Mainstream gear in fact more accurate? (Answer: NO)

[stx]

Let me first start off by saying this is in no way a shot at the approved vendors or an endorsment of farbism

Over the last couple of weeks I've been doing a reserch paper on corrupt union contractors during the civil war. Many of you may have seen my request for sources, which proved to be very helpful. Through my research, using such books as The Organization and Administration of the Union army and various harpers weekly magazines, I found the quality of thousands of articles of clothing and equiptment to be of poor quality. This included inferior material, incorrect patterns, and overall shody construction (sounds a lot like some mainstream gear, doesn't it?). With this in mind, I have this proposal: would it not in fact be accurate, maybe even more accurate, to have a great portion of reenactors wearing incorrect clothing? Sure the items of the approved vendors or great, and I hope to own some of their clothing in the future, but would the clothing of the average soldier, who many times was given the most deplorable clothing of corrupt vendors, really last for years and years like those of the approved vendors? All of this of course is taking into account the great wear and tear they would have suffered during the course of the war.

Just food for thought.

[Johnny Lloyd]

Which do you mean:

"Incorrect" clothing for the 1860's or "incorrect" clothing for 2007?

I don't think people in the 1860s wore polyester.

-Johnny Lloyd

[mslaird]

Well, since someone opened this up, I guess I will ask my questions, too. (Not to change the subject of the thread in any way because I too am interested in the answers that will be forthcoming)

I have studied the 19th Century very intently for most of my academic life but I have always bowed to those who possess more knowledge about a subject than I have. Being relatively new to participating in re enacting and living history and limiting my purchases to the folks that I know through reading countless threads provide good quality reproductions, I wanted to know which of the bigger "mainstream" sutlers still have quality gear?

I know many of them started out small scale as some of the approved vendors on this forum are now and that many of them were dedicated to accuracy in thier day. What happened? Do any of them still adhere to thier old standards with at least some of thier products?

I think I have read just about every thread concerning this and I have used the search function to a considerable extent. With all of these hours of reading, which I have enjoyed greatly, I still have those questions.

Thanks all.

[stx]

The gear I'm describing is more mainstream than farb. I'm not saying go to your local costumes shop kind of stuff, but more stuff you'd get at sutler row. This stuff does, for the most part, use period materials, just of poorer quality and not to the regulations that the government, and approved sutlers, followed.

[Eureka Independent]

Hi All,

A long while back I looked into this very thing. Looking into making some of the common contractor items that were shoddy. As weird as it may seem, It is more expensive to copy a period shoddy original item than an original that was of good quality.

Case in pont, the overcoats that were made out of shoddy felt or flannel. Just getting a mill to make this materiel is an expensive, if not almost impossible task. Due to th elow amount of probbable sales of the item , combined with the minimum amount of cloth required to purchase (1,000 -5,000 or so + yards) the cost for the coat would not be worth making or purchasing due to the high expense.

There are some of the original shoddy items that could be reproduced that wouldn't be too bad on price, although they would be more appropriate for display than use. Like painted cloth coverd past board core cartridge boxes or knapsacks. These can be made. But just like their ancestors, whould not last long ( maybe a year of reenacting)

All the best

Don S

[stx]

My thoughts are this shody gear is already available from some mainstream sutlers.

[Johnny Lloyd]

How about the Nick ************ US Infantry 5lb. blanket? The reason why the one I ordered from him is so good is that it's shoddy like the originals were.

Purposefully-made "shoddy goods" repros are a sign that the vendor making them knows their craft very well... Well-enough to know the difference between a well-made original and a poorly-made one.

Few "skinner row" types know how to do this fine art- much unlike approved vendors.

-Johnny

PS- The minute most of the participants use the excuse at a quality event to knowingly use mainstream goods as "shoddy" is the beginning of the end of the authentic/progressive movement. I could just see the reaction to that one... ugh.

[Spinster]

Tim.

I looked up to see if you had put this thread in the Sinks. You did not. So----No.

Lets look at one small aspect--the incorporation of a certain percentage of 'shoddy' allowed by contract into the fabric. Shoddy was simply short wool fibers---or occassionally other period NATURAL fibers remanufactured back into yarn and rewoven into cloth.

Folks who watched me reel wool yarn at Fort Gaines this weekend were conscious of the amount of fibers that went flying through the air--in a mill setting, those would have been swept up and reused.

