Please help ID the weapons in this CW-era soldier photo

[cannonmn]

An interesting photo was posted on the CMH forum for ID. We're working on the militia uniform but since NSSA has far more weapons enthusists than we do, I thought you might like to participate in ID'ing the three weapons shown. One looks like a dirk to my untrained eyes. Thanks!

http://gs19.inmotionhosting.com/~milita ... read/10599 (http://gs19.inmotionhosting.com/~milita8/cmh/member/member.cgi/read/10599)

John Morris
Moderator, Company of Military Historians Forum

[Ron/The Old Reb]

John
The revolver looks like it might be a 1849 Colt Pocket Model. It is not the Baby Dragoon because it dose not have the square back trigger guard.

[Joe Plakis, 9575V]

Gun looks like to me an 1816 cone in barrel conversion. The way the wood is shaped and the fact that you can see the nipple, with the gun being at the angle it is. As for the pistol I agree with the above post.

[51stTNMike]

I thought the 1816 had the plate on the left side for the lock screws? It doesn't look like this one has it.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

I’m with Joe on the musket being a M1816 (Type III) cone-in-barrel conversion and since he is wearing a bummer forage cap rather than a wheel hat or other Mex War headgear, the fact he wears a shell jacket with shoulder epaulets and piping, together with 2-button piped cuff, suggests he's wearing a dragoon or mounted rifleman shell jacket (yellow piping versus green piping), and the piping looks awful light to be green or infantry blue as the branch colour for the dragoons didn’t change to orange until 1851. That would put this photo circa 1846 or later, though one might think his wearing a bummer places it nearer the Civil War, the short-billed bummer (or forage cap) entered service in 1850.

During the Mexican War regulations didn’t provide any distinction in the wheel-hats forage cap between the infantry, dragoons or artillery. However, the trouser stripe is a distinct feature of the dragoons and mounted riflemen as like the officer’s, enlisted rank was also distinguished by the width of the trouser stripe, with sergeants having a double yellow stripe like that of the company-grade officers while corporals and privates had a single 3/4-inch wide stripe, much like this lad is wearing and appears to coincide with the corporal stripe he’s wearing on his right sleeve. While the Mounted Riflemen also followed this same pattern in 1846, their single stripes were ‘of black cloth... the outer seam edged with yellow cord.” In 1851, regulations changed when sky blue kersey trousers were adopted and which did not change back to dark blue until 1858-61, winter trousers circa 1832-51 had also been dark blue, so this lad is clearly wearing a dragoon uniform shell jacket and winter trousers [Ref. William K. Emerson (1996) Encyclopedia of United States Army insignia and uniforms, pp449-50, 455-56, 524-26]. As for the buttons, while they could be eagle buttons, with the light shining on the buttons, they could almost be a 5-pointed star much like the rectangular belt plate he’s wearing reminds me of the 5-pointed star in wreath border of the Mississippi militia? I should also add that the Colt 1849 Pocket Model revolver began production in 1850, so the photo could not date earlier than this item.

As for early photographic processes, Louis Daguerre was not the only person to "invent" photography. The process of making an image had been around since the time of Da Vinci, but only there was no way known with which to "fix" the image, which is what Daquerre's chemical treatment accomplished but the process, like many others, is highly toxic. English inventor Henry Fox Talbot developed another photographic "fixing" process almost at the same time as Daguerre, circa 1839-41, and like Daguerre’s emulsion, Talbot’s film emulsion was applied and allowed to dry, but until Daguerre’s emulsion which was inserted into the camera to make the image, Talbot could expose his plates in the same manner (as a camera image) or he could simply place the emulsified paper plate in a vacuum frame together with a printed image he wished to copy (like his handwritten notes) on another sheet of paper or glass, etc, and after exposing the emulsion to light, he simply immersed the print in water to develop.

Talbot’s photosensitive emulsion was made using equal parts of ferric ammonium citrate and potassium ferricyanide. This process, also known as iron salts or the cyanotype (from the cyan color) was one of the first photographic reproduction processes and was later widely used in ceramics, printing, and is the very process used to make "blueprints". When a cyanotype is exposed to a bath of calcium carbonate, it is possible to "split tone" the print, because the calcium carbonate oxydizes the ferric salts turning the image a rust colour. It's also the only "archival" photographic process with some iron salts prints being just as vivid today as they were when they were first made 150 years ago. Its a process that can be printed on paper, wood, ceramic, virtually any porous surface.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/tl_cyanotype.php

I might add that the author of this website suggests that Sir John Herschel invented this process in 1842 and to some degree this is correct. The two men developed very similar processes at the same time, but while Herschel’s process was commercially developed to make negatives for “blueprinting” or printing a white image on blue, Talbot’s process produced the reverse, a blue image on white.

