Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

[Grabenkater]

I just bought a CChilds pattern, and ordered two yards of Cadet Grey fabric to make my first jacket.

I have some linen left over from 18th century clothing projects, and I was curious if this would be an acceptable material for lining the jacket.

[Bart]

Re: Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

What does the pattern say you need?
What is in the originals? ......
Research, research,....
Just look at Les Jensen's article to give you a start.
have fun sewing!

[Andrew Kasmar]

Re: Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

Hi,

Osnaburg - 100% Cotton, was what was mainly used for the lining of Richmond Depot jackets and most other depot jackets. I agree with Mr. Soons, research what cloth should be used for the jacket. There are some good articles under the "Links" link on the top of the page.

[D F Smith Historic]

Re: Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

I just bought a CChilds pattern, and ordered two yards of Cadet Grey fabric to make my first jacket.

I have some linen left over from 18th century clothing projects, and I was curious if this would be an acceptable material for lining the jacket.

Hi Paul,

Osnaberg is one of the most common, although this is the type of weave not what it is made of.

Osnaberg can be either made of cotton or linen ( either flax or hemp, as both are used in "Linen" durring the period, and today). Although Cotton would more than likely be the more predominate of the two.

Other fabrics were used as well, as in evedence of of the lining in Pvt Andrew Diggs of the 5th VA RD Style Jacket. It has a lining of a Diagonal Check pattern, and features 2 exterior breast pockets. So you could use a check pattern fabric as well if you wanted to swichit up a bit.

The very best article to get ahold of on the Richmond depot jacket, is by Leslie Jensen from the Company of Military Historians Journal. The article was published back in the late 1980's and is excellent in its information on the Richond style jackets, as well as other CS uniform jackets.

Feel free to contact me if I can be of further help

All the best

Don S

[rbruno]

Re: Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

Isn't Diggs jacket considered a private purchase jacket and not from the depot system? I have read the it is thought to be based on the depot I style with all the trim, epaulets, etc but was not made in the depot so would have a different lining. If you are going with a depot look, most would have the cotton osnaburg lining.
Rob Bruno
1st MD Cav

[BrandonEnglish]

Re: Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

Isn't Diggs jacket considered a private purchase jacket and not from the depot system? I have read the it is thought to be based on the depot I style with all the trim, epaulets, etc but was not made in the depot so would have a different lining.

I just viewed the coat a couple weeks ago at the MOC, I don't have all my research notes in front of me here, but I do believe you are correct and that it was more than likely a private purchase jacket not a depot system, I will double check when I get home.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Re: Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

Isn't Diggs jacket considered a private purchase jacket and not from the depot system? I have read the it is thought to be based on the depot I style with all the trim, epaulets, etc but was not made in the depot so would have a different lining. If you are going with a depot look, most would have the cotton osnaburg lining.
Rob Bruno
1st MD Cav

The Richmond Depot, was more a point of collection and issuance, and not so much a point of manufacture. The collections of goods in the Richmond Depot ranged from Uniforms, Accoutrements (being produced outside of Richmond after 1862 and shipped in), Shoes, and other equipment (blankets, army supplies, wagons...etc.).

The Richmond Clothing Bureau produced uniforms, but also provided "kits" to be sent home with women for completion, at which point they would bring the completed garment back for review, acceptance, and payment. As the war went on, and the shortages in the civilian populace became common-place, preference was given to soldiers wives/widows over other woment for this work. Women would have to show their papers, and wait in line for the oppurtunity to do the aforementioned work (suprisingly similar to Depression era workers).

As to interior fabric of Richmond produced jackets...I really do hope Scott Hanes (of Richmond Depot) will chime in with some of his valuable knowledge on the subject.

Several good period newspaper articles can be found through Mike Gorman's Civil War Richmond website with more details on this:

http://www.mdgorman.com/

Paul B.

[lukegilly13]

Re: Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

The Richmond Clothing Bureau produced uniforms, but also provided "kits" to be sent home with women for completion, at which point they would bring the completed garment back for review, acceptance, and payment.

http://www.mdgorman.com/

Paul B.

Paul,
Post mistaken...I should have said.....
I'd love to read more about the "kits" from the clothing bureau....do you recommend any sources. Sorry for the confusion.

In response to the thread: My research has turned up that the most common would be a cotton onsenburg. Some are very stingy with the lining material and over-generous with the wool/jean/satinette/cassimere on the interior button facing. I've seen the interior lining of a few that had a darker brown color to them and others that appear to be undyed. I don't know if the brown is the result of staining, oxidization, etc.....maybe someone with more fabric aging knowledge can comment.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Re: Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

Paul,
I mispoke on a different post about this thinking that the Richmond Depot sent these kits out...but on the contrary...the Richmond Depot accepted these kits completed by different folks. Do you have any sources on this? Please don't take it that i'm doubting you...I'm asking because i'm sure you do and I cannot find the source nor my notes where I read of this before.

In response to the thread: My research has turned up that the most common would be a cotton onsenburg. Some are very stingy with the lining material and over-generous with the wool/jean/satinette/cassimere on the interior button facing. I've seen the interior lining of a few that had a darker brown color to them and others that appear to be undyed. I don't know if the brown is the result of staining, oxidization, etc.....maybe someone with more fabric aging knowledge can comment.

Luke,

You really need to clarify what your'e questioning, as I noted that the Richmond Clothing Burea and not the Richmond Depot produced uniforms both within the walls of their establishment and also provided work in "kit form" to women of the city.

