Mainstream gear in fact more accurate? (Answer: NO)

[Clsinclair]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate?

I think that the various contracts to various vendors for the same item would produce a variance of workmanship for that item. That has been covered before. One contractor would utilize a sewing machine where another would not. Some seams could be true and some could be all over the place. The construction of the shelter half is a good example of a seam missing the folded hem. Vendors were mostly paid by what they turned out. Not by the quality of the item. So if they met the minimal standards you could get different quality from one vendor than another.

Not many mainstream sutlers deal with handsewn top stitching and handsewn buttonholes. Some I have seen doesn't know what jean wool is. But there are some excellent mainstream vendors who are friends of mine who make an excellent authentic reproduction garment. Hi Rex!


Claude Sinclair

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate?

Most of the points I'd make have been well-covered.

I'll look at this from a non-military stance, as that's what I know, and the same concept of "shoddy versus well-made" in the period applies to non-military things as well.

Original women's clothing, for instance, shows a huge range of skill level... but even the most bashed-together of period dresses shows a good number of consistent techniques and shapes, put together in quite consistent ways. Those ways and techniques and skills are *not* well-represented by the average "sutler row" offerrings for women's clothing.

The modern "poorly conceived and executed" garments are *not* at all like period poorly-constructed things.

[SCTiger]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate?

In some instances we may actually use the gear for longer periods of time, many of us have well made equipment that is 5-10 years old, whereas the ACW soldier might keep his gear for one year or less. Now granted he wore it everyday and went to battle and performed hard labor with it but, after a few years of reenacting you could replicate that three to six months of hard usage. The way we maintain, repair and store our equipment, also impacts on the "life cycle" of any particular piece of gear.

In my opinion, our equipment has to endure time better than the originals, we aren't going to replace every piece of equipment each year. For me the quick wear outs; it's mostly, shirts, shoes, undergarments, trousers and knapsacks. Hats and coats seem to last the longest, followed by leather gear and blankets. Most of my correctly made leather gear has started to turn brown and crack after three years of regular usage, if it starts to look like the museum relics then it's probably made right. If you use it for twenty years and it never cracks, fades or comes apart, it probably wasn't made in the period manner. That's my guess. I would think that 10 -15 events with regular usage, and little maintenance, would equal one month of regular usage, however the aging and exposure to the elements greater than one year would also have to be taken in to consideration. We need to make the gear correctly, but for my money, it should last more than three years or 6 to 25 hard events, but it shouldn't last forever if it's used. Anyone wanting to buy inferior equipment ought to go ahead and buy a few replacements to recreate the period re-issue of every three to six months.

Anyone up for taking a leave of absence for a month and testing it out? Just need to get ahead on two paychecks!

[tmdreb]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate?

The issue here is that you have to look at two definitions of "poor quality."

Items produced during the War that were of "poor quality" were labeled as such for reasons mostly explained above. Their materials or construction techniques were inferior and did not hold up to use, or their patterns were too poorly cut to fit the wearer properly. However, given that they were produced in that time period, their pattern, materials and construction techniques were naturally of that era.

Mainstream reproductions are labeled as "poor quality" mostly because their pattern, materials and construction techniques do not match those of originals, regardless of how well the reproduction is put together or how well it stands up to use. For instance, a pair of trousers made from a cotton/polyester blend made on a modern pattern with machine sewn buttonholes will stand up to hard use in reenacting. However, it is a "poor quality" reproduction because it fails to match original garments.

This same topic, or versions of it, seem to pop up fairly often. We should probably archive this discussion somehow.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate?

There's a messed up set of logic being used in the premise of this whole thread:

On the face of it, it looks as though you're (Mr. Koenig) are saying:
If A=B and B=C, then A=C

However, your real premise looked like...
"If mainstream gear is considered shoddy by hardcores and many pieces of original gear was considered shoddy by original soldiers, then mainstream gear is a good reproduction of shoddy original gear."

Does this look messed up to anyone else?
If A=B and C=D, then A=D. (!?!?!?!?)

There have been a lot of good posts in this thread about the reproduction of individual pieces gear that were not made to the standard of the contract, but were issued anyway. But, at the end of the day, it doesn't validate the premise of the initial post. No offense to anyone, but the logic just doesn't work.

[mslaird]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate?

Sounds about right, formal fallacy, I just finished Intro to Logic this fall. :confused_

After reading all of the excellent posts to this thread and a little more research I am more comfortable with my evaluations of some of the more widely known providers of accoutrements. Thanks to all who posted. It has definately been educational.

[cap tassel]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate?

Mainstream reproductions are labeled as "poor quality" mostly because their pattern, materials and construction techniques do not match those of originals,

It's not just mainstream that have this problem. ;)

[stx]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate?

Sounds about right, formal fallacy, I just finished Intro to Logic this fall. :confused_

After reading all of the excellent posts to this thread and a little more research I am more comfortable with my evaluations of some of the more widely known providers of accoutrements. Thanks to all who posted. It has definately been educational.

This was what I had in mind when I started the thread. I don't have a bunch of mainstream gear I wish I could wear and call authentic, haha. Thanks to all who answered, I've learned a lot.

[KarinTimour]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate?

Folks:

I'd like to point out a further distinction in the definition of the word "shoddy."

For those of us who work with fabric and fiber, "shoddy" is a period and modern term that refers to a particular type of fiber. Both Don Smith and Mrs. Lawson were talking about this. In the 19th century, they would recycle old clothing -- when it was too worn to be useful, it would be sold for rags. Some of this went to paper manufacturers, but others, especially wool rags, was put through shredders that literally tore it into little fibers. As Mrs. Lawson so wonderfully described, these were then mixed with new fiber, and spun into yarn or spun even finer and the resulting thread was woven into cloth. Often those fibers retained their original dyes, and when they were spun into the new fibers, even if they were subsequently dyed, they retained their original color. Which is why items made with shoddy had speckles of other colors when you looked closely.

