CD Jarnigan 1864 Double Bag Knapsack (Late War Version)

[WoodenNutmeg]

Let me begin by saying that I've been a CD Jarnigan advocate for years.

Whether it's Federal or Confederate, they've got you covered; that's my opinion, anyway.

With that said (and it's relevant), I recently picked up a well used Jarnigan late war version knapsack from a Federal reenactor in the United Kingdom. Of course, the premise of used gear is always far more superior than that of new (if even just for the price sake), but after buying the item I got to thinking.

http://www.jarnaginco.com/artwork/catalog/Haver_Knapsacks/311frontlighter.jpg

http://www.jarnaginco.com/artwork/catalog/Haver_Knapsacks/311backlighter.jpg

Now, I've had the same Jarnigan single bag knapsack for nearly ten years and have loved it. But, as time moves on, so must supplies, so I bought the aforementioned as a replacement.

So, here's where I got to thinking...if it's been ten years since I bought my old pack, surely, over the long years, there must be the possibility of a better manufactured item out there among all the new sutlers.

Then I got to thinking...so much for brand loyalty, huh?

Ha.

So, can anyone out there vouch for Jarnigan as a mainstay, or, maybe even turn me on to a more recently superior knapsack maker?

[Silas]

This is a very thinly disguised, "who makes the best ..." post. You might want to check out the vendor list on the a/c forum and commence your own research from there. However, being spoonfed is much easier. Unfortunately, you won't be able to tell whether the spoonfeeder is providing advice from the low end or high end of the reenacting specturm.

Silas Tackitt,
a real boo-bird of late

[WoodenNutmeg]

"This is a very thinly disguised, 'Who makes the best...' post."

Far from it...it's obviously an opinion post, which I believe is the purpose of any forum.

"Unfortunately, you won't be able to tell whether the spoon feeder is providing advice from the low end or high end of the reenacting spectrum."

While this is true, I guess this is where my own personal detective work would come in handy...after I conduct the interviews.

[flattop32355]

More than one vendor makes a good knapsack. Vendor loyalty, experience, and advice from trusted comrades all play a part in what one eventually buys. Some people swear at the same item that others swear by. There's no way to get a consensus of opinion on this, or most anything in this hobby.

[WoodenNutmeg]

Maybe I'm being to vague, here.

Though your point is valid, my main objective was, and still remains, quite simple...

This topic post is a basic inquiry into the opinions of some of the board members on what they, personally (based on what they used/have used), feel is an authentic and well-held item in the way of knapsacks.

That's all, no strings attached.

[Swag]

Well all I can tell you is I have a Missouri Boot and Shoe double bag early war fed knapsack and I love it, the quality the accuracy its just top notch.

[TimKindred]

Hello,

Well, the teram "late war" and "early war" are actually misnomers. Primarily, it was thought that the ise of covered buttons and/or scalloped edges on the knapsack strap assemblies indicated a time period of manufacture.

Research by Bob Serio, however, seems to indicate that both types were available throughout the war. It was simply minor differences in construction by contractors, as in the case of the "type-1 Vs Type-2" forage caps. Both styles were available throught the war. Both styles simply reflect different interpretations of the contract requirements by the contracting agent.

My advice to you is to examine the quartermaster's specifications for the item, examine some actual knapsacks, and then ask questions from the various makers about their knpasacks. Compare the answers from the makers to the results of your research and you will have your answer.

Respects,

[WoodenNutmeg]

Thanks, Swag !

I never would have thought to check out Missouri Boot and Shoe for a double pack...it's gorgeous!

From the images, the context looks identical to an old Connecticut 1863 artifact I use to poses!

Brilliant, a million thanks!

[Swag]

Any time buddy, enjoy its well worth the money!

[WoodenNutmeg]

Thanks, TimKindred!

Ah, valuable insight...

"Well, the term "late war" and "early war" are actually misnomers. Primarily, it was thought that the ise of covered buttons and/or scalloped edges on the knapsack strap assemblies indicated a time period of manufacture. Research by Bob Serio, however, seems to indicate that both types were available throughout the war. It was simply minor differences in construction by contractors[...]"

I knew this to be true of some kepis and forage caps, but I did not know this to be true of packs as well.

Thanks a bunch...was just the info I was looking for.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

As with almost any vendor, Jarnagin's quality (i.e., how well their repros compare to origianls) varies with the vintage of the repro. A brief story:

My Jarnagin-made double-bag Federal knapsack was purchased in 1993 and, in about 2001 when I directly compared it against a number of originals, I was pleasantly surprised to see how well it compared, except that the leather and canvas were much heavier than the originals. All things considered, it was a pretty good repro as I saw it.

My comrade's 1998-vintage Jarnagin Federal double-bag knapsack was compared against the very same originals as mine, at the same time. It was, at least so it appeared to the three of us doing the comparing, a totally different product from mine. This one did not compare very well with the originals we were viewing.

