Fabric for RD 'type III"

[mosbysgirl]

From the Jensen article: " As will be seen, this kersey material was used almost exclusively in the Type III Richmond Depot jacket, which dates to the last part of the war. This, plus the fact that the same material is found in a group of Irish-made jackets described below, argues strongly that this gray kersey is English-made cloth run through the blockade."

Does this mean that a type III in something other than B/G kersey would be very rare?

From another site re Bob Denton:

"Based on the research that Chris Graham and I did way back when, all the existing jackets that conform to Jensen's RDIII typology (and the Irish "Tait" variant) were made using B/G-kersey and although they varied in the way they were assembled and finished, the patterns were identical. What was even more remarkable was that the B/G-kersey of the various pieces we examined were very close in hue, chroma and L-value, suggesting that the fabric may have been colored using relatively stable, synthetic dyes. All of the pieces we were able to examine under magnification showed that the fabric was woven using several different color threads (e.g. blue, black, white and grayish-blue), so the thread was dyed prior to being woven.

The thing that is problematic about Les' typology is that we have no examples of the RDI or RDII "types" that have been established as actually originating with the Richmond Depot. I've often said that a more realistic typology would be "...the RDIII, and everything else the RD made."

Regarding your original question(s): 1. An RDIII made from something other than B/G-kersey has yet to be identified, and we have more examples of this type than any other. So yes, an RDIII made from something other than B/G-kersey would be rare (or nonexistent). 2. Do we have any "RDIIs"? I believe all the examples of this "type" currently in existence are private contract items. Until we have one that can be identified as a RD manufactured jacket the point of whether they were made with or without B/G-kersey is rather moot."

[rmilstead]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

As a matter of interest who is Bob Denton and what is his web site? Same on Chris Graham?

Dick Milstead
Hardaway's Alabama Battery
Baltimore Light Artillery
The Company of Military Historians

[Jimmayo]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

Remember that of the thousands of uniforms in use in 1864 and 65 a very very small sample still survive. I don't see how the answer to "would a RD III be made from material other than kersey" can be answered with any degree of certainly based on existing jackets. Maybe looking at what type of material was still being produced in the Confederacy during that time and in what quantity may give some clues. Also due to inflation it may have been much cheaper to use imported fabric than buy made in the CSA material. Lots of other things to consider other than just what surviving jackets were made from.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

Hallo!

The theory presumes that the Richmond Depot system of obtaining "local" or regional produced textiles based upon what this or that mill was making (at the moment and in what quantities) broke down and ended. Or that imported British goods were indeed cheaper than local). It also presumes that uniform jackets seen in Period images are all private purchase and not RD produced.)

Etc.

I am NOT saying it is, but there seems to be somewhat of a degree of having an idea and then cherry picking possibilities in support rather than R & D-ing the "evidence" and then a conclusion based upon the findings.

Curt

[mosbysgirl]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

So are you saying that Mr Jensen's conclusions are incorrect? I realize it is an older article and there is new research. Just wonder what that research is that overrides his conclusions.

[rmilstead]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

Curt,
I am not quite sure what the point is that you are trying to make and whether the conclusions that you are referring to above when you say:
"...degree of having an idea and then cherry picking possibilities in support rather than R & D-ing the "evidence" and then a conclusion based upon the findings."
Are you referring to the comments by this Bob Denton (still trying to understand who he is) or Les Jensen's work first published in the Company Journal in the Fall of 1989?
Les is pretty clear in his discussion what the basis was for his work:

"Following are some tentative attributions of various uniform types to certain of the Quartermaster Depots. The term "tentative" must be emphasized here, for in over fifteen years of research and the examination of nearly 150 original Confederate enlisted men's uniforms, not one has yet been found with a depot marking, and none of those produced domestically even have a size mark."
and...

"Two basic rules of thumb in these attributions have been that there must be at least three surviving uniforms of a given type to constitute a pattern, and those uniforms should each have histories that indicate a common source. Moreover, if a uniform survives today and if the soldier who wore it was still in service in 1865, and unless there is evidence to the contrary, the uniform is considered to be the last one he was issued."

As a Museum curator and professional historian his methods, "R&D" as you call it, were the same as those used at the time by other noted material culture experts in most related fields (Architecture, Art and Antiques, for example) and represented very solid research which was respected at the time and has withstood the test of time. The intervening 25 years has brought forth some new information that provides better focus on some of his conclusions but they are largely still valid especially with respect to the operations and output of the Richmond Clothing Bureau. The original definitions of RDI, II , and III were a tentative topology intended to order the original examples and photographic evidence for purposes of providing a structure to the study. Les is pretty clear that they are just that and not explicit "hard" boundaries in production, certainly not that the RCB would recognize. Unfortunately too many of today's enthusiasts take them as absolute and rigid as if these distinctions were officially created in 1961-1865 while the RCB operated. It was an evolution.

