Fatigue blouse for Jr Officer impression.

[mdbucktail]

Having purchased a Nathan Gale contract blouse I am curious as to whether it would work for a 1st Lt field impression. Searching photos I have seen similar blouses being used. If so... should I change the buttons to infantry officer ones or leave the eagles? I cannot tell which types are being used in the pics.
I am putting together a field uniform for when I have command of our company. And, like my 1st Sgt impression, wish it to be as authentic as possible. Thank you for your opinions.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

If your coat is of correct cut and construction, it should be just fine for an officers impression. If were me I would use block I officers buttons.

[KyCavMajor]

Having purchased a Nathan Gale contract blouse I am curious as to whether it would work for a 1st Lt field impression. Searching photos I have seen similar blouses being used. If so... should I change the buttons to infantry officer ones or leave the eagles? I cannot tell which types are being used in the pics.
I am putting together a field uniform for when I have command of our company. And, like my 1st Sgt impression, wish it to be as authentic as possible. Thank you for your opinions.

5 have patterned my Union Cavalry officer impression using this picture as a basis. I did not add the trim on the sleeve. note the subdued rank on the shoulder.

[1stMaine]

Comrade,

I would urge you to review as many images of junior officers in field uniform as you can. What you will note is that though many are wearing a sack coat, it is NOT a enlisted man's sack coat. Even grant didn't wear one, despite his claim in his biography. What he and these others are wearing is a private-purchase sack coat, often (but not always) with a 5 button front, outside pockets, and cut to fit. It was made from a much better quality of wool, and often was longer than the enlisted man's garment.
Officers had to purchase their uniforms and equipment, a sad state of affairs that many a newly-appointed officer was not fully aware of. Now, realising that all this was expensive, the Army allowed him to purchase some odd items from time to time, but these were pretty much restricted to Cavalry overcoats and equipment (saddle, tack, etc, when available or surplus) enlisted trousers and shoes or boots.
Most officers quickly adopted a sack coat for field use, since it was not nearly as expensive as a dress coat, and was far more comfortable in the field. However, it was virtually always a tailored garment, and well made.
Officer's equipments are expensive, and reflect not only the quality of workmanship to produce them, but also his social station. He was SUPPOSED to look good, and set an example for his men in bearing and appearance. An enlisted sword belt, though tempting, is not appropriate to most impressions, and neither is an enlisted haversack.
Certainly some items are useable in both an enlisted and an officer's impression. Shirts, trousers ( for FIELD use) shelter half, ground cloth, blanket, canteen, socks, shoes, braces, etc are all able to be exchanged in impressions. However, your coat, cap, accouterments and haversack should always be top-notch and well fitted to you.
My suggestion would be to surf over to the Skillet Licker's site and peruse his officer's department. It will, if nothing else, give you an idea of what you should be looking at.
Respects,

[markmason]

The simple answer to your question is to read and study the pictures, and if possible for you to do so, I suggest visiting museums with collections of this sort. The problem with most of our officer impressions are TO MANY SACKCOATS, and to many impressions are merely thrown together in the name of saving cost and "campaign impression". Please look into wearing a Frock Coat. The only drawback to this garment is the broadcloth available today for us to use. The cloth on most original coats has a very fine weave to it, the texture is very smooth in appearance. The coat is lined through out, and almost always quilted with extensive machined ornate patterning. Sack coats are commonly used in our "Living Hsitory" community as a alternative to the frock due to expense and the fact that to make the Frock Coat requires materials that are hard to get and on the higher end of the $$ spectrum.
NOW I AM OFF ON A TANGENT.. :confused_
Remeber this, anything enlisted can be used by a officer. A likely scenerio may see a newly commisioned Sgt. presented with a sword and jacket only due to field service. He then obtains additional clothing through contracts with tailors, having them sent to him from home or purchased by oneself as his time permits to do so. If you have a enlisted forage cap, wear it. As this young officer would obtain new clothing piece meal, you could to.
As stated in other posts, officers funded their own clothing and equipment allowance. A good officers haversack will have extra pockets to store books, and paperwork. These responsibilities are less demanding to a 2d Lt. per say, allowing the utilization of a simple enlisted haversack if needed.

I need to stop but, you get the point..I hope :tounge_sm

GOOD LUCK.

