Woolrich?

[hardtack1864]

Re: Woolrich? I have to ask now;

what about those of us that purchased Chris woolrich trousers a couple of years back? The pair I have is only 2-3 years old and have been worn so few times I can count them on one hand. So, now I face the progressive dilema, according to this missive, my trousers are now "farby"!

So does this mean I can no longer attend authentic events? Are Chis woolrich trousers no longer acceptable? Don't mistake this, I want to be authentic but sometimes this constant push to upgrade can be a drain.
Most of us have to do this in stages and it really throws a wrench into the matter when something goes out of vogue and you still have other items that need replacing at the same time.

Well, give it another 5-10 years and most authentic items now will be farby and can't be used at EBUFU events, because a better weave or material has been produced. :tounge_sm

[Jefferson Guards]

Re: Woolrich?

I have seen a lot of people state that a certain fabric has the wrong weave, wrong color, wrong weight. In what ways are these fabrics wrong? Wrong can be a very generic term. If we are interested in having the most accurate impression that we can, then we need to be specific as to what is right and wrong about certain fabrics in comparison to originals. I think we need to be more specific than just "wrong."

Additionally, there has been some very good information provided as to the differences between the flannel used for the federal fatigue blouse. Could the same also be true of trouser kersey? Has anyone done a study on the variations of kersey in federal issue trousers? Also, do we take into account what 140 years has done to change the apperance of the fabric?

[Agate]

Re: Woolrich?

"The least wrong answer"

Childs or Daley in my opinion, but I prefer the work done by Joe Hill, when granted the opportunity.

It's not as if the materials from County Cloth and FHW do not have somewhat of a history of debate.

Like to have a nickel for every time I've heard the opinions of authentics on the latest "batch" of material from so and so. Too light, too loose, too purple, no green cast, including the natural fiber debate. Go over to the "Scientific American" and do a search for articles on how the stuff was manufactured. I have friends who have made decisions based on some of these comments, and have seen them spend what to them is serious money because a "knowledgeable" authentic says this or that, all the time my realizing that Mr. "knowledgeable" authentic appears clueless.

Personally I'm more concerned with construction. I know that the cloth production itself isn't going to be steam powered, and the wool ever within a hundred miles of a Spinning Jenny, can deal with it, beyond reasonable control. When a "tailor" advertises "authentic" goods made with the "shoddy" replicated, I scratch my head.

Surviving garments with USQMD inspection marks were not shoddy, they passed, that is what the inspector did. Regardless of our interpretation of the degree of craftsmanship. Should be taken in proper context. If the inspector didn't do his job, the QMD Officer at that office was held responsible.


True, ideally army cloth "should be" 100% wool, indigo dyed, and of a certain weight, AKA the army standard. I'm not positive that what is available holds up to much of that standard, and obviously not all of it.

My personal opinion on what is "closer" is somewhat always changing as I have the opportunity to look at more and more surviving examples, and it isn't all that clear cut. To be honest, I can understand if Mr. Sullivan argues that the wool he uses "matches" more closely in certain respects, in his opinion. The most important thing that tells me is that he actually looked at original stuff, and I am not of the opinion that every manufacturer does.

One develops an eye, just like an antique dealer does in their trade. It is on going, and it involves experience. Accessing a number of originals for comparison isn't as easy as it once was.

Keeping an open mind too, won't be worth a plug to anyone if you don't do that when you wish to share an opinion, admit that I'm guilty of that myself, and it doesn't help.

It is after all, opinion as to what is "good" and what isn't in most cases. We have FAR too few folks willing to put forth the extra effort to document and put in the time and effort to clarify our picture, in regard to the "kit" of the Federal soldier.


Regards,

John

John Sarver
Cin. O.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Hoisted With Own Petards

Hallo Kameraden!

To be blunt here...

We are often trying to skate down the fine edge of a very sharp razor while at the same time straining out gnats and swallowing camels. (not to mention swatting gnats with a sledge hammer...).