About a decade ago, I did a run of yarn with a significant amount of 'shoddy' in it. Just getting the spinnery to incorporate only wool sweepings was a challenge. Frankly, I'm still not positive we got it right. That yarn was a nightmare to beam, and made a poor shed that slowed my weaving rate considerably. When I finally got that run of scarves off the loom and washed them, the draw up was amazing--more than 30 %.

Somewhere in the hobby there are about a dozen fellers with grey wool twill scarves with tiny red and blue flecks of shoddy in them. They paid a decent price for those scarves, but I had about twice that time in them.

Somewhere I've still got some of that yarn. When it comes to the top in my stash, I may set it alight to avoid the temptation to warp a loom with it again. The results were glorius, the process a nightmare.

Copying period manufacturing practices is hard and expensive, not easy and cheap.

[fahtz]

The period manufactures used period materials and techniques. Modern sutler row vendors use 2007 often only partially natural fibers. Did the "shoddy" or poor contractors use fabrics that contained only a fraction of natural fibers? No. Did the contractors during the war period use 1990's singer sewing machines to top stitch that federal blouse? Nope... I think the difference here is the material and construction techniques the contractors used back in the day are only observed by the authentic makers of goods today. Few if any average sutler row vendors could tell you the techniques used in constructing an original civil war garment. The authentic vendors spend hours documenting the techniques used in even the poorest of surviving original.

[Dan Wambaugh]

Tim,

Here's something I wrote this summer in a similar discussion:

"One thing to bear in mind is that there is a difference between clothing put together by competent people who are pressed for time and need to turn things out rapidly to fill a pressing national need, and someone who has no idea what he is doing and is trying to make a quick buck and uses the "shoddy goods" argument to justify something that is honestly just a piece of garbage. All too often in our hobby the latter is the case much more common than the former.

A individual wishing to replicate period shoddy practices in construction must first spend years studying originals, and perfecting GOOD manufacturing skills. You have have to crawl before you can walk.

Another thing to bear in mind is that in my experience, a garment that exhibits shoddy or hasty overall construction still will often have superb buttonholes, far superior to what is commonly passed off today. Whether or not the assembly of said garments was done by a different person than the buttonholes is nearly impossible to tell.

A distinction should be made however, between intentionally shoddy contractor goods (felt blankets, logwood dyed sack coats) and shoddy work necessitated by need to turn things out to meet an emergency (low stitch counts, uneven workmanship) or local availability of material. These are two different animals, one with its roots in greed, and the other in need.

The bottom line is that yes, there is a need for shoddy goods in the community today, but it has to be done by someone who knows what they're doing, and not someone who simply wants to turn a buck and should probably spend another few years practicing their stitching."


That being said, there is also a monumental difference between "period shoddy" and "unauthentic." Above I have named a couple of instances of period items that would be considered shoddy by the soldiers, but in no period accounts do you see soldiers giving something like the following quote:


"Today I was issued a new sack coat. It is a shoddy affair made of purple wool cloth that was obviously intended for a blanket. Furthermore every last bit of it was machine sewn including the buttonholes. It is far heavier than any of sack coats I have ever worn and in the afternoon drill I was prostrated from heat stroke."


Now of course a quote like that is absurd, aside from the soldiers not caring about the little details we hold so dear, there just wasn't anything like what we see in mainstream sutler's tents used during the war. If you use incorrect materials (meaning the wrong color, weight, and weave), the incorrect patterns (something altered from a pajama top) and construction (sewing everything, even buttonholes out on a sewing machine) then you aren't being shoddy, you're being unauthentic.

Forgive me if it seems that I've become bogged down in semantics, but it is very important now and forever to make the distinction between what they would have thought as low quality then, and what we as historical interpreters think of low quality now. They are two very different animals. The bottom line is that mainstream gear, uniforms, leather goods, etc, etc, is not acceptable for someone wishing to accurately portray a soldier. For the most part it is made overseas from the cheapest materials with the aim toward saving money, nothing more.

So to answer your question, no, it would not be more accurate. :)


Best Regards,

[stx]

So if I'm understaning correctly, the common consensus is that even though mainstream gear is shody and shody goods were produced during the war, the mainstream gear still isn't made in the same fasion as those shody goods? When they don't compare even to the shody gear it makes them sound all that worse. Interesting.

[paulcalloway]

There's more than authentic materials in contruction of a reproduction garment - authentic reprocution also includes equal attention to the methods and patterns.

