I have always assumed that the plain cast buttons (solid) were less
expensive than the two- or multi-piece buttons, because the production
process was simpler and required less labor.  But, this is an assumption; I
don't have any references on it.
 
Those two-hole and (later) four-hole bone or shell buttons are about as
common as the dirt we find them in--as far as buttons go, of course, which
are relatively rare on archaeological sites.  I remember, from the mid-80s,
Stan South giving an explanation of the large number of bone buttons on
Revolutionary military sites--think he was using Ft. Moultrie (S.C.) as an
example.  Apparently, as soldiers lost their metal buttons, they would
replace them with bone buttons covered in cloth; the cloth cover matched
either the facings of the uniform coat or that of the coat itself.  I don't
remember which was preferred; it may have varied from unit to unit.  When
this got out-of-hand (the coat having some metal buttons, and some
cloth-covered buttons), the soldier would be ordered to get his coat
regular, and he would either buy or trade for all matching metal buttons,
or replace the remaining metal buttons with the cloth-covered bone ones.
This may be discussed in South's Ft. Moultrie report, which is in the
special publications series (No. 4?), S.C. Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Columbia, S.C.
 
 
 
At 09:49 AM 3/27/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I am posting this for a serious reenactor who wants to get it right!  I
>posted this several weeks ago and NO ONE responded.  I know there must
>be plenty of resources out there so please help steer us in the right
>direction!
>
>Thanks!  VivianLea Stevens
>
>        I am seeking the expertise of those who have handled genuine
>18th century buttons. These questions seem so basic it may perhaps seem
>clumsy to air them, but one of my perpetually inquisitive unit members
>pinned me down, asking whether convex pewter buttons of plain design
>were *really* sufficiently inexpensive for military use, and I am
>compelled to give him the best available answer. Part of my problem is
>the lack of written archeological sources available.
>
>        1) How common are pewter and brass buttons with flat faces as
>opposed to the same buttons with slightly rounded (convex) faces? With
>what kind of comparative frequency are convex-faced buttons found on
>archeology sites of our period? Didn't everyone use flat buttons?
>
>        2) Which sort of button cost more to produce and thus was more
>expensive in the 18th century: one piece pewter or brass buttons, or
>two-piece buttons with a thin stamped front over a bone or wood backer?
>This may seem obvious, but the latter has been found in so many sites in
>large quantities (Ft. Michilimackinac, Ft. Stanwix, Ft. Ligonier) that
>it may have been in much larger use. Were the two-piece buttons cheaper
>than we think? Did the cost of pewter or brass fluctuate in the latter
>half of the 18th century? Why didn't armies use simple bone, wood or
>leather buttons on their uniforms to save expenses?
>
>        Certainly no one today makes a close reproduction of two-piece
>buttons.  I know that Don Troiani will be publishing a book *someday*
>about 18th century buttons, but it never fails that the questions come
>up just when no easy answer is at hand.
>
>        So are there any takers to this question?  I plan to forward
>your answers to my skeptical friend: thank you in advance.
>
>Cordially yours,
>Steve Gilbert
>Capt Lewis Dubois' 4th Coy
>3rd New York Regt   NWTA/BAR
>