brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

[Citizen_Soldier]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Greetings,

Pete, you may want to drop an email to Robert Land inquiring about the brass eyeletted "Late-War Contact Union Booties" reproduction he offers. He may have some research material that'll he'll be able to share on Federal issue shoes with such a feature incorporated.

Darrek Orwig

[PetePaolillo]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Greetings,

Pete, you may want to drop an email to Robert Land inquiring about the brass eyeletted "Late-War Contact Union Booties" reproduction he offers. He may have some research material that'll he'll be able to share on Federal issue shoes with such a feature incorporated.

Darrek Orwig

Darrek

Thanks, I just talked to him about those and he told me that the original pair he based them off of did not have an inspectors mark or stamp, so there has been some speculation by him and others that these could have been a private purchase boot or a late war contract. The bottom line at this point is that brass eyelets existed at the time in question 1861-1865. Millions of contract booties were made during this time. There was slight variations between the different manufacturers. There is a possibility that there were booties issued with them or added afterwards. Right now that is where I am at. I will continue the hunt for more info.

[estephenson]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Pete, I think you may be chasing something that doesn't exist or at least is so rare that it shouldn't be represented. Again, its like the leopard pants, they existed and still do, but should you have a pair, no.

If properly made, the eyes of bootees should not stretch, just do not pull hard until they are properly oiled and broken in. Brass eyelets did indeed exist, but not on any issued pair I have ever seen. I think they would have at least warranted a note in the Ernest Peterkin Company of Military Historian Journal article, but there was no mention. Every variation that I have observed in the contract pairs have been to save a few cents a pair, and nothing that would have improved the overall quality of the shoe. They started to accept pegged soles to shorten the work time per shoe to cheapen the cost, they approved the McKay machine to cheapen the cost over the pegged process, the started to accept machined counters to cheap the process even more. Rivets were added because the procedure had gotten to the point that they were falling apart at the counter/vamp seam, which was a side effect of machine the seam vs. hand stitching. I can't see a contractor on there own with no federal quartermaster mandate, first purchasing the equipment to do the eyelets, then the eyelets them selves, then in addition the added manpower that would have been required to set each eyelet on the shoes. It may not seem like much to the average person, but compound that with the size of the contract and you could add a few days to the delivery and a lot of unneeded cost. As I said before, if the inspector wasn't looking for it, then it didn't happen.

Perfect example would be the zinced rivet scabbards of 1862. They were an improvement, but they were done by an arsenal shop. The quartermaster deemed the zinced rivets as an unneeded expense and approved standard copper rivets. The zinced would have stopped the build up of oil/oxidation that we all find on our rivets, but it was deemed a non issue and not worth the expenditure.

Shoes were only meant to last a few months in the field and the sole would wear out long before the eyelets would break.

[LeatherHead]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Folks....I do not know of any surviving no-doubt-about-'em American-made enlisted Civil War soldiers bootees, brogans or shoes, the central point of the initial posting on the topic.

In a broader view, a skim of google patent pulls up dozens of eyelet and eyelet machine patents pre-dating 1865. Interesting stuff....

A pair of civilian men's bootees with brass (?) eyelets was recovered from the Bertrand steamboat wreck, going down in the Missouri River north of Kansas City, MO, on April 1, 1865. They are unworn, and like many leather items recovered from the deep sediments of oceans, rivers and lakes, looks as if they were made yesterday. I was provided a copy of a color photo of them by a friend, who got it from another friend who took the original photo. I do not know how to post images here on the AC, but would want an o.k. in advance from the photographer before doing so.

The shoes are clearly meant for rough outdoor use in mining, farming, etc. At first glance they closely resemble those of typical Union issue. Slight lefts and rights, rough-out, with ankle bone-high quarters (the rear part of the upper part of a shoe.) There are 5 pairs of eyeleted lace holes on each shoe. The counters (a second layer of leather to stiffen and reinforce the lower halves of the quarters) are set on the outside and rise upward in front on both sides and overlay the lower two pairs of lace holes. So, the lower lacings go through two layers of leather. Counters are more commonly set on the inside of the quarters with this order of footwear. This quarter/counter layering is set over the juncture with the the vamp (the forepart of the upper parts) with typical two rows of stitching and a dome-headed iron tube (or split) rivet at the top of those side seams. This is the earliest datable survival of that type of rivet that has come to my attention. Most of the US patent information seems to place tube rivets slightly post-CW.

The squared-toe soles are secured to the uppers by a double row of wood pegs; heels appear to be secured by a single row of cut iron heel nails. The leather laces are intact; they are round or roll laces, formed by pulling square-edge lacing strips through round-hole dies to compress and toughen them, making them stronger than if left as simple square-edge cut thongs.

A couple books have been written on the Bertrand, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has a museum with much of the cargo on open storage exhibit. I do not know if these, or other footwear, appear in the publications.