[1stMaine]

Comrade Mark,

I agree with most of what you have to say, in fact the majority of it. I do not think that sack coats are over-represented per se, but I DO feel that there are too many of them in some situations. I've examined literally hundreds of images of officers, and what I see regarding sack coats is as follows:
1.) Newly raised regiments tend to have officers in dress coats. It's what they expect to wear and they haven't yet spent anytime in the field. As time passes, more and more officers, especially the company grade, tend to adopt a sack coat in lieu of the dress coat. This, however, omes with the caveat that the Colonel of the regiment sets the fashion tone. If he wants all his men to wear drss coats, then by heaven they will be wearing dress coats. Colonels that value form over fashion tend to allow the officers to wear what they wish, as long as it lies within the regulations, or at least has some sort of connection with them, and are maintained and worn without sloppiness or disregard.
2.) United States Regulars tend to wear sack coats almost exclusively in the field. Remember that the sack coat and forage cap are the BDU's of our period. Almost all of the images, for example, in the "Image of War" series that portray Regulars in the field show the officers in sack coats. The only exception seems to be at higher headquarters, although some sacks are nearly always present. Interestingly enough, while the regular enlisted men are seen wearing forage caps with their sack coats, the officers nearly always have some sort of black hat with their sack coat. Apparently the US Regulars tended to follow the regulations quite closely, using dress coats for dress occasions, and fatigue blouses and caps for field use. Which brings me to..
3.) The relationship between regulars and volunteers. Volunteer officers tended to emulate the regulars closely in many things, especially taking their cue from the appearance of regular officers. Early on, many volunteer officers adopted dark blue trowsers in mimicry of the regulars. These early volunteers wanted to "fit in" and be seen as the equal in fashion, if not in skill, of their regular counterparts. Even as the Regular army made the switch to sky blue trousers ( and many many field images of regular officers, especially company grade show this) the volunteers tended to stay with the dark blue of the earlier "regular" fashion.
I have used many generalities in my statements, and it is, in fact, a broad brush I use, because their are many variables to consider. Theater, year, campaign, length of service, etc, all will play a part in the appearance of the officer. How far away he is from a clothing source, what his Colonel dictates he wears, what he can afford (especially if he hasn't been paid in awhile) will have a bearing on what he will look like.
It's almost as difficult as developing a CS impression. Many Many factors to consider. I would heartily reccomend a new officer check his financial situation, consider what impression(s) he will be called upon to utilize in the coming year (events, location, garrison of field, etc) and o from there. research is the key here, as much or more so than for an enlisted impression, and the time and effort spent to develop a good impression will pay dividends in believability in future appearances.
respects,

[markmason]

Tim, you do make some very good points too. I am a fan of sack coats, and their are nice examples out there. I wanted to make the point that a good officers impression can succeed as easy as it can falter, though not a hard impression to obtain

I often wonder about the Dandy officer impressions, those of wanting the glitter and gold becasue they are officers.

Wow, There is so much information pertaining to this subject, and unless I have missed it on the AC, I feel like some well rounded impressions and knowledge are amongst us that could be of help to those wishing to follow the road to an officers impression. Would it be advantagous to have a folder on this site dedicated to "THE OFFICERS IMPRESSION" "OFFICERS ON CAMPAIGN "REPORTS" "EQUIPMENT"? Paul Calloway, Mods would this be something we can use?

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Sorry, The Nathan Gale referance when over my head yesterday, and I miss read contract for commercial (Geuss I was a soupsandwich yesterday). IMO you would be better off getting a commercial blouse from a recomended vendor such as Daley or Skilletlicker.

http://www.cjdaley.com/

http://www.skilletlicker.com/officers.htm

[hardtack1864]

Well, if an officer frock is to much to buy and a sack coat "both issued or private purchase" is over used, how about an officers shell jacket? I know they were'nt used as much as the other coats, but they seem more common with LT.'s.

[bonniegreenflag]

Speaking of variations on fatigue blouses, my unit occasionly does a 1st Conn. Heavy Artillery impression, and I noticed that many of the enlisted men had 5-button sack coats. I cant find any refernece on the forum, or any books I have immediate access to. They are pictured in EOG in the artillery section, and in another photo that I cannot give a reference to as I got it from a friend. I suppose they could be officers, but it doesnt look like it to me. No rank insiginia at all, no sidearms or sabers, and in the camp photo I have they are in a very informal setting.

[mdbucktail]

Comrads,
Thank you all for your valued opinions. Alas, cost is , at this time a limiting factor for me. I have not the ready extant cash to give for a correct 5 button officer sack coat. Let alone a jr officer frock. Not ones that are correct and authentic anyway. I guess I will have to just use my Nathan Gale contract blouse. For now. As I have seen pics of 1st & 2d Lt's in four button blouses that were similar. Not as prevalent as the 5 button though. This is better than using a sub par coat. Since I have upgraded most everything else of my uniform.
A 5 button blouse is now on my Christmas wish list...

