pockets, popckets and more pockets

[Slickrick214]

Iam king of confused and I was hoping you guys could answer my question. First what is the difference between side seam pockets and mule ear pockets? Also is one more period correct then the other? I was looking at Echo's of Glory under the uniforms section and from what I could tell it looks like they didn't have pockets in the sense we think of them today, that is on the side of the pants. It looked like all the pockets were directly in front of the trousers opening from the top and they extended from under the first button to the mid seam in the pants. Kind of like wearing modern blue jeans backwars with the butt pockets facing forward. Lastly I was looking at a certain vendor, who I won't name because I don't want this to become a trash a vendor thread but this vendor puts watch pockets in the front of the pants. From what I've seen looking at Echo's of Glory I can't see this on any of the pants pictured. Is this a re-enactorism or is there pants like this documented somewhere?

[Birddog]

Here are pictures of side seam pockets from Chris Sulivans site:

http://www.stonybrookcompany.com/images/trousers/100main.jpg

http://www.stonybrookcompany.com/page3.html

Here are pictures of a mule ear pocket:

http://www.stonybrookcompany.com/images/trousers/civvy/RB2.jpg

As far as which is more common you'll have to wait for more experienced people than me to answer that.

Wayne

[Slickrick214]

Thanks Birddog. Looking at those repro's the mule ear pockets look closer to whats pictured in Echo's of Glory compared to the side seam pockets.

[WestTN_reb]

To be very brief:

The majority of your Federal issue trousers had the side seam pockets with a watch pocket in front.

Where you get into the others is in civilian and Confederate issue trousers (which were many times based on civilian patterns). To throw a wrench in it though, some civilian pants had side seam pockets and watch pockets too.

This is meant to be a brief overview and an over-generalization. Others more knowledgeable than I should chime in soon. The gist of my response is, "it depends.."

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

They are fashions answer to keeping things in your pocket during the period. "Mule ear" type (modern term, not a period term) have deeper set pockets that you reach in from the top, keeping things in a little better for those who labor or work. Some citizens trousers with that style were known to have a button on the "ear" to further keep things in. They are generally, but not always, a little harder to sew than side seams. The side seam pockets became the standard for most men's trousers even to today. They are a little easier to sew, have easier access to the pocket, but are usually shallower. Both armies produced trousers with both kinds of pockets. The federal army and marines both had mule ear trousers produced by hand at the Schuylkil Arsenal, and the army switched to side seam production for all machine sewn and contracted goods. The CS army took in whatever they could, so you'll see both styles, but the Richmond production runs have a lot of mule ears from surviving examples (its hard to say what they made more of).

[Slickrick214]

Thanks for the info. I guess because there are so many variations I should specify exactly what I'm looking for. I want to narrow the information down to specifically Richmond Depot trousers. From what I have read it appears our unit the real 10th VA would have been issued type I, II, and III Richmond Depot trousers. From what I have read and pictures I have looked at in Echos of Glory it looks like Richmond Depot trousers would have had "mule ear" pockets, belt back instead of lace ties, no pocket watch in the front and would have been made of either Jean wool or Kersey wool. Am I on the right track here? Also is there any records that Richmond depot lined thier pants and pant legs with muslin? I saw this from a vendor and they said they do it because jean wool gets very itchy. This seems like yet another re-enactorism.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

OK, first, I've never heard of trousers from the Richmond depots given any kind of numerical nomenclature. The jackets have been given a modern descriptive with Type I, II, and III, but I can't say I've heard that of trousers. That being said, the examples of original trousers attributed to the Richmond manufacturers do include mule ear pockets, back belts, and a lack of watch pockets. Most of those were made from jeanwool. There are few original trousers to go by, as most are gone from this world. Charlie Childs and Homespun Patterns both carry patterns from documented trousers with the above characteristics I've yet to see any documented CS trousers that had a laced back gusset, but never say never. As for lining trousers, there is some debate. There are period references to lined trousers, but no surviving examples. I'm sure the practice was quite limited, as it consists of extra cutting, sewing , and material for the maker, as well as differing shrinkage rates. Cotton will shrink much, much differently than jeancloth or kersey. I do know that it was a period practice to "bootline" the trouser cuff, or line the bottom of the legs up about 6-10 inches. This was to protect the material from the boot leather, not so much to keep from itching.

