Mid-Nineteenth century clothing (revisited, with kindness)

[Shockoe Hill Cats]

Friends,

This is my seventh year of following the hobby, and despite the on-coming sesquicentennial I have become more interested in pursuing a quality civilian impression rather than military.

Last year, a thread was posted regarding fabric sources (http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...=fabric+source) and some discussion on men's garments arose. I would like to revisit this topic and generate some worthwhile discussion. From my point of view, I sometimes observe that reenactors (both mainstream and progressive) tend to have little or no knowledge regarding 19th century fashion. At first glance, this seems rather odd to me (I recall our first sergeant commenting once, 'You are citizens first, soldiers second' at one event).

A few topics that come to mind regarding past methods and techniques and present approaches:

• Context/availability of goods to an individual - A few posts in the original thread urged the importance of socioeconomic context. The primarily thought being, an individual's social position relative to others (i.e. income, education, occupation) only made available certain types of goods. How genuinely true is this? No doubt that the homestead tailor (most likely not operating as a business entrepreneur) may or may not have had access to high quality fabrics, experience with certain sewing techniques, etc. but wasn't there a desire to achieve at least the style of say, metropolitan fashion?
  
  Were rural, independent tailors still reading texts such as, The Cutter's Monthly Journal of London and Paris Fashion, Minister's Gazette of Fashion, The Handbook of Practical Cutting on the Centre Point System by Louis Devere and at minimum, aware of these modern styles if not putting them into practice?
  
• Fashion 18.40, 18.50, 18.60 - This is an argument I always have with a close friend of mine, would a coat from the 1850s be worn in the 1860s? Is this question subjective (personal v. what is fashionable)? Again, consider Question #1.
  
  I wear the same Northface vest that has a tear, is getting frumpy, and perhaps smells bad, but I like it and have worn it forever. This is, of course, a modern reference. Interestingly enough, I have been reading Wilbur Salisbury's System of Actual Measurement and drafting for all styles of coats (1866) and he recommends one man owning (at minimum) four coats.

Present considerations:

• Who’s on first? For many, a civilian impression is only a secondary one. Enlisted military garments are utter garbage in comparison to citizen clothing. I am so often fooled and left befuddled at whether stitching on civilian garments are hand sewn or machined! Few people want to pay the high cost it would take to match this craftsmanship.
  
• $$$$ - In studying original men’s garments from the period, reproducing them requires A LOT of money. The contemporary fashion industry is dead compared to what it once was, and finding similar fabric that compares well is like searching for the Holy Grail (case in point, black superfine wool broadcloth, blue-gray kersey, doeskin). And while $500 worth of material may be acquired, the labor in constructing it should also be considered (i.e. drafting an appropriate pattern, and a lot of hand sewing).
  
• "How do we go about all this?" - As was stated, "But tailors were humans, so it is not unachievable."
  

I would like to hear other people's thoughts, opinions, suggestions, all within a friendly round of discussion.

Fraternally yours,

[RevWarTaylor]

Re: Mid-Nineteenth century clothing (revisited, with kindness)

Hi Jason

As you know I'm more of a lurker on this forum but I thought that I might offer some points of interest. Those who interpret the 1860s are not only in the midst of a "Civil" and Ideological revolution but the industrial revolution. I think one thing that has severally effected the tailors trade by 1860's is of course the invention of the sewing machine. This device has now made it possible to produce tremendous amounts of clothing in a short period of time. A man in lets say 1760 only really had one choice to get a brand new coat...going to a tailor. A man by 1860 can now potentially buy it off the rank new or still have it made by tailor.

You also have the option in the period to buy second hand clothing or remake older clothes. I have generally found the remaking of objects more common in women's clothing (as there is more fabric typically in them) but there are certainly mens garments that were remade as well. Just of note...there is a gown in Colonial Williamsburg collection that dates roughly to the 1840s, but the textile dates to the 1740s and the scaring from the previous makings make it clear that it was a 1740s gown before being chopped up.

