Original British Knapsack on eBay??

[GreencoatCross]

I thought this might be of interest to some of you import knapsack guys. I have no idea if this is a proper configuration, post-war, etc., and since the auction is ending in a day I gave it it's own post.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Victorian-era-1850s-Trotter-knapsack-RARE_W0QQitemZ400027283964QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item400027283964&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2|65%3A16|39%3A1|240%3A1318

Mods, please put this post where it belongs if not here....or maybe fold it into a previous discussion about British knapsacks?

[Sewing Vixen]

Re: Original British Knapsack on eBay??

Is this similar to the knapsacks the 7th New York would have used?

[onemoreb]

Re: Original British Knapsack on eBay??

This appears to be the standard British knapsack that was imported to the Confederacy. There are references to some federals picking them up and using them due to comfort. It is unusual to see them with the white buff leather straps. The originals did use them sometimes. I am not familiar with Trotter but I know some about Isaac & Campbell. The only repros I have seen with the white buff were made by MO Boot and Shoe.
My primary concern with this item is that the brass eyes are not terribly discolored. True buff leather tarnishes brass horribly. My 1840's buff belt and bayonet baldric makes my buckles a wreck. I would be suspicious of this item. This is just my humble opinion.

Samantha, I suspect the hard packs used by the 7th NY might have been state issued. Possibly the Early war double bag or a private contract of some sort.

[DougCooper]

Re: Original British Knapsack on eBay??

Some photos of a Trotter knapsack - cannot remember the collection. Perhaps someone else recognizes these?

[GreencoatCross]

Re: Original British Knapsack on eBay??

Those look like two different knapsacks. The one on the left is from Don Troiani's stock photography website historicalimagebank.com. The other one is a mystery to me!

[erik]

Re: Original British Knapsack on eBay??

I believe that the EBay offering is a reproduction. The buff leather straps testify to that conclusion. Any period issue white buff leather is white through. I have several items of belting, frogs and straps and do not see the white oneside, tan the reverse shown here.
Despite that, this is a decent repro 1856 pattern knapsack and the price, though a trifle high, is fair. It may have come from Victorian Tymes, a provider of British equipment until recently.

Erik Simundson

[rogue]

Re: Original British Knapsack on eBay??

The seller of this knapsack is a very knowledgable collector of Canadian / British militaria. I would suspect, knowing the seller, it is an original. Victor does not deal in repros, and has made some incredible finds in the past in the wild west of Canada.
It would be a shame to wear it in the field, but a great looker, with good photos so take advantage of that.
S.Sullivan

[sepoy1857]

Re: Original British Knapsack on eBay??

Hmmm...not an expert by a long shot, but tan one side and white the other sounds like the "pipeclayed" gear issued in India c. late 19th century. Can't say if this knapsack is original or not, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. A British garrison was stationed here where I live - to watch the Americans across the river at Ft. Wayne in Detroit!

[rogue]

Re: Original British Knapsack on eBay??

Does might make right? Does money spent lend authenticity? Someone thought enough of this one to go $1335.00. Look at the photos or copy them for your files before the images fade.
S.Sullivan

[packer01]

Re: Original British Knapsack on eBay??

Hi!

In response to the question of 'tan' leather I believe that either the flash photography or the scanning process is creating a higher contrast than would normally be seen by eye. As comparison I have attached a photograph that was taken of the inside of the knapsack straps of a similar knapsack in the collection of the Green Howards Regimental Museum, UK. The level of discolouration of these straps seems to be about the same on the inside as on the ebay offering.

[Well, apparently I can't put the photo here because I seem to have MAY NOT post attachments connected to my profile. Hmmm, anyone want to help me out and post it for me? Or get a moderator to change that?]

Proper white buff, even when new, retains a slight yellow tone due to the oils used in the manufacture process. Probably it's the degradation and the aging of these oils which creates the discolouration, although I am sure that friction, hand acids, and use play a role too. [Somebody with some Museology/ Conservation skills might be in a better position to help here] Very often the whitening on the front is not pipeclay but a wonderful liquid concoction called Blanco applied during its later life. This is probably also sharpening the distinction between the front and back whiteness.

Compared to similar knapsacks in collections at the Green Howards, the Royal Warwickshire Fusiliers Museum in Warwick, the Essex Regimental Museum in Chelmsford, The Black Watch Museum in Perth, Scotland, and the Guards Museum in London, the overall construction and 'look' of the one up for sale is comparable. My biggest question with the ebay one is the lack of any markings other than the WD one on the inside. Many British-issued knapsacks have quite a few regimental and personal markings on both the straps and inside the bag itself, but this one is conspicuously blank. Not impossible for an original, of course, and perhaps the lack of markings goes hand-in-hand with its good, unissued condition. (Despite the sales pitch, it's good, but not the best one I've seen; but that may just be a personal judgement)

We need to remember that it is a regulation knapsack made for the British/Canadian military-issue market, and it needs to be compared against others of that same type from that same period. The Isaac and Campbells brought into the Confederacy during the war were NOT made for this regulation market and so a comparison of this one with Civil War similar knapsacks may not be completely valid.

For me, it ticks more 'right' boxes than 'questionable' ones; but whether that makes it worth $1300.....?


I believe a 7th NY knapsack is described in Todd's 'American Military Equipage'. Unfortunately, as I recall the 7th also had a frame knapsack for full-dress occasions in the 1870s as well which was only marginally different, but still different. So not everything square and marked 7 may be a CW artifact. I'll dig out the post-war references if anyone is interested and probably send privately (since they are post-war!).


Finally, I know I am a persistant nag about this, but in the interest of accuracy I really do have to raise this issue once again. None of these are 'Trotter' knapsacks in even the most vague of connections. The Trotter company ceased supplying equipment to the British government in 1806, and never manufactured or designed knapsacks framed with wood. There is no connection between the Trotter family, or the Trotter company, with this pattern of knapsack which first appears only in the late 1820s.

I could perhaps be more forgiving of this incorrect attribution if it was in fact a period error; but no one in the 1850s or 1860s ever used the term 'Trotter knapsack' either. The association between the frame knapsack and the Trotters was only fabricated by a British regimental historian in the 1920s. Repetition of this story in the 1950s and 1960s, and the ongoing lazy copying that passes for research into British equipment has led to the term 'Trotter knapsack' being widely used without a single period document supporting it.

So, it's not a pattern manufactured by the Trotters, designed by the Trotters, or even derived from a design by the Trotters; and it can't even be claimed that it is a term that 'they' called them at the time. On a board where its members strive for higher levels of 'Authenticity', it would be nice to see the use of this incorrect term cease. I know that if I posted on this forum using the term 'Charleville' for any 69-cal musket in use in the Civil War, I would be pelted with messages telling me to be more precise in my terminology and not to use anachronistic descriptions. Same should hold true in this case and that shouldn't change just because an item is not American. So please, please help me out with this guys and girl! :) :)

Again, if anyone can get my photo posted up here, I think that might help in comparing the look of the buff leather.

FWIW

Frank Packer