[Garrett Silliman]

So if I'm understaning correctly, the common consensus is that even though mainstream gear is shody and shody goods were produced during the war, the mainstream gear still isn't made in the same fasion as those shody goods? When they don't compare even to the shody gear it makes them sound all that worse. Interesting.

As shody is a period term I wouldn't even go so far as to say mainstream gear is shoddy - let's just call it crappy. It rimes and I think we all know what it means. Dan's post pretty much said it all: there is a place for period correct shoddy goods, but just because something's bad doesn't make it good.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

The Gold Standard, IMHO, for reproduction clothing and gear, is how much of the "Triad" is present in:

1. Period raw materials
2. Period patterns, forms, and models
3. Period methods or technology of construction

Meaning, the Civil War concept of "shoddy" is not the same as using the word (denotation and connotation) today to excuse or overlook materials, patterns, and methods of construction that are decidely "Modern" and not "Period."
Otherwise, when everything "Modern" is possible, little or nothing can tend to be "Period."

Or better yet perhaps, IMHO, in some segments of the CW Community.... one should perhaps not take 22 ounce 50/50 nylon/wool blend and make a blouse by using an old Nehru jacket pattern on mom's modern sewing machine and justify it by calling it "shoddy."

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt

[Hank Trent]

So if I'm understaning correctly, the common consensus is that even though mainstream gear is shody and shody goods were produced during the war, the mainstream gear still isn't made in the same fasion as those shody goods? When they don't compare even to the shody gear it makes them sound all that worse. Interesting.

Not necessarily. What's "better" or "worse" can only be determined after you define the goal.

If the goal is practicality and durability, a cheap reproduction might be "better" than an original, because what's cheap today is still often "better," in that sense, than anything available in the 1860s. Polyester won't rot; plastic won't tarnish or leak; stainless steel won't rust.

If the goal is to duplicate an original, a whole different set of standards are applied, and "better" has a completely different meaning.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Clsinclair]

I think that the various contracts to various vendors for the same item would produce a variance of workmanship for that item. That has been covered before. One contractor would utilize a sewing machine where another would not. Some seams could be true and some could be all over the place. The construction of the shelter half is a good example of a seam missing the folded hem. Vendors were mostly paid by what they turned out. Not by the quality of the item. So if they met the minimal standards you could get different quality from one vendor than another.

Not many mainstream sutlers deal with handsewn top stitching and handsewn buttonholes. Some I have seen doesn't know what jean wool is. But there are some excellent mainstream vendors who are friends of mine who make an excellent authentic reproduction garment. Hi Rex!


Claude Sinclair

[ElizabethClark]

Most of the points I'd make have been well-covered.

I'll look at this from a non-military stance, as that's what I know, and the same concept of "shoddy versus well-made" in the period applies to non-military things as well.

Original women's clothing, for instance, shows a huge range of skill level... but even the most bashed-together of period dresses shows a good number of consistent techniques and shapes, put together in quite consistent ways. Those ways and techniques and skills are *not* well-represented by the average "sutler row" offerrings for women's clothing.

The modern "poorly conceived and executed" garments are *not* at all like period poorly-constructed things.

[SCTiger]

In some instances we may actually use the gear for longer periods of time, many of us have well made equipment that is 5-10 years old, whereas the ACW soldier might keep his gear for one year or less. Now granted he wore it everyday and went to battle and performed hard labor with it but, after a few years of reenacting you could replicate that three to six months of hard usage. The way we maintain, repair and store our equipment, also impacts on the "life cycle" of any particular piece of gear.

In my opinion, our equipment has to endure time better than the originals, we aren't going to replace every piece of equipment each year. For me the quick wear outs; it's mostly, shirts, shoes, undergarments, trousers and knapsacks. Hats and coats seem to last the longest, followed by leather gear and blankets. Most of my correctly made leather gear has started to turn brown and crack after three years of regular usage, if it starts to look like the museum relics then it's probably made right. If you use it for twenty years and it never cracks, fades or comes apart, it probably wasn't made in the period manner. That's my guess. I would think that 10 -15 events with regular usage, and little maintenance, would equal one month of regular usage, however the aging and exposure to the elements greater than one year would also have to be taken in to consideration. We need to make the gear correctly, but for my money, it should last more than three years or 6 to 25 hard events, but it shouldn't last forever if it's used. Anyone wanting to buy inferior equipment ought to go ahead and buy a few replacements to recreate the period re-issue of every three to six months.