In terms of material, Jensen made no specific statements other that noting what was present in originals he studied and the period sources that were available to him. More recent research including some of the excellent work by Jim Schruefer on his web site Blue and Gray Marching as well as the work of Dave Burt and Fred Adolphus has shed somewhat more light on the war time importation of English woolens and use in the output of the RCB. Period documentation on Schruefer's site and others sources have documented other information relation to Confederate Domestic fabric production not included in Jensen's original manuscript but still supportive of his work. For some reason there is a tendency, particularly on this Forum for individuals to claim new conclusions or "invent" new Depot types and prove the validity of their assertions based upon a single example and a lot of wishful thinking but little primary source research and even less study of existing examples. I doubt that most of these "experts" would stand the test of review for publication in a serious journal environment like for the Company Journal. It's just easier to post it here.

Dick Milstead

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

Hallo!

Please go back and reread what I wrote relating to the need in having a large enough artifact pool, account and document base; and then look toward how the Scientific Method can be applied to historical research as well when it comes to the twin concepts of Reliability and Validity.

Our Collective Knowledge rests on a hinge pin where it remains until new artifacts, documents, and accounts come to light to affirm or deny what is currently thought to be true and why,

If I had wanted to say what the above two posts said I said, I would have written it myself.

:) :)

Curt

[mosbysgirl]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

OK, but I am still trying to discern what Mr Jensen's conclusions were concerning the type III. Were they made in other fabrics than B/G kersey and where does he express that? He seems to be saying that all type IIIs were done out of kersey which would indicate that a jean cloth type III would be inaccurate. Since he seems to indicate that all extant type IIIs are kersey, to say they "could" have been made in other fabrics would seem to be an assumption along the lines of 'if they had it, they would have used it'

[lukegilly13]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

I think, or at least what I get from what Curt is saying, is that Jensons research is accurate as far as it can be. To say that all or even most RD III's were made of Kersey would be inaccurate because the sample space we have to survey is so small that it cannot be considered to represent the total population of RD's produced late war.
Are there clothing or fabric records existing from the RD that shows what fabrics they were bringing in say from '63 through the end? Also are there any trousers thought to have been produced by the RD in the late part of the war made of anything but Kersey? If the answer to either of these is yes, then it could confirm that they had other fabrics on hand.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

Hallo!

Jensen wrote:

"The last jacket in this group has the most radical departure from the pattern, in that it has only six buttons down the front. Made of a thin cadet gray wool with an unusual weave, it is lined with the expected osnaburg, has the belt loops and once had shoulder straps, again cut off. This jacket was worn by George H.T. Greer, Military Secretary to General Jubal A. Early. He had it on when he was wounded at Summerville Ford, Virginia on 17 September 1863. 62

The troops' practice of removing shoulder straps and belt loops, seen in the Bernard, Duval and Greer jackets, may have been the impetus behind the production of the Type III. This pattern is identical to the Type II except that it lacks shoulder straps and belt loops. All of those found thus far are made of heavy cadet grey kersey. Otherwise, the pattern, lining, button count and other characteristics are identical to the Type II.

At least fourteen of these jackets survive, indicating widespread issue. This high survival rate, plus the "last uniform" rule, indicates that this must be the last pattern issued to Lee's army from the depot."

As good researchers and historians do, Mr. Jensen avoids the use of Absolutes and Universals such as "always" or "never." For example, he writes that "this must be the last pattern issued" and not "this was the last pattern issued."

I am a student and follower of Mr. Jensen's seminal work. But, where our Collective Knowledge now resides is more of a process rather than an event. Part of that process is the "methodology" of doing research, as well as in the strength or weakness of what a researcher or historians infers, induces, deduces, extrapolates, opines, believes and how well or poorly the evidence, facts, or artifact pool affirms or denies the opinions, views, or assertions.

What is HARD, IMHO, for the Civil War and all of us with an interest or passion in it, is that many/most of us are not formally trained or educated researchers and historians. But what is worst is that:

1. the surviving pool or artifacts is very shallow
2. the volume of orders, contract, raw material invoices, production records, delivery records, time and place specifics did not survive the War or were not considered at the time and thereafter "worth' saving and preservation
3. that in archeology NUG, many hold that the survival rate of anything is 5%, but more particularly "last things" tend to be more common than "earlier things' because older gets worn and used up while say uniforms right after a surrender are often taken home and preserved.

So, we have to try to affirm or deny our believes and assumptions derived from what evidence exists in the form of artifacts, Period writings, and Period photographs to try to make things more R & V (Reliable and Valid). Which, then becomes the Hinge Point of our Collective Knowledge until something new comes to light.

