AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Contemporary Accoutrements => Topic started by: T*O*F on May 04, 2010, 10:08:36 PM
-
I was looking at Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock on the blog and a thought just popped into my head. I wonder how much shirts with all that fringe were actually worn back in the day and if they weren't more of a dress item.
For anyone in the woods for a significant period of time, it would be so gnarled and knotted with burrs, come-alongs, and travelers that it would be a real mess. Plus, it would probably be snagging on berry and thorn bushes which would tend to unravel the edges in short order.
Your thoughts.
-
I think we see so many in current day is that this type of shirt / frock has some documentation, so folks use it to be PC. I would think more common would be everyday clothing, weskit etc for the majority of people. Then again if they where in fashion ;) that's a whole nother can o worms
-
The woods were different back then. Around here the trees were mature long leaf heart pine that stood in million acres forests. The trees were far enough apart that a driver could take a two horse team in any direction without getting into a tight spot. If he drove into a swamp he was either drunk or asleep. The real problem was a lack of bridges so fords and crossings were met with daily.
Now the trees are small and full of weeds, thorns, trash and housing developments. (that is listed in descending order of value). The tasty animals are gone and the folks who made the woods interesting were put on Reservations long ago.
Danny
-
Danny,
What you seem to be describing is an old growth forest where there was little "ground cover" because the tall trees blocked the sun. Still in areas where the forests had burned from lightening strikes (or even in areas Native Americans did somewhat controlled burning for agriculture) or in areas close to streams or swamps, there would have been and still are very thick piles of brambles and ground cover - at least here n Virginia. Also, on the edges of old growth forests, there was still a lot of ground cover even back then.
I think Gary Brumfield got a degree in forestry unless I'm mistaken. Perhaps he could give better information on the forests in Virginia of the time period.
TOF,
I agree the fringe on Riflemen's shirts would have and still do pick up all kinds of "stuff" in the woods around here. I used to hunt a lot in Nottoway and Amelia Counties and in a days hunt in some areas, the fringe would be full of "stuff" depending on the time of year - especially around swamp or marsh areas. That's another reason I only had one fringed rifleman's shirt over the years.
I think someone explained in an earlier thread that the fringe would have a tendency to wick away moisture. If that's true, that and breaking up a person's silhouette would be the most practical reasons for the fringe I know of.
-
I am south of the Dividing Line, But you are right. With about 120 million Indians here in pre contact America, we can be sure that they altered their environment. They used controled burnings, agriculture, tree selection, and the drove to extinction, plenty of animals. The Europeans introduced disease which traveled to California first and came back to kill frontier people years later.
The fords and crossings were well cleared out, It all depended if you liked crawling around in the weeds.
-
For anyone in the woods for a significant period of time, it would be so gnarled and knotted with burrs, come-alongs, and travelers that it would be a real mess. Plus, it would probably be snagging on berry and thorn bushes which would tend to unravel the edges in short order.
Your thoughts.
A couple of points to consider. From my own experiments, I can say with certainty that clothing and bags with fringe are a whole bunch quieter in brush. It just "slips" through easier without all the slap and scrape, no matter whether leather or fabric.
Another point to consider are Davis jeans worn by loggers. They intentionally cut off the bottom hem and allow the edge to fray so the pant leg will not hang on snags and trip up the wearer. Unless the fringe was long (over the 4" I've tried), I wouldn't expect any tangling at all in the brush. It just doesn't happen, and I certainly know brush and snags.
It makes sense from those technical standpoints, but whether or not it was used much "in the day" is a separate question altogether.
-
The woods were different back then. Around here the trees were mature long leaf heart pine that stood in million acres forests. The trees were far enough apart that a driver could take a two horse team in any direction without getting into a tight spot. If he drove into a swamp he was either drunk or asleep. The real problem was a lack of bridges so fords and crossings were met with daily.
Now the trees are small and full of weeds, thorns, trash and housing developments. (that is listed in descending order of value). The tasty animals are gone and the folks who made the woods interesting were put on Reservations long ago.
Danny
There are a lot of period references indicating that much of the woods were a lot more open- but the deliberate burning of dry ridgetops let to proliferation of weeds and grasses that provided food and cover for wildlife, and many useful wild plants, from berries, to nettles and dogbane and milkweed for cord/twine, and medicinal plants. An open woods with no understory provides no food for game except nuts. It's the brushy stuff that increases carrying capacity. There are many period references of canebrakes also, so dense that folks got lost for days. Also in the Northeast, much of the agriculture was slash and burn, intensively garden till yield fell or it was time to move the village for other reasons, then abandon it. Those areas, near waterways, would quickly choke up with brush then second growth timber. Just saying, it's probably not accurate to over-generalize about how the "woods were".
-
I have a different question about those shirts. The reproductions I have seen are almost all cotton - which I don't think was all that common, nor is it particularly something I want to wear in adverse weather as it retains water and loses whatever insulation it might have had. Our ancestors were not dumb about such things. I would think they were more likely to make them from a linen/wool blend (linseywoolsey). Is there any documentation as to cloth used in such shirts?
-
Jerry, You are right, cotton was not the common material in the 18th cent. Only the well to do could afford cotton. Cotton did not become cheap to produce untill the 19th cent. with the establishment of the Southern cotton Plantations and with the invention of the cotton gin. Sheeps wool and linnen from the flax plant, or linsey woolsey, a linnen and wool combination was widley available on the frontier, in fact most homesteaders made their own. The frock I am wearing in my picture is made from light wool, with a cape. It is not hemmed or fringed and it does not fray much at all, even after wearing it for 5 years. It has a real home-grown look and feel to it....Ed
-
A couple of points to consider. From my own experiments, I can say with certainty that clothing and bags with fringe are a whole bunch quieter in brush. It just "slips" through easier without all the slap and scrape, no matter whether leather or fabric.
Not trying to start an argument, but I would think the more soft and pliable the clothing was while retaining some firmness - would be more important than fringe. After all, the square inches/feet of material in the rest of the garment is more likely to slap or scrape than the fringe.
Besides its insulating properties when wet, that's what makes wool such a good outer garment in the woods.
Gus
-
hunting shirts were made froma variety of materials--I have seen linsey-woolsey mentioned, but coarse linen was common, leather was used, various imported coarse fabrics like Osnaburg, maybe hemp cloth, etc. Cotton canvas is a common cloth today being used, but was rare then--at least in British colonies [the French used cotton more]. Linen dominated. My hunting shirts are linen. I have not had a problem with the fringe hanging up in the bush, but most fabrics will catch some debris.
-
The woods were different back then. Around here the trees were mature long leaf heart pine that stood in million acres forests. The trees were far enough apart that a driver could take a two horse team in any direction without getting into a tight spot. If he drove into a swamp he was either drunk or asleep. The real problem was a lack of bridges so fords and crossings were met with daily.
Now the trees are small and full of weeds, thorns, trash and housing developments. (that is listed in descending order of value). The tasty animals are gone and the folks who made the woods interesting were put on Reservations long ago.
Danny
There are a lot of period references indicating that much of the woods were a lot more open- but the deliberate burning of dry ridgetops let to proliferation of weeds and grasses that provided food and cover for wildlife, and many useful wild plants, from berries, to nettles and dogbane and milkweed for cord/twine, and medicinal plants. An open woods with no understory provides no food for game except nuts. It's the brushy stuff that increases carrying capacity. There are many period references of canebrakes also, so dense that folks got lost for days. Also in the Northeast, much of the agriculture was slash and burn, intensively garden till yield fell or it was time to move the village for other reasons, then abandon it. Those areas, near waterways, would quickly choke up with brush then second growth timber. Just saying, it's probably not accurate to over-generalize about how the "woods were".
