Hand sewn vs. Machine

[MillerTime]

I tried to look it up but still no luck. I have been wondering for awhile what soldiers preffered. A hand sewn garment or machine? Did they have a special preference because one would last longer? I tried to read letters but no luck.
Any help greatly appreciated.

[flattop32355]

I doubt they gave it much thought. They wore what they were issued or could get from home. If it held up, it probably didn't matter how it was sewn.

[C.R. Henderson]

I doubt they gave it much thought. They wore what they were issued or could get from home. If it held up, it probably didn't matter how it was sewn.

On that note, they didn't have a choice whether it held up on its own- just the choice to write home and request a new garment, have the QM request another from the QM stores/ depots, or learn how to fix the garment with what they had, themselves, and wait on a reissue.

[MillerTime]

Thats what I thought. I believed they would appreciate something from home more than anything. Reminds them of home and the support. Thanks for the replies

[Jimmayo]

I assume you are talking Confederate. Also are you referring to issue clothing or civilian clothing sent from home?

You have to remember, hand sewing of that time could be as good as machine sewing. The most important aspect of clothing was that it be functional. I don't think it made a difference if it were machine or hand sewn. If they did get issued clothing that was coming apart or substandard in any other way, the officer could refuse to issue it to the troops and return it to the quarter master. If substandard clothing was was returned or not probably depended on how bad they needed an issue.

[cap tassel]

You have to remember, hand sewing of that time could be as good as machine sewing.
I thought it was pretty much regarded as better than machine sewing. A machine couldn't tackle fine details like top stitching or button holes. (the machines commonly used) Was it William Brown that said tailors didn't welcome the machine?

btw, I think even today a machine is much less efficient with thread. Just look at how an edge is secured. It takes about 3 times the amount of thread.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

In brief and to over-generalize...
By and large, in addition to contractors, both sides came to largely rely on the "depot system" whereby "kits" were cut out and assembled, and then distributed to a "cottage type industry" of sewers/seamstresses who then assembled the kits according to the best of their skills and possession of a sewing machine or not. The finished garments were then gathered up, inspected, and those passing went on to the arsenals/depots for circulation into the issuance system.

There are a number of different type stitches found in period uniforms for different functions. A common one is the "back stitch." Compared to a modern sewing machine with its "chain stitch" that when broken allows for much "unraveling," the back-stitch locked back upon itself making a relatively strong stitch line.

Ideally a CW soldier received a "clothing allowance" of so many items per calendar cycle on a fixed schedule. IF his garment did not last the cycle or he lost it, he stood to be docked pay to replace it. IF the garment by its life span, wear/tear usage, and the wink and nod of less than fussy commanding officer lasted longer than the cycle, the man might hope to see that bit of his "allowance" returned to him as some bonus money.
The Confederates started out with a mixture of local uniforming and then the Commutation System- replaced by the depot system. However, "items from home," IMHO, were a greater possibility than for the Federal (aside from private purchase).

However, what a modern sewing machine does should not be part of a discussion on CW era clothing.

Curt

[gfchhdgf]

I suspect more complaints (preferences) arose from poorly or hastily constructed garments, either hand or machine sewn, that passed inspection verses quality made garments. However, since items did have to pass inspection, whether or not they were hand sewn shouldn't have mattered but rather the fact that it met the standards to be issued should have guaranteed a certain amount of durability and quality. This is just my two pennies though.

[Richmond Depot]

Over the last several years the back stitch has proven to be one of the more controversial stitches within this side of the hobby. The reason being, is there are not alot of CS pieces of clothing in this area that are in fact sewn with a back stitch. Over the last couple of years, more pieces of this type have materialized, however, we still receive requests NOT to use this stitch from time to time.


Regarding the useage of sewing machines and the types of stitches that they produce, as Curt has mentioned, the chain stitch is not the most durable stitch and while it is period,it is less than desireable.


The better stitch is the lock stitch which is basically the same stitch found in today's sewing machines. My 1864 Johnson & Clark hand crank machine does a very nice, very tight lock stitch.

Lock stitch's use two separate threads which are a top thread and bottom bobbin thread to create a stitch. On the other hand, the chain stitch uses only one thread to create a stitch.


One example of a CS Uniform sewn with a lock stitch is the Courtney Jenkins 21st Va. Infantry Uniform in the collection of the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond.


Regarding the quality of Clothing........

From the Richmond Dispatch of Nov. 20, 1863

To Lose a button,
or have a button hole tear out when a fellow is away from home and exposed to bad weather is a great annoyance, and one that our soldiers complain bitterly of. They say the buttons to their jackets are badly put on, and that the button holes are horribly worked, and they wish attention called to the grievance. The Inspector of clothing should have an eye to these matters, and see that uniforms are well made in all their parts.

Visit this link for more information on sewing machines of both pre and war time useage. Of special interest will be the mention of Sloats lock stitch machine manufactured by the Union Manufacturing Co.in Richmond Virginia.

http://www.kabar44.com/researchSewingMachineDispatch.htm

Below is a photograph of the "shuttle" or bobbin in my Johnson & Clark Machine.

[cap tassel]

Hallo!

"kits" were cut out and assembled, and then distributed to a "cottage type industry" of sewers/seamstresses who then assembled the kits according to the best of their skills

Curt

I doubt it really was to the best of their skills but most likely good enough to pass. It seems it would have naturally been a trade off between production and quality. This is one thing that has made me 2nd guess just how much effort I've put into my own work. I've found myself looking at original examples and realizing my work tends towards being too good in some aspects.

[ElizabethClark]

In addition to the good points raised on construction and machine use, it is perhaps a better research plan to take a look at what documentary information we have available for the particular unit(s) and impression(s) you may be pursuing, and work forward from there. One ends up with fewer suppositions that way, many times.

[utahreenactor]

Gents,

Just a tidbit of information that i remember from reading Pat Brown's "For Fatigue Purposes": As far as the federal inspectors went hand sewn garments were more desirable compared to machine sewn. Mr. Brown mentions that hand sewn coats were kept for the regular army after the war and many machine sewn coats were sent to western troops and Indian reservations. Just food for thought.

Chase Pinkham