Earl Lanning's Rifleman's frock

[T*O*F]

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.

[brokenflint]

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

[dannybb55]

 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

[Artificer]

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. 

[dannybb55]

 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.

[BrownBear]

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.

[rich pierce]

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". 

[Jerry V Lape]

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?

[Longknife]

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 

[Artificer]

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

[Mike R]

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.

[dannybb55]

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

[rich pierce]

Sounds like great hunting territory for a fella carrying a flintlock and wearing a hunting frock.

[Ben I. Voss]

Burrs don't much stick to buckskin, which I would guess was the most common material for a longhunters frock.

[Mike R]

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.

[Artificer]

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.

[Artificer]

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.

[BrownBear]

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."

[Ben I. Voss]

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!

[bluenoser]

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

[Artificer]

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

[Mike R]

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.

[Pete G.]

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

[BrownBear]

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.

[Mike R]

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.