That's all true,
Here in Carteret County, NC we have the Croatan Forest and it is as I described it. Up and down the coast and a 150 miles inland from me it was Long leaf pine, poccosins, swamps and small stands of mixed hardwoods left from the last glaciation. I have walked and paddled in these areas since I was a Cub Scout. Plenty of deer, bear, and turkey in all of these areas, where they are left alone.
Danny
-
Sounds like great hunting territory for a fella carrying a flintlock and wearing a hunting frock.
-
Burrs don't much stick to buckskin, which I would guess was the most common material for a longhunters frock.
-
Burrs don't much stick to buckskin, which I would guess was the most common material for a longhunters frock.
although common, leather may not have been the favored material for a "longhunter frock" or hunting shirt. Many references for cloth hunting shirts/frocks. Coarse linen probably prevailed. That said, Dan'l Boone was described once by an observer as wearing black leather clothes, and travelers reported many folks in the deep backwoods wearing leather. Hunting shirts became a sort of uniform for many soldiers/militia in the Rev War and were cloth, often dyed for conformity to a particular unit color. It was in vogue to wear a hunting shirt for many years after the Rev war. Yes some were buckskin or other leather, but most seemed to have been cloth.
-
On top of what Mike R brought up, we also have to remember they spun and wove their own linsey woolsy, but deerskins were like large dollar bill currency and were a source for hard cash or goods that farmers or frontiersmen got from the settlements. Buckskin breeches were popular amoung many tradesmen back in the settlements. There was also a huge market for the skins in Europe. So unless one REALLY needed the long wearing qualities of the skins, they most likely would not wear their "bank account" on their bodies. Grin.
-
Just thought about something else Mike R's and other posts brought up about Daniel Boone wearing black leather clothes.
Black is an excellent base color to wear in the woods as a sort of "one color camoflauge" outfit. The only problem is it soaks up the sun and can bake you in the sunlight, but that is a good thing in the winter.
My speculation has always been a farmer, laborer or worker in the settlements would not dye their shirts or maybe their pants made of linsey woolsey or linen as it would cost more and you wouldn't need it in "working clothes." If they could afford "Sunday go to meeting clothes those would have been more colourful." However, if one was on the frontier, I would want my clothing dyed to blend into the forest and most likely would choose some shade of brown. My first wife was raised in Roanoke VA and she did a science project of making natural dyes from plants fround in the Shennandoah Valley. It was amazing the range of colours one could get from local plants.
-
they most likely would not wear their "bank account" on their bodies.
That's kinda the lesson I learned growing up on small ranches. We didn't eat beef, we sold it. You just don't consume things you can sell when there's lots of other meat around..
Here's a grinner for you: Someone asked my granpap if he ate red meat. "Why, no ma'am. I allus cook it till it's brown." ;D
-
Which one would take more work: raise a patch of flax, process it into clean fiber, spin it into thread, set up your loom and weave it (along with the wool that you also had to process) OR peel the hide off of a deer that was running wild and turn that into leather? Remember that the deer hides had to be fleshed and dehaired to be ready for sale and used as currency - half the work of turning it into buckskin would have to be done either way. I think that on the frontier it would come down to which material a man preferred for his frock. Of course, this is all just my guess and as good (or bad as anyone else's)!! LOL!
-
Which one would take more work: raise a patch of flax, process it into clean fiber, spin it into thread, set up your loom and weave it (along with the wool that you also had to process) OR peel the hide off of a deer that was running wild and turn that into leather? Remember that the deer hides had to be fleshed and dehaired to be ready for sale and used as currency - half the work of turning it into buckskin would have to be done either way. I think that on the frontier it would come down to which material a man preferred for his frock. Of course, this is all just my guess and as good (or bad as anyone else's)!! LOL!
You make a valid point. However, if one were to wear buckskin in a driving rain and then rely on it to provide some warmth that night when the temperature plummeted, I think he might change his perspective with regard to the relative merits of buckskin and linsey woolsey, or even linen. Granted, brain tanned and smoked buckskin provides better moisture protection than typical colonial tanned leather, but I don't think even that would compare favorably to linsey woolsey or linen for protection against the elements.
I think your comment regarding personal preference is on the mark. I would just add "and what was available".
Just my humble opinion
-
Which one would take more work: raise a patch of flax, process it into clean fiber, spin it into thread, set up your loom and weave it (along with the wool that you also had to process) OR peel the hide off of a deer that was running wild and turn that into leather? Remember that the deer hides had to be fleshed and dehaired to be ready for sale and used as currency - half the work of turning it into buckskin would have to be done either way. I think that on the frontier it would come down to which material a man preferred for his frock. Of course, this is all just my guess and as good (or bad as anyone else's)!! LOL!
I have only totally brain tanned one hide. Never had an interest in doing that again. Grin. If you grow your own flax, you have time to do those things over time at night or in the winter. The flax would not have cost much money to grow though. The deer skins would have gotten you more money for less investment of time and labor. Plus you could sell or trade them faster if you were close to a settlement and you needed money or goods.
I absolutely agree which material chosen for a frock coat would have been personal preference. I'm with MikeR that cloth would have been preferred by more people though.
Gus
-
Which one would take more work: raise a patch of flax, process it into clean fiber, spin it into thread, set up your loom and weave it (along with the wool that you also had to process) OR peel the hide off of a deer that was running wild and turn that into leather? Remember that the deer hides had to be fleshed and dehaired to be ready for sale and used as currency - half the work of turning it into buckskin would have to be done either way. I think that on the frontier it would come down to which material a man preferred for his frock. Of course, this is all just my guess and as good (or bad as anyone else's)!! LOL!
dangerous to project back in time our 21st cent mentality... remember that folks were used to labor and had few other diversions...flax was a normal crop and common fabric source [along with linseed oil and tow]...linen shirts were in vogue [today you can buy cheap off brand jeans, but what do your kids demand?]...buckskins were a form of cash and a major trade item--and were darned uncomfortable in wet or hot weather...folks in the deep backwoods may have used leather more than cloth because of access and poverty[initial camps took time to convert into small farms with crops]...but most of all, when trying to understand/reconstruct the past we need to be mindful more of period info and less of modern sensibilities.
-
The woods were different back then. Around here the trees were mature long leaf heart pine that stood in million acres forests. The trees were far enough apart that a driver could take a two horse team in any direction without getting into a tight spot. If he drove into a swamp he was either drunk or asleep. The real problem was a lack of bridges so fords and crossings were met with daily.
Now the trees are small and full of weeds, thorns, trash and housing developments. (that is listed in descending order of value). The tasty animals are gone and the folks who made the woods interesting were put on Reservations long ago.
Danny
Almost all period journals, Boone and Lewis and Clark included, mention thickets and canebarkes
-
A side effect of settlement/development in addition to clearing, etc, is distance. Read the old journals and hunts were measured in miles traveled on foot and on water. Today in the same area features hunts are measured in acres. Not thousands of acres.... often single or double digits. I listened for years to a friend's account of hunts on his property along the Pennsylvania/New Jersey border. When I finally managed to visit, I was more than a little startled to walk his hunting preserve. Five acres.
I have the good fortune to have wilderness right across the street from my house. A "typical" hunt covers 2-4 miles round trip. Those guys "in the day" had a lot more gumption than me if they're covering that kind of distance in deerskin when fabric was available. Not even a contest between the two. I figger ole Dan'l was dressed in nice clean buckskin, black at the moment from sweat.
-
The woods were different back then. Around here the trees were mature long leaf heart pine that stood in million acres forests. The trees were far enough apart that a driver could take a two horse team in any direction without getting into a tight spot. If he drove into a swamp he was either drunk or asleep. The real problem was a lack of bridges so fords and crossings were met with daily.
