Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

[GarrettG1993]

I was doing so reasearch on RDIIIs before I started one myself, and I came across an odd variation in the design. On pages 136 and 137 of EOG, where they talk about late war jackets, I noticed that Sgt. Major A. C. Redwood and Pvt. J. K. Coleman jackets are the same, with exception of the buttons. However, the Pvt. H. Redwood jackets buttons are on the opposite side. Was this jacket made like this, or is this a field alteration? And if so, does anyone know of another like this?


Thanks,
Garrett Glover
1st Texas Light Artillery
Battery K

[DougCooper]

Re: Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

I was doing so reasearch on RDIIIs before I started one myself, and I came across an odd variation in the design. On pages 136 and 137 of EOG, where they talk about late war jackets, I noticed that Sgt. Major A. C. Redwood and Pvt. J. K. Coleman jackets are the same, with exception of the buttons. However, the Pvt. H. Redwood jackets buttons are on the opposite side. Was this jacket made like this, or is this a field alteration? And if so, does anyone know of another like this?


Thanks,
Garrett Glover
1st Texas Light Artillery
Battery K

Would not be the first time a photo was backwards.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Re: Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

Would not be the first time a photo was backwards.

If memory serves me correctly...the photograph of this jacket is not backwards (it's not a period image, but a modern one)...and the actual jacket is indeed constructed with the opposite configuration of button-holes.

I find it highly unlikely, if not impossible for this to be some sort of field alteration...the jacket would have been constructed in such configuration by whomever made the coat.

Paul B.

[firstexas]

Re: Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

Doug is correct. I also believe that the Major Green jacket in the CS EoG is backwards. The buttons appear to be on the left in the picture. My 2 cents.

Best regards, Bill.

[c.irelan]

Re: Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

Hello

Just adding my .02 here the left over right for men was not a standard yet in the 1860's so you will find garments of either style but the most common for the common man would be left over right. Generaly if a garment was made right over left it was a symbol of status indicating that said person was use to being dressed rather then dressing themselves.

[DougCooper]

Re: Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

If memory serves me correctly...the photograph of this jacket is not backwards (it's not a period image, but a modern one)...and the actual jacket is indeed constructed with the opposite configuration of button-holes.

I find it highly unlikely, if not impossible for this to be some sort of field alteration...the jacket would have been constructed in such configuration by whomever made the coat.

Paul B.

What I meant was - EoG got the photo(s) backwards. Left over right was standard for the period. All the federal photos in EoG are correct, as are all but 8 of the CS photos - including one of two Tait jackets and all 3 officer frocks on one page (clear signs the editior goofed up). EoG just slipped a bit in the editing process. There are a number errors in this set and these are likely examples of those. I highly doubt the theory of valet vs self dressing when it comes to military uniforms, esp Tait and RD 3 enlisted jackets

[roundshot]

Re: Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

Kind Sirs: If you look closely at the buttons on the jacket in EOG you will see the buttonholes are indeed on the "wrong" side. If the photo were reversed the eagle would be facing to the right. Remember, ladies clothes button on the "other" side. Inasmuch as ladies made many of these garments, sometimes they were constructed with the buttonhole on the "ladies" side. This is only one of quite a few examples so noted in construction from that period. Honest error. And truthfully, if it kept the inner man warm, I'm sure the guys adapted quickly to their situation.

[Matthew Semple]

Re: Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

Gentlemen,

I have seen the Private H. Redwood jacket in person and it does have the buttons on the "opposite" side. The photograph in EOG is correctly depicting this.

Mr. Glover,

I recommend that you contact Mr. Scott Hanes of the Richmond Depot and get his thoughts on his examination of that particular jacket. He had posted his thoughts on why the buttons were put on the "opposite" side here on the forums before. That posting appears to have been lost in the last great crash.

[CSchneider]

Re: Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

Fellas,

The buttonholes are indeed sewn on the opposite side as the photo shows. Also, its not the only military garment sewn in that manner either. The jacket ID'd Lt. J.V. Bidgood of the 32nd Va. was sewn similarly, then the buttonholes were sewn closed and new ones put on the other side. If I'm not mistaken, the jacket on display in the Old Courthouse Museum in Vicksburg (ID'd to Baker?) has exactly the same feature.

-Craig Schneider

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Re: Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

Bob, Matt, Craig;

Thanks for confirming that I was not loosing my mind...it's been a few years since I laid my own eyes on this jacket..and could vaguely remember the configuration being correct as it is shown in Echoes of Glory.

This was further instilled in my mind with some rather lengthy discussions with Mr. Scott Hanes of the Richmond Depot (who has thoroughly disected this jacket).

For individuals wanting more information on this jacket, and who may be unable to arrange an appointment at the MoC themselves to see it...contact Scott Hanes!

Paul B.

[Richmond Depot]

Re: Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

Actually, you fellows seem to have covered everything quite well. Yes, I have seen this jacket in person, and yes, the buttons are on the opposite side.

EOG did get that one correct. The caption however, is open for debate.

Best,

[DougCooper]

Re: Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

Fellas,

The buttonholes are indeed sewn on the opposite side as the photo shows. Also, its not the only military garment sewn in that manner either. The jacket ID'd Lt. J.V. Bidgood of the 32nd Va. was sewn similarly, then the buttonholes were sewn closed and new ones put on the other side. If I'm not mistaken, the jacket on display in the Old Courthouse Museum in Vicksburg (ID'd to Baker?) has exactly the same feature.

-Craig Schneider

Thanks for setting me straight gang! The Mansfield jacket also has the buttonholes on one side and they were closed and redone on the other side. So now I wonder if perhaps some of the EoG photos of federal uniforms are backwards...or was there simply more standardization on the US side?

[RD1]

Re: Richmond Depot Type III Jackets

As a rather late follow up to this thread...yes, I did examine the jacket referenced above.

My observations were that it was probably one of the nicest constructed garments that I ever had the pleasure to observe.

In fact, I would suspect that the seamstress was probably a professional dress maker or someone more familiar with the construction of upper end ladies garments than men's military uniforms.This could also explain the buttonholes being on the wrong side.

L. Scott Hanes

Fort Mahone, Va.