Tailor in the period, like most of us today who are tailors, train through an apprenticeship. This is a legal binding contract to educate the young man with the "Arts and Mysteries" of the trade. By the 1860's there are lots of different measuring systems. I think the Library of Congress has over 40-50 different and or updated tailoring systems from the 19th Century. These systems are a departure from proportional and direct measuring that was used prior to 1796 London and 1803 Philadelphia publications of "The Taylor's Complete Guide." Tailors in the 19th Century used these systems as a basis for their patterns. At the same time the learned tricks from their masters to improve fit and economy of cutting etc. Unfortunately many of those tips and tricks dont survive to make these systems work to their best. This is also why it takes so long to learn the trade.

Tailors would certainly need to be aware of the current fashion plus earlier styles. Not every customer is going to desire to have the new fashions. A Journeymen tailor in 1860, being trained for 7 years, starting apprenticeship around 1853, will not only learn those styles of the 50s, but also of his masters knowledge of the 40's as well. There are older members of society who will continue to wear what was in style when they were young, so an understanding of that cut and fit is going to be very important.

In terms of finding materials for making reproduction garments, some of it is out there, some of it is not. Yes this makes it very hard to make exacting reproductions. You can have the best alpaca lining, the best black broadcloth but yet still come out with a garment that does not fit and not give you the correct silhouette of the mid 19th Century. Again as I have said and many other will probably agree, that skill of fit takes years of time and experience, and trail and error.

Neal Hurst
A Taylor

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Mid-Nineteenth century clothing (revisited, with kindness)

With the thriving market in second and even third-hand clothing, it's entirely conceivable that a person of lesser means can have access to clothing that was originally for a higher economic class--you can expect that the second/third hand clothing will be of somewhat earlier styles, and getting shabby by the third owner, etc.

I've not look at this specific to tailors, but for dressmakers, though they learn under a form of apprenticeship in most cases, it is economically harmful to keep making "outmoded" styles of dress over a long period of time. A dressmaker's main benefit is that she can tastefully interpret current styles for her customers. It would be interesting to look at tailoring from the same standpoint: is it harmful for them to have clients seen in new "old" styles? Does it give them a negative reputation as a tailor who can't move forward and give his clients well-fitted, quality garments in the "modern" style?

As to the repros: there are some gifted folks taking up men's clothing these days. Take a look at the quality of some of the citizen men... we've gone well beyond Wild West gunslinger or mountain man clothing, even lacking some of the fantastic textiles, and working with largely self-trained sewists! My take on it is that we should all do the very best we can, and keep looking at upgrades over time. There *are* some plausible textile options now, and good resources for shapes, and ways to learn the sewing techniques. Making use of those makes sense. As the hobby as a whole extends itself, we'll have more resources, and can upgrade--particularly in the areas of technique and shape, even if we're stuck with textiles.

[Shockoe Hill Cats]

Re: Men's civilian coats (revisited, with kindness)

Thanks all for your input. I know that there is some interest in this thread based on feedback I've received privately.

I found the introduction of Civil War Gentlemen: 1860'S Apparel Arts & Uniforms (1994) by R. L. Shep to be particularly helpful in gaining a basic understanding of mid-Nineteenth century men's wear. Some points he raises:


- American tailors were greatly influenced by French and England for guidance in fashion and tailoring matters. However, major fashion magazines like Minister's "Gazette of Fashion" were printing fashion plates from Paris (and Devere always maintained his native connection). "Tailor & Cutter" (1866) was more reliably English. And pattern drafts were English.

- European alliance with Turkey during the Crimean War also created a fascination with the culture and styles of the Middle-East. For example, fez shaped smoking caps, rich oriental fabrics, Italian "Garibaldi"-styled jackets and shirts, and the French Zouave craze.

- That being said, the clothing industry in the United States was making major strides (e.g. New York City). It is interesting to see the "American Frock Coat" (1869) appear in an issue of "Tailor and Cutter" and "The Cutter Monthly" (both American publications). Shep goes on to argue that few uniquely American tailor systems have survived from the wartime period (not to say, individual pattern drafts).