Now the trees are small and full of weeds, thorns, trash and housing developments. (that is listed in descending order of value). The tasty animals are gone and the folks who made the woods interesting were put on Reservations long ago.
Danny
Almost all period journals, Boone and Lewis and Clark included, mention thickets and canebarkes
Yes, there are alot of misconceptions about the "endless" open virgin forest and "trackless forest", etc...Native Americans managed the forest in part like a plantation or orchard, but not universally--and both land use and population shifted, grew and waned, etc. Many of our roads today were "indian" trails and buffalo trails. It is a myth that europeans 'spoiled' a vast virgin area--they did change what they found, but man had been there before and altered it before. Yes there were cane brakes and thickets and open prairies and dense canopied woods.
-
Which one would take more work: raise a patch of flax, process it into clean fiber, spin it into thread, set up your loom and weave it (along with the wool that you also had to process) OR peel the hide off of a deer that was running wild and turn that into leather? Remember that the deer hides had to be fleshed and dehaired to be ready for sale and used as currency - half the work of turning it into buckskin would have to be done either way. I think that on the frontier it would come down to which material a man preferred for his frock. Of course, this is all just my guess and as good (or bad as anyone else's)!! LOL!
Joseph Doddridge says pretty explicitly that leather made a miserable shirt and was consequently quite rare. Since he was there I figure he should be listened to.
I would not be at all surprised to learn that the shirt in question is a military uniform - I think most of the surviving one have a military background, so it is possible that running through the bushes wasn't much of an issue with that particular one. The Crow shirt is a civilian garment, and doesn't have all that fringe.
-
Which one would take more work: raise a patch of flax, process it into clean fiber, spin it into thread, set up your loom and weave it (along with the wool that you also had to process) OR peel the hide off of a deer that was running wild and turn that into leather? Remember that the deer hides had to be fleshed and dehaired to be ready for sale and used as currency - half the work of turning it into buckskin would have to be done either way. I think that on the frontier it would come down to which material a man preferred for his frock. Of course, this is all just my guess and as good (or bad as anyone else's)!! LOL!
Joseph Doddridge says pretty explicitly that leather made a miserable shirt and was consequently quite rare. Since he was there I figure he should be listened to.
I would not be at all surprised to learn that the shirt in question is a military uniform - I think most of the surviving ones have a military background, so it is possible that running through the bushes wasn't much of an issue with that particular one. The Crow shirt is a civilian garment, and doesn't have all that fringe.
-
Joseph Doddridge says a lot of stuff that was written 40 years after the fact and is not particulary reliable. It represents a "snapshot" of a small section of the Virginia frontier and I personally consider him an inferior reporter to Irving or Hawthorn and not even in the same class as what can be found in the Draper manuscripts.
-
I would not be at all surprised to learn that the shirt in question is a military uniform - I think most of the surviving one have a military background, so it is possible that running through the bushes wasn't much of an issue with that particular one. The Crow shirt is a civilian garment, and doesn't have all that fringe.
At least one Kentucky Regiment wore "hunting shirt" style uniforms during the War of 1812. Supposedly they were blue with red trim.
-
I remember a quote that mentioned buckskin got soaked through two days before it rained. -
I think it was attributed to Daniel Boone, but of course every interesting quote (and nearly every rifle) was assigned to him or to Ben Franklin until Mark Twain was born and learned to talk. ;)
-
There are a dozen things you can put on buckskin to make it shed water. But the frontiersman would have been too dumb for that, right? It is fairly heavy, and uncomfortable in hot weather.
The rifle frock is an excellent design for its purpose, and works well made out of whatever material is at hand.
That frock that Linda Helm did for Earl is very nice. I have worn a similar frock for almost 20 years and they wear well and the fringe is not a problem; except for beggars lice and reaching across the fire fo rsomething. The former gives you something to do and the latter is self fixing :-)
-
I guess that compared to many rifle builders, with building and/or shooting being their primary interest, and many living history type re-enactors, I live with my feet in both worlds. I cannot separate my interest in frontier rifles from my interest in the culture that surrounded their construction and use.
When I was on the front lines in the CW Gunshop I used to wonder why re-enactors come there would spend lots of hours and money on their period correct clothes then carry a rifle that was totally wrong. A lot of the posts in this thread show that the opposite is also true--some rifle builders can be years behind in keeping up with the current research on frontier clothing, like hunting shirts.
There are many sources of information that have become readily available due to the search functions on some web sites. Previously unknown store accounts and journals have also come to light.
Here are a couple of web sites worth a look:
http://oldetoolshop.com/trekking/library/huntingshirts.html (http://oldetoolshop.com/trekking/library/huntingshirts.html)
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-costa?specfile=%2Fweb%2Fdata%2Fusers%2Fcosta%2Fcostadeserter.o2w&query=shirt&docs=deserter&begin_year=&end_year=&sample=1-100&grouping=work
You can find many more with a simple search.
One of the most detailed descriptions of frontier riflemen and their dress comes from A Tour of the United States of America by John Ferdinand Dalziel Smyth. Smyth toured Virginia and the Carolinas in the years immediately before the Revolution. He was from England and as a Tory fled back there as soon as he could at the outbreak of the war. His journal was published in 1784 and includes some added material from during and after the war.
Here is part of what he wrote about the appearance, dress, and attitude of the frontiersmen he encountered: “Their whole dress is also very singular, and not very materially different from that of the Indians; being a hunting shirt somewhat resembling a waggoner’s frock, ornamented with a great many fringes, tied round the middle with a broad belt, much decorated also, in which is fastened a tomahawk, an instrument that serves every purpose of defense and convenience; being a hammer at one side and a sharp hatchet at the other; the shot bag and powder-horn, carved with a variety of whimsical figures and devices, hang from their necks over one shoulder; and on their heads a flapped hat, of a redish hue, proceeding from the intensely hot beams of the sun.
Sometimes they wear leather breeches, made of Indian dressed elk, or deer skins, but more frequently thin trowsers [sic].
On their legs they have Indian boots, or leggings, made of course woollen [sic] cloth, and either wrapped round loosely and tied with garters, or laced upon the outside, and always come better than half way up the thigh: these are a great defence [sic] and preservative, not only against the bite of serpents and poisonous insects, but likewise against the scratches of thorns, briars, scrubby bushes and underwood, with which this whole country is infested and overspread.
On their feet they sometimes wear pumps of their own manufacture, but generally Indian moccossons [sic], of their own construction also, which are made of strong elk’s, or buck’s skin, dressed soft as for gloves or breeches, drawn together in regular plaits over the toe, and lacing from thence round to the forepart of the middle of the ancle [sic], without a seam in them, yet fitting close to the feet, and are indeed perfectly easy and pliant.
Thus habited and accoutered, with his rifle upon his shoulder, or in his hand, a back-wood’s man is completely equipped for visiting, courtship, travel, hunting, or war.
According to the number and variety of the fringes on his hunting shirt, and the decorations on his powder horn, belt, and rifle, he estimates his finery, and absolutely conceives himself of equal consequence, more civilized, polite, and more elegantly dressed than the most brilliant peer at St. James’s, in a splendid and expensive birth-day suit, of the first fashion and taste, and most costly materials.
Their hunting, or rifle shirts, they have also died in variety of colours [sic] some yellow, others red, some brown, and many wear them quite white.
Such sentiments as those I have just exposed to notice, are neither so ridiculous nor surprising, when the circumstances are considered with due attention, that prompt the back-wood’s American to such a train of thinking, and in which light it is, that he feels his own consequence, for he finds all his resources in himself.
Thus attired and accoutered, as already described, set him in the midst of a boundless forest, a thousand miles from an inhabitant, he is no means at a lose, nor in the smallest degree dismayed.
