Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

I asume you are referring to a whole reg't like the 61st Georgia?

Actually...
I'd be interested to see any evidence whatsoever. ;-)

[DBURT]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

Geoff,

I wore one myself as a schoolkid over here in the 70s. They were very popular then too.

Dave Burt

[FloridaConscript]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

Actually...
I'd be interested to see any evidence whatsoever. ;-)

I think we can document English stuff being issued to the ANV through photos and excavated battlefield evidence. I'd be willing to take the daring leap and wager some English stuff made it into the hands of Virginians. If no photos of exist, does it preclude you from using english gear doing a Virginia impression? interesting question to batter around.

[DBURT]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

There is an English mess tin in a museum that belonged to a soldier from the 17th Va (The Warrenton Rifles), but that is all I can find. Incidentally, does anyone have a picture of an English mess tin of CS provenance?

Dave Burt

[FloridaConscript]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

David,
there is one in the Relic Room here in Columbia. Maybe Neill has a picture.

[DBURT]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

Bryant, I took pictures of that one in the Relic Room, but they did not come out well as it was behind the glass case. That is the reason I am asking.

Dave Burt

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

Incidentally, does anyone have a picture of an English mess tin of CS provenance?

A couple weeks ago, I saw pics of an English mess tin in a private collection that was part of a collection of uniform pieces and gear belonging to the same CS enlistedman. It is a private collection, so I do not have the details to cite, as the owner of the pics was not at liberty to share that information.

[P. M. Cunningham, Tinner]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

There is an English mess tin in a museum that belonged to a soldier from the 17th Va (The Warrenton Rifles), but that is all I can find. Incidentally, does anyone have a picture of an English mess tin of CS provenance?

Dave Burt

Old post buried on the site, probably the same artifact in mention.

"Re: Engish Messtins

All have CW provinance. One is documented to Pvt Richard E Walden, Warrenton Rifles, Co K 17th Vir Inf (cat. #457, pretty sure this was Fredricksburg NPS). One was found at Perryville and donated to the KHS in 1939 (cat. #6561 of the Kentucky Military Museum). The third I lack the documenatation from the curatorial catalog info on but I think I know the museum collection and plan on getting the provinance added to my notes.

As I PM'd, you this is stuff that I documented five to ten years ago. The mind tends to be one of the first things to go, but I am attempting to jump start it here."

Patrick Cunningham

[DBURT]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

Thanks Patrick,
I know there is a picture somewhere of the mess tin in the Kentucky Military Museum; will try and locate it. Do you have any dimensions for the mess tin? Some are said to have CW provenance, but one I have seen looks to be a WWI, specimen, as it has rounded edges and not the distinct "D" shape of the period.

Dave Burt

[Regimental Colours]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

http://www.oldsouthantiques.com/os2090p1.htm

"Neither the Confederate Government, nor the Southern industrial base could provide nearly enough arms and accoutrements to supply her armies with even the necessities of war, much less the wants. She early turned to her closest foreign ally to supplement her home production. Most Confederate collectors are well aware of her purchases of Enfield rifles, but lesser known was her reliance on English accoutrements.

On February 3, 1863 a summary was written by Confederate Chief of Ordnance, Josiah Gorgas, documenting the war material purchased from England during the first one and a half years of the War. It gives us a valuable comparative insight into English long arm/accoutrement purchases. The Confederacy had purchased 80,695 English rifles and rifle muskets. During that same time the Confederacy purchased 34,731 sets of accoutrements. A set included a waist belt with snake buckle, cap box, cartridge box, bayonet frog, oil bottle and cartridge box sling. They also purchased 81,406 bayonet scabbards. From this we can deduce that every rifle or rifle musket came with a bayonet and enough scabbards were purchased to supply them all. However less than half the accoutrement sets were purchased relative to the long arms. Only a portion of the guns or the accouterments have identifiable Confederate markings. Others can be identified by ownership or collection markings.

The set shown here is one of those that are identified to the Confederacy by the markings put on it by the soldier who collected it; in this case collected from the field of battle. Like soldiers from all wars, the Yankee soldiers who fought at Gettysburg were very proud of their service and each wanted a souvenir of their participation in the first great repulse of the Army of Northern Virginia. On the inside of the belt is penned in ink: “Gettysburg July 1863”. Additionally, on the backside of the belt is penned “This belt taken From the body of a dead rebel by Corp. Rodney Conner Co C 150th Penn. Vol. Inf.”.

While the Federal Army as a whole followed Lee’s retrograde movement at a safe distance, Rodney Conner was left behind wounded, as such he would have had ample opportunity to gather this belt off of the battlefield and send it home.

Inked inscriptions on leather items, unless their complete chain of ownership is know (which is rare) must stand on their own as a provenance. Based on style, phraseology and color, this inscription appears to be genuine from the period. The belt, Corporal Conner, the circumstances and even the instrument used in writing the inscription all check out as correct. In my opinion and that of any who have examined it (which are many) agree that it looks period. It is impossible to prove, or disprove its authenticity, so this is either for the experienced collector who trusts their own judgment, or the collector who implicitly trusts my judgment.

The belt, frog and scabbard are all in near mint condition except for the natural wear done prior to the belt’s capture and it has obviously been stored in perfect conditions since."

[4VADRUMMER]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

Very nice photos! Thanks for posting them. This has got to be one of the best threads in a while! Now all we need is Nick Duvall to make a copy of that white buff English belt and Bayonet Frog with that rivet construction! Hint hint Nick!

[DBURT]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

Adam,
I have been drooling over those photos on Shannon Pritchard's site. That is the first whitened buff frog I have seen.

Dave Burt

[DBURT]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

Notice though that the frog has a buckle, which was supposed to be for the sabre bayonet. Evidence the Confederates were pressing into service anything that came along irrespective of what it was supposed to be used for.

Dave Burt

[Iron Scout]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

Folks,

I personally inspected these items at the Richmond CW show last month; very nice pieces to say the least. Interesting to note the buff belt exhibits a floating keeper along with the tunnel stitch method of folding the belt over....first original I've seen with both. For clarification, this is the third English buff belt I've inspected with firm CS provinance so they were certainly seen in ranks. Two have Gettysburg (this one included) association and one with Sharpsburg. Note, these pictures are for education on this site only and should not under any circumstance be used elsewhere!!

Regards,

Neill Rose
Palmetto Guards
Iron Scouts

[Enfield]

Re: Soldiers wearing English accoutrements

Please educate me if I am wrong, or if research has gone beyond what I knew, back when I was really studying period English accoutrements.

But Petrie's "Equipment of Infantry" (London, 1865; sometimes called "Army Equipment, Part V - Infantry"), does not show this type of frog. None of the frogs in the plates in that work have any rivets, and they do not have that convex shape to the upper part (as opposed to the familiar concave shape of the sides).

Turner's “Soldiers’ Accoutrements of the British Army, 1750-1900” (2006) goes into more detail and shows several frogs. According to that book, based on originals and the Lists of Changes (LOC), the first frog with any sort of rivet, has a rivet only at the strap – dated 1866/1870. The first type with the convex vs. concave upper side shape is dated 1890. The one with the six rivets (upper part riveted, not sewn; plus a rivet on the strap) is dated 1899. This is the type shown in this Gettysburg collection.

FWIW, this is the type I always associated with Lee-Metfords and Lee-Enfields. I'm not going to second-guess this Gettysburg ID, but British sources would indicate that this frog, at least, is post-1860s.

Dave, do you have any thoughts on this?

Geoff Walden