What makes an authentic sack coat "authentic?"

[jerryeberg]

I have an inauthentic sack coat and (when I get the money) would like to buy an accurate one. But I want to make sure that the one I get is actually authentic and not an over-priced piece of junk. So, what is different between an authentic sack coat (or original sack coat) and a sutler row one?

[7thNJcoA]

my sack coat was all hand made using period design and materials.. no part of your coat should be machined unless by a period machine even then most campaigners have all hand sewn coats you can tell the diffrence when you put a sutler row coat next to a authentic repro and open it and examine the stiching you can just see the better craftsmanship not to mention a sutler row coat will fall apart in a few years our capt has had his jnior officers sack for 12 years and also when sutler row coats fade you look like barney in the ranks because some new sutlers dont know how to properly dye the fabric

[jerryeberg]

my sack coat was all hand made using period design and materials..

All right, but what are the period design and materials? When I go and look at a new coat, how can I tell that it's accurate (other than just taking the sutler's word :D )?

[TimKindred]

Comrade,

I would respectfully suggest you start at John Wdeward's home page and go from there. John, plus Chris Daley, Nic Sekela, and severla others make excellent coats.

http://www2.inxpress.net/jwedeward/

John has some good background on fatigue blouses (sack coats) and has pics of both proper repros and originals for comparison.

Respects,

[Willow Branch]

The quality of the reproduction is in the eyes of the beholder, or the owner. My advice is to buy the best you can afford but remember the law of diminishing returns.

[flattop32355]

I have an inauthentic sack coat and (when I get the money) would like to buy an accurate one. But I want to make sure that the one I get is actually authentic and not an over-priced piece of junk. So, what is different between an authentic sack coat (or original sack coat) and a sutler row one?

The short, flippant answer is that all the authentic ones were worn by actual civil war soldiers.

Now, if you mean "authentic" as in an accurate reproduction, the basic requirements would be that it be made of the same or similar type wool, of the proper color (there was variation), of the proper weave, cut in the same patterns, assembled in the same manner (including those divisive hand-sewn button holes), and probably some other things I'm not educated on enough to know to mention.

That said, the most likely place to get such a garment is from a Vendor of High Repute. There are a number of them, but not everyone agrees upon who they are, as each has his proponents and detractors.

Another alternative is to find a Vendor of Mild Repute who happens to do sack coats really well, but has a possibly lower cost. These are hard to find, as not everyone knows who they are. There are also many who are Vendors of Low Repute who state that they are, in fact, of High Repute. Guess who gets to figure out who is who?

Some relatively unknown vendors are very good, they just don't market widely or don't want to get overwhelmed with orders they can't meet. Others are mediocre at best.

Your best bet is to find someone who knows a variety of good makers, or learn how to spot them yourself. Good luck. I'm still trying to figure out what welt and warp mean. Fortunately, I have in my unit a fellow who took it upon himself to learn how to make such garments very well; the proof being that his wears get compliments from people who know what to look for.

[toptimlrd]

The first thing is look at some originals, there should be some museums within reasonable distance you could get to. If nothing else, pick up a copy of "Echoes of Glory, Arms and Equipment of the Union Army" and look at some of the photos in there of originals. Compare the reproduction to that original, is the fabric the same weight? Is the warp and weft the same? Is the dye a modern dye or a period dye? What about the way the coat is cut, does it wear the same as the originals, does it have the same drape and shillouette? Is the construction method period? Are the dimensions correct? Look at the details such as the cuff vent, the collar, the button spacing, etc. What about the lining? Is it lined? If so is the lining the proper material? If unlined are the seams properly felled? When yu ask a sutler about their coat ask them specifically what coat they used as a pattern (many will say it's a generic pattern or contractor pattern which should be your first red flag). Most authentic coats can be traced to a particular original (i.e. a J.T. Martin contract, Gale contract, an S.A. pattern, etc.). In fact if you go to www.njsekela.com and click on the description of the JT Martin sack coat there is a brief description of what sets it apart from other reproductions as it compares to the original. The bottom line is to research it though and never accept the word of the sutler, even me. Once you do the research you can then ask the right types of questions of the vendor and make an educated purchase.