Hope this helps...

Dean Nelson
1st Maryland Infantry, CSA; N-SSA

descended: Private Alston Houston, Co. H, 30th Virginia Infantry (Sparta Greys)
Private Andrew Jackson Schroll, 139th (maybe 149th?) Illinois Infantry

[FlatLandFed]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Hmmm -- the Bertrand? I'll be within 20 miles of the museum this afternoon. If I can talk my lads into a side trip I will ask the curator to allow me to take a photo of those shoes (headed for the gold fields when the ship when down on the Missouri River between Missouri Vally, Iowa and Blair, Nebraska).
Stay tuned.
Paul Hadley
Continually Lost Somewhere in Nebraska Territory

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Hallo!

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife folks own the Bertrand relics and have them displayed at the DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge about five miles east of Blair, Nebraska.

Curt

[Val E. Forge]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Thanks for the pic!

Along with the eyelet business, this photo also sheds light on some other items. Note the scalloped topped boots, a pattern of which I've never seen before. Also, look carefully around the knee of the seated, top-booted officer. His trousers seem to button at the knee, like jodpurs. Funky pattern of spur strap buckles, too. As a fellow who does primarily mounted impressions, these items were interesting and obviously private purchase.

[PetePaolillo]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Folks....I do not know of any surviving no-doubt-about-'em American-made enlisted Civil War soldiers bootees, brogans or shoes, the central point of the initial posting on the topic.

In a broader view, a skim of google patent pulls up dozens of eyelet and eyelet machine patents pre-dating 1865. Interesting stuff....

A pair of civilian men's bootees with brass (?) eyelets was recovered from the Bertrand steamboat wreck, going down in the Missouri River north of Kansas City, MO, on April 1, 1865. They are unworn, and like many leather items recovered from the deep sediments of oceans, rivers and lakes, looks as if they were made yesterday. I was provided a copy of a color photo of them by a friend, who got it from another friend who took the original photo. I do not know how to post images here on the AC, but would want an o.k. in advance from the photographer before doing so.

The shoes are clearly meant for rough outdoor use in mining, farming, etc. At first glance they closely resemble those of typical Union issue. Slight lefts and rights, rough-out, with ankle bone-high quarters (the rear part of the upper part of a shoe.) There are 5 pairs of eyeleted lace holes on each shoe. The counters (a second layer of leather to stiffen and reinforce the lower halves of the quarters) are set on the outside and rise upward in front on both sides and overlay the lower two pairs of lace holes. So, the lower lacings go through two layers of leather. Counters are more commonly set on the inside of the quarters with this order of footwear. This quarter/counter layering is set over the juncture with the the vamp (the forepart of the upper parts) with typical two rows of stitching and a dome-headed iron tube (or split) rivet at the top of those side seams. This is the earliest datable survival of that type of rivet that has come to my attention. Most of the US patent information seems to place tube rivets slightly post-CW.

The squared-toe soles are secured to the uppers by a double row of wood pegs; heels appear to be secured by a single row of cut iron heel nails. The leather laces are intact; they are round or roll laces, formed by pulling square-edge lacing strips through round-hole dies to compress and toughen them, making them stronger than if left as simple square-edge cut thongs.

A couple books have been written on the Bertrand, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has a museum with much of the cargo on open storage exhibit. I do not know if these, or other footwear, appear in the publications.

Hope this helps...

Dean Nelson
1st Maryland Infantry, CSA; N-SSA

descended: Private Alston Houston, Co. H, 30th Virginia Infantry (Sparta Greys)
Private Andrew Jackson Schroll, 139th (maybe 149th?) Illinois Infantry

Very interesting stuff, I would love to see a picture if and when it would be available, Thanks for sharing.

[PetePaolillo]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

..... Here are a few interesting patents I found on google. I especially found the second one showing the eyelet installation machine of 1862 pretty interesting. That would leave one to believe that some late war contract booties might have had them??? HMMMM

http://www.google.com/patents?id=rGNHAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&dq=eyelets&as_drrb_ap=q&as_minm_ap=0&as_miny_ap=&as_maxm_ap=0&as_maxy_ap=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1600&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1865&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=eyelets&f=false

http://www.google.com/patents?id=1qdwAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&dq=shoe%20eyelets&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1700&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1865&pg=PP3#v=onepage&q=shoe%20eyelets&f=false

http://www.google.com/patents?id=Z54CAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&dq=eyelets&as_drrb_ap=q&as_minm_ap=0&as_miny_ap=&as_maxm_ap=0&as_maxy_ap=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1600&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1865&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://www.google.com/patents?id=3S4AAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&dq=brass%20shoe%20eyelets&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1750&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1865&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=brass%20shoe%20eyelets&f=false

http://www.google.com/patents?id=8wMAAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=shoe+eyelets&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1700&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1865&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q=shoe%20eyelets&f=false

[estephenson]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

"If they would of had it they would have used it."
Standard farb in a mainsteam unit.

hardkewls need to advance past the "I'm cool because i have..." mentality. If you can't document usage in a military procured item then it didn't exist. If you want private purchase bootees then by all means, brass eyelets are correct, but your question is dealing with issued shoes. I would never dispute that they existed, just that you are entering into incorrect area when you would want to put them on contract shoes and still call them contract shoes. Call them work boots. As for patent info, you can not go by that for any hard facts, as things get patented all the time, doesn't mean that they are being made, just that somebody had the idea.