IMHO. Mr. Jensen's work well serves that. But as he himself wrote.. "at least fourteen of these jackets survive." A rather small artifact pool.

IF 14 out of 14 surviving artifacts are British Army Cloth, does that prove that all (use of a Universal) RDIII's were British Army Cloth (dark bluish gray kersey)? Maybe. One can flip a coin and get 10 heads out of 10 heads, ort 10 tails out of 10 tails. It may be that just the 14 or so surviving ones happen to be British cloth. IT may be that all RDIII's were British cloth.)

Can we test that?
Not so much with what is "out there" today, IMHO. But we can add a few feeble attempts such as looking at Period images of ANV Confederate POW's from 1865 through 1865. Or maybe eyewitness accounts such as men mostly of Ewell's Corps captured at Sayler's Creek being described as "Dirty gray and butternut were the prevailing colors."

Without going through a whole laundry list of inferences and potentials.. in brief... if RDII's had been replaced by RDIII's in 1864, and if existing stockpiles of RDII's ran out through normal supply and demand, one might could infer that if all RDIII's were made only of "dark blue" British cloth, Richmond Clothing Bureau/Richmond Depot supplied ANV units "should" have been all blue and not 'Dirty gray and butternut were the prevailing colors."?

As Herr Dick well and correctly pointed out... "Unfortunately too many of today's enthusiasts take them as absolute and rigid as if these distinctions were officially created in 1961-1865 while the RCB operated. It was an evolution." Hobbyists can often focus and fixate in making what is not 100% Known into total Absolutes and Universals.

Part of that is another discussion as to the differences between the scholarly or academic VERSUS what choices reenactors and living historians have to make, can make, as the result of having to recreate or reproduce clothing or gear or other Material Culture. And as we have been internally fighting about for decades, some lads invert the telescope, and put on blinders, when they discover something existed in the Past and that is good enough- without researching further to see if the item matches the man, unit, time, or place of its use- or whether one example, no mater if documented in Time such as Richardson's jaguar chaps and holsters can be universally applied to all Confederates, every where, every time.

Curt

[GenuineInformation]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

Curt, you pretty much summed up my thoughts on this material in your post above, so I'm not going to rephrase what you have said. Instead, two quick points:

1. A nine-button untrimmed jeans roundabout is a "universal" garment that shows up in images from the Eastern and Western theaters of war, and in early war images as well. While the garment that instigated this discussion was referred to as a Type III Richmond Depot jacket--and there's no doubt that what is generally referred to as a Type III Richmond Depot jacket was a "thing," as in, there was a quantity of jackets fitting this description manufactured and distributed by the Richmond Clothing Bureau in the latter part of the War--the pattern was not unique to the Richmond Clothing Bureau.

With increasing frequency, I become frustrated with reenactors who are lazy with their own research. It appears many reenactors now are reading the canon of the authentic movement but not reading it with a critical eye. They miss the nuances of the language in articles, making hard and fast rules out of aggregates of what was common, filtered through what I can only describe as a modern retail-commodity eye that has to classify everything as a "type" or "model."

2. My second and last point is related to a series of images Brian White shared on Facebook not too long ago. They were taken in Richmond shortly after War's end and depict both Confederate soldiers milling about town as well as freedmen. The freedmen, interestingly enough, appear to be clothed in surplus Confederate clothing. From the close-ups that Brian shared, four garments appeared with regularity on both freedmen and Confederates: 9-button jackets that appeared to be made of English Army Cloth; pants that appeared to be made from an all wool cloth lighter in shade than that of the jackets, possibly royal blue; kepis made of jeans; and 4-button jackets (with an external pocket? Help me out here, Brian) that appear to be made of jeans.

What this suggests to me is that 9-button jackets were being made from EAC and 4-button jackets were being made from jeans. It would be interesting to know which brigades were drawing which clothing, and whether some brigades/regiments were doted on with supply of EAC while others got stuck with the jeans, on purpose.

Best,
JSK

[mosbysgirl]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

"this kersey material was used almost exclusively in the Type III Richmond Depot jacket"
Mr. Knight, I am not being lazy just looking for clarification. Not sure how else to read the above statement than as written. It doesn't look too nuanced to me which is why I have asked the question as it does seem to be a fairly definitive (exclusively being a quantitative word). I realize it says "almost" but that seems to preclude other fabrics being used in the type III (based on Mr Jensen's typology). Again the caveat that we are dealing with a finite number of existing artifacts but that hasn't stopped reenactors from making definitive judgements before. We appear to be making an exception in this case in the mode of 'jean cloth was around so they must have made this model jacket out of it'. I have heard some reenactor friends critical of using anything there is not an existing artifact of as being assumption based and therefore suspect. I guess it comes down in that case to what level of comfort you have with basing your impression on assumptions. I am just trying to get a clear picture here of what is acceptable. Thanks for your patience.

