Are these picture taking duds ?

[Ian McWherter]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Todd Harrington and I were talking about it at the recent Sewing Confrence when looking at some of Brian's vest. One was very ornate and the first thing we thought about is if anyone showed up at an event with that vest, how many people would probably say they were a farb with that vest. The picture of the scouts does a lot for ditto suits, plaid pants, ties/no ties, vest etc.
Great Pic, thanks for posting

What about context for that vest? When does it date to, what kind of material was it made from, was it a special occasion vest? The number of original fancy vests that were made for and worn by men for special occasions, such as their weddings, is countless. These do not necessarily count as "everyday" vests. There are certainly some very colorful original garments, but before anyone goes out and has them reproduced to wear at some event for whatever purpose, people need to understand a little more about their context. You can't look at a vest dated 1855 or 1845 and think, "Wow, that vest is off the hook! I'm going to incorporate it into my civilian impression for 1863."

When you look at the Sack Coats worn by Ed Spangler and George Atzerodt they're both made from the fashionable textured fabrics in muted tones I spoke about earlier. These textured fabrics were very popular in the 1860s for informal wear, those famous "ditto suits" that everyone talks about but have little understanding of, are commonly made from these fabrics as evidenced by period photography. Even when these suits are made from matching patterned material, the patterns are never as wild and ridiculous as reenactors would like to think. They need to stop watching Gangs of New York for all their period clothing ideas.

Michael O'Laughlin and Dr. Samuel Mudd are both wearing black broadcloth coats, notice the fine trim on the edges of all the coats. Also, how many big floppy collars and huge clown cravats are these guys wearing? None. Except for Lewis Payne in his undershirt, they all have shirts with band collars or white shirts with short turn down collars and narrow cravats. In other words, up-to-date 1860s fashion, despite their humble origins. If guys like large standing collars with large cravats they should attend 1840s-1850s events instead.

Rings were a common accessory for Men in the 19th century, even well into the mid-part of the 20th century, the more photographs you analyze the more you see them. I have my Great Grandfather's pinky ring he wore everyday, he worked for Polonia Diary Co. in Chicago until he passed away.

As for the earlier group photo, sure does look like summer there and many of the men appear dressed for it with linen clothing, even still there are a number of dark wool coats worn. Look at all those small collars, narrow cravats, short crowned/ short-brimmed hats and comfortably fit sack coats. If i didn't know any better I'd swear these guys all keep with the latest 1860s fashion.

[rbruno]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

This has been a great thread!
Ian, I bet that black satinet made an incredible garment. I also have some FHW grey satinet that I thought of making a sack coat out of, but to think the original satinet is close to broadcloth is unbelievable. The satinet I have is no where near that fine. I like it because you really need to look for the cotton on the face side, but no way will it hold a raw edge. Again, that must be an impressive coat and material to get satinet to hold a raw edge, finished on both sides, etc. We sure settle for inferior stuff in our modern times.

I really like that picture of the scouts. Talk about a variety of clothes, colors, weights, vest, etc. Did anyone notice how many of the men are wearing pinky rings? Didn't realize rings were that popular. I don't want to derail this clothing discussion for a rings discussion. Just thought that was interesting. I think this view of civilian clothes is very important. Todd Harrington and I were talking about it at the recent Sewing Confrence when looking at some of Brian's vest. One was very ornate and the first thing we thought about is if anyone showed up at an event with that vest, how many people would probably say they were a farb with that vest. The picture of the scouts does a lot for ditto suits, plaid pants, ties/no ties, vest etc.
Great Pic, thanks for posting

[jake.koch]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

O'Laughlin was rather dapper looking compared to the others. Is that just me or is Lewis Payne wearing broadfall fronted trousers. I know that it is seen in some Navy uniforms, but wasn't that for the most part out of style for civilian where by then, or is that a matter of Payne being among a lower socio-economic class and wearing what he could afford to get?

[Hank Trent]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Wait wut ?

That picture is of the "spies and scouts," or something like that, right? Is there a good detailed analysis of who the men were and why they were dressed like that, anywhere?

Because on the surface, if it's a photo of men who were supposed to blend into the surrounding countryside and look like locals, it's always intrigued me as a photo of period people trying to dress as much like what they thought locals would dress as possible. In other words, they're doing what we're doing, only with all the resources of someone who lived back then. It's definitely a country, southern look, but it's what you'd see around most battles.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Dr. Samuel Mudd

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

George Atzerodt

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Michael O'Laughlin

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Ed Spangler

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Some perspective as viewed from 5, late-war, common men (Lincoln Conspiritors)

Lewis Payne.......no button undershirt

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

This may go down as one of the most important fashion authenticity threads in quite some time...though as Ian and Elizabeth mention, this has been around in various forms. The power of photos always helps...

