uniform

[georgia]

i was curious to know why some people say everything must be perfect for it to be correct. for early war wouldnt it be proper to see ragged cheap uniforms? there is plenty of letters to support that many of the suppliers were very cheap and horribly made. just thought this would be a good thread.

[John1862]

i was curious to know why some people say everything must be perfect for it to be correct. for early war wouldnt it be proper to see ragged cheap uniforms? there is plenty of letters to support that many of the suppliers were very cheap and horribly made. just thought this would be a good thread.

I've got a question on your word choice....do you mean "ragged" as in torn up and ripped? Or as in poorly constructed?

Also, do you have any of said letters, or know where to access them?

It really depends on the exact time of the war, the unit being portrayed, the issuance of new gear prior to an engagement or date...there are many variables.

[tenfed1861]

If you were from a well off militia,you would have had nicely made uniforms.You would have had polished buttons,nice material,fine stitching.If you were of a middle class militia,then I think you would have had the money to buy pre-made uniforms.Heck,battleshirts,matching trousers,and kepis would be a rather in-expensive uniform to do.If you were a poor militia,then civie clothes.It would all have depended on your ablility to maintain clothes.
Cullen

[georgia]

what i mean is when everybody went to enlist the suppliers to the army varied. some were good but some were so cheap that they fell of when marching. and God forbids it rains with those hats that some of them wore.
i have a couple of books supporting this but i was curious to see what everyone thought.

[Jim of the SRR]

georgia,

A real name would be nice to start with.
Even if a uniform in the 1860's was of shoddy quality an dpoor constructions, it still would have been made with correct materials for the period and manufactured with techniques available for the period. It also would have likely been made with a documentable pattern. The problem with substandard reproduction gear is not based so much on quality of manufacture, but how it is made, with what type of materials and the pattern it is based on.

Regards,
Jim Butler

[toptimlrd]

Maybe this will help:

A uniform that is made of wool with a poor quality weave may have existed during the war as a contractor cut corners; but a uniform that is 30% polyester would not. Also there are records of contractors making bootees with cardboard soles, I also would not reccomend making a pair for authenticity purposes. My take is that if we are going to take the time & $$ to make sure the material and methods are correct why would we try to reproduce something that would fall apart on the first march. Authentic maybe but not a wise decision.

Take sack coats for example, there are several descriptions in period writing that describes that the warp was visible (the diagonal weave) but in many of the lower quality coats out there you do not see the weave at all. Also many of the current coats are not dyed anywhere near the correct color of blue.

Unless going for a very specific impression (the Iron Brigade at the Battle of XYZ for example) where there is extremely good documentation as to how they looked and what gear they had, what we should look to is PEC (plain everyday common). In other words, if we can not determine through research what the soldier or civilian we are portraying would have had, we need to know what would have been the most common items for that point in time. You wouldn't have fresh carrots in February so it would not be PEC. Most Federal troops were issued lined dark blue wool sack coats, sky blue wool trousers, Jefferson Boottees, dark blue wool forage hats (bill type was dependent upon the year and geographic area), and black leather accoutrements, a tarred haversack, and a Springfield musket; so all of this would be considered PEC.

We then look to the materials and construction. Is the stitching done properly (yes you can tell just by looking), is the material the correct weight and color, etc. Take a Nick Sekela sack coat, a "sutler row" sack coat, and an original; lay them side by side and you will see why many would spend the extra $$ on a Sekela as it would easily pass for the original where the "sutler row" one would only bear a resemblance. Think of children's halloweeen costumes, the kids resemble whatever person or creature they are trying to be but they still look like kids in costumes (sorry, Ihaven't seen an 8 year old yet who would pass for Bella Lugosi); likewise, if we are using less authentic gear, we are basically wearing costumes that resemble those we are trying to portray but leave quite a bit lacking.