With his rifle he procures his subsistence; with his tomahawk he erects his shelter, his wigwam, his house, or whatever habitation he may chuse [sic] to reside in; he drinks at the crystal spring, or the nearest brook; his wants are all easily supplied, he is contented, he is happy. For felicity, beyond a doubt, consists in a grest measure, in the attainment and gratification of our desires, and the accomplishment of the utmost bounds of our wishes."
Gary
-
As I understand it, a waggoner’s frock is an outer shirt-type garment without an open front. It was commonly worn by wagoners, farmers and others to protect their clothing. I am not aware of any documentary evidence for the open front hunting frock dating much before the revolution. If such evidence does exist, I would be very interested in seeing it.
Laurie
-
Its my understanding that they wore frocks partialy because of their design. Capes, some times two would shed water over the edge and also help keep warmth in. Open fronts could be opened for ventilation. There are probably more reasons than I can come up with right now but we know that they did use them but how much is the question of the thread. Gary
-
Its my understanding that they wore frocks partialy because of their design. Capes, some times two would shed water over the edge and also help keep warmth in. Open fronts could be opened for ventilation. There are probably more reasons than I can come up with right now but we know that they did use them but how much is the question of the thread. Gary
Gary,
The open front hunting frock we so often see today is indeed a very functional garment and, as you stated, did often have a cape or capes. The question that often comes up is when did it come into being. To the best of my knowledge, existing primary documentation confirms it's use starting roughly at the beginning of the revolution. Have you come across any primary documentation that places it much before the revolution and, if so, could you direct me to it?
Terminology can often confuse the issue. I have seen the closed front shirt-type garment, which is well documented, referred to as a wagoner's smock, hunting smock, hunting shirt, wagoner's frock , hunting frock, etc. However, I think the use of "frock" in this context may be a relatively modern and technically incorrect description of the garment. That is just MHO, and I would truly like to be corrected if there is primary evidence to the contrary. I think we need to take care not to automatically assume reference to the open front garment when reading references to hunting shirts or even hunting frocks. I am certainly no expert and there are a great many people more knowledgable on the subject than myself. You may well be one of them. I reenact the mid 1750's, and am quite interested in primary documentation relating to the open front hunting frock. If there is good primary evidence for it's use at that time, I would consider switching to it as an over garment.
Laurie
-
... I reenact the mid 1750's, and am quite interested in primary documentation relating to the open front hunting frock. If there is good primary evidence for it's use at that time, I would consider switching to it as an over garment.
Laurie
I know you were responding to the other Gary but just wanted to say that documentation of any sort of hunting shirt--open front or pull over-- from the mid-1750s is somewhere between slim and none. That doesn't mean they didn't exist but at that early date there are few records of any sort from the area where the hunting shirt seems to have evolved. By the end of the 1750s the population takes off and documentary evidence starts to appear.
Perhaps someone who was at Martin's Station this past weekend can give us all an update on the latest research as presented there.
Gary from Williamsburg
-
There are period documents from the 1760s that refer to cloth hunting shirts and hunting frocks. Notably the records of a trading house that can be found in the Appendices of Mark Baker's "Sons of the Trackless Forest". I have read of a 1750s source, but cannot recall the reference. Hunting shirts became the "in" thing during and after thr Rev war, but were locally present [PA,VA] before.
-
Gary,
The open front hunting frock we so often see today is indeed a very functional garment and, as you stated, did often have a cape or capes. The question that often comes up is when did it come into being. To the best of my knowledge, existing primary documentation confirms it's use starting roughly at the beginning of the revolution. Have you come across any primary documentation that places it much before the revolution and, if so, could you direct me to it?
Terminology can often confuse the issue. I have seen the closed front shirt-type garment, which is well documented, referred to as a wagoner's smock, hunting smock, hunting shirt, wagoner's frock , hunting frock, etc. However, I think the use of "frock" in this context may be a relatively modern and technically incorrect description of the garment. That is just MHO, and I would truly like to be corrected if there is primary evidence to the contrary. I think we need to take care not to automatically assume reference to the open front garment when reading references to hunting shirts or even hunting frocks. I am certainly no expert and there are a great many people more knowledgable on the subject than myself. You may well be one of them. I reenact the mid 1750's, and am quite interested in primary documentation relating to the open front hunting frock. If there is good primary evidence for it's use at that time, I would consider switching to it as an over garment.
Laurie
This can be a real hair puller.
Note supposition and practical experience follow no "documentation".
The "riflemans shirt" resulted in a pretty heated discussion on another website sometime back (the term rifle is almost a no-no there, add "shirt" to it and all heck breaks loose unless the period is post 1774).
The idea that a farmers smock (dating to the middle ages) cut up the front was a proto rifleman's shirts seemed to put some peoples teeth on edge. They could not even accept the smock. One stated that these were only worn by farmers which was too stupid to warrant further comment.
Its like this. A closed front outer garment is basically useless to someone like a rifleman/hunter on the frontier.
Why?
If the weather is really wet and nasty and you would like your "accouterments" UNDER your outer garment if its impossible. So if you take your knife and slit the thing up the front you can then wear it OVER your knife, tomahawk, pistol should you have one, your powder horn and hunting pouch etc etc you can protect them from the elements in bad weather. This keeps things, including the wearer much drier. But of course if they never go out in the rain the average re-enactor would not figure this out.
The greatest problem with re-enactors (at least a great many of them) is that they re-enact at some "event", if it rains they stay home or in a tent. They go on "Scouts" in many cases in a 40 acre (or smaller) wood lot and set under a leanto around a fire for a couple of days, don't matter if their gun don't work its just a prop if they have one. Many hunt from a tree stand. They don't get out and really DO things. They don't look at the forest as a place full of people who will kill you for fun, profit and personal satisfaction. A place where a poor choice or a little bad luck means nobody will ever know why you didn't come back. And a lot of people didn't
So they don't figure out that an open fronted garment is FAR more flexible, you can open the front up in hot conditions and close it off in cold. When climbing over some ridge or mountain the utility of this is apparent. If you get too sweated up on the climb you may die of hypothermia on the way down the other side. That getting your equipment wet and inoperable can be a death sentence.
Or that wearing your only good clothing while hunting means they get smeared with blood and gore so some homemade smock/frock, leggins and moccasins are much better for this. Lets one keep any good clothing one might have for social gatherings.
Thinking that our ancestors were too dumb too figure this out is an insult to both them and us.
Documentation is just dandy.
IF anyone writes things down.
Which for the most part THEY DID NOT in the context of attire on the frontier.
So the thread counting re-enactors look at newspaper accounts of runaway servants and take their documentation from this. Never mind that the servants seldom ran off in their work clothes. So its really only valid if you are re-eacting some towny from Baltimore or Williamsburg. What some farmer/hunter in the Shenandoah Valley or the other side of some mountain ridge wore (made by his wife perhaps) did not get mentioned in the papers. There were no newspaper reporters going out doing human interest stories about how the people on the frontier dressed or made their clothing. So we really do not know. Documentation is simply not there at least so far.
So we have to consider COMMON SENSE. What works best when using the technology of the time and actually DOING THINGS in the 18th century context rather than setting in camp admiring each others garments.
Sorry for the rant but a considerable portion of the the documentation and surviving artifacts are surely either deficient, wrong due to its being one tiny corner of a complex picture OR its based on something faked in 1876 +- etc when the popularity of the Revolution bloomed and the artifacts became valuable so people started faking them.
Knives, horns, pouches, guns, medallions, gorgets, tin cups, tea kettles etc etc etc. The "industry" is still doing well today.
*But we still have to use something as a guide*. However, a modicum of thought and some practical use of the garment would be refreshing at times and sure informative.