The resulting fiber was much cheaper to produce in our time period -- after all, they were extending the amount of new fiber, by adding the cheaper, older, shredded "bits." However, the resulting fabric or yarn was easily identified for a cheaper form of fabric or yarn. It had some other deficits as well -- it didn't wear as well as something made entirely of new fiber, and as Mrs. Lawson points out, it might well shrink considerably when washed. Or shrink uneavenly, so the sleeves would come out different lenghts on a coat or you'd never be able to get a really true straight crease in a pair of pants.

But for the consumer who was looking for a cheaper alternative, it could be a way to get an item of clothing, a blanket or etc. for a lower cost.

It was seen in our time period by many as a perfectly acceptable, but "less classy" means of getting an item. Just as some of us may shop at certain stores for some items, but discount stores for others. Or buy first quality for out modern coats and large ticket items, but buy athletic socks in bulk from a dealer who is selling the socks that didn't pass inspection at the factory -- hence "factory seconds."

When contractors in the Civil War cut corners and used this fiber and fabric to make uniforms that shrank in the first rain, or pants that shrank while you were fording the first stream, the soldiers' outraged contempt caused the word's usage to "morph" into a synonym for "garbage" or as someone earlier in this thead said "crappy."

Others on this thread have explained more clearly than I how the items sold by many mainstream vendors are different from period originals that were made poorly.

Hope that's helpful,
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[mslaird]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate? (NO)

After hearing all of the different methods used during the nineteenth century to produce the cheaper woolen goods, I can understand now how it would be cost prohibitive in this era to produce authentic reproductions of those garments. As I understand it, you would have to shred various different scraps of wool fabric then weave those resulting bits into a new bolt of material along with new fibers resulting in what the period manufacturers would have referred to as thier cheaper goods. Then the resulting clothing would be inconsistent with wear and shrinkage. Whereas the gear offered by some of the larger sutlers is just gear made with improper materials, patterns and manufacturing processes and not at all representative of the cheap or hastily manufactured stop-gap goods produced at different times of limited supply during the war.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate? (Answer: NO)

Hallo!

Bingo...
:)

Curt

[RJSamp]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate? (Answer: NO)

Hallo!

Bingo...
:)

Curt

The one we are missing is the modern authentic manufacturer (as opposed to mainstream) coming up with TOO GOOD of a product. Modern Brass tubing in large quantities is not available in the thinwall instrument quality thicknesses of the 1860's...same with copper. Tim Bender hats are too well built, they don't have the correct shoddy (5% per the contracts) built in and aren't made to last the 30 day warranty of the period (they last a LONG time). And this list goes on to modern threads and spinning production techniques, cotton fibers (love the long Egyptian and Pima cotton shirts we doeses), do we have to worry about what bloodline the sheep came from to ensure the correct yarns??...... We all know that the Leathers produced today are thicker/stronger then the methods used back then.....and hot dipped tin has almost been EPA'd out of existence.

One thing I noticed at OPIII: Brown Black Hats. New unit, just coming out of the depot, haven't been on the road for more than a month.....and the hats are faded. Noticeably. The real truth is that they are expensive and you hang on to them for years (my Dirty Billy is 8 years old)...and they didn't.

Here's one you probably don't know:
The majority of buglers use modern mouthpieces (even if the outside looks period)...their embrouchure 'fit's' is trained for their mouthpiece, sometimes over decades. Very very personal as to the fit. If you change mouthpieces to a period mouthpiece you can be in a world of hurt......and the tone is definitely brighter for a modern mouthpiece, mellower for a period mouthpiece.

Modern Manufacturing...can't live with it, can't live with it.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate? (Answer: NO)

RJ -
Yeah thats an interesting point and it does carry water to some degree - reproduction shoes is the example usually cited in this discussion. Most Civil War soldiers didn't send a foot tracing in to a cobler before having their shoes issued to them. Tom Mattimore I know has made some adjustments to his patterns to fit a modern foot more comfortably. I'm not criticizing Tom on that point, I do believe I remember him saying that however on a couple occasions.

*Shrug*

Perfect reproductions are the goal but in some cases they are unattainable unless you have unlimited funding. Few among us can afford to pay a $150 premium for a pair of shoes that might only last you half a season - same goes with the hats, etc.

I dunno, I think there are bigger authentic fish to fry than this one.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate? (Answer: NO)

Hallo!

Although the limted run of CW shoes some of the Williamsburg "cobblers" are looking to make at $450 a pair sound interesting...
;) :)

Curt
You Mean The Government DOESN'T Issue My Kit Mess

[toptimlrd]

Re: Mainstream gear in fact more accurate? (Answer: NO)

Perhaps this may help shed some light.

Although many mainstream vendors sell items that at first resemble the right item, there are still differences between their work and an original. Disregarding warp, weft, etc. even if a period item was compleely machine stitched (some if not many were) it was not on a modern lock stitch machine like we have today. Also certain items did have a more "crude" assembly method than others. Take for example the JT Martin contract shirt: the stitchng was rather large and not at all as straight as those on a shirt that perhaps your wife made for you at home. The material was also quite scratchy. This crude assembly is correct for the period but some people are put off by it especally when they see the price of the reproduced item since it looks like it is supposed to look. Now beside another contract variant reproduction that has a more "quality" assembly it shows how construction techniques in the period varied. The problem with many of the mainstream items out there is that they are made in a modern mass produced fashion. It all goes back to the 3 basics: pattern, material, construction. I wish it wre possible to make an item that fits all three of thes criteria at the price level of the mainstream but it simply can't be done.