Many of the sutler row jobs meet few if any of these criteria. Most of them are made from much to heavy a wool (you can't see the warp at all in most of them), the dye is a modern navy blue which often fades to a puple hue, the stitching is done on modern sewing machines (yes there were some machine sewn buttonholes in the period but it was rare and looks completely different from modern buttonholes), the cut is more of a modern cut, many of the details are overlooked or done poorly, etc.

[bob 125th nysvi]

help cut through the nonsense.

It depends on your impression but for a federal AoP soldier

Like all sackcoats were hand sewn. Nonsense, all SA sackcoats were hand sewn but the major contractors used machines to sew everything but the button holes. And they provided MILLIONS of sackcoats.

Lined coats out numbered unlined coats about two to one.

The flannel making up the coat should be see through if held up to a light source. Obviously no modern fabrics.

It shouldn't be tailored to fit you exactly. Coats were delivered in a number of standard sizes and if you got one that fit right you were probably lucky.

The manufacturer should cite what he is copying (like a JT Martin coat)

[toptimlrd]

Thanks Bob, the CRRC II is absolutely a great place to start. I sell it and can't believe I didn't think about it.

[7thNJcoA]

I love Nick Sekela products. I have alot of his repros and they are top of the line my knapsack is awesome and one of the older CS STORM versions Im not sure if he makes that anymore. I have a infantry frock and a Marine full dress frock from him as well! He takes a lil time to produce his items but how can you rush perfection I hope to visit his agents every time I hear they are going to an even near by!

[coastaltrash]

my sack coat was all hand made using period design and materials.. no part of your coat should be machined unless by a period machine even then most campaigners have all hand sewn coats you can tell the diffrence when you put a sutler row coat next to a authentic repro and open it and examine the stiching you can just see the better craftsmanship not to mention a sutler row coat will fall apart in a few years our capt has had his jnior officers sack for 12 years and also when sutler row coats fade you look like barney in the ranks because some new sutlers dont know how to properly dye the fabric

Hey Drew,
Actually most sack coats were machine sewn except for the buttonholes and various other small details. There are surviving coats that are specific to certain depots that are all hand sewn, but the vast amount of surviving originals have extensive machine sewing.

Pat Landrum

[bob 125th nysvi]

Thanks Bob, the CRRC II is absolutely a great place to start. I sell it and can't believe I didn't think about it.

I preordered mine and it already looks like it's been on and off the bookshelf for years. A great reference.

And as a complete aside I am very happy with the NJ hat I got from you, a nice business transaction (hint to those who'd like to business with Robert).

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Warp and weft...

In weaving, the warp thread/yarn are those that run end to end or "longways."
The weft is the thread/yarn that gets woven side-by-side through the warp.

For some, ideally... what makes an item "so-called" authentic is how it compares to the original item in terms of a "balance" between:

1. Period raw materials
2. Period patterns, forms, or models
3. Period methods or techniques of construction or manufacture

weighed on a Sliding Scale of Imperfection as to how many of the above three
our Mental Pictures of what we see ourselves doing and where we see ourselves fitting in require, how many of the three do we have to have in part or full, and how many modern sources reproduce them at what cost.

Beyond that, we rightfully pick and choose what works for us and/or our comrades.

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[jerryeberg]

It shouldn't be tailored to fit you exactly. Coats were delivered in a number of standard sizes and if you got one that fit right you were probably lucky.



Yea, I heard that there were standard sizes like that. Do you know the standard sizes in relation to modern suit sizes?

[bob 125th nysvi]

Yea, I heard that there were standard sizes like that. Do you know the standard sizes in relation to modern suit sizes?

