Are these picture taking duds ?

[lukegilly13]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

What's your all's take on cravat's outside of the collar? Some appear to be a single wrap arround the neck and on the outside of the collar (i.e. I can see the wrap) but I have read that it was common to do a double wrap before tying. Still others are concealed by the fold down collar and show essentially nothing but the bow/knot. Is this a matter of personal preference, a fad that was comming in or going out, or is one method more formal than the other?

[OlszowyTM]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

David Fox
Re: Are these picture taking duds ?I've followed this tread with interest. To address the original photograph and the original question: would you, gentle reader, run all the way home to spiffy-up so you could be immortalized standing on the wrong end of a mule?

Without a date location or purpose for the picture it is difficult to draw many conclusions from this picture. Are they local laborers/clerks or mule drivers/skinners/swampers or settlers just come off the road or is it a group of folks who knew the photographer was in town and dressed for the occasion (i.e. put on coats they weren't wearing minutes before? Without something to help focus the context it's hard to answer.

Becky Morgan Re: Are these picture taking duds ?Is his sleeve actually pinned up, or does he have a list or other paper stuffed through a buttonhole?

My vote is a heavily starched cuff pushed up just enough to get it out of the way but not so much as to "break it".

On hats- I guess my thoughts would go to some of the functionalities of hats. Warmth & protection. Ian's post shows work in a large warehouse environment that may not be well heated, which could result in someone liking to keep their head warmer. The workers also seem to be engaged in a moblie work task with some of them entering and leaving the building, which would make it easier just to leave your hat on than look for someplace to put, possibly get stuff dumped on it & then have to find it again when it's time to go back outside. The same is true of the last QM picture. I don't know what the weather in Apr of 65 was, but my hunch is that the inside of the building might be just a tad cooler than outside & some may have been wearing them inside. There are at least 3 holding hats in the front row who "may" have been asked to remove them to unblock those standing behind them. There are also several with a really bad case of "hat hair" that don't have them on, so I'm not sure we could draw any conclusions from this pic.

I do however really like the guy in the rear standing next to the left side of the flag's canton. The close up of him shows what looks like buttons in the front holding together a fold down flap. What's everyone else's take?

Last, but not least, let's talk about the 1st dude on the left in the checked pointed bottom vest. It appears to me to be very clearly cut at a cant to create points and not just pulled apart. I don't know when vest fronts began to shift from straight to pointed fronts-Is this the beginning of a change in vest fronts?

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I don't believe the argument is that men weren't "dressed with out a coat". The discussion should be, more a matter of what is situationally appropriate, in much the same way there is a time and a place to wear or not wear a tshirt & blue jeans today. ...How many coats are hanging on pegs to be donned when the worker leaves the site?

I didn't phrase that very clearly, did I? You're correct, of course, and I would bet the coatless men had coats at hand (and hats as well.) I was wondering whether the surrender news had just arrived, too, because of the flag in that odd position. They were in such a hurry to go out for the picture that they didn't take time to hang it properly or plan to hold it up. To me, the rolled-up sleeves and hatless heads are a pretty good indication that they rushed outside at the photographer's call. That's what makes this picture so interesting: they obviously didn't have time to fancy themselves up, so we get to see waistcoats, shirt details, better pictures of hairstyles and so on.

The male-dominated shop is no doubt the answer. Think of the Chattanooga photo where there are no women around. Etiquette books aren't going to be a lot of help, because they tend to lag behind social practice.

I will say that Dad's CW veteran relatives wore suit coats to leave their houses, even in very hot weather, well into the 1930s. That must have been a habit entrenched in their youth, because their younger relatives didn't always wear coats and they found it mildly shocking. Dad recalled arguing with his great-great uncle because he was obviously uncomfortable during a long streetcar ride in high summer and no one around him had kept his jacket on. The brothers were also in the habit of asking permission of any non-family ladies present before they removed their jackets indoors. Note that they didn't sit around overheating; they asked to be polite, and no lady would refuse their request. When they left the house to get back on the streetcar, the jacket and hat went back on.

