JT Martin Domet Flannel Dyed Issue Shirt

[Pvt_Jack_Bauer]

A buddy of mine recently purchased a Domet Flannel Issue Shirt. It has the JT Martin stamp on the lower part of the shirt and it is sumac dyed so the shirt has a gray tint to it. We have been racking our brains trying to figure out why this was done and cannot come up with anything on the net or with any resources we have. Does anybody have any thoughts? Thanks.

[brown]

Is it sumac? I haved heard tale of logwood dyed domet flannel issue shirts, but only from a well known vendor who sells them. I know almost nothing about the dyes used for contractor shirts, but find this topic to be very interesting.

[Pvt_Jack_Bauer]

Yes it is sumac and from the "well known vendor" haha. Just trying to figure out why the contractor took the time to dye the shirts. Seems it would take more time to dye the shirts rather than to just ship them.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

My curiousity got the best of me and I procured said shirt for myself. After asking the vendor the provenance of the item, I was assured that it was copied "directly from an original in a private collection". That being said, I wondered the exact same things like why would a contractor go through the extra processes. He has a semi-decent track record of getting a hold of originals to copy, so I wasn't "too" worried, but the contractor stamp of JT Martin is suspect to me. Not saying it wasn't on the original, but it does sweeten the pot when considering shelling out high dollars for a shirt that I can make myself if I only had some sumac dyed dommet.

[GreencoatCross]

I have heard that the reproduction shirt in question was patterned from and based on observations of an original housed in the Smithsonian. A few years back when this reproduction was offered I asked around if anyone knew of the allegedly vegetable-dyed Smithsonian shirt and one person stated that he had once viewed "a shirt in the Smithsonian" but that it was "used and dirty." I am not sure if this person considered the fading properties of cheap dyes of the period or knew of natural oxidation of undyed, unbleached, or loomstate fabrics of the period. Your mileage may vary.

Unfortunately, I have never had the time to venture out to the Smithsonian for a viewing of anything they have but I have viewed several dozens of other garments. Some of the most notable, when oxidation of unbleached fabrics was considered, were some shelter tent halves, sleeve linings, body linings, and a heavily used contract issue shirt constructed from undyed wool flannel (complete with an array of discoloration caused by use).

In my studies of original images I have found the QM pattern issue shirt in either plain white flannel or a mottled "mixed gray" flannel material but never of a medium or dark solid shade. Attached is a some close-up of what appears to be mixed gray flannel issue shirts.

Brian White
Wambaugh, White, & Co.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Thanks for that excellent information Mr. ************.

[rmilstead]

I would respectfully submit that this discussion and the excerpt from the Company article raise some interesting questions. In particular, it is noteworthy that in the excerpt the references mention twilled materials. Most current thought is that domet was a plain (or "tabby") weave material, not twill weave. It is perhaps that the original contracts were less rigorous in what could be used. It also could be that domet was not as strictly defined as is currently thought. All current reproduction domet that I know of is plain weave based presumably upon the existing original examples. However, the majority of known original examples are also white (unbleached or undyed) and the manufacturing data would predict more than half should be gray. All wool is also mentioned but obviously it's higher cost probably limited its use. Could many of the shirts been made from gray twilled wool and cotton material? The research certainly would suggest this conclusion.
Given the quanities of this material that was produced, I question whether "piece dying" of the cloth was used very extensively but speculate "yarn dying" prior to weaving was the mechanism used for coloring. Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of yards of this material were produced and piece dying after weaving would have been far less effective, less consistent, and much less efficient than dying the yarns prior to weaving the cloth. Yarn dying would explain references to mixed gray as well as "mottled" colors since the cotton and wool yarns would not necessarily have been dyed together in the same dye lot and would have absorbed the dye to different degrees. Perhaps, in some cases, only the wool might have been dyed and the cotton left undyed thereby producing a mixed gray/white coloration. This is, of course, all speculation unless and until additional original samples show up for study..

Dick Milstead
Formerly 27th Va Inf and 1st Md
Currently Unassigned
Member, Company of Military Historians

[J.H.Berger]

Dar comrades,
may I ask if the shirt in question was of the pleated variant or the regulation one button front variant?

[neocelt]

Gents,

As a footnote to Nick ************'s very thorough discourse, I would note that various shades of gray woolens can of course be achieved without dyeing at all. But where such coloring was called for, dyeing in the piece was indeed less expensive for contractors than dyeing in the wool, as there was some fiber loss in the spinning process (which was performed by externally powered 'mules'--not treadle spinning wheels) as well as the weaving and finishing phases of production (fulling, shearing, plating). Hence, in cases where a large volume of fabric is being considered (as in these contract scenarios), the savings of piece-dying could be substantial. And while it is not the case in this particular instance, if the dyestuff happens to be indigo (blouse flannel, sky blue kersey, etc.) the contractor's savings by piece-dyeing could be enormous.

Please note that the statement in the article cited that "The 1865 'Quartermaster's Manual' (unpublished), codified flannel specifications" is not accurate. As this text was never published, it didn't "codify" anything--indeed, no one ever even saw it! As I have stated previously on this forum, this important manuscript does establish an intent on the part of the QM Dept. to codify these specifications, and it is useful for research so long as we understand that it is referring to an ideal that is based upon "lessons learned" in the Real World. It represents what the government would like for the stuff to look like from 1865-on, not what it actually did look like during the war years.

Cheers,