[Blair]

Identifying the arms,
I would have to say the firearm is an M-1816 cone-in-the-barrel type variation. I am not sure if it is of the type III variation, but rather of one of the earlier types. Partly due to the appearance of the rear (lower) sling swivel looking slightly twisted. Just not quite clear enough be sure.
I am not sure how green Rifleman trim might show up in period photos. Dragoon Orange often looks quite dark, even black. So, I have no guesses in this matter. Especially with the rather light colored trim on the rest of the uniform.
As to the revolver? Yes, it very easily could be an 1849 Colt revolver. It could also be a Bacon or, perhaps even a Manhattan revolver among some few others. There simply isn't enough visible to be able to say for sure.
Due to the lake of other Military accouterments warn by the individual... my guess would be these weapons are Photographers props.
Just my opinion,

[cannonmn]

Thanks for the info. I will place a link to this topic over in that one so they can come here to look if they want the weapons info.

[Todd Harrington, 3637V]

I’m with Joe on the musket being a M1816 (Type III) cone-in-barrel conversion and since he is wearing a bummer forage cap rather than a wheel hat or other Mex War headgear, the fact he wears a shell jacket with shoulder epaulets and piping, together with 2-button piped cuff, suggests he's wearing a dragoon or mounted rifleman shell jacket (yellow piping versus green piping), and the piping looks awful light to be green or infantry blue as the branch colour for the dragoons didn’t change to orange until 1851. That would put this photo circa 1846 or later, though one might think his wearing a bummer places it nearer the Civil War, the short-billed bummer (or forage cap) entered service in 1850.

During the Mexican War regulations didn’t provide any distinction in the wheel-hats forage cap between the infantry, dragoons or artillery. However, the trouser stripe is a distinct feature of the dragoons and mounted riflemen as like the officer’s, enlisted rank was also distinguished by the width of the trouser stripe, with sergeants having a double yellow stripe like that of the company-grade officers while corporals and privates had a single 3/4-inch wide stripe, much like this lad is wearing and appears to coincide with the corporal stripe he’s wearing on his right sleeve. While the Mounted Riflemen also followed this same pattern in 1846, their single stripes were ‘of black cloth... the outer seam edged with yellow cord.” In 1851, regulations changed when sky blue kersey trousers were adopted and which did not change back to dark blue until 1858-61, winter trousers circa 1832-51 had also been dark blue, so this lad is clearly wearing a dragoon uniform shell jacket and winter trousers [Ref. William K. Emerson (1996) Encyclopedia of United States Army insignia and uniforms, pp449-50, 455-56, 524-26]. As for the buttons, while they could be eagle buttons, with the light shining on the buttons, they could almost be a 5-pointed star much like the rectangular belt plate he’s wearing reminds me of the 5-pointed star in wreath border of the Mississippi militia? I should also add that the Colt 1849 Pocket Model revolver began production in 1850, so the photo could not date earlier than this item.

As for early photographic processes, Louis Daguerre was not the only person to "invent" photography. The process of making an image had been around since the time of Da Vinci, but only there was no way known with which to "fix" the image, which is what Daquerre's chemical treatment accomplished but the process, like many others, is highly toxic. English inventor Henry Fox Talbot developed another photographic "fixing" process almost at the same time as Daguerre, circa 1839-41, and like Daguerre’s emulsion, Talbot’s film emulsion was applied and allowed to dry, but until Daguerre’s emulsion which was inserted into the camera to make the image, Talbot could expose his plates in the same manner (as a camera image) or he could simply place the emulsified paper plate in a vacuum frame together with a printed image he wished to copy (like his handwritten notes) on another sheet of paper or glass, etc, and after exposing the emulsion to light, he simply immersed the print in water to develop.

