Shoddy Clothing

[orngblsm]

Pards,

Now by bringing up this topic I am probably asking for a beating...but here we go. I was talking with one of my mainstream buddies the other day about the sack coats from an "anonymous" reputable sutler. I was trying to persuade him into buying the sack coat because of its high quality and its high authenticity. He countered me with "Ryan...How many of the uniforms issued were just plain crap? Why should I forfeit my "lower" quality uniform for a "higher" quality uniform?"
Now there are many factors that need to be looked at here...such as authenticity of: wool, thread, and stitching. But this got me thinking on how our high quality uniforms may be a little to high quality. And what would an "authentic" crappy uniform look like? Just looking for some opinions...


Respectfully,

[BrianHicks]

Re: Shoddy Clothing

Anybody want to buy an article of clothing with loose threads, four of five stitches to the inch, and thread that is dry rotted before use?

No thank you. Like lice and disyntary, there are some authentic elements that I don't care to bring with me to the next event.

By lower quality, what is your firend referring to? No hand sewn portions at all? The article not actually patterened off a documented pattern? What? or does he wear a uniform with very few stitches to the inch, made of dry rotted or mildewed cloth and thread?

In the examples I listed above, I'd say neither is exeptable. But based on your friends way of thinking, the later is more authentinc than the former. Which does he wear?

[Jack Booda]

Re: Shoddy Clothing

As far as an "authentic crappy uniform," are you thinking of something like the "hurried emergency issue" sack coats by John Wedeward? These are apparently made from excellent fabrics and thread, but with wavy stitch lines sewn by a stressed and tired 17 year old girl working 12 hour shifts.

http://www2.inxpress.net/jwedeward/index.htm

The problem is that these "authentic crappies" cost more than some other good makes. But I understand, beauty (along with style of authenticity) is subjective and at this level you usually get what you pay for. :)

[KentuckyReb]

Re: Shoddy Clothing

It may be the one concession in authenticity that must be made to the exigencies of finance. Complete accuracy in the procurement of uniforms, at least for Federals and to a great degree Confederates, would have us being supplied with jackets, trowsers, etc. by an issuing authority. Unfortunately, nobody's gonna buy this stuff for us. We gotta 'issue' it to ourselves. And we just plain and simple do not have the long green to throw around that the governments did back then. We cannot supply ourselves with the expectation of a re-issue within a few months. So we have to insist on a higher-quality article for our money than the governments very often took the trouble to. And that is not an unacceptable concession to make. But the 'originals were poor quality' argument that I've heard before too--that's just a cop-out, and it's hurting the hobby. There is a poorly made garment, which might be quite accurate if properly done, and there is a poorly rendered reproduction, fobbed off on the unknowing or apathetic. (I know, I know...somewhere out there are the guys grinning because they know from one of my posts that I still have a Western Depot jacket from a less than stellar source. But it's better by far than what I had, and it gets replaced asap. My statement is still, I think, valid.)

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: Shoddy Clothing

The question seems to be could a poorly made sack coat, or an entire contract of sack coats make it by the inspector(s) during the war?
There was fraud in the contract market as well as bid rigging.
Food stuffs escaped inspection and were issued rancid, why not coats?
But I agree, why copy that today?

[KarinTimour]

Brooks Brothers Officer's Frock Coats

Dear Sirs:

Brooks Brothers, which got a contract very early in the war to supply officer's clothing "in the press of extreme demand for the limited fabric available" bought a lower quality of fabric. But their tailors were expected to do the same quality of handwork on the coats. Apparently the patriotic tailors were so offeneded that this lower quality of cloth was being used, that they reported it to the Army. Brooks Brothers, publicly shamed at the outcry, at their own expense replaced the coats.

I don't have details about how the fabric was poorly made -- but from all accounts the coats themselves had all the fine tailoring that Brooks Brothers offered. Seems to me that the contrast between a present-day sutler row quality frock and the BB shoddy frocks would still be pretty remarkable. Would be fascinating to contrast the cloth that a Brooks Brothers tailor would distain as "poor quality" with the cloth used for mainstream sutler coats.

Karin Timour
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Shoddy Clothing

Now there are many factors that need to be looked at here...such as authenticity of: wool, thread, and stitching. But this got me thinking on how our high quality uniforms may be a little to high quality. And what would an "authentic" crappy uniform look like? Just looking for some opinions...