Anyone up for taking a leave of absence for a month and testing it out? Just need to get ahead on two paychecks!

[tmdreb]

The issue here is that you have to look at two definitions of "poor quality."

Items produced during the War that were of "poor quality" were labeled as such for reasons mostly explained above. Their materials or construction techniques were inferior and did not hold up to use, or their patterns were too poorly cut to fit the wearer properly. However, given that they were produced in that time period, their pattern, materials and construction techniques were naturally of that era.

Mainstream reproductions are labeled as "poor quality" mostly because their pattern, materials and construction techniques do not match those of originals, regardless of how well the reproduction is put together or how well it stands up to use. For instance, a pair of trousers made from a cotton/polyester blend made on a modern pattern with machine sewn buttonholes will stand up to hard use in reenacting. However, it is a "poor quality" reproduction because it fails to match original garments.

This same topic, or versions of it, seem to pop up fairly often. We should probably archive this discussion somehow.

[LibertyHallVols]

There's a messed up set of logic being used in the premise of this whole thread:

On the face of it, it looks as though you're (Mr. Koenig) are saying:
If A=B and B=C, then A=C

However, your real premise looked like...
"If mainstream gear is considered shoddy by hardcores and many pieces of original gear was considered shoddy by original soldiers, then mainstream gear is a good reproduction of shoddy original gear."

Does this look messed up to anyone else?
If A=B and C=D, then A=D. (!?!?!?!?)

There have been a lot of good posts in this thread about the reproduction of individual pieces gear that were not made to the standard of the contract, but were issued anyway. But, at the end of the day, it doesn't validate the premise of the initial post. No offense to anyone, but the logic just doesn't work.

[mslaird]

Sounds about right, formal fallacy, I just finished Intro to Logic this fall. :confused_

After reading all of the excellent posts to this thread and a little more research I am more comfortable with my evaluations of some of the more widely known providers of accoutrements. Thanks to all who posted. It has definately been educational.

[cap tassel]

Mainstream reproductions are labeled as "poor quality" mostly because their pattern, materials and construction techniques do not match those of originals,

It's not just mainstream that have this problem. ;)

[stx]

Sounds about right, formal fallacy, I just finished Intro to Logic this fall. :confused_

After reading all of the excellent posts to this thread and a little more research I am more comfortable with my evaluations of some of the more widely known providers of accoutrements. Thanks to all who posted. It has definately been educational.


This was what I had in mind when I started the thread. I don't have a bunch of mainstream gear I wish I could wear and call authentic, haha. Thanks to all who answered, I've learned a lot.

[KarinTimour]

Folks:

I'd like to point out a further distinction in the definition of the word "shoddy."

For those of us who work with fabric and fiber, "shoddy" is a period and modern term that refers to a particular type of fiber. Both Don Smith and Mrs. Lawson were talking about this. In the 19th century, they would recycle old clothing -- when it was too worn to be useful, it would be sold for rags. Some of this went to paper manufacturers, but others, especially wool rags, was put through shredders that literally tore it into little fibers. As Mrs. Lawson so wonderfully described, these were then mixed with new fiber, and spun into yarn or spun even finer and the resulting thread was woven into cloth. Often those fibers retained their original dyes, and when they were spun into the new fibers, even if they were subsequently dyed, they retained their original color. Which is why items made with shoddy had speckles of other colors when you looked closely.

The resulting fiber was much cheaper to produce in our time period -- after all, they were extending the amount of new fiber, by adding the cheaper, older, shredded "bits." However, the resulting fabric or yarn was easily identified for a cheaper form of fabric or yarn. It had some other deficits as well -- it didn't wear as well as something made entirely of new fiber, and as Mrs. Lawson points out, it might well shrink considerably when washed. Or shrink uneavenly, so the sleeves would come out different lenghts on a coat or you'd never be able to get a really true straight crease in a pair of pants.

But for the consumer who was looking for a cheaper alternative, it could be a way to get an item of clothing, a blanket or etc. for a lower cost.

It was seen in our time period by many as a perfectly acceptable, but "less classy" means of getting an item. Just as some of us may shop at certain stores for some items, but discount stores for others. Or buy first quality for out modern coats and large ticket items, but buy athletic socks in bulk from a dealer who is selling the socks that didn't pass inspection at the factory -- hence "factory seconds."