Talbot’s photosensitive emulsion was made using equal parts of ferric ammonium citrate and potassium ferricyanide. This process, also known as iron salts or the cyanotype (from the cyan color) was one of the first photographic reproduction processes and was later widely used in ceramics, printing, and is the very process used to make "blueprints". When a cyanotype is exposed to a bath of calcium carbonate, it is possible to "split tone" the print, because the calcium carbonate oxydizes the ferric salts turning the image a rust colour. It's also the only "archival" photographic process with some iron salts prints being just as vivid today as they were when they were first made 150 years ago. Its a process that can be printed on paper, wood, ceramic, virtually any porous surface.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/tl_cyanotype.php

I might add that the author of this website suggests that Sir John Herschel invented this process in 1842 and to some degree this is correct. The two men developed very similar processes at the same time, but while Herschel’s process was commercially developed to make negatives for “blueprinting” or printing a white image on blue, Talbot’s process produced the reverse, a blue image on white.


Richard,

No offense but I wanted to correct some of the points you raised in your response:

1. Talbot invented two different processes: the first resulted in the first photographic negative process in 1835. This process used solution of common table salt applied to a sheet of paper that was then dried. Then a 15% soltion of silver nitrate is applied and dried and the paper is now photosensitive. Once exposed the paper is washed of the excess silver and the latent image is brought out or "fixed" in either potassium bromide, potassium iodide or, more importantly Sodium Thiosulphate (Hypo). He called this process "Photogenic Drawings". This process required considerable time (hours, in some cases to render an image).

2. Talbot's second process was a refinement of the first called Calotypes or Talbotypes and was introduced publically after Daguerre came out with his process in 1839. This process provided a considerable decrease in the exposure times on the order of a few minutes vrs hours withe the previous methods. Calotypes use a Gallic acid and Silver Nitrate composition (not ferric ammonium citrate and potassium ferricyanide) on a salted paper. The latent image is fixed with Hypo. Calotypes had a great advantage over Daguerreotypes in that multiple prints could be made (salt prints) from the waxed paper negative. Calotypes were popular in Europe and competed well with the Daguerreotype but never took off here in the states. There was one outfit in Philadephia, I believe, that held the sole rights to this process in the states.

3. Daguerre's process uses a highly polished silver plated copper plate that is fumed over iodine crystals and bromine (as a sensitivity accelerant) and then exposed in the camera. The image is developed over the fumes of heated mercury. The image is still fugitive until fixed with Hypo. This process provides a single positive image that is not reproducible as was the Calotype

4. Herschel did indeed develop the Cyanotype process in the early 1842 but Talbot had little or no participation.

5. Salt prints are NOT cyanotypes. Salt prints are simply paper coated with a weak table salt solution and made photosensitive with a subsequent silver nitrate coating. Once dried, the negative and sensitized paper are loaded into a printing-out frame and exposed to the sun. The print is then washed, fixed (hypo) and occasionally toned with gold-chloride. Once dried, they are waxed and framed. As to their archival nature, they do fade when exposed to sunlight over extended periods of time.

6. Daguerre's, Talbot's and the later wet-plate collodion processes "see" in predominantly the "blue" end of the light spectrum. Thus colors are "seen" differently than you would expect. For example: Light blue is seen as white whereas yellows and reds are seen as black. The piping on the jacket in the image is white indicating blue or white as its color. Green can show up light or dark depending on the hue of the color. Remember blue shows white and yellow shows black (Blue + Yellow = Green)

7. This image, in my opinion, appears to be early CW period and is either an Ambrotype or Tintype.

FYI - I'm a modern pratictioner of Daguerreotypes, Calotypes, Photogenic Drawings and Wet-plate Collodion processes.

Warmest Regards,

[Gretchen D]

Hello,

I am the owner of the photo under discussion. The image itself is approx. 5x7, appears to be printed on a very thin piece of paper, and has a yellowish cast. It is also very slightly glossy - more like what's called an eggshell finish in paints. It is mounted on a sturdy piece of some type of mat or Bristol board. There are no photographer's studio or other marks. Someone wrote (using a fountain or dip-style pen - you can see the scratches under the ink) "Taken in 1836 durig [sic] Mexican War" under the image.

I've been told that the uniform is consistent with that of the 9th Partisan Ranger Battalion (CSA) which became the 3rd Louisiana Cavalry (Wingfields), and I have a person, not an ancestor, but someone for whom there's a plausible reason for this photo to have been handed down in my family, who was in this unit - and who mustered in as a corporal, per his service records.

I have not yet been able to identify any relative who served in the Mexican War, but there are several men who were the right age. The
lack of easily-accessible records for Louisiana soldiers in this war has prevented me from verifying or ruling out the handwritten legend of "Taken in 1836 durig Mexican War". If any of you knows where I might find such records, I would very much appreciate receiving that information.