The sizes were #1 = 36, #2 = 38, #3 = 40, #4 = 42. And there were a limited number of 5, 6, 7 sizes, Figure #7 being in the 48-50 range.

But again these were "general" dimensions and actual coats could vary some in all their dimensions (lets say a #1 might actually be a 35 or 37) so when ordering by CW size you might want to go up a size. That will ensure fit and give you the 'baggy' look seen in some many photos.

The problem is not so much in the breast but in the back and sleeve length.

So for example a #2 was delivered with a 33" sleeve and a 30.5" back length. So unless you're a 33" sleeve you either have to roll up or go short. If you're tall the coat could look short. Again these dimensions could vary by lot.

So for example I'm large tall and long armed (36"). So I got the size #6 coat but the arms are short on me.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

The guy who started this thread just wants a quick list of how "better" repros differ from the "usual repros", to wit:

* Better repros (BR) are made, like originals, from "lighterweight" wool flannel,which is "thinner" and more mallable than the heavyweight kersey material of the "usual repros" (UR). This is among the most easily-noticable differences between BRs/originals and URs. Some URs ave made of some type of cloth that, with wear, tends to exhibit a "fuzzy" appearance that is totally out of synch with originals.

* Cloth in the BRs is often a slightly lighter shade of blue than are many URs; this reflects something closer to the indigo dyes used in the Civil War. Many URs are dark blue and navy blue. The color of the originals varied by dye lot. The cloth on originals and BRs fades much slower than do many URs (it's this tendency of URs to fade to grayish or purplish that lends credence to the storied "bad Barney-the-dinosaur sack coats").

* Many of the BRs are, like about two-thirds of the originals issued in the war, lined in the body with a material that can range from flannel to jeancloth. The lining is usually fairly lightweight. Most of the URs are not lined--perhaps because A) It costs more, and B) It would make an already-hot jacket of kersey even hotter. Oddly enough, the lined BRs are not overaly hot in the summer, and are certainly warmer in the cooler months. Many makers of BRs also offer unlined sack coats; these are per originals, and tend to cost more than unlined ones because the seams in the body are exposed, and thus require more work to make them "authentic" because they're visible.

* Many URs have "large" eagle buttons. BRs and orignals have medium-sized eagle buttons.

* Many URs have oversized collars. BRs and the originals have smaller (narrower) collars.

Please heed the advice above of those who suggest reading up on the many readily-available online resources about sack coats.

[Pvt Schnapps]

About sizes, Chris Daley has posted an excerpt from the QM manual giving the complete dimensions: http://www.cjdaley.com/issuesizes.htm

He has some other original source info that's well worth glancing at.

The starting point for most of the research on the Federal sack coat or fatigue blouse seems to be the wonderful 1995 article in the journal of the Company of Military Historians. I purchased a back issue just for that piece, and it was a steal at about $2. Go to their website and take a look -- it's worth your time.

Generally, I agree with what has been said above. While probably no two surviving sack coats are exactly alike, they tend to have certain characteristics in common -- especially light weight wool flannel and a cut that, while it varied a bit, was much more to the 19th century taste than our own (including narrower shoulders and collars). Hand-sewn buttonholes are practically if not totally universal, and machine sewing elsewhere is probably more common than not.

One thing that I now hesitate about, though, is the universal condemnation of garments that fade to a grayish or purplish color. Most of the statements about this seem to derive from that Company of Military Historians article (by Paul McKee in Vol. XVII, No. 2): "Of the original, wartime sack coats surveyed, there was considerable variation in the color and weave... [but] None of the garments were of the dark navy-blue shade, but were of a deep and rich blue with a very slight greenish cast common to indigo dying. Several coats ... exhibited a lighter shade bordering on a medium blue."

Very similar language appears in the CRRC, probably based on McKee.