Wait wut ?

If only I might cotch dem tape worm



CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Ian McWherter]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

To all: Ian's excellent quote on broadcloth from SA begs the question of whether there was also a preponderance of black kersey, jean, etc?

This is an excellent point. I have in my collection a pair of black wool trousers from the 1850s and a pair of black broadfall trousers that date to the late 1850s through early 1860s, both trousers are made from all wool cloth with a satin weave. I also own an 1860s single breasted frock coat made from black satinet. The satinet this frock is made from weighs the same as superfine broadcloth typically used on original frocks, which is very light. It is double faced, in other words it is finished on both sides so you can't see the natural cotton warp, the only way you can see the warp is in areas where the wool nap is very worn down. This satinet is also so tightly woven it holds a raw edge without fraying, try finding modern satinet that will do the same. In fact, this cloth is so finely made when you look at the parts of the coat that have no wear there is no way of telling it apart from the superfine wool broadcloth the other frock coats in my collection are made from. This was supposed to be the "cheap" cloth! In comparison I have some black satinet made by Family Heirloom Weavers, there is no comparison to the original satinet. The weight, weave, finish, everything is way off.

[DougCooper]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

This may go down as one of the most important fashion authenticity threads in quite some time...though as Ian and Elizabeth mention, this has been around in various forms. The power of photos always helps...and is one reason I wish the AC photo contest used original photos for the cover as a means of education for us all. This photo would be an outstanding example. Instead of trying to find the most authentic looking reenactor photo, we could vote in one like this and start the discussion right off the home page.

To all: Ian's excellent quote on broadcloth from SA begs the question of whether there was also a preponderance of black kersey, jean, etc?

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I've posted this same article numerous times on numerous forums and I've stated over and over again how common black was not only for formal men's wear but for work clothing as well. 1860s men's attire tends to be rather sober compared to previous decades, fashionable textured fabrics such as tweeds in muted tones tended to be more popular than bright colors or patterns for informal attire. Even 1840s and 1850s American fashion, in reality, tends to be more sober than reenactors think, I call it the Gangs Of New York syndrome.

This.

Thanks.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Ian McWherter]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I've posted this same article numerous times on numerous forums and I've stated over and over again how common black was not only for formal men's wear but for work clothing as well. 1860s men's attire tends to be rather sober compared to previous decades, fashionable textured fabrics such as tweeds in muted tones tended to be more popular than bright colors or patterns for informal attire. Even 1840s and 1850s American fashion, in reality, tends to be more sober than reenactors think, I call it the Gangs Of New York syndrome. Talk to any collector of original American men's clothing, while certainly there are some colorful original pieces, they tend to be fairly conservative compared to original examples of English clothing and original French garments are even more wild than the English.

At reenactments you can see every color of the rainbow exhibited in men's clothing, but black. It seems every reenactor has the mentality that "everyone wears black, so I'm going to wear something different." But, since most men make this decision very few actually wear black. There's also something about reenactors in general that makes us all crave to be "colorful and unique butterflies." The result is when you actually see a large group of civilian men gather at an event they look far more like a troop of clowns from Barnum & Bailey than actual period citizens. Everything is theatrically exaggerated, wild clashing colors of every variety, ridiculous plaids that are more appropriate for a 1970s sofa than 1860s trousers, collars that are totally out of date and cravats that are way too large and taken totally out of context. Narrow cravats with simple knots and smaller turn-down paper collars was the prevailing look for working class, indeed every class of men in the 1860s. When putting together civilian impressions far too many men cherry pick different elements they see from photographs regardless of date and without any idea of context.

