_USNM 38212. Figure 67._
[Illustration: FIGURE 67]
After the War of 1812, the State of New York presented swords to
several prominent officers of the Army and Navy who had distinguished
themselves in actions within New York or near its borders. One of
these swords (USNM 10294)[88] and an unusually fine gold embroidered
belt (USNM 33097) with this gold belt buckle were presented to Maj.
Gen. Jacob Brown.
[Footnote 88: Detailed descriptions of this sword are given by HAROLD
L. PETERSON, pp. 193-194, and BELOTE, pp. 30-31.]
Chased in very fine gold, the buckle is considered by experts in the
goldsmithing and silversmithing fields to be one of the outstanding
pieces of American craftsmanship of its kind.[89] The central motif is
the New York State eagle-on-half-globe device on a wreath of the
colors. The head of the eagle is very similar to that on the cap
plates of the 1807 Marine Corps, 1812 infantry, and 1814 Artillery
Corps. The border is of a rose pattern distinctly American in feeling,
and in each corner within the border are acanthus leaves in unusually
delicate Viennese baroque design.
[Footnote 89: Mr. Michael Arpad, well known and highly regarded
silversmith, of Washington, D.C., has called this specimen "an
exquisite piece of work by a master craftsman."]
The maker of this buckle is unknown, but since it is reasonably
certain that the hilt of the sword was designed by Moritz Furst (see
p. 12), it is possible that the design of the buckle is his also,
especially in view of the Viennese touch in the acanthus leaves, his
training at the mint in Vienna, and the probability that he designed
the 1812 infantry cap plate.
¶ Although the 1821 regulations were very specific about the
prohibition of nonregulation items of uniform and equipment, they were
somewhat vague regarding specifications. General staff and engineer
officers were to wear black belts with a "yellow plate," artillery
"yellow oval plates ... with an eagle in the center," and infantry the
same but "white" instead of yellow.[90] No oval plates meeting these
vague descriptions are known, but the specimens described below may
well have been those actually approved by the Ordnance Department, and
thus, worn.
[Footnote 90: _General Regulations for the Army_, pp. 154-162.]