A great deal of the " evolving and ever turning "Hinge Point" of our collective CW knowledge rests on the concept of "Psychological Standards."
Tthere are many things, most things, that are held up to be and accepted as "authentic" that are only "authentic" to "Psychological Standards"
and not "Period Standards."

Meaning, the difference between "Period Proper" and what we "allow" lies not in the total "package" of CW era raw materials, manufacturing methods and technology, and patterns/forms/specs/regs- but rather in a "Psychological Standard (PS)."

I personally define "PS" as modern methods, modern substitutes, modern processes, modern materials that if used canot be held as anything different than what the unaided, naked human eye can perceive as different. If it takes a microscope, chemical testing, metalurgical analysis, etc., to tell the difference- sometimes we fall short of the perfection of "Period Proper."

Examples are modern rifle barrel steels, or using aniline dye in place of indigo, or using an electric drill instead of a bit and brace to drill a hole.

Psychological Standards, like Mental Pictures, vary with individuals and with an individual's level or personal development and personal needs as to what fraction or percentage of "Perfect" can their "Hobby," their "Unit," or "themselves" live with or without.

And with that we are spread between Here and Eternity. And that was largely determines which CW Community we identify and associate with
- F/M/C/P/H/A and all the shades, degrees, levels, twists and turns in between. :-) :-(

IMHO, when it comes to clothing, gear, and weapons, we are all swallowing gnats and straining out camels here; and swallowing camels and swatting gnats with a sledge hammer there.

Tis an imperfect science most of the time.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Heretic Mess

[rogue]

Re: Hoisted With Own Petards

Which brings to mind the question,"How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?"
How about age and size restrictions along with weaponry and clothing?
How authentic does hardcore need be?
Steve Sullivan
non-participant

[Agate]

Another wheel to reinvent

Won't mention that some of the early authentic groups live fired over each others heads....whoops. Some of those guys had real hangy down things. :wink_smil

Regards,

John

John Sarver
Cin. O.

[MarkTK36thIL]

Re: Woolrich?

Just wondering, but if anyone knows as to how the process is to weave material, please explain. It must be pretty hard if they can't get it "right" even with all the advances in technology, or are just having troubles with period machines. I believe Mr. Sullivan stated at one time that he had seen only one pair of the heavier weight, surely there must have been some other contractors or lots of fabric that came off too heavy or too light?

[1stMaine]

Re: Woolrich?

Comrades,

Curt brings out a very interesting point of view, inthat, if it needs a microscope to tell the difference, then what is the hue and cry all about?
I have no problem with the Woolrich fabric. true enough, it is only 95%accurate. I have, however, only so much money to invest in period clohing. Should I wait an extra year in order to be able to afford 100% wool fabric for my pants? Is it worth my time to spend $180.00 for a pair of trowsers and know that my weapin is not at all accurate? Should I not participate at all because I have a titanium mesh support in my back?
Folks, you need to get a reality check here. When the day comes that it is more important for me to wear trowsers that are 100% wool and made by the maker du jour, than the museum grade trowsers of woolrich fabric that Chris Sullivan offiers, then I will retire from this hobby and walk away from preservation.
It's true that 100% wool fabric is available through cettain makers. it's also true that I have to pay this bill from my own limited funds. I am the first one to stand up for authenticities sake, but I am also the 1st to say that there needs to be a dividing line here. I wear eye classes. I use plastic lenses in my frames. The frames are original and dated to 1855. I could use glass, but then, I risk injury and damage from the lower tensile striength of glass compared to high-impact plastic lenses. I could care less. If anyone out there can tell the difference, then feel free to stand up and say so.
I am comfortable with my impression. I will continue o use the woolrich fabric, because I feel it looks and feels more closely to the original than any other nmaker of 100% wool does.
Call me a farb. I could care less. I will strive to portray the soldeir of the CW as closely as possible, but I will not bankrupt myself or my family to ease someone else's idea of reality and authenticity.
respects,

[hardtack1864]

Re: Woolrich?