In 1859 The Circular, the publication of the Oneida Community, reprinted this article from the Scientific American:

"Professor Hamilton, in an address on hygiene to the graduates of the Buffalo Medical College, denounced broadcloth as an enemy to exercise and health, but did not suggest a substitute. He says: "American gentlemen have adopted as a national costume, broadcloth-a thin, tight-fitting black suit of broadcloth. To foreigners, we seem always in mourning: we travel in black, we write in black, we work in black. The preist, the lawyer, the doctor, the literary man, the mechanic, and even the day-laborer, choose always the same unvarying, monotonous black braodcloth; a style and material which never ought to have been adopted out of the drawing-room or the pulpit; because it is a feeble and expensive fabric; because it is at the North no suitable protaction against the cold, nor is it indeed any more suitable at the South. It is too thin to be warm in the winter, and to black to be cool in the summer, but especially do we object to it because the wearer is always afraid of soiling it by exposure. Young gentlemen will not play ball, or pitch quoits, or wrestle or tumble, or any other similar thing, lest their broadcloth should be rended. They will not go out into the storm, because the broadcloth will lose its luster if rain falls upon it; they will not run because they have no confidence in the strength of the broadcloth; they dare not mount a horse, leap a fence, because broadcloth as everybody knows is so faithless. So these young men and these older men, merchants, mechanics, and all, learn to walk, talk, and think soberly and carefully; they seldom venture to laugh to the full extent of their sides."-Scientific American.

Merchants, Mechanics and Day Laborers all wearing black wool broadcloth..

"...every sober mechanic has his one or two suits of broadcloth, and, so far as mere clothes go, can make as good a display, when he chooses, as what are called the upper classes." -Horace Greely, Art and Industry as Represented in the Exhibition at the Crystal Palace (New York: Redfield, 1853), p.231

"...all so neatly and comfortably clad." "The stranger is involuntarily led to enquire, 'Where are the working classes-the tattered and half-fed, miserable-looking starvelings...of this native land.?'"-Welsh immigrant quoted in Richard B. Scott, Workers in the Metropolis: Class. Ethnicity, and Youth in Antebellum New York City (Ithaca,N.Y.:Cornell University Press),pp.174-175.

"...when operatives had finished the labours of the day, they generally changed their garments, and were as neatly attired as those in higher stations."-William Chambers, Things as They Are in America (London: William and Robert Chambers, 1857),p.343.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Some aspects are purely style-driven, though... the economic reversals of the 1850s seem to have triggered a bit of a retrenchment in the outward colorfulness of men's dress clothing (perhaps an outward manifestation of inner uncertainty, somberness, etc?), though vests and such retained a goodly amount of personal variety.

But "better" clothes are in separate categories from "work" clothes... look at the contemporaneous paintings of working class fellows, versus paintings of bankers, ministers, and lawyers, or school teachers. The "better" and "Sunday Best" clothes tend toward dark colors for many men in the 60s (with summertime exceptions of linen suits), while the working clothes of lower-class laboring men shows a wider variety of colors and textures. There are lots of exceptions, and a range of possibilities, but those are some really, really broad generalizations I'm making. I think we sometimes miss the subtle cues that people of the time would be able to hone in on, to read more about a person's status than we will ever really "get."

As to darker cloth being practical, that really depends. Wool of all sorts is a more practical textile than cotton from a stain and odor vantage. Wool releases grime and odors much more readily than does cotton, without washing (substitute beating, brushing, and airing, plus spot-cleaning). Mud on a wool suit? Let it dry and brush it out. You may have some faint staining, but it will wear out with time, or could be further cleaned. Same mud on cotton? It's going to stain more heavily, and fade more slowly. How about coal dust? It can settle into cotton for some great permanent color, but can be pulled out of wool with things like fuller's earth (ditto fuller's earth on oily stains from petroleum, cooking grease, or other oils... you're stuck with cotton, but fine with wool). Do you have a loving horse or cow who tried to share some pre-masticated hay with your elbow? With cotton, you'll have a chlorophyll stain there for awhile, and smell a bit.. off. Wool? Let it dry, brush it off, and give it a good airing.

Seriously, wool in all colors is a practical fabric; more practical than cotton in many respects. A man in a dark suit is no less prone to acquiring grime, but a dark *wool* suit will fare better than a dark cotton suit, and a light wool suit will fare better than a light cotton suit... can't say I've seen truly light-colored wool outfits on men over the age of mid-childhood, though.

I'll support the idea of a roundabout coat being a style more often worn by boys and very young men. Variations of it blend in with some adult men's coats, though, so it's still not a universal thing.

I'm by no means one of the experts in men's clothing. Interested observer, yes. :) Well-dressed-out men, regardless of the class impression, are a thing of beauty. When you fellows dress to look like the fellows of mid-century, there are a lot of us ladies who notice, and approve.

It's 2:10 am on Saturday... I think it's time I call Friday officially OVER, and hit the hay. I'll be glad of others with more research background than I chiming in! :)