[Slickrick214]

Thanks Ross. As for the lining I was thinking they wouldn't waste good muslin material just for comfort. I was asking particulary about Richmond Depot because thats what our unit would have been issued and I've never seen a Richmond Depot jacket or trousers up close. All I can go by is a few pictures in Echo's of Glory. I'm going to go over to Charlie Childs website and see if he has pictures of his repro Richmond Depot trousers.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Thanks Ross. As for the lining I was thinking they wouldn't waste good muslin material just for comfort. I was asking particulary about Richmond Depot because thats what our unit would have been issued and I've never seen a Richmond Depot jacket or trousers up close. All I can go by is a few pictures in Echo's of Glory. I'm going to go over to Charlie Childs website and see if he has pictures of his repro Richmond Depot trousers.

Ideally someone would have drawers, so lining them for comfort was a waste of material. With that said, many soldiers went commando when they either didn't get drawers issued/sent from home, or they wore out, and lining them would have been a luxery. There are indeed lined citizen's trousers out there, or at least accounts of them, so its not out of the realm that a CS soldier might have those, but it is suspect that they would have been depot supplied.

[Carolann Schmitt]

Lined civilian trousers are actually rather common. I know of a number of extant examples, several within 50 miles of my home. One reason for lining trousers is to increase their durability; it increases the lifespan of the fabric and the garment by many years. Period trousers are underlined or 'flat-lined'; the two layers of fabric are treated as one during the assembly process. Although additional cutting is required, underlining the garment does not add significantly to the construction process. Since the vast majority of civilian trousers were cleaned rather than laundered, shrinkage of the lining fabric is not an issue.

I can't speak to the commonality of lined military trousers as that's not my area of study.

There will be a presentation on men's trousers at the 2010 Ladies & Gentlemen of the 1860s Conference; a display of extant trousers will accompany the presentation.

Regards,

[sigsaye]

Thanks Ross. As for the lining I was thinking they wouldn't waste good muslin material just for comfort. I was asking particulary about Richmond Depot because thats what our unit would have been issued and I've never seen a Richmond Depot jacket or trousers up close. All I can go by is a few pictures in Echo's of Glory. I'm going to go over to Charlie Childs website and see if he has pictures of his repro Richmond Depot trousers.As far as I have been able to determine there are referances to two pairs of military trousers that were lined. These were both private purchase, sent from home and belonged to offivcers (one US, one CS). If you stop and think it out, there is no reason to think that the military would produce and issue lined trousers. Uniform items were produced by lowest bidder for as cheap as the government can get away with. These uniforms were not really expected to last but a few months. I know there was a chatr that detailed the replacement times of uniforms, but that was written in peace time when every one was in garrisson and their clothing was well taken care of. The US Army Quartermaster General wrote that is they got three months out of a pair of trousers, they had gotten their monies worth out of them. So, for field use, the replacement chart (same chart for both US and CS) was prety much irrelevent.

What is the point of the extra work (that will take longer to produce) and the extra material (that the Confederacy was cronically a bit short of) and the extra expense?

I have done conservation work on a pair of US Navy white trousers which were Non issue, Sailor made of linen. They had a pair of "shorts" built into them. The linen was light weight (very cool), but if you have ever worn light wieght white trousers, you know they are basically "see through". The "shorts" made it possible for the Sailor to wear these trousers in the heat and not have to wear drawers to keep his "gear" covered as it were. These were the only trousers we have seen that had this feature. Again, they were Sailor Made and for Liberty ashore, not issue or modified issue. The shorts were made of a light weight cotton. Muslin does not work well as it does not whick away moisture. My area is Naval garments. We have worked and examined a lot of garments. The Navy also did in fact issue both drawers and undershirts. Naval undergarments were classed in "Light, Medium and Heavy Weight". Basiaclly linen to wool flannel. In reviewing original garments and contracts, the only thing we have found that used muslin was the sleeves of some wartime issue dress blue jackets.

As far as pockets go, Ssailors daily working trousers tended to fe of fly front construction. They tended to have mule ear (no button), but side seam and welt style pockets are found. Fall front trousers seemed to have had either no pockets at all or small welt style pockets set in at the waist band.

Steve Hesson

Steve Hesson

[Slickrick214]

Thanks for the info. I think I can have a pair made that will hopefully look very close to the Richmond Depot issued trousers. Sorry about all the mis-spelling. My regular computers hard drive fried and I had to use a laptop. My fingers are two big for those keys. I had one more question in reference to the Army of Northern Virginia. I want to get rid of my less then accurate mainstream vendor CSA belt for something more accurate. Did the Richmond Depot issue any specific belt to the ANV (fork tongue, CSA) belt or was it up to the men? The two belts I was looking at was the fork tongue belt or the Georgia frame buckle. Is there any record of which belt men in the ANV wore during the war. If you haven't figured it out yet I'm strongly gearing my impression as accurate as possible for an ANV soldier mid war 1863-64. I've updated my uniform to correct Richmond Depot issued trousers and jacket. I've also updated all my leather gear to correct accoutrements issued by the Richmond Depot. All I have left to update is my belt and shoes. Shoes I have covered by Missouri Boots and shoes so all that leaves me with is the correct type of belt.