[GenuineInformation]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

1- *Almost
2- Not calling you out in particular, but there is an old adage that "A bit dog always hollers."
3- And the article is now about 25 years old--new research reveals a more complicated and less exact picture of the CS supply system.

The problem is that you are asking for clarification for the answer to a question with a muddy answer. We know that most of the surviving Type III RD jackets are made from EAC. We know that large quantities of EAC were coming into the Confederacy. We know that pictures of CS dead show RDIIIs in what appears to be EAC. But because the sample size is so small, your original question--whether a RDIII made from jeans would be uncommon--cannot be answered easily. The question we can answer is "What material are the RDIIIs that show up most in images and in original collections made from?" and the answer to that is EAC.

Best,
JSK

The More I Read, The Less I Know Mess

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

Hallo!

IMHO...

This is actually not quite so much a discussion of jacket pattern or the nature of the imported British cloth, as it is about the "process" of striving or having to:

1. reproduce material culture items such as uniforms to the Gold Standard of Period raw materials, Period models, forms, patterns, and Period methods of production or construction to have repro's made as the originals (when the originals were in use and not 150 year or so old relics)

2. tie, link, connect, match, etc., the reproduced item of gear or article of clothing to a time and place specific man and unit

3. and then perhaps make some kind of adjustment or "fudge factor" so as to present a more "everyday," "common" or most likely found or seen (the classic example being Texas cavalry captain Samuel Richardson's jaguar chaps and holsters being made universal for all CS cavalrymen).

I think perhaps a good illustration of blessings and curses of this can be seen in the F & I Indian War Rogers' Rangers reenactors and living historians. They obviously need a uniform and gear. There are but scant 1758 descriptions off a green serge jacket lined with frieze. And no surviving uniforms, although there was some possibility if and when a small pox hospital cemetery gets excavated on Rogers' Island.

What reenactors use for reference, because they need uniform is the 3/4 rear view of Colonel William Johnson in the Benjamin West 1770 political painting "The Death of Wolfe" from 1759. Reenactors make Johnson, Rogers, and even go so far as to have Rogers loaning West his uniform for the painting. The other version a mezzotint engraving of Robert Rogers done by a London artist at the beginning of the Rev War who just made something up.

My point here is that "we" (some of us, collectively and individually) need a uniform that is researched and documented. But as Herr Joseph correctly points out, sometimes (if not many times) absolute, perfect, incontrovertible, undeniable, 100% of the time Pure documentation is not always in our grasp and some may never be.

IMHO still, the lesson to be learned, or taken away here, is about the Process and ever striving to refining it down to be "more" rather than "less" Historically Correct or Period Correct.

NOT speaking for Mr. Jensen, but he looked at where the Hinge Point was or could be, when he wrote his excellent series of articles, looked at a severely limited artifact pool, and historical record to explain it... and came away with the only correct deduction or observation that he could have:

"...this kersey material was used almost exclusively in the Type III Richmond Depot jacket.."

because R & D does not (yet, or never will) support the existence of RD I or RD II made of it. Or the reverse of the same coin, that RD III's were exclusively made of EAC/BAC. A good researcher and historian, looking at say a pool of 14 RD III's and finding them all of British army cloth, could say that 100% of the surveyed artifact pool was British army cloth. And then infer or speculate that that might be do to them only being made of EAC because of so-and-so. "Almost" is the safety valve that prevents the Unknown from becoming Universal statements.

What the artifacts (alone) suggest, is that 14 out of 14 viewed, were made exclusively out of EAC.

The "rest" of the Process is the analysis, inference, induction, deduction, opinion, assumption, and pro and con debate as to whether it meets R & V "Reliability and Validity" factors.

Sometimes, it is impossible to male a clear trickle out of a muddy river. So we make the best choices with what we have, until new knowledge comes to light that is more historically true to our needs and wants in the Moment of having to recreate clothing and gear and then put that in the context of man, unit, time, and place.

Herr Joseph...

An interesting and fascinating possibility that RCB/RD issuances may have possibly been made on a "pecking order" when it came to who got what off of the inventory- say EAC, cassimere, satinette, dyed jean, undyed jean, etc. rather than what assortment just happened to be sitting in a box or on a shelf when a requisition came in to be filled...

Curt

[max]

Re: Fabric for RD 'type III"

I suppose most of you know the article but maybe it can be helpful to jody.

http://www.adolphusconfederateuniforms.com/the-confederate-soldier-of-fort-mahone.html