Unknown Ammo Pouch

[DougO]

Came across this ammo pouch in an old collection. Looks to be British, but can someone help out with the period it might be from?
Thanks, Doug

[DougO]

More pics...

[uscob]

Royal Monogram looks a bit like this.
King George the 3rd, King from 1760 -1820.

[peter monahan]

That is a British ammo box from the American Revolutionary War period - introduced in the 1760s, I think and superceded about 1805. A very nice find in that condition, assuming it were original.

However, a number of things biother me about it. The number of nails attaching the flap seems excessive and they should be square headed. The front flap - nailed shuit here - is meant to hold spare flints and a musket tool. as it is, its useless. The stitiching looks ok - through the edge is the correct style. I can't see it, but I assume from the slit that the closure is a brass stud, which is also incorrect - should be a woven leather knot or toggle on the box and a short strap blind stitched to the back of the flap with a larger slit in it.

I'll have to check my sources but this looks very like a modern copy made for re-enactors to me.

Peter

[DougO]

Well, that's interesting. The closure is NOT a brass stud, but a woven leather knott. Given that my friend bought it at a yard sale for $10, I really doubt that it is a fake. The aging on it in hand is extremely convincing. But, anything is possible.
Now that we know what it is, any idea on what it might be worth (assuming it is an original)? I would not mind adding it to my collection, but I don't have much experience with Revolutionary War items.
Doug

[BrentNunns]

I agree with Peter that something is not quite right, and going by pictures alone makes it a difficult call on what is good and what is bad.
My own personal opinion is that the flap bearing the monogram has been repaired or most likely replaced at some stage.
Is the top flap leather consistent with with the stitched box leather in regards to thickness, surface texture and interior texture?
Can you provide a close up of the monogram?
Do you have a museum local to you with an original example that you can compare the one you are interested in?

[peter monahan]

No offence to Doug, but I'm still confident in my identification. The type and number of nails are completely wrong and the 'age' could as easily be the result of storage in a damp basement or garage as 200 years of wear. Brent may be right about the cypher too. Hard to say without a closer look.

The woven knot is interesting but at least one manufacturer in North America, Peter Twist's "Discriminating General". In fact, here is a link to the Rev War belly box he sells. http://www.militaryheritage.com/leathergoods.htm. You'll notice that on his - based on a museum original - the leather knot actually goes through the bottom of the flap which this one seems to do as well. I also see that what I thought was a front pocket is actually the two straps which hold it on the belt, though again the number of nails is very odd. The originals used 4 nails on the front and probably about the same number on the back, and they should be 'cut' nails, not modern round headed.
I'm looking hard for a fairly new book on Rev War material culture, but can't find it in my chaotic study.

Finally, the story is also suspect. The original version was 'from an old collection' but now appears as 'garage sale'. In other words, no real provenance. I collect "only" War of 1812 stuff theses days but have a dozen odd items from 1880, 1914 and WWII. My relatives, selling off my stuff, God forbid, might well say AND believe "He's had it for years. Its really old."! And Peter only charges $50.00 for his, so the original owner may well have picked it up because it was 'cool' and cheap.

Anyway, I've sent your photos to Peter Twist to get his opinion.

My additional tuppence worth.
Peter

[DougO]

I appreciate all of the help. I have no expertise in british items or Revolutionary War items at all. If you say it's a reproduction, then maybe it is. I only stated that the aging in-hand was very convincing.
Just to clarify a few things, the item current resides in my friend's collection. He has been collecting for many, many years. He told me that he originally acquired it at a yard sale for $10. The story is not 'suspect'.
BTW, my friend is not trying to sell it. He just showed it to me and I asked him if he would consider selling it, as I thought it was an interesting item.
Next time I see him, I'll try to get better pictures.
Doug

[peter monahan]

Doug

My apologies for misunderstanding the 'old collection' thing. I certainly wasn't implying anything about you or your friend, as I thought that the 'garage sailor' had identified it as old.

Here's the answer I got from Mr Twist: "They have an original at Parks Canada. I suggest that whoever owns it, send the photos to Parks and ask their opinion. I tend to agree with you though."

I suppose it may be an original to which someone has added the nails as a 'repair' or perhaps I'm dead wrong on that point and its fine. Hard to say without first hand inspection. If it is real, and in the condition it looks to be, it may be worth a good few dollars, so your friend may want to run it past some experts - Parks Canada or one of the war museums or Smithsonian.

Peter

[Marc Sherriff]

If the 2 straps at the ends in picture number 1 are for a belt, why are they on the front?

Marc

[peter monahan]

The box was actually worn behind the belt, with the flap hanging down over both box and belt. Not sure I've ever seen an explanation as to why that was done, although it may have had to do with an earlier pattern in which there was no leather box, just the wooden block with a leather flap fixed to it in the same style as this one. They were obviously considerably cheaper to make, while putting them behind the belt hid the fact that there was no leather cover on the wood. it would also, probably, prevent the box from sliding around the belt away from the front. Also, it took something like 25 movements and up to 30 seconds to load in that earlier period. So, anything that helped, like making sure the box was always in the same spot, would be a help.

[DougO]

Sorry for my ignorance about this period of history, but what exactly was kept in this ammo pouch that early on? I assume they were using black powder (flask) and ball shot? These holes seem pretty narrow and deep for ball shot.
Doug

[peter monahan]

Doug

By this period the British, and I think almost all European armies, were using ready made cartridges: a ball and powder rolled up in paper. One loaded by biting the top off, priming the pan with a pinch of powder, pouring the rest down the barrel then rsamming paper and ball down on top. That reduced the number of motions/commands from 20+ to a mere 14 and allowed 4 rounds a minute from an experienced unit. Priming with a horn was used - in the British Army - only by rifles regiments, who used a finer grade of powder and so had fewer misfires, more important when one was actually aiming! Civilian hunters mainly used loose powder and a priming horn as well, for the same reason.

The Commands at the time - British - were: "Make ready!" [cock the lock]; "Present!" [level musket] and "Fire!". In recognition of the incredible inaccuracy of the muskets, "Aim" was not actually one of the orders; levelling to the front was considered sufficient.

[DougO]

Thanks Peter! Very interesting stuff.
Doug

[peter monahan]

Finally located my source for this period, a book called "A Soldier-like Way", by R R Gale. It illustrates a belly box flap in the collection of Ft Ligonier, Pennsylvania and a box in a private collection. The cypher on the original is much lower - just above the button slot - but that may not be a bif deal, as not all regiments even used the cipher. However, the belt straps have clipped corners and a single nail top and bottom each. The flap has ten equally spaced single nail holes across the top where it originally attached to the box. Click on this link for a couple of examples of good repros., obviously modelled on originals [#s 123A & 123B]: http://www.gggodwin.com/prodlist.asp?scat=68

Peter