[Spinster]

This was to protect the material from the boot leather, not so much to keep from itching.

An additional construction feature, seemingly to the same purpose of increasing the wear time of the fashion fabric, is a small strip of thin leather, less than an inch wide and 3-4 inches long, centered at the back leg about an inch above the cuff, roughly where the shoe heel would wear against the trousers.

[reb64]

[QUOTE=m I on the right track here? Also is there any records that Richmond depot lined thier pants and pant legs with muslin? I saw this from a vendor and they said they do it because jean wool gets very itchy. This seems like yet another re-enactorism.[/QUOTE]

Linings are nice but since hidden the point of realism is moot. If the wool is itchy to ya, and fine jean wool isnt, a good pair of long drawers are just the thing.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

In brief and to over-generalize...

The Federals were at a slight fashion "disadvantage" in that their trouser pattern was about a decade old, while the Confederates (circa post 1862ish when the Commutation system ended and the arsenal/depot system started) went with a pattern(s) that were closer to contemporary civilian fashion as reflected in the non stovepipe straight legs and belt closed rather than tied closed back gussett.

Archeological finds as well as Period images show that a number of belt plates and buckles were used by the ANV such as (but entirely limiterd to) the ubiquitious large and small brass frame and forked tongue frame, as well as later roller buckles. Plus, things can also be time specific for at the start one needs to remember that various state supplied units were formed into the ANV, some initially having state issued items.

NUG, lads used what they were issued, and did not have a department store choice between a variety of options (historically correct or not) as some lads do today.

"Linings are nice but since hidden the point of realism is moot."

If US and CS trousers were not NUG lined, historically, why are linings "nice?"

Setting aside varying Mental Pictures, we all can wear modern Tidy Whitey's or Boxers then?

;) :)

Just a-funnin'...

CHS
Blind and Deaf Moot Mess

[GreencoatCross]

It's always been interesting to me, but nearly every original pair of Schuylkill Arsenal trousers (foot and mounted) have had mule-ear pockets. These are all factory original and not later alterations or additions. At least two S.A. trousers I've studied have had side seam pockets though. As for "contract" trousers, I haven't seen as many pairs of these BUT they had a combination of mule ear, side seam, and also horizontal or diagonal slash pockets.

In Don Troiani's collection, for example, there is a pair of contract trousers identified to Sgt. Roland Truesdale of the 27th NY Vol. Infantry. They were made by Conant & Bolles, are all hand-sewn, and feature horizontal slash pockets that appear to have never been expertly made. His NY state jacket and cap accompanies the trousers. This is a good example of work taken on by a contractor who likely sub-contracted to a large workforce. C&B produced hundreds of thousands of trousers during the war, primarily in 1862, but there is no way of telling if every pair of pants had the slash pockets; I like to muse that the person making them used facings intended for side seam pockets and fudged it.

As for machine-sewing being used "predominantly" in contract goods...yes indeed it happened. And the patterning looks to be very similar across the board, particularly later in the war (i.e. J.T. Martin's Oct. 1864 blouses, which every serious collector or museum probably has, and were over-stock when the war ended). However, there is another pair of interesting trousers owned by Troiani that turn the current popular notion of what "contract trousers" are upside-down. Imagine my nerdy Civil War material culture glee when I found the contractor stamp on a pair of totally over-engineered, mule ear pocketed, expertly and totally hand-sewn trousers.

It said "John T. Martin, N. York." Interesting stuff!

[DanWambaugh]

Interestingly enough, Brian and I have also examined a pair of fall front, entirely lined trousers owned and used by a Confederate cavalryman from the fall of 1863 until his death in the late spring of 1864. They showed extensive wear in the seat and based on the staining we can reasonably surmise that the lining in this case was used instead of a separate pair of drawers. These were homemade trousers, likely sent with him when he enlisted.

The assertion could be made that lined trousers would not be found as the product of any depot or CS production, but were instead more likely to be found in home made clothing worn by CS soldiers.


Dan Wambaugh

[Mint Julep]

... based on the staining we can reasonably surmise that the lining in this case was used instead of a separate pair of drawers.


Too much information!

And what if he DID wear drawers? What does that say about him?

sheesh,