Aside from this, it is also a good probability that some of the tailoring firms in Richmond may have also provided contract work to the Richmond Clothing Bureau...but many of these men had already accepted government jobs, and as such were put in charge of overseeing the manufacture of goods.

It should be noted again that the Richmond Clothing Bureau and the Richmond Depot are NOT one in the same, but two different organizations with TWO different functions.

I did provide a link to Mr. Gorman's website...which if not yet acquinted with, you should be...I shall provide it again: http://www.mdgorman.com/

For the impatient; Scott Hanes has done a bit of specific research on the Richmond Clothing Bureau from a variety of sources, and provides a breakdown of articles from the Richmond Daily Dispatch, specific to the production of uniform articles; this is available through the research link on his website: http://www.kabar44.com/researchCloth...auDispatch.htm

Additional newspaper articles may be found through the University of Richmond: http://dlxs.richmond.edu/d/ddr/

Information (in brief) may also be found through the Valley of the Shadow website, although the focus is more notably on the Shenandoah Valley: http://valley.vcdh.virginia.edu/

Hope this helps clarify my previous statements.

Paul B.

[D F Smith Historic]

Hi All,

The Diggs jacket can go either way. As far as I understand, there is no solid evidence that the jacket is private purchase or from home per se. It is how ever of the Richmond Style, matching in most of the attributed ascribed to the depot jacket design (exceptions are the lining and the pockets). Then again there is no absolute evidence that it was issued out of Richmond either.

Seems to me, based on Jensen’s original article and nomenclature. That the Diggs jacket is definitely of the Richmond style, but a variant. The variations could well have been done by one of the needle women that produced garments for the depot/clothing system. Other known CS Depot style jackets show variations as well. So this would not be uncommon.

Thus getting back to the point of the lining....that a check pattern, though seemingly not common in the Richmond style jackets, still would be acceptable and correct for the style.

Don S

[lukegilly13]

Re: Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

"You really need to clarify what your'e questioning, as I noted that the Richmond Clothing Burea and not the Richmond Depot produced uniforms both within the walls of their establishment and also provided work in "kit form" to women of the city."
"It should be noted again that the Richmond Clothing Bureau and the Richmond Depot are NOT one in the same, but two different organizations with TWO different functions."


Paul,
Wasn't questioning your statementate at all. In fact, I was agreeing with you. I MISPOKE on a previous thread about Richmond Depot jackets thinking that I read somewhere that kits were produced by the RD. When I saw your post...I remembered that kits were produced by the Richmond Clothing Bureau (not the depot). MY MYSTAKE was confusing the two. I just asked for the source for my own readings as I have lost some of my notes due to moving a couple of times. I simply knew that you are VERY good at maintaining records of your sources. I questioned you as a compliment...for my own benefit.....not in disbelief.

[Peachfuz]

Re: Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

The Diggs jacket is a four piece body, two piece sleeves. This combined with the padding in the chest, the piecing of the back cuff portion with a heaver material then the jacket itself and the printed cotton flannel in the body, leads me to personally feel the jacket was not an issued item

[D F Smith Historic]

Re: Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

I would beg to differ with you on a few points

Piecing and padding in and of themselves do not necessarily negate the fact a jacket follows a "type" or "style" of a jacket. As piecing in original issue garments is not uncommon in either CS or US clothing.

As far as the lining is concerned, a different lining materiel doesn't necessarily negate a type or style either. as this is sometimes how variants come to light of that particular type or style, especially with CS clothing

I don't recall if the Diggs jacket is indeed a 4 piece body, do you have pictures of the jacket to show this to the others in this thread? If it does, then it leads the Diggs jacket into other territory.

The print information I have hard copy wise on the jacket points to it either being likely to be a Richmond style jacket or variant.

Don S

[Peachfuz]

As requested, here are a few images of the Diggs jacket. I stated what I feel, now I will leave it up to the experts and their copies of Echoes of Glory to determine what this is or isn’t.
As a side note, the trouser portion of this uniform are almost as cool as the jacket.

All photos and the description there of, remain property of the Museum of the Confederacy Richmond, VA

[CSchneider]

Re: Richmond Type II Jacket Lining

The similarities between Andrew Jackson Diggs' jacket and typical Richmond Clothing Bureau jackets are few. The pattern (4-piece body, very generous facings, exterior pockets) and materials (aren't the sleeves faced in leather or something funky like that?) are quite different. When you look at original Richmond Clothing Bureau jackets, you will see plenty of "variants." These range from whomever made Henry Redwood's putting the buttonholes on the right side, to whomever made his brother's whipstitching the back lining into place and not topstitching the base of the jacket, to whomever made Royall's turning the bottom edge of the collar under and whipstitching it over the lining, to whomever made Ramsey's leaving that edge raw. These jackets, however, are always cut in a very similar manner. Diggs' is not even in the ballpark, and the differences cannot be attributed to the whims of a manufacturer working with a typical "kit" procured from the Richmond Clothing Bureau.

To the initial question: every single jacket attributed to the Richmond Clothing Bureau that I have had the opportunity to examine has been lined in plain undyed cotton osnaburg. I'd love to see one that is lined in something else, and be able to say that it was made that way and not altered at some point. To be PEC, line it in undyed cotton osnaburg.

-Craig Schneider