Makers of repros may stay the same, but not all repros are alike from one year to the next. One needs, at times, to know a bit of the history of the repro-maker to be well-informed; alternatively, just compare all repros no matter who makes 'em to the originals. As I view it, that's the best yardstick of all.

[Suppelsa]

ldhaning.com

Chris Suppelsa

[WoodenNutmeg]

Kevin, I agree 110% with your points and your comments on possible Jarnigan variation is of both interest and appreciated information!

[WoodenNutmeg]

Thanks for the link, Suppelsa!

[Willow Branch]

Moderator, please move to appropriate forum if you feel necessary.

I've held off buying a knapsack. This topic allows me to seek an answer to a knapsack issue that has been on my mind for quite some time.

Given that we seek to portray Civil War soldiers as accurately as possible, should knapsacks be "rescaled" to the modern body? Given our size, are we misrepresenting the look of a soldier with a knapsack? Is it accurate to use a knapsack that was worn by soldiers that on average were several inches shorter, smaller in the chest and waist, and usually a few pounds lighter than us modern reenactors?

Our shell jackets and trousers are "modern" sized, should knapsacks be more to scale?

Just a thought that has been in the back of my mind for some time. Your opinions?

[Frenchie]

I'm 5' 7", 155 lbs, 40" chest, 34" waist. I suspect I have no problem looking "right" with a knapsack that's sized like an original. My problem is getting properly-sized uniforms. I'm waiting on two Navy frocks and an Army frock coat that are all being made especially for scrawny little me, while items sized for men with larger girths are filling the racks. This seems to be a problem in men's clothing all over; I have a pair of modern blue jeans marked 34 waist, bought off the rack and washed in hot water to shrink them, that I can put on and off without undoing the waist band button.

I'm bemused by the fact that if this were 1861, I'd be wearing GI clothing marked size 3, and there were only four standard sizes. :shock:

[Willow Branch]

Thanks for your reply Frenchie!

[Silas]

Given that we seek to portray Civil War soldiers as accurately as possible, should knapsacks be "rescaled" to the modern body? Given our size, are we misrepresenting the look of a soldier with a knapsack? Is it accurate to use a knapsack that was worn by soldiers that on average were several inches shorter, smaller in the chest and waist, and usually a few pounds lighter than us modern reenactors?
A knapsack isn't a prop. It's a handy way to carry your other gear and necessaries. Carry a full knapsack ten miles. See if you would like it larger.

My bag can carry more than I need for a weekend. I sure don't want it larger than it already is.

Silas Tackitt
"Much can be carried in a big black car, but little can be carried on a man's back far."

[cblodg]

A knapsack isn't a prop. It's a handy way to carry your other gear and necessaries. Carry a full knapsack ten miles. See if you would like it larger.

My bag can carry more than I need for a weekend. I sure don't want it larger than it already is.

Silas Tackitt
"Much can be carried in a big black car, but little can be carried on a man's back far."

Silas, I couldn't agree more. Though all our knapsacks can, and am sure at some point have, carried more than we need; we all learn very quickly that on the march the extra baggage just isn't worth it.

I would swear that sometimes my knapsack seems much smaller than most of my pards, but that is fine with me. The less "comforts" I carry, the closer I feel towards these men. Yes I know they carried comforst with them as well but some of us go overboard.

[WoodenNutmeg]

I'm really not sure what the size debate is all about regarding gear, to be quite honest.

I've heard this issue raised before and cannot for the life of me see what all the fuss is about.

The average height of a soldier during the Civil War was 5' 8' and their weight was 145 lbs.

Personally, I am roughly 6' 0' and 165 lbs.

It's my opinion that those averages haven't changed much over the last 140 years.

Well, that is, if you're able to overlook certain obesity issues that plague our society (Lord knows there wasn't as much junk to chow down on back then; no McDonald's for lunch).

NOTE: The current average American male height is now 5 ft 9.25 in (2005 U.S. Census Bureau statistics)

[Dkjarnagin]

“Well, the teram "late war" and "early war" are actually misnomers. Primarily, it was thought that the ise of covered buttons and/or scalloped edges on the knapsack strap assemblies indicated a time period of manufacture.”

Tim,

The reason I use the term late war is to make clear that the ones we make do bear inspectors marks; and if inspector’s marks are present than the item was made after July 4, 1864. Most of these style knapsacks that I have seen have inspector’s marks. This does not mean that there were not some made earlier than that date and I have owned one that bore a February 1864 contract date, but no inspector’s mark and that would be correct. When that actual change in construction of knapsacks changed is unknown.

This is one of the cases where our catalog is being used as a research tool instead of a catalog. There are areas that are research areas on the website but they are not found on the pages listing products.



“My comrade's 1998-vintage Jarnagin Federal double-bag knapsack was compared against the very same originals as mine, at the same time. It was, at least so it appeared to the three of us doing the comparing, a totally different product from mine. This one did not compare very well with the originals we were viewing.”