- The 1860s were a transitional period from the formal frock of the 1850s to the beginnings of the "lounge suit" (what we now think of as the business suit) as the decade moved on. Thus, a range of garments were being worn.


Shep also lists some basic types of men's coats, drawing upon W. S. Salisbury's System of Actual Measurement and Drafting (1865):

Frock coat: Always had a waist seam and a separate skirt, except for the center back pieces. The center front of the shirts came down straight and had square corners at the bottom. Most of the time the lapel and center front of the body is a separate piece. Can be single breasted or double breasted.

Cutaway frock: Also known as a cutaway coat or a morning coat. Exactly like the frock coat except that it is always single breasted, the lapel is not a separate piece and the center front of the skirts are cut away at an angle and have rounded corners at the bottom (Salisbury calls it a 'New York Walking Coat').

Sack coat: Also known as a body sack coat, or a sac or lounge coat. This has no waist seam, and during the period, no side back piece. There is very little shaping and is shorter than the frock or the cutaway (Salisbury calls it a 'French Walking Coat'). Can be single or double breasted.

Paletot: Also known as a body paletot, or Oxanian or Tweedside (some magazines even call this a morning coat or lounge coat!). Like a frock coat except there is no waist seam on the front piece. Always a side back piece with a waist seam, and the lapel is always part of the front piece (Salisbury calls this a 'English Walking Coat').

Dress coat: This always has tails. Aside from the fact that the skirt is cut into the tails, it is exactly like a frock coat including the separate lapel piece.

Surtout: Also known as a frock overcoat or top coat. Cut exactly like a frock coat except that it is bigger and longer.

Paletot (overcoat): Also known as a half-sack overcoat. Is exactly like a paletot except that it is cut looser and longer.

Chesterfield: Also known as a paletot-sack, or driving coat, or oversack. This is a overcoat cut like a sack coat, except that it is looser and longer.

Another question I thought of: Were custom, form-fitting tailored coats more or less common than "ready-made" goods?

[ohpkirk]

Re: Men's civilian coats (revisited, with kindness)

Were rural, independent tailors still reading texts such as, The Cutter's Monthly Journal of London and Paris Fashion, Minister's Gazette of Fashion, The Handbook of Practical Cutting on the Centre Point System by Louis Devere and at minimum, aware of these modern styles if not putting them into practice?

To over generalize, I would say: "Definitely so."

Browsing through period antebellum tailoring manuals (remember Devere isn't the end all of fashion) I easily found several being designed and printed in the Trans-Mississippi West. One that I have had success in using is: E. Dilday's "Plain and Concise Method of Garment Cutting" published in 1856 in St. Louis, Missouri. The cut of the garments rendered by this manual follow the lines of the Parisian tailor plates.

[rbruno]

Re: Mid-Nineteenth century clothing (revisited, with kindness)

Jason,
If you haven't already, I would suggest you check out The Sewing Academy forum. Many of the topics you bring up are discussed on there in great detail. It has a search function like all these forums and might answer or at least discuss what you are asking. It has helped me understand the civilian side to life in the 1860s and also a invaluable amount of information on tailoring/construction of garments.

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Mid-Nineteenth century clothing (revisited, with kindness)

To concur with Cody above regarding Devere not being the end-all-be-all: over at The Sewing Academy Joanna Jones recently posted a link to a great 1855 tailor's manual. (http://books.google.com/books?id=UZM...page&q&f=false).

[Shockoe Hill Cats]

Re: Mid-Nineteenth century clothing (revisited, with kindness)

Jason,
If you haven't already, I would suggest you check out The Sewing Academy forum. Many of the topics you bring up are discussed on there in great detail. It has a search function like all these forums and might answer or at least discuss what you are asking. It has helped me understand the civilian side to life in the 1860s and also a invaluable amount of information on tailoring/construction of garments.

Thank you Rob, I am aware of the Sewing Academy forum. Part of the reason for this thread was to have a discussion with (hopefully) renewed and up-to-date information. Which I hoped would prove insightful enough so that the A.C. does not become a mere stomping ground for the Classified ads.

