Type 1 or Type 2?

[Canebrake Rifle Guards]

Perhaps I missed something, so help me out.

There seems to be a general condemnation when people want to use the terms Type 1 or Type 2 when referring to Union forage caps. Given, these terms are modern.

However we commonly refer Confederate shell jackets as Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 (with occassional variations within those types). These terms are also modern.

Why do some re-enactors get reamed when asking sincere questions regarding Union forage caps? But not the same on CS shell jackets.

What's up?

Greg Starbuck

[RyanBWeddle]

Perhaps I missed something, so help me out.

There seems to be a general condemnation when people want to use the terms Type 1 or Type 2 when referring to Union forage caps. Given, these terms are modern.

However we commonly refer Confederate shell jackets as Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 (with occassional variations within those types). These terms are also modern.

Why do some re-enactors get reamed when asking sincere questions regarding Union forage caps? But not the same on CS shell jackets.

What's up?

Greg Starbuck


I think there is a more "natural progression" with the Richmond typology (within reason), where with Forage Caps the same has pervaded erroneously.
People think the Types of caps which Paul Smith came up with have a historical bearing on their authenticity within a certain time period, which is wrong.

Of course when refering in a period descripiton neither typology is correct.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

In an historical sense, "typology" can be viewed as all wrong... ;-)

"M1816 Types I, II, and III."
"M1863 Springfield Types I, and II."
"M1855 Socket Bayonet Types I, and II
First Model Brown Bess, 2nd Model Brown Bess

And I sometimes wonder why cartridge boxes have not been "typed" as Pattern of March 1857 as a Type I, Pattern of August 1857 as a Type II, Pattern of 1861 as a Type III, etc. ;-)

I would take a different view. My personal bias is that we tend to blend our knowledge bases of identification/classification with our uniforming and gear practices on a very fuzzy line sometimes.

But, I still think we are "better off" than say cultural anthropology or archeology with their cultures, eras, phases, aspects, horizons, etc. ;-)

Others' mileage may vary...and rightfully so.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Yellowhammer]

Greg,

Here is the distinction I see:

The Jensen jacket typology, particularly relating to Richmond Clothing Manufactury garments is both chronological and well defined applying benchmarks to what is really a continuum.

Another example of a good typology is the Gaede shelter tent typology. Again, the author has established a progression of changes using extant originals and documentation and applied it to a timeline.

The Union forage cap is a poor typology. It is overly simplistic, (there are many more variations than can be covered by two types)and is often erroneously applied to chronology (the argument that the "type I" is early war and the "type II" is late war is bunk).

If someone wants to talk about contract dates for LJI Phillips caps or for some other contractor, that we can do in many cases. If someone wants to talk about issue dates for "Union caps with a small disc and rounded bill," aka "type I", I don't think you can do that with any accuracy.

[Canebrake Rifle Guards]

The Union forage cap is a poor typology. It is overly simplistic, (there are many more variations than can be covered by two types)

Not too overly simplistic, The forage caps I examined over the past 25 years, and a majority, but not all, do fall into the faulty Type 1 and Type 2 classifications.

and is often erroneously applied to chronology (the argument that the "type I" is early war and the "type II" is late war is bunk).

I don't remember Paul Smith's contention (its been 20 years), did he state that the Type 1 is early war and Type 2 is late war? Or were the types merely the sequence he numbered them? Anyone have a copy of his brochure?

In short, I agree its premature to sequence the styles of caps chronologically.

I disagree however that there are equal numbers of numerous variations, most caps I've examined do fall into one or the other category.

Greg Starbuck