhide, but no evidence of any kind of brass tag. It did not have the later forward-angled pommel or beefed up near- semi circular cantle profile that characterize what is sometimes called the Pattern of 1864.
** ( https://goordnance.army.mil/hof/2000/2001/balch.html )great link with info about Balch, and the drama he had to deal with in dispute with Ramsey, Stanton and Lincoln.
Things that I'd love to find! Some of these 'later' circulars are referring to earlier ones dated in late 1862, and a couple in '63 - for which I've not yet been able to find. Key details mentioned directly associated with trees are things like no "'brash' wood", "split hides", reinforcing arcs less than 6 inches long. Curiously, I haven't found mention of actual pattern jigs or drawings to ensure proper shape - only thing close to that is a circular from April 1864 where they're mentioning a number of arsenals where selected complete sets are to be kept for inspection and use by contractors to determine the proper specification.
The sub-inspectors were hired and placed at contractor facilities by the inspectors (which I assume means the ordnance officer in charge of that area/district/whatever?) - Ramsey issued circular no 2, 1864 with great info on this
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b286294 ... =%3Bseq=15
If you scroll up, you'll see the various 'assistant's listed w/ their respective posts - I believe these are the "inspectors" or inspecting officers Ramsey refers to. Worth a look to see what I've got mangled - it's been awhile since I looked at these...
- nov4_63_saddletree_inspections.JPG (126.39 KiB) Viewed 1847 times
The things I've forgotten are rivaling the things I don't know...Todd wrote: ↑Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:00 pmThings that I'd love to find! Some of these 'later' circulars are referring to earlier ones dated in late 1862, and a couple in '63 - for which I've not yet been able to find. Key details mentioned directly associated with trees are things like no "'brash' wood", "split hides", reinforcing arcs less than 6 inches long. Curiously, I haven't found mention of actual pattern jigs or drawings to ensure proper shape - only thing close to that is a circular from April 1864 where they're mentioning a number of arsenals where selected complete sets are to be kept for inspection and use by contractors to determine the proper specification.
The sub-inspectors were hired and placed at contractor facilities by the inspectors (which I assume means the ordnance officer in charge of that area/district/whatever?) - Ramsey issued circular no 2, 1864 with great info on this
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b286294 ... =%3Bseq=15
If you scroll up, you'll see the various 'assistant's listed w/ their respective posts - I believe these are the "inspectors" or inspecting officers Ramsey refers to. Worth a look to see what I've got mangled - it's been awhile since I looked at these...
- sept281863_ordbrd_5thquestion.jpg (122.52 KiB) Viewed 1864 times
Two new plates added to https://www.militaryhorse.org/civil-war ... er-plates/
C. Ploeser, St. Louis
C.H. Jacobus, Newark
C. Ploeser, St. Louis
C.H. Jacobus, Newark
A new plate added to https://www.militaryhorse.org/civil-war ... er-plates/
J. Cummings, Springfield, Massachusetts
J. Cummings, Springfield, Massachusetts