When contractors in the Civil War cut corners and used this fiber and fabric to make uniforms that shrank in the first rain, or pants that shrank while you were fording the first stream, the soldiers' outraged contempt caused the word's usage to "morph" into a synonym for "garbage" or as someone earlier in this thead said "crappy."

Others on this thread have explained more clearly than I how the items sold by many mainstream vendors are different from period originals that were made poorly.

Hope that's helpful,
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[mslaird]

After hearing all of the different methods used during the nineteenth century to produce the cheaper woolen goods, I can understand now how it would be cost prohibitive in this era to produce authentic reproductions of those garments. As I understand it, you would have to shred various different scraps of wool fabric then weave those resulting bits into a new bolt of material along with new fibers resulting in what the period manufacturers would have referred to as thier cheaper goods. Then the resulting clothing would be inconsistent with wear and shrinkage. Whereas the gear offered by some of the larger sutlers is just gear made with improper materials, patterns and manufacturing processes and not at all representative of the cheap or hastily manufactured stop-gap goods produced at different times of limited supply during the war.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Bingo...
:)

Curt

[RJSamp]

Hallo!

Bingo...
:)

Curt

The one we are missing is the modern authentic manufacturer (as opposed to mainstream) coming up with TOO GOOD of a product. Modern Brass tubing in large quantities is not available in the thinwall instrument quality thicknesses of the 1860's...same with copper. Tim Bender hats are too well built, they don't have the correct shoddy (5% per the contracts) built in and aren't made to last the 30 day warranty of the period (they last a LONG time). And this list goes on to modern threads and spinning production techniques, cotton fibers (love the long Egyptian and Pima cotton shirts we doeses), do we have to worry about what bloodline the sheep came from to ensure the correct yarns??...... We all know that the Leathers produced today are thicker/stronger then the methods used back then.....and hot dipped tin has almost been EPA'd out of existence.

One thing I noticed at OPIII: Brown Black Hats. New unit, just coming out of the depot, haven't been on the road for more than a month.....and the hats are faded. Noticeably. The real truth is that they are expensive and you hang on to them for years (my Dirty Billy is 8 years old)...and they didn't.

Here's one you probably don't know:
The majority of buglers use modern mouthpieces (even if the outside looks period)...their embrouchure 'fit's' is trained for their mouthpiece, sometimes over decades. Very very personal as to the fit. If you change mouthpieces to a period mouthpiece you can be in a world of hurt......and the tone is definitely brighter for a modern mouthpiece, mellower for a period mouthpiece.

Modern Manufacturing...can't live with it, can't live with it.

[paulcalloway]

RJ -
Yeah thats an interesting point and it does carry water to some degree - reproduction shoes is the example usually cited in this discussion. Most Civil War soldiers didn't send a foot tracing in to a cobler before having their shoes issued to them. Tom Mattimore I know has made some adjustments to his patterns to fit a modern foot more comfortably. I'm not criticizing Tom on that point, I do believe I remember him saying that however on a couple occasions.

*Shrug*

Perfect reproductions are the goal but in some cases they are unattainable unless you have unlimited funding. Few among us can afford to pay a $150 premium for a pair of shoes that might only last you half a season - same goes with the hats, etc.

I dunno, I think there are bigger authentic fish to fry than this one.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Although the limted run of CW shoes some of the Williamsburg "cobblers" are looking to make at $450 a pair sound interesting...
;) :)

Curt
You Mean The Government DOESN'T Issue My Kit Mess

[toptimlrd]

Perhaps this may help shed some light.

Although many mainstream vendors sell items that at first resemble the right item, there are still differences between their work and an original. Disregarding warp, weft, etc. even if a period item was compleely machine stitched (some if not many were) it was not on a modern lock stitch machine like we have today. Also certain items did have a more "crude" assembly method than others. Take for example the JT Martin contract shirt: the stitchng was rather large and not at all as straight as those on a shirt that perhaps your wife made for you at home. The material was also quite scratchy. This crude assembly is correct for the period but some people are put off by it especally when they see the price of the reproduced item since it looks like it is supposed to look. Now beside another contract variant reproduction that has a more "quality" assembly it shows how construction techniques in the period varied. The problem with many of the mainstream items out there is that they are made in a modern mass produced fashion. It all goes back to the 3 basics: pattern, material, construction. I wish it wre possible to make an item that fits all three of thes criteria at the price level of the mainstream but it simply can't be done.

