Name the hat!

[28thNY]

Hello All,

I came across a photo of an officer of the 28th New York in a collection at the historical society in Lockport at the weekend and am trying to figure out what sort of hat this gentleman was wearing.

The officer photographed is Captain William Rowley of Company E, 28th NY.

I've uploaded two pictures to http://www.28thnycoe.com/rowley including a close up for people to look at.

He's holding the hat by his side and I've had people suggesting it was a hardee or a sort of slouch hat. Any suggestions?

Thanks,

[FloridaConfederate]

Crumpled m1858 Dress Hat

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[28thNY]

Well, that was easy. Thanks for the confirmation. :)

[FloridaConfederate]

No worries. Contrary to reputation I am known for helping folks with swell facial hair !

It is weird how he is holding it and the brim and all..

CR

[eric woods]

Check out Echoes of Glory arms and equip. Of the Union page 186. From the photo, it looks like his hat does'nt have a lot of height like the '58 does. And the brim looks a little narrow. Photos in EOG show private purchase and import slouch hats. The side pinned up follows the rule for 58's, but the shape seems off to me, but that's just my opinion.

Eric Woods

[FloridaConfederate]

I was basing my opinion on the lenght of the crown to the brim, the width of the ribbon around the crown and the lack of grosgrain edged brim.



[At the request of the Mr. Taylor, I have removed the hot link to the specific image that Chris is referring to but am leaving in the url link; apparently the hot link was eating up the bandwidth for the site. - THP]
http://www.28thnycoe.com/rowley/rowley-hat.JPG

[sbl]

Possibly a Whipple hat with a soft crown. Viewed upside down.


http://www.7thsouthcarolina.com/images/whipple_cap.gif

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

A tough one, IMHO...

The overall width of the top might would seem too broad for a taperered dress hat, even punched in and out.
The width of the brim appears too narrow, as if possibly trimmed back narrower (which would delete the officer's ribbon edge binding.
However, brims on originals are found from 3 inches to 3 1/2, and it may just be the angle and play of light.

Dunno, beyond speculation and a limited view with the angle and play of light and shadow. Could be. Could be something else.

:)

CHS

[sbl]

Looks like air vent holes in the top. 28th was mustered in in May 1861. "Strange" hats abounded.

[Artyman]

Looks to me like just another one of those civilian soft round hats with one side turned up and pinned with a badge. The holes could be hand punched. Nothing really special about it. What always makes me wonder is why so many officers went to great lengths to smartly uniform themselves, only to resort to some plain crummy beat up shrunk hat? Especially Confederates.

Harry

[flattop32355]

What always makes me wonder is why so many officers went to great lengths to smartly uniform themselves, only to resort to some plain crummy beat up shrunk hat?

Comfort.
Sentiment.

Those would be my guess.

[NYCivilWar]

Looks to me like just another one of those civilian soft round hats with one side turned up and pinned with a badge. The holes could be hand punched. Nothing really special about it. What always makes me wonder is why so many officers went to great lengths to smartly uniform themselves, only to resort to some plain crummy beat up shrunk hat? Especially Confederates.

Harry


The men in the Civil War were not unlike us in some regards. They had personal preferences just like us, from footwear, to shirts, to hats. How many of us have a hat that has seen it's better days? But we still wear them. I've read several accounts of troops on the march to Pennsylvania that they prefered a broad-brimmed (more or less) sloppy hat. I can't find the specific reference right this second. We can see from existing shirts, hats, socks, and even to some extent jackets, that not everything a soldier wore was an "issue" item--just flip through Echoes of Glory.

From looking at the photo of this officer, and maybe some of you have better eyes than I, but I would say that this hat was definitely not a M1858 Dress Hat. The crown is just not tall enough, and look how the crown almost meets the brim near where the officer is holding the hat.

Attached two examples of non-issue hats on a Federal soldiers. It happened.

Just my thoughts,
Kyle M. Stetz

[28thNY]

One other point regarding the early war point is that he clearly has Captain shoulder bars. It's worth pointing out that while the regiment came into existance on 22nd May 1861, William Rowley was only promoted to Captain in October 1862 so this picture was atleast 18 months into their two year enlistment. Unfortunately, no other details about the picture are known.

[sbl]

By 1862, Whipple hats might be in the trunk. Interesting topic.

[FloridaConfederate]

From looking at the photo of this officer, and maybe some of you have better eyes than I, but I would say that this hat was definitely not a M1858 Dress Hat. The crown is just not tall enough, and look how the crown almost meets the brim near where the officer is holding the hat.

Kyle M. Stetz

My notes that I saw when looking at the original.
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii312/floridaconfederate/hat.jpg


Attached two examples of non-issue hats on a Federal soldiers. It happened.

This is not a soldier. It is an AOP early war Capt in a Dress "Frock"...dress hat is not "a way out there option"
As shoddy as the real dress hats were, one that saw wetness from use would get soft and discombobulated real quick like. As his crown sunk he pushed up in the middle giving the charchteristic beehive type point with the sunken indentions.
It you trace the side eagle from against his right thigh and put that hat on with your hand in the natural motion like his... not only does it identifiy the front..then reverse for the image..the eagle is in the right spot for the 58' DH.

I am not sayin "definately" I would never be so bold..but this is what I drew my conclusions on.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Rob Weaver]

Looks to me like just another one of those civilian soft round hats with one side turned up and pinned with a badge. The holes could be hand punched. Nothing really special about it. What always makes me wonder is why so many officers went to great lengths to smartly uniform themselves, only to resort to some plain crummy beat up shrunk hat? Especially Confederates.

Harry
I think beat-up hats were a bit of a fashion fad, though I can't prove it. THere was a fad in wearing your hair somewhat "long" and "wild" (Byronic hero, maybe?) The dis-sheveled looking hat was possibly a way of adopting a devil-may-care attitude?

[packrat]

Not sure about his hat but the 4th. New Hampshire came to South Carolina with Whipples. YOS Paul Lopes

[sbl]

There it is, Hilton Head! They still had Whipples! This was still "early" in the war 61-62. Thanks for the source!

http://www.7thsouthcarolina.com/images/morningdetail.jpg

This image is often mistaken for pith helmets.

[28thNY]

Thanks for all the insight guys. It's much appreciated.

So I'll be looking at a tatty hardee hat (I've got a fairly tatty one of those already), some sort of slouch hat with the side turned up as was seen on the hardee or doing more research into the wipple.

Thanks,

[MickCole]

I think beat-up hats were a bit of a fashion fad, though I can't prove it.
Perhaps beat-up hats were the War of Northern Aggression equivalent to the "50-mission crush" hats of WWII that distinguished veteran aviators from those who had yet to see combat.
Mick Cole
37th VA Co E/22nd VA

[sbl]

The only "thing" is that the rest of his uniform looks pretty spiffy. That officer has a pretty good sized head. I'm sure it's not a Whipple Hat now, just a hat.