I heard a quote by a man that can not be named, "They were making hubcaps, not works of art". This should sum up the entire enlisted man's uniform and equipment. Everything was expected to wear out. A soldier would not spend money on improving equipment that did not need to be improved. Brass eyelets are not a field modification.

[PetePaolillo]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

"If they would of had it they would have used it."
Standard farb in a mainsteam unit.

hardkewls need to advance past the "I'm cool because i have..." mentality. If you can't document usage in a military procured item then it didn't exist. If you want private purchase bootees then by all means, brass eyelets are correct, but your question is dealing with issued shoes. I would never dispute that they existed, just that you are entering into incorrect area when you would want to put them on contract shoes and still call them contract shoes. Call them work boots. As for patent info, you can not go by that for any hard facts, as things get patented all the time, doesn't mean that they are being made, just that somebody had the idea.

I heard a quote by a man that can not be named, "They were making hubcaps, not works of art". This should sum up the entire enlisted man's uniform and equipment. Everything was expected to wear out. A soldier would not spend money on improving equipment that did not need to be improved. Brass eyelets are not a field modification.

my response was unnecessary..I edited myself

[estephenson]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Find a copy of any of the research by Ernest Peterkin. This should be a good place to start on issued shoes. I am not attacking, just pointing out that they either didn't exist or were such a small percentage that they shouldn't be represented.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Hallo!

In the 114th PA image, Colonel Charles Collis is wearing "false boots" over his shoes and apparently with (knee) breeches.

When I was a young archeology student, one day the professor passed around spear points from the various prehistoric (Ohio) cultures.
Having had found three "arrowheads' (spear points) as a kid, I was hopeful that the professor could identify and "date" them for me.
The next day, after class, I took up the three spear points and asked the professor if he could identify them.
Much to surprise, he said "No."

And then he went on to explain that without archeological context such as in situ dateable deposits, they were just "statistic artifacts."
One could make cultural inferences by comparing them other similar or identical artifacts of established provenance, but without the documentation they were just "artifacts."

IMHO, one needs to keep this in mind when "speculating" on Civil War association, provenance, or use.

For example, Mercer invented mercerized cotton thread in 1844. So, we could infer or speculate that CW garments could have been sewn with it.
(However, Lowe did not work out the problems to make it commercially viable until 1890.)

And when looking at an unprovenanced shoe with eyelets, it could be a Civil War era shoe. It could be an 1872 shoe. An 1882 shoe. An 1892 shoe.
A French shoe?

What does the Quartermaster Manual say about the "model" used for the acceptable pattern for Federal shoes? (To use the 1872 regs langauge.. "according to pattern.") What pattern were the inspectors taught to inspect and look for what pattern/features/details?
What do the details of CW shoe contracts say as to the pattern?

(And please, no declarations that of out of millions of shoes 1861-1865, and with the handful that have survived, how do we not know that millions of shoes were not commonly issued with eyelets but NONE of those happened survived?
And as it too is below AC Forum standards, double please no:

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence.")

Ideas, thoughts, speculations, musings, possibilities should not be the end game, just the spark that sends interested and curious folks to work doing the research pro or con, and the testing of the question or hypothesis.

Curt

[PetePaolillo]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Ideas, thoughts, speculations, musings, possibilities should not be the end game, just the spark that sends interested and curious folks to work doing the research pro or con, and the testing of the question or hypothesis.

Curt, That is all I am trying to do. I am not satisfied with just speculation but evidence has emerged to cause me to speculate. This will lead to more research...

[estephenson]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Pete, I sent you an PM asking for your email. I will send you a lot of research into the quartermaster system and shoes. You can draw out of it what ever you want, but for a system that rejected zinc covered rivets because they deviated from the sample, i doubt they would have accepted brass eyelets. Contractors were a business, their biggest concern was the bottom line profit, not life of shoe. In fact a shorter lasting shoe would be a benefit to them.

If you ran a business and were to make shoes for 1 dollar a pair, then there was a machine that would have both cost a substantial amount and and slow your production, would you do it? I wouldn't. The improvements you will find is the machine pegging, the mckay sole stitcher, and the rivets caused by the weaker machine stitches.


Please show me your evidence that they did exist, i would be very interested.