Federal Belt Length?

[Texian]

If I remember correctly on the old forum, John Stillwagon had posted the length of Federal enlisted waist belts. I can't remember what it was, but am thinking 40". Is this correct? If not, what is it?
Thanks,
---Ed

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Federal Belt Length?

Hallo Kamerad!

According to the U.S. Ordnance Manual, the waistbelt was to have been 1.9 inches wide and 38.5 inches long.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[markj]

Re: Federal Belt Length?

Adding to Curt's comments, it's interesting to note that commanders repeatedly issued general orders prohibiting troops from cutting down their belts to get a better fit (unless authorized to do so). This definitely says something about how American waistlines have expanded over the past 140 years....

Yours, &c.,

Mark Jaeger

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Federal Belt Length?

Hallo Kameraden!

Yes, and most were made with ONLY four "prepunched" holes.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Texian]

Re: Federal Belt Length?

Interesting...I just received a belt from a very reputable supplier that is listed on the vendor page and is often recommended by many of the veteran's on the AC, however, the belt is 2" wide, just under 40" long, and has 5 holes. Additionally, it has a sewn leather keeper with 7-stiches/inch and a line along the edge while the belt plate is what I believe is referred to as a "thick & thin" with "puppy-paws". I am also going to ask this question of the maker, but is this variation acceptable? Do the extant examples have this much deviation? I recall someone refering to belts where you can't get the plate through the keeper and others where you can indicating that deviation from the standard existed. Anyway, I may be splitting hairs, but I would like to know the facts. I should have researched this before making the purchase instead of just trusting.
Thanks,
---Ed

[PieBoy96]

Re: Federal Belt Length?

A while ago I was doing the same.....trying to get the "perfect" US belt. I did a lot of looking around and such. My findings were pretty much that from looking at originals, most belts were between the 38.5 and 40 inch length with some being cut down to the man's perfect size. These latter belts then had just ONE hole in them at the very end. And most were the 1.9" width with still some examples being 2".

I was down at Speros' shop in GBurg talking about it with him one time, and he pulled out a few original belts (funny huh) and measured them. Sure enough, most were around or under 40" long. Remember how sizes and stuff were set up with clothing and equipment. It makes sense.....sack coats were sizes 36, 38, 40, and 42....so a normal issue shirt sized 42 (or was it 44?) would fit everyone. And pants were sized waist 32, 34, 36, 38, so a belt about 40 inches long would accomodate "everyone." Of course, their mathematical predictions didn't always work in the real world.

Also, I noticed that yes, most belts did have the 4 mechanically punched holes. Again, goes back to the "one of these four sizes" issue. I don't recall directly, but I think there are some belts with more holes, but none that have like 20 million holes as some sutler row varieties have.

As for the leather keeper, these have probably become one of the new fads in the past few years, rightly replacing all those 1863ish brass keepers. I found that the accepted and supported scoop on the leather keepers was that on original belts nowadays, the plate does not go through....and people say this is from the leather shrinking over 140 years...very believeable. But notice that not all original belts have the leather keeper or the brass keeper. Notice that many are just plain ended with nothing! Ask anyone who has used the leather keeper how annoying it is....trust me, the plate gets hung up on it and the plate is indeed a tight fit through the loop, etc. So many believe that the loop may have been often cut right off to avoid the annoyance. This is what I have done...ok, actually I just got a belt with nothing on the end, but I use it just to get out of the "leather loop" fad AND it is supported widely by originals.

Also note which side the plate is hooked on, which is a whole new can of worms, of which I don't have the knowledge to get into. But my conclusion was that with the "earlier" type plate (more quare-ish letters), the hook should be under the U, and the puppy paws under the S. That way, the extra tail end of the belt is on the man's left side. If there was a leather keeper there, it would not be in way of the bayonet scabbard (if it was on the man's right side it would be in the way of the cap pouch). And note that if I really wanted to secure the tail end of my belt without a keeper, I just tuck it into the scabbard frog. Yeah, I'm skinny enough to do that TEE HEE

If you are still unsure about your belt, start going through EoG and pay close attention to belts at some museums. Even check out photos on the Library of Congress pages.