I *think* the open front shirt/smock/frock far predates the documentation. Its a matter of practicality.
But this is not something allowed into the discussion in some circles. It gores the sacred cow in their "religion of the persona".
Dan
-
Sorry for the rant but a considerable portion of the the documentation and surviving artifacts are surely either deficient, wrong due to its being one tiny corner of a complex picture OR its based on something faked in 1876 +- etc when the popularity of the Revolution bloomed and the artifacts became valuable so people started faking them.
Knives, horns, pouches, guns, medallions, gorgets, tin cups, tea kettles etc etc etc. The "industry" is still doing well today.
*But we still have to use something as a guide*. However, a modicum of thought and some practical use of the garment would be refreshing at times and sure informative.
I *think* the open front shirt/smock/frock far predates the documentation. Its a matter of practicality.
But this is not something allowed into the discussion in some circles. It gores the sacred cow in their "religion of the persona".
Dan
I think it's easy to demonstrate that it's a fact of human nature to preserve mostly the exceptional things from our lives and not the utilitarian which is used daily and discarded when worn or outdated. Anyone still have their old rotary dial-type telephone? Which do women save- their house dresses or their prom dresses and wedding dresses? I bet most of us have more dress shoes than work boots in our closets, just cuzz the dress shoes never get used and we toss the work boots as fast as we wear them out. Two hundred years from now historians are going to have us wearing dress shoes to work, women cleaning house in their wedding dresses, and everyone with a cell phone welded to the side of their skull.
-
Bluenoser: I think that I have seen something to the effect that Robert Rogers and some of his men used the open front garment in question, I will try to find the references and if I do I will post. Gary
-
Well, I seem to have hit a nerve or three!
Gary,
Your point is well taken. Hopefully, someone will chime in with an update.
Mike,
I don’t have Mark’s book. Could you post the reference? It would be interesting to see if there is any reference to them being open fronted.
BrownBear,
You are absolutely correct. I think that is a well-recognized challenge for researchers.
Gary T,
If you are able to post the references, I would be most appreciative.
Dan,
For the most part, I do not consider your rant worthy of a response. It is often not what a person says, but how they say it. But I am sure you have heard that before.
I will say this country boy is over the hill and has been hunting and tramping the bush since he was about ten. I do not consider myself to be a fair weather re-enactor. I have been fortunate enough to go on a number of two-week primitive hunts in a remote area accessible only by canoe or foot. That wilderness area is well over 40, 400 or 4,000 acres and my partner and I were likely the only people there. Yeah, I know if it wasn’t a couple of months or more, it doesn’t count. I have been baked, soaked to the bone, froze and snowed on. I think my gear has been pretty well field-tested and, yes, it could do with improvement. By the way, my gun has always been up to the task.
I do not consider myself anal with regard to documentation. I think we each have to chart our own course and respect the course others have charted for themselves. If someone wants to use or wear something because it seems to make sense and, golly, they must have had it, I have no objection. They are charting their own course and I respect their right to do so. I prefer to rely a little more heavily on the documentation that does exist to support my choice. That is the course I have charted for myself. I expect others to respect my right to do so.
I think the open front “hunting” frock was most likely an evolution of the smock. The hotly debated question is when.
Laurie
-
Bluenoser: I'm still looking but did find this which you probably seen anyway, but in The Frontier Rifleman book by Richard LaCrosse on page 100 there is a discription of hunting shirt and frock, pullover and wrap around from the mid 1700s and on. I dont know where Mr. LaCrosse attained his information but he probably did alot more research than me so I cant argue with that. I will still try to find the other reference's that I think I have seen. Best regards, Gary
-
Well, I seem to have hit a nerve or three!
Gary,
Your point is well taken. Hopefully, someone will chime in with an update.
Mike,
I don’t have Mark’s book. Could you post the reference? It would be interesting to see if there is any reference to them being open fronted.
BrownBear,
You are absolutely correct. I think that is a well-recognized challenge for researchers.
Gary T,
If you are able to post the references, I would be most appreciative.
Dan,
For the most part, I do not consider your rant worthy of a response. It is often not what a person says, but how they say it. But I am sure you have heard that before.
I will say this country boy is over the hill and has been hunting and tramping the bush since he was about ten. I do not consider myself to be a fair weather re-enactor. I have been fortunate enough to go on a number of two-week primitive hunts in a remote area accessible only by canoe or foot. That wilderness area is well over 40, 400 or 4,000 acres and my partner and I were likely the only people there. Yeah, I know if it wasn’t a couple of months or more, it doesn’t count. I have been baked, soaked to the bone, froze and snowed on. I think my gear has been pretty well field-tested and, yes, it could do with improvement. By the way, my gun has always been up to the task.
I do not consider myself anal with regard to documentation. I think we each have to chart our own course and respect the course others have charted for themselves. If someone wants to use or wear something because it seems to make sense and, golly, they must have had it, I have no objection. They are charting their own course and I respect their right to do so. I prefer to rely a little more heavily on the documentation that does exist to support my choice. That is the course I have charted for myself. I expect others to respect my right to do so.
I think the open front “hunting” frock was most likely an evolution of the smock. The hotly debated question is when.
Laurie
Yeah, I sometimes forget and tell people what I really think. Invariably a mistake since someone gets all fuzzed up. But then I generally learn things as well. People will not learn if nobody forces them to think now and again.
If you do not fall into the fair weather re-enactor ranks more power to you.
You also know who I refer to, as a group, and since you don't fall into that group, it would seem, your getting upset is a puzzlement. I said it was supposition and opinion.
I have not gone to the mountains for a month in a long time and then I dressed mostly modern since I was actually employed. For example a long Capote is a great horse back coat in when its cool out or snowing etct. But of course it was probably far too long for a re-enactor to consider. But then few re-enactors have had hypo-thermia from riding in blowing snow. I made a couple of mistakes but lived to tell it. One was fixed by a better Capote. I found that works re-enacting may not work "where the rubber meets the road" so to speak.
If it insults you that I think there is more to this than can be gleaned from old newpapers, which is really a good idea for clothing up to a point, then you need to think a little more.
I shoot and build flintlocks because I love the things and I love history. I dress old timey because I feel like it now and then or have some good reason.
I hunt a great deal with flintlocks but unlike some I feel no need to dress 18th or 19th century to go hunting. It is far too hard on gear to waste stuff I have made and making a blaze orange 1740s weskit seems a little silly.
Some re-enactors, it seems, get their personality so tangled with their "persona" that they see anything that disagrees with their created "persona" as some sort of threat to their life as they know it.
In one such discussion someone brought up a very good point concerning a$$ wipe and how its never mentioned. I guess they didn't. But then common sense indicates they did. So which do we follow. Documentation or common sense?
There has to be a mix of both when many subjects are considered. The lack of documentation proves nothing, except the lack of documentation. I have a difficult time believing the open front hunting shirt simply appeared in the numbers it did virtually overnight.
So far as the pull over shirt/smock some thread counters won't even consider this as a rifleman's shirt unless you call it something else and maybe not then.
The term frock has been used in the description of the rifleman's shirt since 1775 at least see page 16 of Huddleston's book.
Dan
-
About those endless tracts of woods and wilderness: The biggest differences between now and then are these; there were about 120 million natives north of the Rio Grande speaking thousands of dialects, 19th century logging, clean water everywhere, a greater variety of life on land and sea, clean air and no roads and bridges. Go to a national park and look around and that was how it was everywhere.
Now we have Wally World everywhere. ;D
Danny
I look around and see what was, that is the other edge of history.
-
Sorry to take so long in posting a reply, but work has been hectic (Monday, as usual). I was at the festivities at Martin's Station this weekend, and sat through Mr. Gusler's seminar on 18th century clothing.