My two cents,

[NYCivilWar]

Re: Mid-Nineteenth century clothing (revisited, with kindness)

Jason et al.,

From the period tailoring manuals that I have read, each system (author/tailor) seems to argue that his system is THE system for garment cutting/construction. I think the reason Devere gets attention today is due to the fact that his manuals have been reproduced or have been put online, and thus are available for us to use. Having actually used Devere to construct a frock coat, and reading through his manual Devere, has simplified the process-- in that no calculations have to be made, unlike other contemporaries...which to me makes the Devere system stand out among others. But, YES, his system was not the ONLY tailoring method used as others have already made mention of.

Back to your original questions Mr. Spellman...

Who’s on first? For many, a civilian impression is only a secondary one. Enlisted military garments are utter garbage in comparison to citizen clothing. I am so often fooled and left befuddled at whether stitching on civilian garments are hand sewn or machined! Few people want to pay the high cost it would take to match this craftsmanship.

$$$$ - In studying original men’s garments from the period, reproducing them requires A LOT of money. The contemporary fashion industry is dead compared to what it once was, and finding similar fabric that compares well is like searching for the Holy Grail (case in point, black superfine wool broadcloth, blue-gray kersey, doeskin). And while $500 worth of material may be acquired, the labor in constructing it should also be considered (i.e. drafting an appropriate pattern, and a lot of hand sewing).

I think the last two sentences of your above quotes, which I have bolded, kind of hit the nail on the head Jason. Unlike the military side of the hobby, there are few to no "vendors" that specialize in making civilian garments. I think a good percentage of us in the hobby have come to rely on ready-made reproduction clothing for our kits...I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with this, but one doesn't have to go far to get X jacket or X hat...this stuff is available to us for the military side of things. When it comes to civilian clothing, it is much much harder to come by, but I think we bring our expectations of the ready-made military goods to the civilian side of things. This just can't quite happen. At least in my opinion.

As Mr. McWheter has correctly pointed out to us, original civilian clothing vs. military clothing was of a much, much higher quality. Whenever I construct a garment for myself it seems to take me more time to make a civilian garment when compared to a military garment. I always try to do my best sewing on civilian garments because they were made SO MUCH better than military garments. Now this is not to say that there are not some stunning original military garments out there, but remember garments going to the front where churned out. I've seen button-holes on military garments so big you could sail a ship through. At any rate, my point here is that as Jason states, few people want to shell out the money for a civilian jacket/trousers etc that matches original quality.

TIME: It took me the better part of a year to even begin to get a good grasp on using the Devere system, and then nearly a third of a year to draft a pattern, make a test coat, and then attempt a trial run at a linen frock coat. Am I happy with the results, for the most part yes, but I know I need imporvement. What's my point here? It takes SO MUCH MORE TIME, in my opinion, to make a civilian garment, and I don't think everyone has that patience. This goes back to my earlier point, we have become accustom to having ready-made military garments for us today. Just think how little time and effort someone can put into getting a decent "basic" Federal kit together today. It takes very little time because there is so much out there unlike the civilian side of things. Additionally, I think that it is much easier to examine original military garments than it is to examine civilian clothing. I bet that anyone can quickly think of five museum collections that have a good amount of Civil War garments. Now, what about civilian garments? Is this stuff out there? Yes, but, especially men's clothing, it's hard to find...and thus not as easily accessible for study.

In the end, as you said Jason, it takes money and time...and a lot of patience. If you are going to put a civilian impression together you can't expect it to happen as fast as your military impression. I'm done rambling...

[wade03]

Re: Mid-Nineteenth century clothing (revisited, with kindness)

Jason, Thanks for starting up this thread. A very useful discussion, especially considering the beginning of the 150ths are upon us and there will be quite a number of civilian portrayals. People often forget the soldiers they portray were once civilians before and were after the war.