All in all, I personally believe your belt is fine. ALL STUFF varied maker to maker back then, and I don't think that less than 1/10" is going to make your impression suffer. I really think you are just fine, and if you have a good attitude and otherwise good impression at events I am sure will have just as good a time as the guy next to you whose belt is 20 microns narrower and with 4 holes. Remember, if EVERYTHING back then was EXACTLY the same, we wouldn't have much to debate about! But since things were varied, now we have something to talk about.

Hope this helps. Good luck man.

[Yellowhammer]

Re: Federal Belt Length?

Ed,

As with most Federal accoutrements, there are enough deviations in extant original waist belts so I don't think a .1 inch width variation and an extra hole is a big deal. With things like waist belts, I'm mostly concerned with the finish and weight of the leather.

BTW, for the perusal of you leather snobs out there, I'm told Paul Johnson is producing a monograph on the Federal waist belt in which he identifies the various patterns and gives us a timeline just as he did for US cartridge boxes. That book, combined with his book on US scabbards and Fred Gaede's on cap pouches should make for a great year for students of US accoutrements!

(BTW, I don't think I was the one that posted the info the initial poster referred to.)

[Texian]

Re: Federal Belt Length?

Gents,
Thanks for the feedback, very helpful as usual. As for the weight of the leather it is much thinner than the old farby thing I use to have. The dye looks to have been applied before the hide was cut into belts. Considering all the comments, it is a nice belt. Even the stiching looks like it has been treated with the appropriate blend of wax, pitch, etc.
Thanks again,
---Ed

[Jarnagin]

Re: Federal Belt Length?

“I found that the accepted and supported scoop on the leather keepers was that on original belts nowadays, the plate does not go through....and people say this is from the leather shrinking over 140 years...very believeable.”

Paul,

After studying the way leather ages, the theory about the loop shrinks is possible but not likely. In order for this to happen the loop would need to be exposed to elements totally different than the rest of the belt. I mean by this that the loop would be exposed to a very dry climate, while the rest of the belt was kept in a climate with 50% humidity. Although it would be easy to tell by the brittleness of the loop, and the leather would tend to cup toward the center.

Leather ages different than what most people think. The leather will actually grow in thickness and size as the oils oxidize. This could be seen in as little as 6 months. This means that it will almost be impossible to tell how thick the leather was used to make an original item due to the oil oxidization. The more oil applied the more oxidization will take place and the thicker the leather will get. There may be a maximum that leather can grow to up that would depend on the tanning processes and the structure of the fibers in the hide.

The number of holes that show up in belts varies widely. I have an original made by S.H. Young that has 7 holes, and another original that has 6 holes. I have seen as few as 2 holes in belts. In a conversation with Paul Johnson he said that according to his research that 5 holes was the standard. He showed me all sorts of original belts from buff to clipped belts and most of them had 5 holes.

If you will examine buff belts made with the loops you will find that they are extremely tight. This is the best leather to examine to see what originals looked like. Buff does not age like other leathers and will stay closer to the same longer. Buff does not have the same problems with oil oxidization has it ages. I have no idea why they were made with loops so tight. Maybe Paul will be able to answer the question when he finishes his research for the belt book he is working on.

I believe one of the most common mistakes is using the wrong type of material in belts for the time of the battle being reenacted. Take Shiloh for example, there should only be waxed or blackened buff waist belts, cartridge box belts, and frogs on bayonet scabbards. The break in the change on the type of leather is September 1862 when bridle leather was advertised in contracts of new equipment (see Paul D Johnson’s book on Cartridge boxes for more information) . When this type of leather made it into the field is unknown but I would believe it was much later.

By the way the edges on belts are to be dyed. This is listed in the General order that changed the color from white to black. The date of this order is 1851.

David Jarnagin

I posted a page with picture of an original looped waist belt.

https://www.jarnaginco.com/original%20waistbelt.htm

Here is one with pictures of a pair of original artillery boots.

https://www.jarnaginco.com/Artillery%20boots.htm

[Jimmayo]

Re: Federal Belt Length?

There is another on the top of the following page.

http://www.angelfire.com/ma4/j_mayo/relics.html