[mslaird]

There were instances of mass production of uniform clothing and leather goods during the civil war. So...if a company decided to use the proper pattern and proper materials, then utilized the proper mass production techniques of the day they could, in fact, offer a better and more authentic product at a compromise price between the cheap of the "mainstream" and the expensive of the completely handmade. (don't get me wrong, I fully believe that an artisan should be justly compensated for thier research and labor)

The "assembly line" method of producing goods existed since the middle ages. I am sure that the depots had numbers of people working on on particular item on a uniform and when they finished that item they passed it down the line where another item would be completed by another set of people. Sewing machines were used during the period and I believe that I saw in some of the research articles that I have read that some of them used stitching that is not much different than what modern sewing machines use today. I also remember reading in those articles that some of the depots would use those machines and then have apprentices or novices sew the button holes or the other items that were easier and sometimes quicker to handstitch.

I am just putting this out there for thought. Reproductions could be done in the same fashion, and just as quickly, by some of the manufacturers of uniforms that we have now that are making said reproductions. (or contracting them to be made) Whether they do practice the old style of assembly line or not, I do not know for I am not in garment industry. Apparently, the depots did not have trouble turning out hundreds of thousands of uniform items in the short amount of time that they had. (4 years) The demand from our hobby is definitely not as great as the armies that were embroiled in constant campaigning and were in constant need of uniforms and accoutrements.

As to who is stitching and assembling the product, it really does not matter who does it or where they are doing it. What matters most is how they do it. I used to use this analogy when I spoke of guitars made in Japan vs. guitars made here in the United States. Luthiery is the same no matter what continent it is practiced on. (there are only so many different ways one can skin a cat, even a barn cat)

There are only so many types of stitches and so many methods of assembly so as long as the person doing the stitching and assembly is using the proper type and method, with the proper materials then the final product will be authentic whether it is made in Knoxville, Tennessee or in Birmingham, England or Pakistan for that matter.

The problems with the larger vendors that I have ascertained from reading the postings in this thread and in the research articles concerning the same subject, is that they do cut corners in thread, material and they allow the folks that manufacture the goods for them, beyond thier oversight, to slam them together as quickly as possible without any attention to the detail of proper construction for that particular pattern of garment.

[KarinTimour]

Dear RJ:

You wrote:
do we have to worry about what bloodline the sheep came from to ensure the correct yarns??......

Wellllllll, you don't, but Mrs. Lawson and I have had more than one conversation on breeds of sheep, the differences in their fleece and the qualities in the yarn made from that fleece, and which breeds are period. Of course, she spins, and I don't (yet), so she can make all kinds of distinctions between fleece and sheep breeds that are light years past what I can follow. It's not a burden to us, we're just pushing the envelope for the challenge and fun of our particular quests.

Just like you're tracking tubing dimensions and bugle mounthpieces. I have to admit, those aren't topics that I've spent any time on at all -- but as a listener, I do notice the difference when I'm around a bugler who has taken the time and effort to take it to another level.

But if you ever want to spend half an hour discussing period breeds of sheep.....!

Best wishes for the holidays for you and yours,
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[Dan Wambaugh]

Matthew,

You probably won't be surprised that your thoughts are generally put forth about every 18 months, and the discussion has been hashed and rehashed time and again. So I'll give you the standard stock answer we usually wind up with whenever someone gives one of us vendors an "all ya gotta do" idea... :)

Basically the difference is that during the period labor was cheap, materials were expensive. Manufacturers could pay talented immigrants pennies a day to produce their goods, and could produce them in massive numbers. Today, labor is very expensive, and materials are (relatively) cheap. Mass production for our community is completely unnecessary (relatively speaking I believe that there are less than 1,500 people out there at any given time that would purchase my products.)

As for paying folks pennies overseas to do the work for us, well, I don't feel too comfortable about doing that so that folks here can save a few dollars. There are a lot of talented people stateside that deserve our money, and deserve every penny we pay them. A few vendors have gone overseas for production, with varying levels of success, but I will let them explain their stories if they so choose, but suffice to say in most cases they have ended up being swindled by overseas manufacturing firms.

Sorry if this seems like a 50 cent answer to a ten dollar question, but trust me when I say that this topic has been discussed ad nauseum, and that every vendor gets one "all ya gotta do" idea from a customer at least once a month. :)


Best,

Dan

[mslaird]

Dan,

Actually it is a very good answer. I have read through some of the threads where this was discussed at length. I too agree with your statements about providing the American craftsman with as much business as possible and where possible avoinding outsourcing. Some of my own clothing items that may not come from the approved vendors list have come from folks that are right here in my own "backyard." (The old motto, "buy American and if you are going to buy American, buy Arkansas.")