The bottom line is what do you want from the hobby. If you are trying to really put yourself in the mindset of Pvt. Bipple in 1864 then that is what we are discussing. If you are simply wanting to hang out with your buddies for a weekend, do a sham battle, and do some theme camping then that is another thing entirely. Like other hobbies there are different degrees we go to. I also do model railroading including garden railroading. I have friends who have built elaborate layouts with multiple radio controlled trains running fixed schedules that pick up loads, transport, etc on a timetable with ultra detailed equipment and buidings. I have a couple hundred feet of track and enjoy sitting back and just watching my steamers run through the garden. Same hobby but two different perspectives. Likewise, I try to be flexible enough in my impression that I do not try to split hairs with people over their impression. When I go to an event, I make sure I fit the standards inregards to equipment and (most importantly) attitude. I do not go to a mainstream event and whine about farbs and likewise I do not go to a CPH event and whine about too tough standards. I belong to a more progressive mainstream group that strives for authenticity but does not look down on those who do not necessarily have the best gear. We simply work with them and usually without saying a word they upgrade their gear in a fairly reasonable time frame. Amazing what happens when you lead by example, the guy next to you wants to look like the rest of the unit so if the rest of the unit has more authentic gear he will usually step up and improve without haveing to be coached or told "that whatever is farby".

[bill watson]

Nick Sekela has an approach I much admire. He does not replicate an existing authentic garment stitch for stitch, although he does use them to create patterns. He instead replicates the 19th century production process as much as possible. Each garment is produced the same way, but is not identical. He's even found old jackets that have cost-saving piecing embodied in them and, as a professional in the clothing industry himself, he can see where his 19th century counterparts used processes and procedures to get the most done with the least investment in time and materials. So in that sense, they are not "perfect," in that they are not all perfectly identical, but they are all perfectly authentic.
Generally speaking, one of the interesting things about garment production in that era was that the relative cost of manufactured cloth and labor was not what it is today. Today cloth for the modern garment industry is less of a cost for a manufacturer than the labor to assemble garments. While minimizing both costs is always important to a manufacturer, in the 19th century the cost of the manufactured cloth itself was relatively higher compared to the cost of labor. So it is not unusual to see processes in place where those assembling garments would spend more time than we'd expect to see today in piecing out components and making use of every usable scrap of fabric.
With any luck Nick will be along directly to provide some real expertise. I'm just painting with a roller.

[bob 125th nysvi]

Also many of the current coats are not dyed anywhere near the correct color of blue.

There is no such thing as the "correct color of blue". There would have been variations depending on die lot and manufacturer. They all would have been approximately the same color but not exactly.

Up until very recently it was almost impossible for manufacturers to match the exact color on each and every item. You would see two orders of 'black' suits coming from the same manufacturer on the same truck and when you put them side by side you could see color variations. Sometimes significant variations.

Computer assisted manufacturing has cut down on the problem but until very modern times (say through the 1980s) exact color matching was almost impossible.

Also the Union Army relied on verbal descriptions of what they needed to buy. So the "proper" color blue was left open to interpetation of the manufacturer.

They all tried to get close but I think if you lined up all the original uniforms still in existance you'd be surprised at how wide the range of shades that were accepted actually was.

So close, during the CW, was not only good enough it was the norm.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

[tompritchett]

They all tried to get close but I think if you lined up all the original uniforms still in existance you'd be surprised at how wide the range of shades that were accepted actually was.

And then let's not forget how the different dyes faded in the presence of sunlight, especially those used in the South versus the imported cloth from England.

[Phil]

I believe the "correct color of blue" comment was directed at those reproduction garments whose fabric color falls outside of the variations seen on original garments. No, there is no one single "correct color" but there is also not an infinite variation, either. So, there's no excusing some bizarre colored coat by tossing out the argument that "they had all kinds of colors during the War."

Yes, fading is seen with quite a few dyes used by the Confederacy, and on early War and private purchase goods worn by US soldiers that got around the inspectors. By and large, you will notice that indigo dye doesn't fade much in the sun and over time.

[tompritchett]

By and large, you will notice that indigo dye doesn't fade much in the sun and over time.

I was thinking more of the Confederate uniforms where the cloth was dyed in the South rather than England. My first uniform was originally a matching jacket and pants both made, I was told, with Child's cloth but of different lots. In both cases the dyes were supposedly period-correct and initially the butternut colors matched fairly closely. Over the years the jacket has faded only slightly while the pants have been bleached by the sun to almost a dirty white. While I agree with you that difference in dye lots does not excuse all sorts of odd-ball colors, it could easily have resulted in Confederate butternut uniforms that showed significantly different levels of fading between the jackets and pants.