By the way, what is the fourth man from the left wearing? He has his coat buttoned up all the way, and he's missing a button, isn't he? By his posture and the way he's buttoned up, I wonder whether he's just out of military service.

[David Fox]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I've followed this tread with interest. To address the original photograph and the original question: would you, gentle reader, run all the way home to spiffy-up so you could be immortalized standing on the wrong end of a mule?

[Ian McWherter]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

All good points. I'm curious about the hats. Were the hatted men wearing hats indoors while working, or did they just grab them on the way out? One sees period accounts of men wearing hats indoors in bars, the theater, etc., so it's not impossible. But the other explanation is the one that would apply to me. I'm so much in the habit of grabbing a hat when I go out, that when I'm staying in a hotel, I'll sometimes even accidentally grab it when leaving the room to go to the restaurant or whatever that's still located inside the hotel, because it feels like I'm going outside. So I expect it could be a hard habit to break, even if one didn't pick up a coat.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

There were certainly jobs in which men wore their hats indoors while working. The following engraving is from Hutching's California Magazine, Jan. 1858 issue. Distributing the mails in the San Francisco Post Office and Custom House:

[Hank Trent]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I don't believe the argument is that men weren't "dressed with out a coat". The discussion should be, more a matter of what is situationally appropriate, in much the same way there is a time and a place to wear or not wear a tshirt & blue jeans today. When should men wear coats and when is it appropriate to go without? Folks sometimes tend to take pictures like this and use it for justification in inappropriate situations ( and vice versa for the "always wear a coat position).

All good points. I'm curious about the hats. Were the hatted men wearing hats indoors while working, or did they just grab them on the way out? One sees period accounts of men wearing hats indoors in bars, the theater, etc., so it's not impossible. But the other explanation is the one that would apply to me. I'm so much in the habit of grabbing a hat when I go out, that when I'm staying in a hotel, I'll sometimes even accidentally grab it when leaving the room to go to the restaurant or whatever that's still located inside the hotel, because it feels like I'm going outside. So I expect it could be a hard habit to break, even if one didn't pick up a coat.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[OlszowyTM]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I don't believe the argument is that men weren't "dressed with out a coat". The discussion should be, more a matter of what is situationally appropriate, in much the same way there is a time and a place to wear or not wear a tshirt & blue jeans today. When should men wear coats and when is it appropriate to go without? Folks sometimes tend to take pictures like this and use it for justification in inappropriate situations ( and vice versa for the "always wear a coat position).

For me, the picture taken in tandem with its caption April 1865, suggests co workers who had an opportunity to have a photo taken for posterity in the waning days of the war (& given the huge flag that appears to to be quickly and casually draped, perhaps even the the day Lee's surrender was announced). If you accept the caption QM emloyees, then they were "at work" which is a different situation than being on Main Street. It also appears to be a male dominated environment where there may have been no expectation of "polite company". Thus the rules are perhaps relaxed. We see the same thing in genre paintings of farmers in shirtsleeves.

Discounting distinctly uniformed military photo settings, since the military has its own dress codes, juxtapose this last pic, with the first one in this thread on a public street & the one of the gentlemen in the other QM picture in front of an office building, some of this starts to come thru. Places where there may be more exposure to society at large, coats abound. In a rougher worksetting they start to dissipate. The real question we can't answer from this picture is-- How many coats are hanging on pegs to be donned when the worker leaves the site?

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Is his sleeve actually pinned up, or does he have a list or other paper stuffed through a buttonhole? That would make sense if he'd been preparing a requisition. Most of the shoes and boots are muddy to one degree or another, which suggests they've been moving around outside. Note the guy with the "funnels" also has shiny shoes, so he's probably a foreman of some sort, not walking back and forth in mud. He has both sleeves rolled up, so he must move things in the warehouse; if it were to keep from smearing his shirt cuff while he wrote, he'd probably only turn back one side. They all seem able-bodied, but not weightlifters, and their clothes aren't dirty, so I'd guess whatever they lift and move isn't terribly heavy or apt to make a mess--might be medical supplies, clothing or odds and ends of rations like candles and soap.