I will be happy to email a better resolution scan of this photo to anyone who is interested, but details like the belt buckle are not really that much clearer. It's definitely a 5-pointed star and there's some sort of raised design (looks like just a plain 'frame') around the edge of the buckle. There's possibly a smaller star or other emblem to the right of the central one - could also just be a shadow.

If I may impose upon you all further, I have another photo - an ambrotype - for which I know the ID, service records, etc. of the person pictured, but would love to be able to add a note to my records about the weapons and other accoutrements pictured. The board attachment quota has been reached, so I can't attach the photo - let me know if you're willing to take a look, and I will email it to you.

Best regards,

Gretchen

[Todd Harrington, 3637V]

Hi Gretchen,

Yes I would be happy to help out.

The image you describe is very likely a copy image of an original tintype or ambrotype and it was made sometime well after the CW. The yellow cast and shiny surface are the hallmarks of an albumen print from a negative. This was a very popular process by the time of the CW (Carte Vistes are a good example) and became the predominant photography method post CW well into the early 20th C. Very few studios were making positive images by the end of the CW as making a negative and selling the paper prints was far more lucrative. The size of the image points to a much later era like the 1880's. This also implies there may be a surviving original image somewhere.

As to the date written on the image...no way it was taken in 1836 as there was no photographic process in use in the US until the fall of 1839 in Boston. I'd be very doubtful on 1847/48 during the Mexican war due to the clothing and it just doesn't look like a copy of a Daguerreotype. Looks like early CW period to me, probably a tintype or ambrotype.

[Edwin Flint, 8427]

I have looked at this picture several times and several things bothered me about the picture of the musket and its general assumption that the musket is an 1816.
I finally sat down and analized what it was that bothered me. Pick my opinion apart folks. I am no expert but these things make me wonder if the musket is a prop gun put together for a photographer to stage pictures. I put original 1816, 1842, Richmond(closest thing I have to a 1855) and 1861 side be side during my ponderings. I also used several references to search for variations.
1. Missing plate on the visible side. No reference mentioned a variation leaving the plate off of an 1816 variant. If I missed one, mea culpa.
2. There is an asumption there is a part of the nipple in the photo. It appears to me, that the hammer, if it follows a normal arc, would strike short of the assumed nipple. I think the sleeve is obscuring the top and back of the barrel. What we are seeing may not be the nipple at all. What we are seeing may be part of a bolster. I don't think it is a sight as it is too close to the hammer.
3. There is a dark stain atop the stock above the first barrel band. This appears to me to be a stain I have seen several times under original stocks when the barrel bands are removed. The width is about right for a barrel band. If this is a barrel band stain, it is too short of a distance to be an 1816 placement for the second band. Spacing would be about right for a 55 or 61 rifle musket Middle band. Maybe one of our engineer types can measure the buckle, which should be fairly easy to get accurate dimensions and put the slide rule for direct comparison to known 16, 55, and 61 dimensions.
4. To my eye, The contour of the stock around the first band matches my 1861 better than the 1816. Also, it seems to me, the potrussion toward the muzzle on the first barrel band on my 1816 would be more clearly visible in the photo if it was a 16.
5. Trigger guard plate screw does not look right, it protrudes too much. I don't believe a service weapon would look like that.

Other problems I have are the following:

I have never seen original pictures that contained soldiers with tight uniforms. Every photo I ever saw had looser fits. My experience in this area is quite limited so I may be way off base. This soldier appears to be stretching the fabric quite a bit: look at the buttons pulling in the button holes. Also the belt appears to have been let out a few notches to fit around his waist. There appears to be a mark, under the revolver, on the leather, where long term placement of a belt buckle was moved to accomodate this "soldier".

The knife does appear to be a dirk. From the ornate handle, it is of commercial make, not a smith make. As such, it should be identifiable as to time of manufacture with someone more knowledgeable than I. I have a few books on CW knives but this one is not in them.

Nothing jumps out at me about the revolver.

No way it can be an 1836 photo as conversion to percussion of the US muskets appears to have started no sooner than 1848. The hammer is wrong for the 48 conversion, so the musket was at least done mid 1850's or later. This is definitely a percussion firearm.

These things make me think that this is a studio set photo. Whether it is period or not, I don't know, and will not venture an opinion.

I do know that there were pictures made of me in Atlanta in 1974 where I was dressed in union and confederate uniforms, given firearms, and posed for pictures. Several of these were of the size Gretchen describes and of the type paper and tint described as well.

