Federal Frocks

[boreguard]

Seeking thoughts and opinions as to a capt. or lt. wearing an enlisted frock with rank insignia. Has anyone ever noticed photos reflecting that?

Thank You
Dennis Neal
16th La Inf.

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: Federal Frocks

Seeking thoughts and opinions as to a capt. or lt. wearing an enlisted frock with rank insignia. Has anyone ever noticed photos reflecting that?

Thank You
Dennis Neal
16th La Inf.

I think you should shy away from this practice. I've seen it done far too often by mainstream reenactors... And there is little documentation for it, and it goes against regulations, etc. etc...

The garment that is the MOST common among junior officers in photographs '61-'65, but the LEAST seen in authentic reenacting are well made single breasted officers frocks. I've seen VERY FEW well made garments like this... Too many 'officers' today wear poorly made commercial jackets or sackcoats.

That is where you should aim your impression. A good junior officers frock!

[boreguard]

Re: Federal Frocks

Thank you for your opinion Ryan.
Dennis Neal

[markj]

Re: Federal Frocks

Greetings,

Well, there is precedence for this. The attached image depicts an officer who served in the 69th Indiana Volunteer Infantry (mustered in August 1862). The man is, in fact, ID'd (I think he served in Company B) but I don't have my notes readily available. However this image is on display at the Indiana Civil War Museum, in Indianapolis, along with the man's sword and other personal effects.

The most likely explanation for the man wearing shoulder straps with his enlisted dress coat stems from the fact that the 69th IVI was rather hastily raised, in July-August 1862, and deployed with little training to Kentucky, where it participated in the Federal fiasco at Richmond KY (31 August 1862). Much of the 69th IVI was forced to surrender and was subsequently paroled back to Indianapolis.

So, the short answer is, "Yes, some newly promoted lieutenants and captains did wear enlisted dress coats...but, as a rule, only until they could acquire more appropriate attire."

Regards,

Mark Jaeger
markj@purdue.edu

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Federal Frocks

An officer is (and was) required to acquire and wear the regulation uniform (e.g., the proper frock or dress coat for his grade) for routine daily duties and dress parade. Your first investment should be the stuff that you are required to have, and after you've done that, you can consider investing in some of the "oddball" stuff such as a sack coat to wear for field duty in order to protect your "good" coat.

The cut and trim of an enlisted dress coat is distinctly different from an officer's coat. Don't do it. There is no better way to announce to the world in general that "I'm a f'n farb!"

Tom

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: Federal Frocks

Well, there is precedence for this.

Yes, there is, but I agree it is the exception to the rule. These indeed are oddball images... And if you were to do this in the field you'd better document and be scenario specific/appropriate.

Here is an image of Gen. Sam Garland, possibly a pre/early-war image. Garland was killed at South Mountain.

[K Bartsch]

Re: Federal Frocks

An officer is (and was) required to acquire and wear the regulation uniform (e.g., the proper frock or dress coat for his grade) for routine daily duties and dress parade. Your first investment should be the stuff that you are required to have, and after you've done that, you can consider investing in some of the "oddball" stuff such as a sack coat to wear for field duty in order to protect your "good" coat.

The cut and trim of an enlisted dress coat is distinctly different from an officer's coat. Don't do it. There is no better way to announce to the world in general that "I'm a f'n farb!"

Tom

I concur. Pressing an enlisted dress coat into service for a company grade officers impression is as egregious as folks sewing straps onto enlisted MSJ's (trimmed for cav or arty at that!) --- a sight far too common among the mainstream. Just say no!

Cordially,

[markj]

Re: Federal Frocks

Indeed, I lean toward the "militia" explanation for the Garland photo. Then again, we can also reverse the coin and wonder how many enlisted men wore officer-style attire. I remember coming across an account, in the Portland IN "Jay County Weekly Torch-Light," of the 84th Indiana color bearer (a sergeant) being presented a company officer's uniform for gallantry at Missionary Ridge. I also recently saw a cdv on eBay showing an Iowa first sergeant wearing a dress coat very similar in cut and fabric to a company officer's coat (no trim, cut-down collar, etc.).

Regards,

Mark Jaeger
markj@purdue.edu

[UnionMan]

Re: Federal Frocks

The key to a good officer's jacket, whether it be a shell, frock or sack, is quality of materials and workmanship. Personally, I would not get too hung up on the type of coat, and would pay more attention to craftmanship and material. Certainly if you are portraying a jr. officer in Shermans army from 1864-65, an officer's frock may not be the best choice in comparison to a finely tailored sack coat. Nothing would have gotten you shot by a rebel sharpshooter in Sherman's army faster than a nice long officers frock :)

The officer's frock is certainly under-represented at many reenactments, but always let the unit you are portraying and time period drive your impression as well.

