Circa 1780s General Washington Button. Pater Patriae. Cobb-20, Albert WI-B, DeWitt-GW 1789-41 (note), Baker-1014. Copper, backed in pewter, with iron shank. Fine, or so.

24.8 mm. 127.1 grains. Glossy light orange copper on the obverse from old cleaning typical of such buttons. Somewhat deeper patina in the recesses of the incuse design helps to accentuate its fine details. A few scratches and some light porosity are noted throughout, this being somewhat more attractive at a short distance than under magnification, but the design is fairly complete in delineation and there are no serious defects beyond the noted normal wear. The back is apparently a pewter alloy. Remarkably, the original iron shank remains intact, though thin and certainly compromised by oxidation to a degree. This is the first example of this button we have handled in nearly two decades, the last being in our presentation of the Cobb Collection in January 2003, which included his personal specimen, now at Colonial Williamsburg. It was sharper and cleaner than this, also with a pewter back and iron shank, but it had a small edge chip near 1 o'clock, creating a window into the structure of these buttons. It realized just over $25,000 in a very different market landscape. Since that time, two superior quality examples have sold at auction for more than $200,000 each, raising the bar considerably for the best pieces. While the condition of this is not nearly as good as those, it is complete and no less rare. It is believed that fewer than ten of these buttons exist. The vintage of this button has historically been casually assigned to 1789, as is the case for all the "Washington Inaugural" buttons. However, this has been called into question over the years, including suggestions that it might have been made later for collectors. There is evidence, however, that 1789 is closer to the proper vintage, or perhaps even too late. The first notable piece of evidence is the existence of a very similar button celebrating British Admiral George Brydges Rodney. The two buttons are of identical artistic style, and both were produced from dies designed to make them appear hand-engraved. They also seem to share punch styles and are similar enough to suggest they could be by the same hand. Admiral Rodney was famous for his commands during the American Revolution. He returned to England in 1782 where laudatory medals were struck honoring him circa 1781-1782 for his various exploits, at the height of his fame. He died in 1792, and his fame had largely predeceased him. It is highly unlikely that a figure such as Rodney would be selected for such a button much later than the apex of his fame, and even more unlikely that such would date to after the War (or after his passing), as his decisions proved more central to Lord Cornwallis's surrender in 1781 than to anything warranting long celebration. Had a manufacturer been seeking a valuable British subject for a commercial enterprise of later vintage, Rodney would not have been high on the list. As such, the Rodney buttons are likely from a fairly tight time frame, around 1782, the same period as the Rodney medals. The construction itself is another good piece of evidence for an early vintage of the Washington buttons. According to Stephen Hinks' 1988 master's thesis for William and Mary College, A Structural and Functional Analysis of Eighteenth Century Buttons, there are four recognized technological stages of manufacture for this type of button construction, all of which were in use between roughly the mid-1700s to just after the turn of the century. These buttons are made of three parts, a stamped face, a backing of various types, and a shank that is affixed through the back. In the most fragile of these forms the shank was constructed of catgut, threaded through holes in the backing material which was made of ivory, wood or bone. Later developments included the replacement of catgut shanks with more durable metal ones of brass or iron, and replacement of the wood or bone backs with metal. At least one example of this Washington button has been reported with a bone and catgut back construction. It is referenced in our January 2003 sale as having been in the Fuld collection. The Sullivan-DeWitt entry for the type also describes it, with a note that the type also exists as a lead-filled copper shell with an iron shank, speaking directly to the style featured here. Erik Goldstein, curator at Colonial Williamsburg, kindly examined their example closely and offered helpful commentary on the construction. He noted that the copper face of that button was a thin shell, "strikingly similar to the repoussé faces made for the paste-filled and bone-backed buttons popular during the Revolutionary War period." He also confirmed that their specimen had a back similar to that seen here, with a shank of tinned iron "of the same basic form normally found cast into the pewter buttons made for British soldiers from the 1760s through the Crimean War." He observed that the back seems to have been poured