Thanks again.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Speaking of variations on fatigue blouses, my unit occasionly does a 1st Conn. Heavy Artillery impression, and I noticed that many of the enlisted men had 5-button sack coats. I cant find any refernece on the forum, or any books I have immediate access to. They are pictured in EOG in the artillery section, and in another photo that I cannot give a reference to as I got it from a friend. I suppose they could be officers, but it doesnt look like it to me. No rank insiginia at all, no sidearms or sabers, and in the camp photo I have they are in a very informal setting.

Andrew

The men in the photos you have described, are probably wearing private puchase sack coats. Men in garrison units, such as the "heavies or the VRC, are often seen with this style of coat.

I have added a photo of an enlistedman from the 2nd Mass Cav. This unit was in the area of Washington City for some time. Fancy items such as private purchase hats, sack coats, and officer grade saberbelts show up in many photos of this regiment.

[mdbucktail]

Comrade,

I would urge you to review as many images of junior officers in field uniform as you can. What you will note is that though many are wearing a sack coat, it is NOT a enlisted man's sack coat. Even grant didn't wear one, despite his claim in his biography. What he and these others are wearing is a private-purchase sack coat, often (but not always) with a 5 button front, outside pockets, and cut to fit. It was made from a much better quality of wool, and often was longer than the enlisted man's garment.
Officers had to purchase their uniforms and equipment, a sad state of affairs that many a newly-appointed officer was not fully aware of. Now, realising that all this was expensive, the Army allowed him to purchase some odd items from time to time, but these were pretty much restricted to Cavalry overcoats and equipment (saddle, tack, etc, when available or surplus) enlisted trousers and shoes or boots.
Most officers quickly adopted a sack coat for field use, since it was not nearly as expensive as a dress coat, and was far more comfortable in the field. However, it was virtually always a tailored garment, and well made.
Officer's equipments are expensive, and reflect not only the quality of workmanship to produce them, but also his social station. He was SUPPOSED to look good, and set an example for his men in bearing and appearance. An enlisted sword belt, though tempting, is not appropriate to most impressions, and neither is an enlisted haversack.
Certainly some items are useable in both an enlisted and an officer's impression. Shirts, trousers ( for FIELD use) shelter half, ground cloth, blanket, canteen, socks, shoes, braces, etc are all able to be exchanged in impressions. However, your coat, cap, accouterments and haversack should always be top-notch and well fitted to you.
My suggestion would be to surf over to the Skillet Licker's site and peruse his officer's department. It will, if nothing else, give you an idea of what you should be looking at.
Respects,



Very good points, Tim. My officer impression will be one of a company commander. With the majority of events in the period of 1862 - 1864. I have everything I need but the coat. Since my budget does not allow a new officer's blouse at this time I am forced to make due. I do 1st Sgt the majority of the time. I will be required to assume command maybe three times
this year. Out of the 19 events we have scheduled.
The secondary items, you listed, I have and will be sufficient for both. So, I am okay there. I do have a jr officer's painted canvas haversack.
I have photos to study and from these I will base my impression.

Thank you for your insights. They are of great help.

[bonniegreenflag]

Thanks Rob.

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

Reviving an old topic, and while not on the subject of Junior Officers, mention is made in this thread about senior officers wearing/not wearing enlisted fatigue blouses. In researching the 65th NY Infantry (1st US Chasseurs), I came across this image of Brigadier General John Cochrane, who had previously served as Colonel of the regiment.

Pretty darn close to an issue blouse! But check out the topstitching on the cuff (possibly a standard vented cuff folded in and topstitched so as to have a straight edge?), and what looks to be trim on the collar.

And is that handstitching on the pocket bag which, incidentally, is flat-bottomed? And does the topstitching abruptly end where the facing ends, thus giving way to a whipstitched hem? Quite a few characteristics of your standard Schuylkill blouse! Almost like this was taken out of the bin and modified a little before going to the General. Little bit of extra room in the front there, too -- might this be one of the elusive size 5-6's?
:tounge_sm

[RebelReefer]

Like it has been said over and over again, sack coats on Jr. officers are totally over represented. I for one portray a 2nd L.T. in the 7th Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. The 7th Conn spent 80% of it's time in the Army/Dept of the Gulf. As the war dragged on, the state of the officers got worse and worse. From a series of photos both CDV's and in the field photos, you can tell they went from frockcoats with kepis and big shoulder boards in 1862, to shell jackets with forage caps and thin shoulder boards and subdued rank in 1864. They were also "in the a** end of the war" and not in Tennessee or Virginia, but they went through a process not unlike their counterparts in the east and west. So there for, i have two impressions when portraying a officer. One which is a frockcoat with more fancy, private purchase gear including a kepi, and i have another which consists of a shell jacket with more enlisted gear which includes a forage cap. Just thought i put my two cents worth in aswell.