Kevin,

I have owed 15 or more original knapsacks through the years. Most of them have been sold to acquire other items of interest. We change styles from time to time because frankly it gets boring to make the same thing time after time. We make a variety of styles all based on original patterns we have owned and documented.

We change styles on a lot of our leather gear just to change things up so it does not get too boring. We do not make any style for which we do not have or have had an original to document.

Please also keep in mind that modern raw materials are very different. We use materials that are as close as possible but sometimes you are stuck with what you can get on the open market. This is a very narrow market and there are just not sources or money to develop sources to get materials exactly as original.


One of my main interest on the knapsacks are the overcoat straps. These are the rarest of all US leather items and from my point of view most over looked piece in the collecting field. I can count on two hands of all the original known sets of these straps that I have been able to track down. It anyone has an original set or knows where they can be documented I would love to know about them.

I have a new russet article coming out in this issue of the North/South Trader. I hope you all find it interesting. I have been working really hard to introduce period correct terminology concerning leather goods.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Dave,

I understand about the materials available; further, there's some admittedly very understandable reluctance of purchasers to want a product that's "so authentic" as to "authentically fall apart just like the originals did". I prefer "accurate" repros and personally am unwilling to buy a high-wear item that's authentically-constructed shoddy goods.

Regarding my comrade's 1998 knapsack, I'd certainly doubt that we were compared it to the same or even similar originals that were used as the basis for the repro. I was hoping to convey that, but may not have done so very well. Admittedly, there's probably several features of knapsacks of the era that are semi-common from one set of originals to the next; maybe not identical, but common.

I'll say this: Your firm is often "picked on" by some reenactors. Personally, I believe that there's quite a number of your wares that range from good to very good quality for reenactors, and included Jarnagin Co. as a vendor for a number of items on the Columbia Rifles' initial vendor lists (which are now relatiively outdated. :) ).

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"Our shell jackets and trousers are "modern" sized, should knapsacks be more to scale?"

IMHO, it depends upon one's Mental Picture.
Army sizes came in just three sizes: too big, too small, and just plain wrong. ;-)
And that tends to divide folks into choosing between three basic groupings:

1. Those that wear the closest period sizes of Size 1-4 to their actual size in the Civil War issuance concept of issuances NOT being made as to a lad's size and having to be traded, altered, or just worn as-is.

or

2. Folks who do not "fit" (no pun intended) into the Size 1-4 system and opt for the Special Clothing Bureau type special order Size 5-8 (or smaller or larger) so that they have uniform items that "fit."

or rarely

3. Folks who purposely wear a size smaller or larger than their true size so to portray the frumpy or too-small look of being unable to trade, alter, and just fo about wearing as-is.

Gear and accoutrements tended to come in Quartermaster regulated "specs" such as the length of a waistbelt, canteen strap, or shoulder belt for a cartridge belt.
While they had some "adjustments," the range of original say "belts" often is too small for some lads. IMHO, that can, in some Quarters, open a discussion or debate as to whether it is okay for a 6' 5" lad to length the shoulder belt of his cartridge box, but not okay for a lad with a 50 inch waist to get a longer wasitbelt?

IMHO, lads rightfully make personal choices as to what works for them and their Mental Pictures of what they see themselves doing and where they see themselves fitting in.

My personal choice has changed and evolved over the years to just dealing with "Period" sizes.
But, IMHO, that is an easier choice as I am a Civil War "large" size at Size 4 jacket and Size 2 trousers (5' 10," 170 pounds, 42 inch chest, and 34 waist ) as compared to a pard at 6' 3," and a 6' 5" inch pard with a 6' 8" and a 6' 9" son who would wear a cartridge box in their arm pit...
(But sometimes I wear a Size 5 jacket and Size 3 trousers to be "frumpy-looking.")

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

I believe Bob Serio used to offer "longer" straps as an option for his knapsacks to help out the more Modern sized lads...

[Dkjarnagin]

Kevin,

I fully understand about the shoddy goods. Even though they are correct I would not want to pay my money for them. Sometimes things have to be made out of better materials than the originals or they would fall apart just like the originals. The one that still is discussed once in a while is leather weights (thickness). Since the goal of tanning has changed between the modern pit tanned leather and period you just can not go as thin as they did and make it hold up. Do not get me wrong here you do not need to go to weights close to sole leather but generally an ounce or two will allow the same strength as original leather. (For those who do not know what I am referring to about leather weights please follow this link. http://www.jarnaginco.com/cmharticle.pdf ) The trick here is it must be pit tanned in the first place and there are still very good sources of this type of leather on the market.

I only step in where information is either wrong or miss-interpreted, so not to destroy the free flow of opinions. Mostly it all goes back to the debate of who make the better XYZ and opinions will vary and that is what makes a free market work.

Thank you for your comments on our goods.

We also make knapsack with longer straps upon request. I have made some long slings for some tall or large customers in the past the longest Cartridge box belt was 82”. The longest NCO belt was 70” long.

Kevin contact me off line if you would there is one more thing I would like to talk to you about.