into the copper shell while molten, and then finished smooth around the shank, a finishing feature sometimes referred to in button jargon as having been "spun." Most of the buttons with this basic construction are formed from backs with the copper shell faces crimped around the backing material. In this detail, these buttons are unusual and outliers, but Erik further commented that they have much more in common with buttons of the 18th century than anything produced as late as the mid-19th century. It is worth considering also that this type of construction was not simple and if these buttons were made much later, it would be highly unlikely for a maker to use this complex, largely obsolete form. The purported existence of one with the bone and catgut backing is further evidence that these are legitimate and of the period. The portrait on this button is somewhat distinctive among all medallic depictions of Washington. It is also extremely similar to that seen in the central vignette of a rare Revolutionary period handkerchief in the collections of the Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia. The handkerchief is in cream cotton, printed in red, and measures approximately 24 x 27 inches. Washington is featured in an ornate central vignette, with an inscription on a broad ribbon below, "Commander in chief of the forces of the thirteen united provinces of North America." His identity, GENERAL WASHINGTON, is on a narrower ribbon at the top. Other patriots are featured, but each with only his name: John Adams is at the upper left, General Lincoln at lower left, Benjamin [Franklin] at upper right, and General Gre[ene] at lower right (missing pieces account for incomplete names). According to information provided by the museum, a variant of this British-made handkerchief also exists featuring British military men, with a similar layout and color scheme. The version with the American men is published in Herbert Ridgeway Collins' book, Threads of History: Americana Recorded on Cloth 1775 to the Present. Therein, Collins dates this handkerchief to 1774-1778, and notes that the Washington portrait is probably copied from a portrait by Alexander Campbell. Campbell is something of a mystery. He was credited as the source for two mezzotint copperplate engraved portraits titled George Washington, Esqr. General and Commander in Chief of the Continental Army in America. These were published in England, in 1775, and bore the imprint "Drawn from the life by Alexr. Campbell of Williamsburgh in Virginia." According to the website of the Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts, "there was no such person as Alexander Campbell living in Williamsburg, Virginia. The inscription on this and two other engravings of Washington are the only record of a painter or draftsman named Alexander Campbell." The museum curator concluded that Campbell might not have existed at all, being simply a spurious American source intended to make the English prints more desirable and easier to sell. The date range of 1774-1778 probably assumes that the supposed Campbell original was accomplished shortly before the 1775-dated print, providing a natural starting point for the portrait style. However, the title of Commander in Chief was not proper until at least June 19, 1775, when Washington was Commissioned as such by Congress. Since there are two such handkerchiefs, one with American subjects and the other British, a brief study of the 10 featured men is possible, and their various achievements, ranks and titles suggests to us that the handkerchiefs likely date to a very brief window of time, 1781-1783. They are likely of British manufacture, which would align with the British distribution of the aforementioned 1775 Washington engraving, as well as this button (and that featuring Rodney), also likely British. Comparison of the portraits on the buttons, handkerchiefs and mezzotints reveal that those on the buttons and the textile are more similar to each other than either is to the mezzotints, so it stands to reason that they are more directly related. Quite possibly one of these forms served as the model for the other. The undeniably strong similarities between these portraits and the rarities of both forms are somewhat suggestive of contemporary manufacture, perhaps in very close proximity, adding to the body of evidence supporting a 1780s vintage of this button type. As late Revolutionary period pieces, the significance of these would be far greater than those buttons more properly classed as Washington Inaugurals, adding some solid reasoning for the prices that these have realized in recent years. They would be the first of the Washington commemorative buttons, produced in Britain in acknowledgement of an opposing commanding officer, at a time when the outcome of the War was still uncertain. That in itself is quite remarkable. They would also be among the earliest Washington portraits in metal.

From the Sydney F. Martin Collection. Earlier from Heritage's sale of September 2019, lot 43005.