One thing I do notice is the high emphasis of the jacket or frock as the main piece of civilian clothing to obtain. When in reality the frock/sack coat is one piece of the entire expensive kit. Often it is the small items that really make the civilian separate from the soldier. How many civilians would have worn the same coarse knitted socks that were issued to soldiers or the crudely sewn shirt that is just supposed to last a campaign? Most people could afford better. Some may think $150 for a hand sewn domet flannel shirt is a bit steep. But $200 would be a more than fair price for a well made civilian shirt. Sure they had shirts that were machine sewn, but a hand sewn shirt should not look any different than the machine sewn one. I've seen original shirts that have well over 20 stitches to the inch hand sewn. Just because an item is "hand sewn" does not mean its correct.

The major problem with proper mens attire is the cost. Paying someone to make a suit as well done as the originals would be very expensive. If you made it yourself it would take quite a bit of time. Labor was much cheaper then, tailors were not the wealthiest men and were not praised for their amazing little hand stitches. We applaud friends and vendors(as we should) for the efforts they make on reproductions. But in the 19th century it was the standard that mens clothing was held to. Now both correct materials AND labor are expensive so coming up with the money to have such a suit is very costly. Also, in the 1860's tailors did not have to source proper materials or research what exactly they should make. All cost issues aside, there is no wonder why mens clothing is hard to own/make. Basically we are trying to reproduce clothing that was created by people that spent most of their lives learning and perfecting the tailoring trade.

Kyle mentioned that civilian clothing is much harder to locate and study. Working in museums I have noticed that they have all sorts of stuff no one knows about. I suspect that since most people aren't breaking down the doors in the morning to drool over an original 1860's frock coat, these things get laid in a box and shoved on a shelf never to go on exhibit. Such a shame.

The question I have is how common would the clothing made by a rural tailor have been compared to those produced by larger tailoring businesses? Were they about equal or was most of the clothing on the backs of folks made in larger shops?

[Citman05]

Re: Mid-Nineteenth century clothing (revisited, with kindness)

Jason et al.,

In the end, as you said Jason, it takes money and time...and a lot of patience. If you are going to put a civilian impression together you can't expect it to happen as fast as your military impression. I'm done rambling...

Thats it right there Kyle. I laugh how people will scrutinize their military impression, stitch by stitch and hold themselves to such high standards, then when they get wind of an early war/civilian event that they want to attend and will use any old confederate trousers and an over shirt, say they are interpreting "the lower class."

"Just because an item is hand sewn doesn't mean its correct" -Exactly!

I guess overall I think its important for anyone who wants to get into civilian, to do just one simple thing. Please take them same level of scrutiny and the same high standards we hold for our military impressions and apply that to your civilian impression, or any impression you wish to do correctly.

This is why I don't have a civilian impression, lol.

[Elaine Kessinger]

Re: Mid-Nineteenth century clothing (revisited, with kindness)

When attempting to compare the goods of a rural tailor to an urban one understand that a tailor will cater to his clients requests and needs, as well as the needs of his shop. If he has very little call for formal silk vests, he'll focus his cloth choices on the busy brocades and sturdy wools he knows his clients prefer. If most of his clients need sturdy wool and cotton "working garments," his one chance to do a tail coat will look different than one done by an urban tailor who does tail coats often.
The same can be seen in the hobby today... civilian coats have interior detailing that military coats often don't... so when a tailor accustomed to making military coats attempts a civilian coat, it is not always a successful reproduction. ...and a tailor accustomed to fashioning civilian coats will often focus on detailing that is not needed for a successful military reproduction.

[rbruno]

Re: Mid-Nineteenth century clothing (revisited, with kindness)

Elaine,
That is a good point that you bring up about some of the small details that make all the difference. Could you give a couple examples of what would be different on the interior of a civilian frock coat compared to a military frock coat?

[Busterbuttonboy]

Re: Mid-Nineteenth century clothing (revisited, with kindness)

We need to take into account that while tailoring as pointed out by the two tailors who have thus responded is not the end all of clothing options in the mid 19th century. What we are failing to mention is the immense transportation network which supplied, yes even those in remote regions with large numbers of inexpensive, ready made clothing. Steamboats (Arabia), intercostal and extra-costal shipping, trains as well as vehicular transportation makes every part of the territorial united states accessible to all levels of material goods.