Confederate Sack Coat info

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

I own an 1850 circular from a New York firm that was mailed to Ohio, listing "a general assortment of Clothing constantly on hand," including coats, overcoats, pants, vests, shirts, and drawers.

It is clearly meant for remote ordering, not so much a "come visit our store," as the following appears at the top of the page: "For the accomodation of those who may wish to order, we annex a list of the principal articles in our stock; renewing the assurance given in our former circular, that goods will be selected with the utmost care, and at precisely the same prices as though the purchaser was here to select for himself."

However, I'm curious as to whether or not this document may have been more of a wholesale listing to retailers.

[W PA bumpkin]

The reason I'm curious is that it's my understanding the big retail "mail order catalog" era was post-war, and that there really weren't Sears Roebuck-style catalogs pre-1865. When things were sold retail by mail, it was more individual product lines by an individual manufacturer--books or patent medicine or shirts, etc., each separately.
Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

In an attempt to answer your question and explain my misnomer "catalog," I have talked to two pards who have clarfied the mail-order system. You are absolutely correct in that the "catalogs" were a post-war (1880s) phenomenon. Mail-order clothing was offered via circulars and newspaper advertisements prior to, during, and following the War years. I was under the assumption that the circulars were small catalogs offered by the manufacturers or retailers and this is where I WAS WRONG.

Therefore, since it was not my intent to mislead or misinform you in any way and there was an error made on my part, I apologize for the incorrect use of the word "catalog."

Sincerely,

[NJ Sekela]

Sir:

Believe it or not, I believe that we are on the same page. At no time do I ever have disdain for any original garments. [deletion - THP] The Weller overcoat is a fascinating piece.

I am thrilled that things are being made that are not cookie cutter. [deletion - THP - let's not start yet another war in this thread]

The Weller coat was only worn by one regiment in the course of the war. Machine buttonholes are more widely represented than that overcoat. [deletion - THP]

I don't think that you are a career farb, and if anything else, your other postings show an open minded attitude.

I am, &c,

NJ Sekela

[NJ Sekela]

Sir:

Regarding the Confederate Sack coat, it would be moot and pointless to post information that is not in rebuttal to the original coat. I was INDEED trying to engage Mr. Daley in a discussion of the original piece, in hopes that he could provide addition information to clarify the provenance. That has not, and apparently WILL not happen.

Unless someone else has notes and measurements on that garment, there would be no point in posting information.

NJS

[cosgood]

Nick,

Concerning machine sewn buttonholes. There is a pair of A&S contract trousers in the smithsonian, wonder if they have machine sewn buttonholes like the others? It would be interesting to see if maybe this contractor did machine sewn buttonholes on all his garments? I dont have alot of info on the A&S trousers, very little. Does anyone happen to have the info on how many pairs were made? Or has seen the pair in the smithsonian?

Casey

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

From what I understand, between 1863 (the year that William Anspach and M. Hall Stanton started working together) and 1865, they produced 200,500 pairs of foot pattern trousers and 105,000 pairs of mounted pattern. Seems they were also big on greatcoats and jackets.

[tompritchett]

Regarding the Confederate Sack coat, it would be moot and pointless to post information that is not in rebuttal to the original coat.

Personally, while I can see why posting pictures and discussing the construction details might be moot in regards to engaging Mr. Daley in an on-line debate, IMHO, it would not necessarily be pointless as it would 1) enlighten all of us of what to look for in purchasing reproductions of such coats, and 2) might encourage more pictures to be posted for analysis.

While I will respect your decision to refrain from posting this information, I would urge you to reconsider. Thank you.

[tompritchett]

In regards to issues towards the prevalence of such less than standard items such as machine sewn buttonholes and hooded overcoats, I would like to remind everyone that reliance on just surviving artifacts is very limiting because the vast majority of items manufactured back then have not survived. For example, we know that the one Weller overcoat was actually representative of at least enough to outfit a full regiment. Do we have any other data from sales receipts, contracts, or eyewitness accounts that these overcoats may have been sold to other regiments? As far as the 5 trousers with machine sewn buttonholes, were these trousers all from the same manufacturer or are they samples of several different contracts? These are the types of questions and answers that we should be focussing on in this thread rather than how "correct" are they because so and so makes them or says that they are.

The only true source for authencity question is historical research. Yes, we know that these items existed. The questions we should be addressing is just how prevalent these items were based upon the historical data. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that any one person will ever be able to access and study all the applicable documentation that has managed to survive, so this type research will always end up being a collaboration of the work of many separate researchers who have each studied different sets of records and who are willing to share their results with each other in a non-confrontational manner.

[Provost]

Just to make things clear, I will be closing this thread by the weekend. Take time to post your last gasp of information, feel free to post a new thread, but this one has grown WAY too huge.

Provost