[georgia]

thanks guys. what i wanted to do is make some with my only pesonnel time and bring them to living histrys for the public to see. say like i have these items well then i can show the public an item that was copied almost exactly to an original and try to get them the understandis of this.

[bob 125th nysvi]

By and large, you will notice that indigo dye doesn't fade much in the sun and over time.

Again I need to stress that "indigo" was not one specific color in the sense that we use color designations today. There was a significant range of "indigo" that all fell into a dark blue range.

And again the quality of the materials used (both cloth and dye) would have affected the colors fade resistance.

What we see preserved today is mostly high quality uniforms, the poor quality ones either broke up under the stress of usag or molded away in the attic in a short time period.

I am in no way avocating calling a lightblue coat the right color but a wide range of dark blue would have been seen and a range of fading would have occurred.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

[Phil]

By "indigo", I meant the source of the dye used for uniforms produced for Federal service, not the color. After some contractors took advantage of the US need for blue uniforms early in the War by supplying low quality cloth and cheaper dyes (often logwood, which does fade), government inspectors soon put a stop to this. Even over time, useage and sun exposure, indigo is quite fade-resistant.

Yes, there is a wide range of what passed inspection as light and dark blue. What I originally said, and still stick to, is that this range is not infinite. There is not one correct color or shade of blue, but there is a correct range.

[Guy Gane III]

Basically put... buy something good so that you dont have to replace it later. If you are going for the shoddy-issue look, great, but it'll look stupid unless you can get a few other pards wearing the same thing.

Also, as mentioned before in regards to dye lots of Fed sack coats, it goes from 'indigo' dye to dark, dark blue (just not 'navy' like those poly-poser coats). Another topic beaten more than eggs.

[Mint Julep]

i was curious to know why some people say everything must be perfect for it to be correct. for early war wouldnt it be proper to see ragged cheap uniforms? there is plenty of letters to support that many of the suppliers were very cheap and horribly made. just thought this would be a good thread.

Let me ask you something in return. Who says something has to be "perfect"? I don't think anyone is misguided enough, even amongst the mythical hardcore set, to think anyone will get it "perfect". Maybe you aren't hearing the message correctly. Maybe the message is that the uniform should be sewn with a period pattern vs a modern pattern, or with proper construction, i.e., handsewn where appropriate vs machine sewn, or even of a better quality fabric, i.e., a 5-7 oz. flannel vs blanket-weight wool.

That is probably the message. A "correct" uniform should meet some minimum standards that are based on historical garments and research, as opposed to buying whatever the closest sutler has hanging on his/her rack.

Buying a cheap, crappy sack coat from Sutlers 'r' Us is not the equivalent to an original shoddy product made by the low bidder on a government contract.

Also, remember, most soldiers were accustomed to clothing made at home or purchased from tailors or ready made clothing stores that were generally of superior quality to the issue uniform they received from the army. They complained because they thought it was poor work.

Justifying your purchase of a poor reproduction garment by rationalizing a comparison to written complaints is a bad path to walk. Compare that reproduction to an original and you'll wonder why you ever thought it was "correct" in the first place.

MJ

[bill watson]

... I hadn't understood Georgia to be looking to justify modern substandard stuff. If you look at his last post, he's talking about producing some stuff for spectators to see that maybe represents some of the range of quality out there. A darned daunting task, but not the same as trying to justify "the wrong stuff."

[Mint Julep]

If you would read the whole post and not the last paragraph, you might grasp that I was addressing the "perfect" vs "correct" misstatement, which then tangently ran to addressing the "poorly made" vs "poorly purchased" thought.

My mistake for posting my thoughts on the subject without clearing them through the House of Bill(s). But, unless you put the poor soul up to making the post, how do you know what his underlying thoughts and purposes were to creating the post? I was simply closing a loophole.

mea culpa,

MJ

[Jim of the SRR]

I have a quality reporduction, Confederate frock coat made by Don Roder. Since the original is a civilian made coat, it had some errors in its original construction (the skirt was ttached slightly incorrect, the sleev has a patched in piece of material, etc). Don made the coat with these imperfections. However, I still get reenactors who come up and say, "Who put that skirt on that coat...it is wrong." I usually reply with a first person comment like, "My wife made the coat before I left home."...(this doesn't always work). I am pleased with coat as it is made with the correct materials and copied from the way the original was constructed.

Regards,
Jim Butler