That long, low building behind them has the look of a warehouse with an office attached. Is that structure beside the chimney a ventilator or an ice box?

I wonder whether the boys in the foreground were there in any professional capacity or whether they were playing hooky, saw the photographer and got in the picture.
This helps put the "a man wasn't dressed without a coat on" business. If it were really that taboo, they wouldn't have gone out in shirt sleeves.

Lots of light-colored shirts here, and probably a good many white, but note how many are plaid, striped or pleated in fancy ways. For a horrid moment I thought the man on the far left was wearing paisley, but it's a splatter on the edge of the plate :)

I see only two, possibly three, watch chains, and no rings. That would also make sense if these men do a lot of crate-toting.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

That's a great picture.

What's going on with the sleeve of the fellow who's standing in the front row, in front of the window? It looks like he has it pinned up, maybe, but how'd he get it to make the little funnel shapes?

Also, my reaction to the picture is that they were photographed the way they were working inside, and at most some may have grabbed their hats, but in general they just trouped outside dressed as they were and lined up. Would they be clerks at desks? Warehouse workers lifting and loading? Any guesses what type of work they were most likely doing, dressed like that?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[PetePaolillo]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Love the look of the Gentleman in the checked waistcoat and matching trousers! Notice all the waistcoats. They are seen sparingly in our hobby aren't they? Thanks for sharing them Mel.

[yeoman]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Sir and ma'am, if I may, here is another group image.

The caption reads, Washington, District of Columbia. Group of Quartermaster Corps employees, 1865 April.










This image may be found on this LOC page.

An after thought... here are a couple of shots of the foot wear these men have, thanks.

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Two things I'd like to point out from several of the photos posted:

2) notice how many of the coats that are buttoned appear to be straining at the buttons. I wonder how many men bought coats a smaller size from either vanity or a desire to have the coat pull open naturally to expose the vest? But then they button the coat for the photograph? Maybe one of the reasons we see comments about "well-fitted" or "tailored" coats is because ill-fitting garments were so common?

Just more grist for the mill,

Some milling.

I have to disagree here. Other than the man whose coat in the second row is obviously strained because of the rather large book/box/whatever tucked into the inside breast pocket...they all generally appear to fit. For some reason, people think that "fitted" or "tailored" means "tight". That's just not the case...it means it "fits."

If you (the collective) bought your modern clothes with the same scrutiny, demand, and criteria regarding cloth, pattern, and construction and spent the money to have things like bespoke suits made...not even talking made to measure here...then that "fit" would be and is...the same as the guys in the photo. Baggy/loose/boxy has become the standard American fit...just look at a Brooks Brothers today. Knowing what "fit" means would give an entirely different perspective on the "tightness" that doesn't exist in that photo.

[PogueMahone]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Two things I'd like to point out from several of the photos posted:

1) notice how many of the hats appear to have the crown "punched out", in other words they pushed the shaped crown out to give the hat a domed shape. I think this may have been a practice during rainy weather to keep the rain from collecting in the recessed crown and pooling water until it soaked thru. If the crown is pushed out, the rain will actually run off and your head stays a bit drier. This is just speculation on my part, but I have tried it and found it to work, except in a deluge when nothing keeps you dry.

2) notice how many of the coats that are buttoned appear to be straining at the buttons. I wonder how many men bought coats a smaller size from either vanity or a desire to have the coat pull open naturally to expose the vest? But then they button the coat for the photograph? Maybe one of the reasons we see comments about "well-fitted" or "tailored" coats is because ill-fitting garments were so common?

Just more grist for the mill,

[PetePaolillo]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I've never seen a double breasted sack coat before! That is what I need!

He definately has a unique but miltary look to him. Possibly a Velvet collar as well? interesting kepi he is wearing also.

[Ian McWherter]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I've never seen a double breasted sack coat before! That is what I need!

I have an original pattern draft for one of these dated 1855.