Custer's Pocket Watch

[Diane Merkel]

;D ;D ;D Terrific, GAC!

Now, if you will check the CSS & West thread on the LBHA Member Services board, Leyton has requested the same for To Hell with Honor!

[Gary]

It's kinda sad to see all you "professionals" making fun of a fellow member that had turned to you for advice.

No thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,Gary

[markland]

Gary, no one is trying to hurt your feelings guy, we are just having fun. No mean-spiritness is involved. It is, from your perspective at least, unfortunate that your watch is the focus of the humor, but a sense of humor as well as a thick skin are imperitive to internet message boarding. This board is one of the nicer-mannered I have had the opportunity to post at, many thanks to Diane and the quality of the individuals themselves!

And, you gotta admit, it was funny!

Billy

[Jas. Watson]

Whoa Gary, I assume the barb might be aimed at me as I mentioned being in the museum profession. I never made fun...on the contrary, I am often faced with this very quandry of having someone come to us with something that is really quite unprovable, and having to tell it how it is. And that's all I was doing. Even you have to admit that you are 'reaching' because even if Custer was the Grand Mason and used upside down sabres for everything--it still wouldn't make a bit of difference on the watch. It has to stand on it's own merits or that of provenance. That's just the way it is. It's own merits say it is a mid 19th cent. hunting case watch--and that's it. As a matter of fact the engraving may even detract from the value because it is most certainly not period. As for the other; provenance...face it, it has nil and all the 'what ifs' you can throw at it will not change that one iota!
What is causing the amusment here is not you being stuck with a fake--there is nothing amusing about that--but it is your extraordinary tenacity in searching for a possible--any possible--clue as to it's pedigree. You have gone much further than was thought credible. Most everyone would have long since given up, yet you are still at it in sort of a forlorn hope sort of thing. And that's what is causing the amusement--but that being said, do not think for a minute anyone here takes amusement over you, or anyone for that matter, getting stuck with a 'bad piece', only your dieheartedness. Which actually is an admirable trait in most things.
My advice to you--if you even want any--is to take that dealer's offer and sell the watch for what you can, or just use it yourself as a neat timepiece and cool antique (what I'd do) and go ahead and bask in the reputation you have gained here as a 'no quitter' and take future ribbing all in good spirit.....and get tenacious about other stuff too!

[George Armstrong Custer]

I agree with Billy, Gary - no personal offense intended - it was the endlessly recycled subject matter rather than you that we wanted to see blown away!

But you know, you could have saved a lot of circumlocution if you'd referenced that watch dealership straight off when you asked about your watch here. And this is
leaving aside the fact that you've variously told us you got it from a 'Custer collector' and now a watch dealer. Gary, I've looked at the guy's website via the link you gave us and he's a professional dealer. If that guy really had bought a genuine 'Custer collection' as you say he told you, then there's no way he would have forgotten what day he had such good fortune, never mind what decade! And you note that he tells you that the mystery person he obtained this 'Custer collection' from, including the watch, is now deceased, yet he refuses to tell you any more about that individual, or how he came by such a collection which is unknown to anyone else in the incestuous world of Custeriana? If I was you I'd be asking myself why that was. Any reputable dealer would be using the name and background of the source he supposedly got the watch from in order to give it a provenance - the very thing which his silence on the matter robs your watch of. You should also take note of the prices fetched by provenanced Custer items. Here's a couple of examples (and bear in mind these are 1995 prices):

Custer's Civil War guidon: $165,000

Custer's US 7th Cavalry model 1872 gold braid shoulder knot, 1876: $66,000 (and that's just for one!)

Tom Custer's Galland & Sommerville revolver: $77,000

So you will see that if your watch had a genuine provenance linking it to Custer as a presentation piece from the Michigan Brigade, then even ten years ago it would have had a value somewhere between $150,000 - $200,000. Your watch dealer source would sure as hell have known that - so did you pay anything in that region? No, I didn't think so! You also said that Paul, the dealer, has offered to buy the watch back from you at treble what you paid for it - so you've turned down an offer in the region of $450,00 - $600,000? Again, I didn't think so. Take a look at Paul's website again, I see he does a lot of his business on ebay - is that where you bought the watch from him? If your watch was genuine Gary, and bought from a dealer, you'd have had to pay upwards of $150,000, and the dealer would have been falling over himself to tell you who and where it came from. Forget books with pictures of Phil Sheridan's flag etc., these are the facts which tell you all you need to know about the watch you bought from Paul.