I should have had the foresight to take a tape recorder, but didn't, as it was an entertaining and informative couple of hours.
The title as I remember was something like "The Cost of a Rifleman's Clothing and Equipment on the Virginia Frontier", and was based on 30+ years of digging through old court records, wills, contracts, and other printed records. He had pretty well pinned down a good price range for a complete outfit (rifle, bag/horn, frock, shirt, hat, breeches, shoes, blanket, etc.), and the bulk of the discussion was related to a comparison of the values of those items, with an equal amount of work (value within the period)...and of the difficulties of trying to place modern values on them. As an example, he used an 18th century contract he had discovered that was for the trade of a rifle, valued at 3 pounds, for the clearing of 5 acres of land, and the splitting of 1500 rails.
If your looking for a "golden bullet" type of statement about the date of inception/appearance of the rifleman's frock, it wasn't there. He did mention that in his research he had found no mention of the "pullover" type rifleman's shirt. Not to state that it didn't exist, just that it wasn't described in any accounts he had found, while the wrap around type was well documented, and that he had some references that pre-dated the Revolution (IIRC).
Greg
-
Well, I seem to have hit a nerve or three!
Well, I only had one left and it was stepped on about 42 postings ago. I asked a simple question.....your thoughts on the practicality of fringe on a shirt, circa "the olden days."
This thread is like that fringe. It started out as pristine thread. Along the way, it picked up a couple of burrs and got snagged by some thorns. It gradually started to unravel and got all tangled up. It became soiled with dirt and now it's covered with manure. It quickly got worn out and has been thrown away.
The moral of the story: Stay on topic or start your own frikkin thread.
There's enough peacocks preening themselves in this forum....I don't need em in my back yard.
-
Well, I seem to have hit a nerve or three!
Well, I only had one left and it was stepped on about 42 postings ago. I asked a simple question.....your thoughts on the practicality of fringe on a shirt, circa "the olden days."
This thread is like that fringe. It started out as pristine thread. Along the way, it picked up a couple of burrs and got snagged by some thorns. It gradually started to unravel and got all tangled up. It became soiled with dirt and now it's covered with manure. It quickly got worn out and has been thrown away.
The moral of the story: Stay on topic or start your own frikkin thread.
There's enough peacocks preening themselves in this forum....I don't need em in my back yard.
Don't they always ;D
Its like a mouse made by committee thing. It grows to the sized of Jumbo.
There are few simple questions.
Fringe is decoration. I doubt that is has a practical value worth the work it involves.
One question begets another or heated discussion. Over on Frontierfolk woe to he who asks a question about using a rifle or wearing a rifleman's shirt. Or worse if you should say to the writer of the query he would be OK with a rifle in Michigan in 1778 for example. A hail storm of expert (and wrong) advice to the contrary will result. They don't like rifles much over there, documentation just clouds the issue.
The problem is people worrying about seeing someone at an event that has made (in someone's view) a .5% or 3% error in time for a given article that cannot be documented that close anyway. The fringed hunting shirt is not like the percussion cap with documented patent dates etc, but folks like to use such things as an example of why one is a persona non grata if they have a hunting shirt on 1770 "persona". Its 2-3 percentage points too early, they claim.
So people get their panties in a wad over fringe on a shirt when its supposed to be 1770 and "everybody" "knows" there was no such thing. After all the fully evolved hunting shirt just suddenly popped into being across the PA and Va frontier spontaneously in 1775. It was totally unknown (at least to people in Connecticut or Maine) prior to that.
Of course a lot of people in the large cities had not seen a rifle either even though the frontier was apparently full of them by the 1740s at least, the natives even had quite a few. With documentation of course.
Everyone has an opinion. Some are very narrow in their interpretation and apparently don't accept questioning of "known" things well.
Others wonder what is the practical side of this and how does it work in the real world, what is the context of the written documentation. I think to find the real truth we need to read the documentation then THINK. How could something like the rifleman's shirt just suddenly appear apparently fully developed in 1775 if it had not existed beforehand in some form? Did Daniel Morgan have a committee of correspondence that shared patterns around the frontier in 1774?
Questions I see as valid.
Since the "rifleman's" shirt/frock appeared on the frontier did they get the idea from some native garment? Did some native seamstress fringe the cloth coat/frock/capote they made for their son or husband who was then killed by some colonist and his coat taken and perhaps liked by its new owner and copied?
Did someone have his wife make a plain copy of a frock coat to wear in the woods from homespun to save his good coat. Of course she had no real pattern, was short of time, having to work 12-16 hours aday half of that with morning sickness and had no buttons or anything else to close the front.
Did someone simply spit a smock up the front? Easy way to make a simple rough frock coat.
Did someone copy, using homespun or such, a capote taken from some dead French Canadian in 1757? What did the capote of this era look like.
The questions/discussions are ENDLESS since there is no document that states that Mary Schmit made an open front smock for her husband to hunt in circa 1755.
I really don't care what someone wears with in reason. I suspect the "riflemans shirt" in some form predates 1760 (I would assume it evolved into the 1775-76 version over some time frame) but there is no smoking gun so I could not tell someone that it was OK to wear a fringed caped shirt while re-enacting at Ft Edward in the 1750s.
I often wonder if some of the things we question have not been read over by someone in some document who either did not realize what he was reading or was so intent on something else it went unnoticed.
One of the reason I see discussions of this sort as important and informative is that maybe it will make more people aware and perhaps they will stumble onto to some obscure reference that would at least be a clue.
Almost everything about hunting garments before the "hunting/rifleman's shirt" goes public is supposition. I can't imagine someone wearing a serviceable frock coat for hunting if they could avoid it. Clothing was expensive.
Its a shame my fictional Mary Schmit was too tired, busy, poor or uneducated to write down everything she did in detail and then have it survive indian attacks and the ravages of time to inform us that she "invented" the rifleman's shirt in 1755.
The only way to prevent high jacking of threads is to no create any.
If I had any sense I would be inletting a trigger bar to a pistol right now and I am sure some wish I was ;D
Dan
-
TOF, My shirt is of cotton duck so it may be more fragile than linen. The fringe has done all the things you mentioned except the horse manue. It does seem to recover pretty well. I have added extensions when the edges started to unravel past the stop stitch line, or the fringe burned off and I needed new. This gives a new row of fringe. My experience is the fringe is not too much of a hassle, but it does catch burrs, and fire ;-) A small price for vanity.
I think it could have been common, but probably looked better when new.
-
Mike,
I don’t have Mark’s book. Could you post the reference? It would be interesting to see if there is any reference to them being open fronted.
The references are for (1) material with which to make a hunting shirt and (2) buying a ready made one , if I recall. I don't remember any details such as open front or pullover mentioned. Book not handy, now, I'll have to look it up.
-
How much does anyone want to bet that there was no real pattern for these things? A Tailor or a Seamstress saw one in use, took a good look and maybe felt the hem to get the cloth weight and made one with the cloth on hand. They should vary a bit, like long rifles. Danny
-
TOF,
If I contributed to the derailing of this thread in any way, or if I contributed to degradation of the quality of the discussion, you have my sincere apology.
I thought I was staying on topic. My response to Dan was triggered much less by any perceived personal affront than by what I perceive to be a lack of respect for the opinions, goals and aspirations of others combined with a propensity to belittle those with differing views. I am afraid I can be a little intolerant and I certainly can be outspoken. I apologize to all for not keeping my opinion to myself.
Laurie
-
I thought it was a informative thread. ???
-
My wife made me a very similar frock for last years hunt and it has a lot of fringe, fray, type of trim. I didnt really have much trouble with hitch-hikers but the wife spent a lot of time pulling the fringe by hand, and she let me know that "of course." Any way it did work for me and I like the style. Pros and cons to this type of frock.