Gretchen good luck with your quest for authentication. I hope I haven't set you back any way in your project. I figured you might want to hear any questions folks might have as to the identity of the musket and the photo. I think the best chance of identifying the period may be the dirk. Knife collectors should be able to ID it by the handle and the time period it was made. I may be all wrong on the photo and the clothes fitting. Could this fellow have kept his uniform and had the photo made AFTER his Mex War service, after he had filled out a bit for some reason? My best guess is the firearms push the photo until at least the 1850's of after. Possbily considerably after.

Again good luck.

Okay guys fire away with your critiques of my opinions. :lol: :wink:

[Todd Harrington, 3637V]

I have looked at this picture several times and several things bothered me about the picture of the musket and its general assumption that the musket is an 1816.
I finally sat down and analized what it was that bothered me. Pick my opinion apart folks. I am no expert but these things make me wonder if the musket is a prop gun put together for a photographer to stage pictures. I put original 1816, 1842, Richmond(closest thing I have to a 1855) and 1861 side be side during my ponderings. I also used several references to search for variations.
1. Missing plate on the visible side. No reference mentioned a variation leaving the plate off of an 1816 variant. If I missed one, mea culpa.
2. There is an asumption there is a part of the nipple in the photo. It appears to me, that the hammer, if it follows a normal arc, would strike short of the assumed nipple. I think the sleeve is obscuring the top and back of the barrel. What we are seeing may not be the nipple at all. What we are seeing may be part of a bolster. I don't think it is a sight as it is too close to the hammer.
3. There is a dark stain atop the stock above the first barrel band. This appears to me to be a stain I have seen several times under original stocks when the barrel bands are removed. The width is about right for a barrel band. If this is a barrel band stain, it is too short of a distance to be an 1816 placement for the second band. Spacing would be about right for a 55 or 61 rifle musket Middle band. Maybe one of our engineer types can measure the buckle, which should be fairly easy to get accurate dimensions and put the slide rule for direct comparison to known 16, 55, and 61 dimensions.
4. To my eye, The contour of the stock around the first band matches my 1861 better than the 1816. Also, it seems to me, the potrussion toward the muzzle on the first barrel band on my 1816 would be more clearly visible in the photo if it was a 16.
5. Trigger guard plate screw does not look right, it protrudes too much. I don't believe a service weapon would look like that.

Other problems I have are the following:

I have never seen original pictures that contained soldiers with tight uniforms. Every photo I ever saw had looser fits. My experience in this area is quite limited so I may be way off base. This soldier appears to be stretching the fabric quite a bit: look at the buttons pulling in the button holes. Also the belt appears to have been let out a few notches to fit around his waist. There appears to be a mark, under the revolver, on the leather, where long term placement of a belt buckle was moved to accomodate this "soldier".

The knife does appear to be a dirk. From the ornate handle, it is of commercial make, not a smith make. As such, it should be identifiable as to time of manufacture with someone more knowledgeable than I. I have a few books on CW knives but this one is not in them.

Nothing jumps out at me about the revolver.

No way it can be an 1836 photo as conversion to percussion of the US muskets appears to have started no sooner than 1848. The hammer is wrong for the 48 conversion, so the musket was at least done mid 1850's or later. This is definitely a percussion firearm.

These things make me think that this is a studio set photo. Whether it is period or not, I don't know, and will not venture an opinion.

I do know that there were pictures made of me in Atlanta in 1974 where I was dressed in union and confederate uniforms, given firearms, and posed for pictures. Several of these were of the size Gretchen describes and of the type paper and tint described as well.

Gretchen good luck with your quest for authentication. I hope I haven't set you back any way in your project. I figured you might want to hear any questions folks might have as to the identity of the musket and the photo. I think the best chance of identifying the period may be the dirk. Knife collectors should be able to ID it by the handle and the time period it was made. I may be all wrong on the photo and the clothes fitting. Could this fellow have kept his uniform and had the photo made AFTER his Mex War service, after he had filled out a bit for some reason? My best guess is the firearms push the photo until at least the 1850's of after. Possbily considerably after.

Again good luck.

Okay guys fire away with your critiques of my opinions. :lol: :wink:


Good points, Edwin. Yes it could very well be that the arms are studio props but its purely conjecture and could go either way. My thoughts are unless you can show a group of images with the same arms/accoutrements from the same photographer, its more likely that the soldier walked into the studio with his own weapons.