I'm not trying to be hard on you, but you've been pretty cheeky when it's suited you, you've changed and deleted posts when your assertions were challenged, and from the outset you've not been entirely open with the story of how you got the watch. All things considered, I think that as a forum we've been pretty patient and indulgent towards your obsession. So I think you've got a bit of a brass neck chastising us now for injecting a little humor into these interminable proceedings.

Ciao,
GAC

Added Note: Sorry I was typing this out when James' last went up - I see he's highlighted some of the same points.

[Jas. Watson]

And if I can add some comment to GAC's post which I wholeheartedly agree with. In the top collector and museum world (of which I am privileged to be a part), it is often the provanance which gets greater scrutiny than the artifact itself. Granted I am in the artifact itself catagory, but we have registrars and curators who spend the greater time pawing through recorded provanance and item history, much like doing a title search when buying real estate, before an object is even considered--not only to assure authenticity, but to insure that the piece is totally legal to own (we had trouble with a painting some years ago which turned out to be stolen Nazi loot which hit the news pretty big). For things to be considered in the class of Custer's watch by either museum or reputable dealer the provenance would have to be pretty impeccable. You never stood a chance.
And I think that's what folks are trying to say here. We all had fun helping you with your queries, but I for one sincerely doubted that even for a second you had the 'real thing'--believe me, if you did, the word would have been long out. Things of that sort are so known that the list of all former owners and dates of ownership, sale amount, etc. would have been included with the item like a pedigree.
Even in those rare cases where something 'lost' surfaces out of the woodwork so to speak, the object is usually well known before hand, often described or mentioned in the past or even photographed at one point. But for a totally new and unheard of object to make a sudden appearance...why then it must stand completely on it's own...in this case, as a mid 19th C. watch with some spurious engraving.

Jas.

[markland]

And Gary, you really should not be sick...Let me tell you a little story.

At an estate sell I discovered the first edition, fourth impression copy of Benjamin Graham and David Dodd's 1934 classic, Security Analysis, for which I paid the grand sum of $4.00. l later discovered that it had a value, if in perfect shape, which this one was not, of up to $6,000.00. Now imagine that sick feeling I had when I discovered that some damned idiot had torn out page 349, thus rendering the book from a collector's item into a good textbook with two pages missing. Fortunately I had only purchased it for the book itself and not as an investment vehicle. I had figured if Graham's teachings were good enough for Warren Buffett then I should be able to pick up something useful.

But, I am sure each and every one of us on this board can tell some horror stories regarding collectables.

Best of wishes,

Billy

[Gary]

Nope,,, Jas. ,,,,, I never considered "anything" you have presented as making fun of me!
When it became cartoon time I think it got a little out of hand!

Thanks for your concern,,,,,,,Gary

jasw said:

Whoa Gary, I assume the barb might be aimed at me as I mentioned being in the museum profession. I never made fun...on the contrary, I am often faced with this very quandry of having someone come to us with something that is really quite unprovable, and having to tell it how it is. And that's all I was doing. Even you have to admit that you are 'reaching' because even if Custer was the Grand Mason and used upside down sabres for everything--it still wouldn't make a bit of difference on the watch. It has to stand on it's own merits or that of provenance. That's just the way it is. It's own merits say it is a mid 19th cent. hunting case watch--and that's it. As a matter of fact the engraving may even detract from the value because it is most certainly not period. As for the other; provenance...face it, it has nil and all the 'what ifs' you can throw at it will not change that one iota!
What is causing the amusment here is not you being stuck with a fake--there is nothing amusing about that--but it is your extraordinary tenacity in searching for a possible--any possible--clue as to it's pedigree. You have gone much further than was thought credible. Most everyone would have long since given up, yet you are still at it in sort of a forlorn hope sort of thing. And that's what is causing the amusement--but that being said, do not think for a minute anyone here takes amusement over you, or anyone for that matter, getting stuck with a 'bad piece', only your dieheartedness. Which actually is an admirable trait in most things.
My advice to you--if you even want any--is to take that dealer's offer and sell the watch for what you can, or just use it yourself as a neat timepiece and cool antique (what I'd do) and go ahead and bask in the reputation you have gained here as a 'no quitter' and take future ribbing all in good spirit.....and get tenacious about other stuff too!

[markland]

When it became cartoon time I think it got a little out of hand!

Since I am a bit out of sorts from having to argue with some neo-right wing fascist over the phone who wants to censor movies "for the children's sake", I think I am going to bluntly state something Gary.

Grow up! Whether you made an investment and paid too much or not, it simply has come to the point were you have to accept the fact that whatever you wanted it to be, isn't. Somewhat like life.

