Tucking trousers

[Guy Gane III]

Re: Tucking trousers

Perhaps he just wanted to look hardkewl. :D

:wink_smil

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Tucking trousers

I see little reason that what modern farmers do working horses would be substantially different than what 1860s farmers did.

Do you wear high waisted, button front pants with seam or mule ear pockets and no back pockets when you farm ? How many of your friends do ?

See where I am going with this ?

[j harold 587]

Re: Tucking trousers

Good point king crow. Farmers if wearing tall boots tuck in trousers to keep the cuff out of mud or manure. I would also note that they would be un- tucked if working hay or straw to keep the chaff from falling inside the boot.
American military from any era seem to do what is comfortable and personally beneficial.

[rick35ovi]

Re: Tucking trousers

Thanks to all for the info and images, I prefer to wear boots instead of brogans and i prefer to tuck them in, mostly for astetic reasons but i have noticed that bottoms of my trousers seem to last a lot loger than everyone elses. I also wondered if maybe they did that to disguise trousers that may have been issued too short or too long,
Just a thought though.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Tucking trousers

Do you wear high waisted, button front pants with seam or mule ear pockets and no back pockets when you farm ? How many of your friends do ?

See where I am going with this ?

Sytle and function are two different things (see where I'm going with this). Farmers tend to be functional NOT stylish because functional also has a safety component.

So functionally "high waisted, button front pants with seam or mule ear pockets and no back pockets" are no different than cartharts or jeans. Furthermore the style of the pants have nothing to do whether or not you wear your pants tucked or not tucked or wear boots at all. Tucking or not tucking has nothing to do with whether or not the pants stay up.

What you are talking is style.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Tucking trousers

What is/isn't done or worn today is not always an accurate indicator of what was done then is where I was going. That is all.

[JacobReichwein]

Re: Tucking trousers

Jerry: Tuck in, tuck in.

George: Alright, so that's one tuck and one no-tuck.

Lupe: Okay.

George: Yeah. One second sweetheart. Jerry, I really think it'd be easier if
you didn't tuck.

Jerry: Excuse me, fine, you don't want me to tuck, put me down for a no-tuck.

George (to Lupe): Two no-tucks.

Jerry: Uh, hang on a second, You know what? Changed my mind, make it a tuck.

George: You just said you weren't tucking.

George: Alrighty, so. That's one tuck and one no-tuck. Got that?

[Raven]

Re: Tucking trousers

Odd, are those 63 springfields?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Tucking trousers

Hallo!

Hallo!

Alas... the image that was posted has too low of resolution to blow up the detail I would like before making a commitment... ;) :)

The light bounce (refraction) is annoying, but yes, I would venture a guess that they are SM 1861's based upon the "serpentine" look of the hammers versus the look of M1863 hammers. The play of light varies gun to gun but I think I am seeing the SM 1861's more "curvy" hammer and the somewhat "egg shape" of the rear of the lock plate.

Curt

;) :)

Curt

[DnS475]

Re: Tucking trousers

I thought regulations were to wear pants over boots. Unit officers would dictate if they could be tucked???