Humbly submitted
Brett.
-
I thought it was a informative thread. ???
Me Too!
-
I thought it was a informative thread. ???
Me Too!
I as well. I thought some very good points were made by everybody who participated.
-
I often wonder if some of the things we question have not been read over by someone in some document who either did not realize what he was reading or was so intent on something else it went unnoticed.
One of the reason I see discussions of this sort as important and informative is that maybe it will make more people aware and perhaps they will stumble onto to some obscure reference that would at least be a clue.
That's a real mouthful, and I cite the following to prove your point:
I'm currently reading James L. Nelson's terrific book "George Washington's Secret Navy." At one point he quotes one of Washington's letters to congress in 1775 about outfitting some ships, and in the middle of ship stuff Washington also requests hunters frocks to outfit Arnold's troops headed for Quebec. Sorry, no details on style, but it does specify a particular type of fabric.
Here's the point. I was so interested in the ships that without this discussion I'd have read right over that little bit of "nonsense" about frocks that Nelson chose to leave in the quote. But now I can't shake the stupid thing from my mind!!!!!
Edit- It bugged me so much I went back and looked for the reference. It's on page 103, and the reference is to "tow-cloth hunting shirts."
See what I mean? ::)
-
TOF-while your thread might have been side tracked somewhat, you could be happy that you started a very interesting discusion, that in itself was worth the side trip IMHO. Thanks for your post and time. Gary
-
I like Dan's answer. I don't always agree with what he says, but I am glad that he takes the time to compose a comprehensive post.
-
This thread may have some interesting information for some, but ultimately causes problems down the road. The problem comes several months, or even years, later when a member remembers some of the info and wants to read it again. The information in long threads with a majority of off topic replies are very difficult, if not impossible, to retrieve from the archives. If you do find some info through an archive search it will be out of context with other replies.
For nonbelievers just try to find some of the "interesting information" found in this thread. There is a reason that many message boards frown on off topic replies.
I really like this board and have been a member since it first started, but in the last couple of years it seems like a thread is started and a very few replies seek to talk about the original subject before the off topic replies start and wind their way through several topics and go on for pages. Sometimes the off topic replies start before the original question is actually answered.
When one of these long multi-page threads starts, I find myself reading them until someone submits one of those long babbling replies that covers several off topic subjects. After that, there seems to be nothing submitted that is pertinent to the original post and trying to keep track of all the various subjects in the babbler's thread is more than I care to do. We seem to have gained a few babblers, TOF calls them "preening peacocks", who think that the more they write the more creditable their reply. Almost like they are trying to baffle us with BS.
It is a simple thing to correct. Don't allow off topic replies and request that the member who posts an off topic reply start a new thread on his particular off topic. It would make for a clearer board and simplify archive searches.
Randy Hedden
-
I think this is a worthwhile discussion. Discussion means you get different points of view, and some of the posts are off topic, yes, but somehow related to the main.
If you guys could please keep it civil, that would be a big help. I know it's hard to resist slinging insults when you are mad or feelings are hurt. I feel that way sometimes, too.
Thanks, Tom
-
It is a simple thing to correct. Don't allow off topic replies and request that the member who posts an off topic reply start a new thread on his particular off topic.
Or you could just start you're own forum and run it the way you like...........we do things differently here and as long as it is not that far off and remains interesting to enough folks (as most have noted) to make it worthwhile than things will stay as is or until the owner orders me to do different....
-
It is a simple thing to correct. Don't allow off topic replies and request that the member who posts an off topic reply start a new thread on his particular off topic.
Or you could just start you're own forum and run it the way you like...........we do things differently here and as long as it is not that far off and remains interesting to enough folks (as most have noted) to make it worthwhile than things will stay as is or until the owner orders me to do different....
Chuck,
I have been a member of this board from day one, many more years than you have been around here. I am not an administrator or moderator, but I believe I should be able to offer suggestions to the administrators without being told to go some place else.
Randy Hedden
-
Part of the problem is the printed word. It makes things sound more abrupt than they would in person with body language and inflection.
Over on the Frontier Folk a similar discussion got started and these often get heated and insulting perhaps.
It did come out that there was a 1768 reference to "hunting shirt" in a run away ad which indicates that the hunting shirt needed no further explanation so it was apparently a common item in 1768.
Meaning it dates to earlier IF it was considered a specific garment which it apparently was.
No mention of fringe but apparently by 1776 they were made both ways (?)
Dan
-
It is a simple thing to correct. Don't allow off topic replies and request that the member who posts an off topic reply start a new thread on his particular off topic.
Or you could just start you're own forum and run it the way you like...........we do things differently here and as long as it is not that far off and remains interesting to enough folks (as most have noted) to make it worthwhile than things will stay as is or until the owner orders me to do different....
Chuck,
I have been a member of this board from day one, many more years than you have been around here. I am not an administrator or moderator, but I believe I should be able to offer suggestions to the administrators without being told to go some place else.
Randy Hedden
Like we say at work, "IT WAS JUST A SUGGESTION!" LOL
Some weeks moderators get called out for being too active and not active enough, for being heavy handed Gestapo types and for acting like they've surrendered. Not always easy to be moderate.
"There's nothing to see here, folks, move along."
All seriousness aside, I think the general rule is that as long as folks are interested, a topic is generating discussion, and has not gone out of bounds to where posts are well outside the "longrifle campfire talk" or have degenerated into playground fights, we tend to let them go.
-
Yes Randy you do have that right as does anyone and it does not matter whether they've been here since the beginning or not - all members have the same "rights", but as long as I am the moderator here such suggestions should be done via a PM and not publicly posted, which is what I should have done as well with my reply so I apologize to all - I plead a long, bad day in town does things to one's patience...
Still all in all topics change, morph, etc. sometimes for the worse sometimes for the better, but so far the majority reading this one (including myself) have found it interesting and enlightening so it will remain as is.........
as to the original question
I wonder how much shirts with all that fringe were actually worn back in the day and if they weren't more of a dress item.
Based on a plethora of primary doumentation, said fringe was apparently widely used on such shirts..........
here's just a couple of examples,
"You expressed apprehension that the rifle dress of General Morgan may be mistaken hereafter for a waggoners frock, which he, perhaps, wore when on the expedition with General Braddock, there is no more resemblance between the two dresses, then between a cloak and a coat; the waggoners frock was intended, as the present cartman’s to cover and protect their clothes, and is merely a long coarse shirt reaching below the knee; the dress of the Virginia riflemen who came to Cambridge in 1775, was an elegant loose dress reaching to the middle thigh, ornamented with a great many fringes in various parts meeting the pantaloons of the same material and color, fringed and ornamented in corresponding style."
John Trumbull, Personal letter, 1780
Their whole dress is also very singular, and not very materially different from that of the Indians; being a hunting shirt somewhat resembling a waggoner’s frock, ornamented with a great many fringes.....
According to the number and variety of the fringes on his hunting shirt, and the decorations on his powder horn, belt, and rifle, he estimates his finery, and absolutely conceives himself of equal consequence, more civilized, polite, and more elegantly dressed than the most brilliant peer at St. James’s
A Tour of the United States of America by John Ferdinand Dalziel Smyth. Smyth toured Virginia and the Carolinas in the years immediately before the Revolution - his book was published in 1784
-
Good stuff Chuck. Now who makes a good pattern for one of these or are they just a bunch of rectangles sewn together to make a shirt with fringe added. Am getting very interested in making one.
-
To my understanding, the closed front wagoner’s shirt or smock was basically an enlarged and version of the common 18th century shirt extending to about the knees. It is composed of rectangles. The hunting frock is also composed of rectangles with the exception of the cape or capes. Construction of the two is quite similar.
