Author Topic: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock  (Read 48862 times)

Offline Elnathan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1772
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2010, 05:03:17 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2010, 05:06:12 AM by Elnathan »
A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition -  Rudyard Kipling

Offline Elnathan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1772
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2010, 05:06:33 AM »
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.
A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition -  Rudyard Kipling

Offline heinz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1158
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2010, 07:41:36 PM »
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.
kind regards, heinz

Offline Clark Badgett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
  • Oklahoma
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2010, 06:59:50 AM »
Quote
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.
Psalms 144

Offline 490roundball

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 377
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #29 on: May 09, 2010, 03:59:10 PM »
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.    ;)
"It's a poor word that can't be spelt two ways" Tom Yeardley in Swanson's Silent Drum

Offline heinz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1158
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2010, 09:28:18 PM »
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 :-)
« Last Edit: May 09, 2010, 09:36:35 PM by heinz »
kind regards, heinz

Offline flintriflesmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
    • Flintriflesmith
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #31 on: May 10, 2010, 01:09:04 AM »
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://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

"If you accept your thoughts as facts, then you will no longer be looking for new information, because you assume that you have all the answers."
http://flintriflesmith.com

Offline bluenoser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2010, 04:57:22 AM »
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

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7682
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2010, 05:39:22 AM »
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

Offline bluenoser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2010, 07:10:29 AM »
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

Offline flintriflesmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
    • Flintriflesmith
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2010, 04:08:31 PM »
... 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
"If you accept your thoughts as facts, then you will no longer be looking for new information, because you assume that you have all the answers."
http://flintriflesmith.com

Mike R

  • Guest
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2010, 05:26:51 PM »
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.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9758
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2010, 06:37:43 PM »

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
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

BrownBear

  • Guest
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2010, 07:39:03 PM »

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.

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7682
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2010, 07:40:49 PM »
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

Offline bluenoser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2010, 10:21:29 PM »
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

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7682
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #41 on: May 11, 2010, 01:45:48 AM »
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

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9758
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #42 on: May 11, 2010, 11:08:02 AM »
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
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

dannybb55

  • Guest
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #43 on: May 11, 2010, 01:49:58 PM »
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.

g.pennell

  • Guest
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #44 on: May 11, 2010, 04:21:08 PM »
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

Offline T*O*F

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #45 on: May 11, 2010, 04:38:56 PM »
Quote
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.
Dave Kanger

If religion is opium for the masses, the internet is a crack, pixel-huffing orgy that deafens the brain, numbs the senses and scrambles our peer list to include every anonymous loser, twisted deviant, and freak as well as people we normally wouldn't give the time of day.
-S.M. Tomlinson

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9758
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #46 on: May 11, 2010, 06:35:30 PM »
Quote
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
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline heinz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1158
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #47 on: May 11, 2010, 06:46:09 PM »
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.
kind regards, heinz

Mike R

  • Guest
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #48 on: May 11, 2010, 07:44:04 PM »
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.

dannybb55

  • Guest
Re: Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock
« Reply #49 on: May 12, 2010, 01:14:38 AM »
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