-Tad

Indeed, I lean toward the "militia" explanation for the Garland photo. Then again, we can also reverse the coin and wonder how many enlisted men wore officer-style attire. I remember coming across an account, in the Portland IN "Jay County Weekly Torch-Light," of the 84th Indiana color bearer (a sergeant) being presented a company officer's uniform for gallantry at Missionary Ridge. I also recently saw a cdv on eBay showing an Iowa first sergeant wearing a dress coat very similar in cut and fabric to a company officer's coat (no trim, cut-down collar, etc.).

Regards,

Mark Jaeger
markj@purdue.edu

[boreguard]

Re: Federal Frocks

Thanks all for sharing your insight. My motivation was not as most of you presume, but never the less helped add weight to my already formed opinion . I've seen several instances where officers were wearing what certainly seems to be enlisted frocks, however the regulations are not to be over looked when calculating what was more or less expected, therefore being the most common in dress and seen in surviving photos today.

Thanks again
Dennis Neal
16th La. Inf.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Federal Frocks

Hallo Kameraden!

As already stated, perhaps not straying too far from the PEC or NUG Lines is the better way to go for a quality impression.

Otherwise, jaguar trousers can become the "de rigeur." (Not really, as IMHO, the problem with many officer's impressions is in lacking the appreciation that depending upon one's socio-economic background and the willingness or ability to spend/invest the Greenbacks and Coppers- being a junior officer could be a pricey thing. [Just as today...] ;-) )

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Once Lt. and Capt. Mess

[Bill Cross]

Let's distinguish between reenactorisms & history

An officer is (and was) required to acquire and wear the regulation uniform (e.g., the proper frock or dress coat for his grade) for routine daily duties and dress parade.Tom

Tom,

I think we need to distinguish between what the regulations required, what the men in the field ACTUALLY DID (not always the same), and what serves our mission of representing them today in an accurate and historical manner. I concur that in the interest of PEC we should avoid odd or uncommon impressions, but we should also be clear about our justifications.

Necessity and factors we can only guess at resulted in oddball uniforms, and being in the field meant that the niceties of barracks life and the regularity of timely issue were no longer the determining factor. Let us not forget, for example, the shrinking of the officer markings, so that by the Late War some officers apparently were wearing nothing more than circlets to avoid being conspicuous and attractive to sharpshooters.

I believe John Stillwagon or Heinrich would say "consult the records before making a decision." If the impression calls for an officer in an enlisted frock coat, then go for it. Otherwise, when in doubt, take refuge in PEC.

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Let's distinguish between reenactorisms & history

Tom,

I think we need to distinguish between what the regulations required, what the men in the field ACTUALLY DID (not always the same), and what serves our mission of representing them today in an accurate and historical manner. I concur that in the interest of PEC we should avoid odd or uncommon impressions, but we should also be clear about our justifications.

Impression-specific research should be the norm. But that's not really the question here... as with developing any general impression, get the regulation, s'posed to have it gear first, then work on the optionals. The service uniform (dress coat) is never out of place for an officer's impression; the use of the privately-purchased fatigue blouse/sack coat is more limited.

Tom

[DukeRPSC]

Re: Let's distinguish between reenactorisms & history

Impression-specific research should be the norm. But that's not really the question here... as with developing any general impression, get the regulation, s'posed to have it gear first, then work on the optionals. The service uniform (dress coat) is never out of place for an officer's impression; the use of the privately-purchased fatigue blouse/sack coat is more limited.
Tom

you can consider investing in some of the "oddball" stuff such as a sack coat to wear for field duty in order to protect your "good" coat.

"Sack coat: = oddball stuff? Really? And for a "campaign" such as the typical portrayal at a battle reenactment event? I have to question the documentary basis for and legitimacy of such assertions and would certainly welcome some sort of support for that statement. A quality private purchase officer's blouse is hardly an oddball item and that statement is abundantly illustrated by photos taken both in the field and studio. Unfortunately, what is all too often represented at events or living histories are poorly or cheaply made representations rather than accurate reproductions of commercial/private purchase blouses. The poorly made blouse can be an inexpensive expedient for those not prepared to financially undertake the officer's role. It is expensive to tote that sword.

I do agree, however, that the dress coat is never out of place and that assertion is also abundantly supported by photographic evidence from images struck in the field.

[boreguard]

Re: Federal Frocks

Yes, there is, but I agree it is the exception to the rule. These indeed are oddball images... And if you were to do this in the field you'd better document and be scenario specific/appropriate.

Here is an image of Gen. Sam Garland, possibly a pre/early-war image. Garland was killed at South Mountain.

I wonder why Gen Garland took time to document his obvious disregard for regulations?

Dennis Neal