Now accept the wisdom of Jas. and GAC learn from your misstep, otherwise you will find your youself again doing the same thing. And isn't that the definition of lunacy? Doing the same thing wrong, time after time, and expecting the results to be different.

Damned right-winged fascists ruining my good mood!

Arrgggghhhh,

Billy

[Tricia]

Ring the doctor. It was fun for awhile, but it's past time to "call" this thread. Now as Bugs Bunny said in The Rabbit of Seville ... "nnnnnext?"

[Jim]

Leyton,

NO, I think he said, "THAT'S ALL, FOLKS ---- JEEZ, enough of THIS!!!!

[Tricia]

(actually, that was Porky Pig)

[rch]

Gary

Can you tell me more about B. W. Munson. He he's not listed in Heitman or the index of the "Official Records" of the Civil War. There was a Commissary Sergeant of the 1st Connecticut Cavalry named Byron W. Munson. Could he have become a doctor after the was?

I haven't been able to find a good picture of it, but there was a badge that may have been called the Capehart Badge. In a history of the 2nd West Virginia Cavalry there are photo's of 7 men including Henry Capehart wearing the badge. The badge is suspended in 3 different ways, one way was from an eagle. Except for crossed sabers in some of the photos I couldn't make out any details of the badge.
jYou c. Oneobt the It seems gnedEr m n

[rch]

Gary,

I'm a clumsey typist and hit the wrong key before I could finish and clean up my last posting. The last line is not in code but merely accumulated typos. I like to accumulate them in the hope that I will someday randomly type out "The Charge of the Light Brigade."

Henry Capehart's brigade was added to Custer's division about Dec 1864. He was the senior brigade commander of the division and as such succeeded Custer as division commander for a very brief time before William Wells was promoted to full rank Brig. Gen..
His brigade was designated the 3rd on joining the division, which could explain the "3" on the badge.

Does Munson in his letter mention Edward W. Whitaker? Whitaker was the Inspector General and Chief of Staff of Custer's division. There is a photo of him wearing the same badge as Capehart. He was Lt. Col. of the 1st Conn. Cav. and Comm. Sgt. Munson, if he is the same man who wrote the letter, may have seen Whitaker wearing the badge at a veteran's function.

Whitaker and the 1st Conn. were not part of Capehart's brigade, and why Whitaker would be wearing the badge for the 3rd Brigade is a problem. It could be that Capehart simply liked Whitaker and gave him one or because while Capehart commanded the division Whitaker was in effect a member of his staff.

It could also be that it was a 3rd Division badge and calling it the Capehart Badge was simply an historian's mistake.

Re: The Custer Badge

Your wouldn't have to turn the whole thing upside down to reverse the crossed sabers. I think you could probably detach the sabers from the ribbon then invert and reattach them.

rch

[Gary]

If you've had enough about Custer watches, "don't read this"!!!

Where are these (3) Custer watches?

In her book “BOOTS and SADDLES”, Libbie Custer states that General Custer saved his watch and vest from a fire that destroyed their quarters at Fort Lincoln.

After the Little Big Horn Battle the Indians plundered the battle field and collected the artifacts from the fallen soldiers. Then they escaped into Canada. They stayed there until 1882.

Sir Cecil Denny, a North-West Mounted Police Officer, and later, Indian Agent and Archivist for Canada, states in his first edition book “THE LAW MARCHES WEST” that “he personally”, in October of 1877, collected General George Armstrong Custer’s watch from Sitting Bull and sent it to Libbie Custer.
(The watch would have to have had an inscription in order to know it was Custer’s.)

Libbie Custer’s N.Y. apartment was broken into several years’ after Cecil Denny sent General Custer’s watch to her. According to an article in The New York Times, her apartment was broken into during a fire, Sept.1884, and several artifacts were stolen.
Possibly this is when General Custer’s watch disappeared! Although, we can find no account of it as being listed by Libbie as part of the item’s taken! General Custer’s sister Margaret, whom was living with Libbie at the time did report that her “Brother’s” gold watch was taken. (She did not state which brother!) We have also found documentation that Margaret “Custer” Calhoun had her husbands (James Calhoun) watch returned to her some year’s earlier. (James died with General Custer)
A month later in Oct. of 1884, the Monroe Democrat printed the story of the break-in at Libbies and identifies the watch that General Custer’s sister Margaret lost to thieves was her brother, Tom Custer’s, watch.

As shown above these watches were recovered!

Where are these (3) Custer watches today?