Interpretation is the technique of telling a story so that the person you're telling it to understands what you've said and can apply that somehow to their previous or future experiences. So there... Freeman Tilden condensed to a single bullet point... all the rest is technique to "reach" the different folks you may happen across.

Reproduction uniforms and other items are tools (or toys, depending on your outlook) that we use in interpreting a particular period of history -- whether your targeted auduence is the crowd over behind the fenceline, a small group at a "knapsack talk," or your filemate. Or yourself, for that matter. I believe that the more closely we can reproduce something, the easier it is to interpret that point to the average targeted audience. We can't conscientiously use the actual artifacts solely in our search for "authenticity,", but what we can do is strive to use the "least wrong" solution in our efforts.

Our modern material culture and ad-driven marketplace stress "brand name" stuff... Levis or Calvin Klein jeans, Starbucks coffee, etc. to the point that the nearly-universal perception is that you aren't "with it"... that you're some sort of social misfit if you don't possess, and maybe use, these things. This culture carries over into our hobby as people debate the difference between a ************ and a Jarnagin repop of an I&C knapsack, or a Cotton City vs. a Charlie Childs Columbus jacket or a Wedeward vs. a ************ sack coat. If you don't have the "name brand," you aren't "with it", and there's an ever spiraling argument over which of these artists has the better work, mostly for the owner's bragging rights.

I own a number of these things... not because it's the kewlest thing to have one of Nick ************'s frock coats or one of Becky Nall's Confederate jackets (although these are secondary benefits), but because these items fall within the range of the "least wrong" copies available, at least until I perfect time travel and can get one of those items in my size from the St. Louis Arsenal clothing sales store or something like that...

But the bottom line is, we're trying to tell a story, and "interpretation" is the tool box we use to get folks to understand what we're trying to say.

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: Shoddy Clothing

An interesting point was made a few replies (#3) earlier;
'' ...stressed and tired 17 year old girl working 12 hour shifts...'', not straying from the point but there is amble evidence that many contacts were filled under ''sweatshop'' conditions.
One can certainly question the skill and dedication of these laborers.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Shoddy Clothing

I'd be willing to bet that even in the thirteenth or fourteenth hour of hand-stitching by poor light from that 17yo sweat shop girl, her work will trump some of the truly bad work I've seen on sutler row. We're talking about people who may have been doing this for a living for a few years before the war, and had time to get pretty darn good. Even those that took it up during the war were usually familiar with home sewing, and took those skill into the work. The problem comes in that the majority of "manufactured to be shoddy" providers aren't "exhausting up" the work of a skilled sewist, they're exusing their own minimal skill as "accurate." And that minimal skill won't cut it. It's one thing to actually WORK that 12-15 hour day, and have the stitches at the end be a bit off here and there. It's another to deliberately make wavy seams, then pass them off as "the work of a tired girl!"

Quick sewing is NOT synonymous with poor sewing. Tired sewing is not the same as cr*p. Passing off poor cr*p as "period sweat shop manufacture" is pretty cheesy. As was said above--there's a big difference between a period appropriate coat of shoddy manufacture, and a modern poor reproduction of a good coat.

[orngblsm]

Re: Shoddy Clothing

The posts have seem to go all towards the issue of blouses (possibly because that was what I was persuading my friend to buy) But I believe that this goes far beyond just blouses. What about the possibilities of trousers, shirts, brogans, caps, etc.

I understand all your points on how most mainstream uniforms cannot be compared to authentically produced garments. But what I am trying to understand is what is the likely hood of a soldier getting issued poorly made garments. To answer Mr. Hicks' Question: yes the ones made with molding thread, fewer stitches to the inch, poor wool quality, etc.

To raise another question from Mr. ************'s reply...Could the reason be why we see no shoddy originals is because they were plainly shoddy and did not endure the strains of time?

[MrsArmstrong]

Re: Shoddy Clothing

Interesting information in this thread.
A while ago there was an article about women and the Depot system, where could I get a copy, please.

A question also about "shoddy" in one diary they took apart some old wool clothing actually unwove it then recarded it and sent it off to be respun and rewoven into a large enough piece to be made into another item of clothing. Is this a type of "shoddy"? It was some time ago that I read it but I believe it was in A Woman's Civil War.

Thanks, Susan Armstrong