Quick hunt buckle

[bob_e99]

I was coming home from lunch with some friends and stopped near a park area to work off some of the food. Only spent about 35 minutes and pulled out this buckle (along with a bit of clad). If I'm correct, I think it's from circa 1700. Unfortunately one of the tines is broken off. I don't think I did, but I hope I didn't do that with the digger :thinkingabout:

Thanks for looking and happy hunting.

[Thiltzy]

:wow: That is a sweet buckle and yes I believe it is 1700's. I would go back there and hunt some more :congrats:

[del]

congrats on the old shoe buckle Bob , definately 1700's . pretty close to being complete which is usually somewhat of a rarity to find .

Dan

[buck57]

Great quick hunt there Bob, :congrats:

[HEAVYMETALNUT]

sweet buckle! lookin at that 2nd photo it kinda looks like a fresh break :embarrassed: don't worry about it..it happens to all of us that will look nice in your display case.awesome find,is the front plain or designed?

[z118]

Sweet! Seems like you are getting quite a nice collection of early buckles. Seems like I only dig the small, much newer suspender type up here. Congrats!

[aloldstuff]

Great looking buckle Bob. Not a bad find for such a short hunt. :congrats:

[bob_e99]

sweet buckle! lookin at that 2nd photo it kinda looks like a fresh break :embarrassed: don't worry about it..it happens to all of us that will look nice in your display case.awesome find,is the front plain or designed?


Now that you mention it, I think you are correct regarding the break. >{ The front is plain.



Great looking buckle Bob. Not a bad find for such a short hunt. :congrats:




Great quick hunt there Bob, :congrats:


One of the quirks of detecting. I spent 7.5 hours detecting this past Sunday with nothing but clad to show for it and then I do a little quickie hunt and pull up a nice relic. :dontknow:

Thanks everyone for your input.

[del]

sweet buckle! lookin at that 2nd photo it kinda looks like a fresh break

i wouldn't worry about it Bob , from the looks of it i'm pretty sure your buckle was a repair job to begin with . the frame is a thinned square that suggests a early mid 1700's (1740 to about 1760) but the rounded loop chape part ( that looks a little to large for the frame its on ) is the type for the larger oval type you commonly find from 1760 to 1770's. i'll post a couple chape and tongue examples . the two on the left usually are fitted to the square-ish type shoe buckle frames that are characteristic by their straighter sides and flatter top while the other two are more round or oval to follow the contour of the oval buckles . there are exceptions to this rule but the chape almost never has a larger profile than the frame as yours looks a bit wider on the sides than the frame.

Dan

[OxShoeDrew]

I found a repair job buckle over the summer and like it even more because of it. Gives it some more history. Nice dig |:cheering:

[bob_e99]

i wouldn't worry about it Bob , from the looks of it i'm pretty sure your buckle was a repair job to begin with . the frame is a thinned square that suggests a early mid 1700's (1740 to about 1760) but the rounded loop chape part ( that looks a little to large for the frame its on ) is the type for the larger oval type you commonly find from 1760 to 1770's. i'll post a couple chape and tongue examples . the two on the left usually are fitted to the square-ish type shoe buckle frames that are characteristic by their straighter sides and flatter top while the other two are more round or oval to follow the contour of the oval buckles . there are exceptions to this rule but the chape almost never has a larger profile than the frame as yours looks a bit wider on the sides than the frame.

Dan


Thank you for taking the time and your willingness to share that information. Your input always adds to the excitement of a find and I honestly enjoy learning more about these items, especially historic ones. I guess it never occurred to me that they would repair these especially since in today's world we live in such a throwaway society.

Thanks again.

Bob