I just wondered about the larger providers of our reproduction clothing using those methods of manufacture to help moderate their overhead business cost instead of outsourcing to an overseas contractor over whom they will have very little oversight if any at all. I also understand their need to keep in business by keeping thier overhead low. However, I wonder if they found a way to use the manufacturing processes in assembly line fashion here with the proper materials and pattern of construction would they be able to offer a authentic garment at a "mid range" price? I feel that more authenticity would be achieved and the price would be attainable by the folks that have to be extremely budget conscious.

I myself would rather err on the side of spending the money on the most accurate equipment I can the first time rather than buy a stop gap kit now and have to pay even more later.

I will most likely be hitting you and yours up for some uniform items in February after this holiday season and the consequences thereof are behind me...

Thanks again.

[billwatson]

"As for paying folks pennies overseas to do the work for us, well, I don't feel too comfortable about doing that so that folks here can save a few dollars. ... A few vendors have gone overseas for production, with varying levels of success, but I will let them explain their stories if they so choose, but suffice to say in most cases they have ended up being swindled by overseas manufacturing firms."

Because, in the spirit of 1862, they will likely apply 21st century shortcuts to produce a garment, when what you really want is a craftsman who can use 19th century economies to do it the way it would have been done. No matter how you cut it, replicating 19th century techniques is more expensive, even to produce what would have been "cheap" items then.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Sheep lie... :)

Curt
Whose wife was just at the dentist yesterday to get a crown on a tooth she cracked off with the mouthpiece of her trumpet Mess

[Dan Wambaugh]

Matthew,

I think that one major distinction you may not have considered is that many, perhaps most mainstream sutlers aren't tailors or seamstresses. They don't assemble garments, they are retailers. The Pakistani companies such as Markarab International (who send me one email a day trying to get me to purchase their goods) produce the garments and leather goods and then sell wholesale to the sutlers that you will see at your average streamer fest. Very few of them know more than "buy low, sell high" in regard to their business, which is fine and certainly is the backbone of our economic system! Most, with few exceptions, do the sutler thing as a side business to their day job, and aren't full timers.

So it is unlikely that few, if any have the capacity to set up a production run of five jackets made from authentic materials, let alone any sort of assembly line for hundreds. For the most part their involvement with the garments they sell is no more than sending a check off to Markarab, receiving a box in the mail, and putting price tags on them.

In the authentic end of the hobby for the most part the vendor who sold the item is the same person that researched it, sourced the material, cut, and assembled the garment. With few exceptions they will know their work at a glance even years down the road. Heck, even the fellows that serve as retail outlets for authentic items know their products through and through, and can answer specific questions about details and materials.

I suppose my point would be that the level of commitment in the authentic end of the hobby transcends the guy in the ranks, and includes the guy that made his uniform and gear. Perhaps we care more about what we sell, perhaps not. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, just different. But speaking as someone who does this full time I'll say that I care a whole heck of a lot about every last thing I ship out! :)


Best,

Dan

[mslaird]

Dan,

Oddly enough I get emails from them occasionally for some reason. I have no idea how or why but I have seen that company name before. Those emails are in the pile with others of their ilk that have a rule created for them that directs them to the trash bin.

I appreciate what folks like you and your company do. One of the companies that I recently purchased some civilian items from uses seamstresses and tailors in their community and also does a fair job of oversight from what I have heard. I am waiting to see the finished product but I have heard good things.

Again, thanks for the information and the discussion. I have learned a lot.

I will email you when I am ready to order some stuff from you after the holidays.

[Sad Spaceman]

Like most of you, I feel that doing full research with period photos and accounts is important to an authentic impression. I am new to the forum but see that their is a list of approved sutlers, to aid in our period correctness.That said I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment if I may.

Many times in reading accounts via dairies or newspapers of the day ect, I read of the poor quality of uniforms issued to some men. poor dying methods, buttons that fall of, ill sizing the list goes on. But the point is that the US Army has always used the lowest bidder to supply them, wouldn't some of the cheaper(in quality and price) uniforms out there fill that void? I understand the the true historian will try and wear uniforms based on originals but cheap uniform would obviously not survive. Is that sutler row 45$ federal sack coat really that farb?

I would enjoy your input and perspective.

Aaron Coen