Patterns for both the shirt and hunting frock can be found in Beth Gilgun’s Tidings from the 18th Century, starting on pages 84 and 102 respectively. A shirt pattern can also be found in Ellen Gehrt’s Rural Pennsylvania Clothing (Shumway) beginning on page 99. Online patterns for the shirt can be found at
http://www.marquise.de/en/1700/howto/maenner/18hemd.shtml and
http://www.nwta.com/patterns/pdfs/261MensShirt.pdf and other sites.
Just cut it a little oversize and leave the hem raw or pull threads for fringe. I am afraid I can’t help with regard to adding fringe in other places. Patterns for the open front hunting frock are probably also available online, but I don’t have any bookmarked.
Laurie
-
Over on another forum there is an endless discussion of hunting shirts, when they emerged, what variations are permissible and still remain historically correct, etc. I second Beth Gilgun's book as a good source for patterns and ideas. I expect every kit for a 1770-1810 frontiersman/militiaman should have a fringed "hunting shirt"- along with a couple other outer garments.
-
I have a question about these shirts, Since all of our textile mills went off shore in the past 9 years, where do we get the linen or whatever?
-
I have a question about these shirts, Since all of our textile mills went off shore in the past 9 years, where do we get the linen or whatever?
Crazy Crow Trading Company catalogs some choices (along with complete frocks, kits and patterns).
-
I have a question about these shirts, Since all of our textile mills went off shore in the past 9 years, where do we get the linen or whatever?
Crazy Crow Trading Company catalogs some choices (along with complete frocks, kits and patterns).
I am afraid off shore products are just a fact of life these days.
Some of the fabrics offered by Crazy Crow are synthetic or partially synthetic and others appear to be unidentified. I personally would be inclined to look elsewhere. We have purchased from Jas. Townsend http://www.jas-townsend.com/index.php in the past, and find their knowledge, service and the quality of their products to be very good. However, at $20.00 per yard, I find the linen to be pricy.
There are a number of online fabric stores where one can purchase 100% linen for about $7.00 to $9.00 per yard. Just do a search for online fabric sales. We lost our hard drive a few months ago and, with it, the link to the online store we have been ordering from. This is a link to an outlet that appears to have the fabric you/we might be looking for at good prices. http://www.fabrics-store.com/ We have not ordered from these folks.
If you are unsure about fabric weight, look at fabrics at a local store to get a feel for weights. You might also want to consider how tightly the fabric is woven. The dreaded threads-per-inch. The tighter woven fabrics are more wind resistant. I would try to stay with 100% natural fabrics. Linen and wool are always ok. I have found linsey woolsey (linen warp and wool weft threads) online, but lost the link with the HD. Depending on your time frame, cotton can lead to some interesting discussions.
Laurie
-
http://www.wmboothdraper.com/
-
Laurie, Cotton is grown just down the road, a few rows are still standing from last year. For a later blacksmith Federal period impression, I would go with that as it was the basis of our economy. We shipped the bails to the UK and they sent finished cloth to Morehead City, NC. For my earlier 17th to 18th century thing, Hemp seems the way to go. It was grown locally for the naval stores industry and by the Tuscaroras. Any help there? Danny
-
http://www.wmboothdraper.com/
Thanks mind reader ;D
-
Over on another forum there is an endless discussion of hunting shirts, when they emerged, what variations are permissible and still remain historically correct, etc. I second Beth Gilgun's book as a good source for patterns and ideas. I expect every kit for a 1770-1810 frontiersman/militiaman should have a fringed "hunting shirt"- along with a couple other outer garments.
Yes, and I would extend that age range on both sides by a few years. Besides runaway ads there are other references [such as traders logs] that refer to hunting shirts/frocks in the 1760s as though they were commonplace by then, at least among hunters. The hunting shirt lasted into the late 19th cent, although styles varied. Surely the caped fringed type was used through the War 1812, Creek Wars, and into the Mex War period [1840s]. I have seen hunting shirts from the 1870s.
-
Laurie, Cotton is grown just down the road, a few rows are still standing from last year. For a later blacksmith Federal period impression, I would go with that as it was the basis of our economy. We shipped the bails to the UK and they sent finished cloth to Morehead City, NC. For my earlier 17th to 18th century thing, Hemp seems the way to go. It was grown locally for the naval stores industry and by the Tuscaroras. Any help there? Danny
Danny,
I think a person would have a pretty rough row to hoe if trying to dispute the availability of cotton in the federal period, which I understand to be about 1780 to 1820. My comment was directed more toward the early to mid 1700s. Even then as I recall, there are runaway ads that identify the wearing of cotton. I don't know when block printed cotton from India was likely first imported into the colonies, but believe it was quite an early date.
Laurie
-
Laurie,
Here's a good article on the early use of cotton block prints and use of cotton. It mentions the European and English prohibitions on importing cotton from India over the years. There is plenty of documentation about the English prohibition for most of the 18th century. However, we usually forget the Dutch traded all over the colonies as well.
http://www.gbacg.org/costume-resources/original/articles/printed_cottons.htm
Gus
-
Gus,
Thanks for the info. I was not aware of this site. Looks like a lot of interesting stuff and I am looking forward to browsing through it.
Thanks again
Laurie
-
I am south of the Dividing Line, But you are right. With about 120 million Indians here in pre contact America, we can be sure that they altered their environment. They used controled burnings, agriculture, tree selection, and the drove to extinction, plenty of animals. The Europeans introduced disease which traveled to California first and came back to kill frontier people years later.
The fords and crossings were well cleared out, It all depended if you liked crawling around in the weeds.
Read the book "1491" if you want to see how much of your education is myth.
-
My Degree is right on track with the conclusions postulated in 1491, Guns Germs and Steel, various Richard Dawkins books, Darwin, John Lawson.
How about you?
-
Whilst shooting my flinters, my fringed cuff kept catching on fire! Stylish or not,I got rid of it.
-
I think the fringed frocks with fringed capes and seams go right along with MShea's "foppish" hat. may have been high style in 1765+/- but I ain't wearing one!!
-
Whilst shooting my flinters, my fringed cuff kept catching on fire! Stylish or not,I got rid of it.
I had forgotten it until you mentioned it, but that happened a few times to me as well.
Gus
-
I think the fringed frocks with fringed capes and seams go right along with MShea's "foppish" hat. may have been high style in 1765+/- but I ain't wearing one!!
Wow! My hat jumped threads... I have a frock from Cooperstown Trading Post (screaming deal). But I realize now that I've never shot in it. Hmm??
-
So not being so well informed on who the movers and shakers are in the rifle building world, I spent a good hour trying to figure out if the Earl Lanning rifleshirt was a newfound shirt that could be added to the 4 surviving early hunting shirts :o
But to comment on this shirt, I dont know how it was dyed, but I would guess ritberries. I dont like green huntingshirts unless they are done naturally, or at least replicate what a yellow overdyed with blue combo would look like. But the cut and style are very good, a great replica of the "Classic" hunting shirt seen in both a surviving example at Washington's HQ's museum and multiple period images.
I prefer my hunting shirts of a natural color, caped, fringed and open before ;D And despite what Dan says, not all of us over on the other board are anti rifle!
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi21.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb278%2Fmontourseth%2Friflemanluke.jpg&hash=04c27cae997a35e5156a50d24617c82c042d8bc9)
-
Green, even somewhat dark green was a very common color in the 18th century. I'm thinking particularly of Continental Marine and Tory uniforms. Those uniforms were primarily wool, so I'm not sure what dye was used.
Here's a link that shows what plants to use to get the color range one desires:
http://www.pioneerthinking.com/naturaldyes.html