As to the clothing, it is also possible that this is merely a militia uniform adopted by a local company of volunteers.

Not sure what to make of your comments on having images made in 1974 or what bearing it has on dating the image. The 5 x7 image size appear in the 1880's or 90's. The closest CW-period size to this is 1/2 plate which is 4.25" x 5.50" but the most popular size for the period was 1/6 plate (3.25" x 2.75") or 1/4 plate (3.25" x 4.25")

My feelings are very strong this is a late 19th century photgraphic copy of a early CW-period ambrotype/tintype.

Your mileage may vary......

[Edwin Flint, 8427]

Todd, I was not clear because of the time I was typing :roll: . I tend to get goofy late. A friend brought me one of those pictures he bought at a yard sale thinking it might be a relation from the CW as he did not recognize the lady with me and he did not know me when I was 17.

That was 37 years ago, Didn't cost him anything, less than $5.00, but he thought it was real. These staged photos I know have been around since the Centinial in the 60's. I can easily see one of these being passed off as an original to the novices. 50 years of photos. I am sure more than a few have ended up innocently in commerce and stories developed about them.

[John Holland]

Gretchen D -

you offered the availability of a higher resolution photo. I would like to see it, if you don't mind. I am especially interested in which type sideplate is on the musket, as it can't be determined in the current photo on the COMH site. The side plate will positivily identify the musket.

You can email the high res photo to me at jh44ny at verizon.net. Just replace the word "at" with the @ symbol. This is to prevent auto-harvesting of the email address.

Thank you.

John Holland
Small Arms Committee

[Blair]

John,

Thank you for that request.
But, I can see the sidelock/counter plate from the photo supplied. It is an M-1816. (which variant is another question)
It is easier to see than the buckle, BTW.
Thanks,
Blair

[Muley Gil]

I may be totally wrong (won't be the 1st time), but I doubt a soldier would be allowed to take his musket to town to have his picture taken, considering how short of arms both sides were, especially at the beginning of the War. Granted, some photographers went to the camps and set up. I believe the use of prop arms is more likely.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

The rectangular plate that I referred to as a Mississippi militia plate is like the rectagular eagle plate pictured below with the adjustable double-tongue back much like can be seen by the double row of holes in the waist belt:

http://www.horsesoldier.com/catalog/348-69A.JPEG

http://www.horsesoldier.com/catalog/348-69B.JPEG

The original image may be slightly sharper than the scanned image, making it difficult to really discern what the centre device is because it "almost" resembles a five-pointed star being similar to the rectangular “Lone Star” pattern plate with raised border?

https://www.regtqm.com/ProductDetails.a ... ltplate-61 (https://www.regtqm.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=Beltplate-61)

[Gretchen D]

I apologize for not responding more quickly. I have sent the higher resolution scan to Mr. Holland as requested.

I suppose it is possible that this photo is not from the CW era, but I will say that I can definitely tell the difference, generally,
between things that are genuinely old and things that are made to look old. Also, my grandfather remembered seeing this photo
when he was a boy (1910s). It was stored with a lot of other family memorabilia in a boarded-up room (family squabble) in my
great-grandmother's house after she died in 1943 until about 8 years ago.

I will go to the links provided of belt buckles and see if any look like what is discernible in my photo.

Thank you again for sharing your knowledge!

Gretchen

[Gretchen D]

I forgot to add that I am fairly sure that this is NOT a soldier of the Mexican War, despite what someone wrote
on the photo...I think it likely that it is instead a soldier who was mustered into Wingfield's 3rd LA Cavalry/9th
Battalion LA Partisan Rangers as a corporal, in St. Helena Parish, LA. The physical description in that muster
roll is, at least, not inconsistent with the man pictured. He was my g-g-grandmother's half brother.

I did not mean to sound dismissive of the suggestion that the photo might be of more recent vintage. It's
a legitimate argument. This entire process (trying to identify the person pictured and when that initially failed,
identify the uniform, etc to narrow down the possible range of dates for the person pictured) has been a
fascinating journey for me and has brought me into contact with all sorts of interesting people, such as the
posters of the NSSA!

Gretchen

[Edwin Flint, 8427]

I hope we are able to help some. I also would like a clearer copy of the photo.If you will send it to me, I would be gratefull. Also, I wanted you to know not to expect quick replies just now. The most active members on this board are likely at Winchester for our May National shoot. They will be back next week.

If the buckle is a Star belt buckle, it is quite possibly a Texas belt buckle.