But then I came across this quote in "Red-Tape and Pigeon-Hole Generals" (p. 65):

"The first speaker had doffed the gown of the student in his senior year, greatly against the wishes of parents... One would scarcely have recognized in the rough sunburned countenance, surmounted by a closely fitting cap, once blue but now almost red, and not from the blood of any battle-field -- in the course [sic] slovenly worn blue blouse pantaloons, unevenly suspended, and wide unblacked army shoes, the well dressed, graceful, accomplished student..."

A couple of things are interesting about this quote. It was written in war-time (the book was published in 1864). The regiment described was of 9 month volunteers (so the fading had occurred in a matter of months), and the line about the cap (of the same color orginally as the blouse) is something of a throwaway -- it shows that the author thinks it natural that indigo would fade, and fade to a reddish hue.

I haven't found another quote just like this. I'll continue to keep my eyes open, but in the meantime I've found a few other interesting things. G. A. Sala of the London Times provides a contemporary description of the Federal overcoat as "blue-grey serge", which indicates a different look from the rich, almost medium blue of new overcoats from quality vendors.

Also, if you have the Northern version of Echoes of Glory, look at the trousers of Lt. George Young on page 103. Even allowing for color changes due to the printing process, these look awfully red, especially lower down where they would not have been covered by his frock coat.

Searches on "indigo dye" uncover a number of facts about indigo, including varying species of plants used for dye-stuffs, and varying ratios of blue to red pigments in different lots of the same species. (Try Googling "red indigo" or "indirubin.") The "greenish cast" is there, too, but is sometimes mentioned as indicative of woad rather than indigo, which raises other questions.

So based on everything I've read so far, I've begun to think that the "Barney Coat" we've all learned to despise because of its Indian or Pakistani origin, may in fact gain its color because of the use of natural dyes -- perhaps poorly applied, but that wouldn't be unusual for wartime manufacture (elsewhere someone has quoted a mention of blouses issued to a 3 month outfit in '61 that turned brown because the contractor had used logwood!). Those subcontinental imports are generally terrible for other reasons, such as fabric weight and cut, but perhaps ought not be condemned for their color. After all, none of us have actually seen a war-time sack coat during the actual war, so it might be best to keep an open mind.

Here's one more cite for you. It's from Harper's April 1865 issue (Vol. 30, Issue 179), "Recollections of General Sherman":

"It is doubtful if at this time any one can be found, except the General's tailor, who can tell when his coat was new. He appears to have an aversion to new clothes, and has never been seen in complete suit or heard in creaking boots. It may be said that he never conforms to the regulations in respect to the color of his suit; for the uniform he generally wears has lost its original color, and is of that dusty and rusty tinge, and with that lack of gloss which follows constant use. One would readily imagine, judging by its appearance, that he purchased his uniform second-hand.."

I sort of hesitate to put these thoughts out here, for fear of appearing totally off base, but I think it's worth re-examining the issue of a grayish or reddish cast to faded Federal garments.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

While it's hardly conclusive evidence, I've seen a few original enlisted sack coats, and several officer sack coats (which are, admittedly, broadcloth and not flannel) and none of them appeared to have been faded. Of course, many originals were late-war issues and may not have seen really hard campaigning...

I'd probably agree if someone said that there's little definitive evidence of originals fading the way the usual repros do.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"There's little definitive evidence of originals fading the way the usual repros do." ;-) :-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Phil]

Is there any surviving textile from the mid-19th Century dyed with the same indigo dyeing process used in America that exhibits a light purple hue? I've seen indigo fade to green, but not anywhere near purple.

[jademonkey]

An excellent resource (if you can find it) is Pat Brown's "For Fatigue Purposes". This text traces the history of the federal fatigue blouse (sack coat). Check this out and scour museum collections with originally blouses and you'll be able to tell a good repro from a bad one in no time. Good luck,

[hanktrent]

Here's a good article also, with a nice chart in the middle comparing attributes of different types of sack coats:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/lazyjacks/jtmartin.htm

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net