Comrades,

Curt brings out a very interesting point of view, inthat, if it needs a microscope to tell the difference, then what is the hue and cry all about?
I have no problem with the Woolrich fabric. true enough, it is only 95%accurate. I have, however, only so much money to invest in period clohing. Should I wait an extra year in order to be able to afford 100% wool fabric for my pants? Is it worth my time to spend $180.00 for a pair of trowsers and know that my weapin is not at all accurate? Should I not participate at all because I have a titanium mesh support in my back?
Folks, you need to get a reality check here. When the day comes that it is more important for me to wear trowsers that are 100% wool and made by the maker du jour, than the museum grade trowsers of woolrich fabric that Chris Sullivan offiers, then I will retire from this hobby and walk away from preservation.
It's true that 100% wool fabric is available through cettain makers. it's also true that I have to pay this bill from my own limited funds. I am the first one to stand up for authenticities sake, but I am also the 1st to say that there needs to be a dividing line here. I wear eye classes. I use plastic lenses in my frames. The frames are original and dated to 1855. I could use glass, but then, I risk injury and damage from the lower tensile striength of glass compared to high-impact plastic lenses. I could care less. If anyone out there can tell the difference, then feel free to stand up and say so.
I am comfortable with my impression. I will continue o use the woolrich fabric, because I feel it looks and feels more closely to the original than any other nmaker of 100% wool does.
Call me a farb. I could care less. I will strive to portray the soldeir of the CW as closely as possible, but I will not bankrupt myself or my family to ease someone else's idea of reality and authenticity.
respects,

Right on! Very well said, but this does NOT give you an exuse to be the worst you can be, though that you should try your hardest, without going bankrupt.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Woolrich?

Thing is, with high polyester content, you may not need a microscope to tell the difference at all... you need only a warm day, or a stray spark. Having worn both (in non-military clothing, of course, as I'm female), there is a comfort difference. Anything above about 5-8% "other" content, in my experience, does compromise the function of the wool to some extent, trapping more heat, providing less wicking action, or melting rather than smoldering with flame. These are not conditions that are reproduced in a lab setting... they're things I encounter at every event: sun, wind, and flame.

I, too, have only so much to invest in period clothing--and I'm dressing a family, too. It's worth my time to wait for the best fabrics. They last longer, and I have the mental satisfaction of being as close to the original process and techniques and function as I can be. For me, that's fun. For others, not so much... which I why I'm not in charge of them. But certainly, my goals shouldn't be ridiculed, just as I won't necessarily go and beat someone with a wet rayon snood for wearing Woolrich wool. I might offer them extra water, though.

Natural fiber textile technology has not increased... if anything, we've lost more technology in this aspect, since WWII, than can be counted. We've increased in the man-mades, but the technical skills of the mid-century have largely been lost. Recreating them is a long process. Worthwhile, in my opinion, but not easy. Obviously--we don't even think we can make 100% wool without 4% "other" content to ease spinning, these days!

Snipped:
Should I not participate at all because I have a titanium mesh support in my back?

Reality check: that's the same old tired attitude of "we'll never be 100%, so no one should try."

The only reason it should be more important to wear 100% wool trousers is for personal comfort, safety, and a desire to have the same functional clothing as those in the mid-century. This is not an evil, snarky thing. It's just a fact, and as more folks take up the challenges of reproducing, as closely as possible, the material culture available at the time, it will get easier and easier to do. I'm sure it will always be a personal choice... you can make it however you like, but I'll continue to encourage folks to give it a go with the best available materials and practices, as often as they can.

Quite honestly, be grateful you're a man. Trouser take what, 2-3 yards of fabric? A woman's dress takes 6-10 yards. The investment in high quality wools is so much the higher... and we don't have access to the wide variety of printed wools they had in the period, at all. I can easily spend $250 just in good fabric for a basic wool dress... add another $200-300 for labor, should I choose to have someone make it up. $550 for one item of clothing... and it's an item of clothing that's fairly simple to make up. But with that much fabric, I can't risk 20% poly content. I'm a fire hazard, and a heat stroke risk at that point.

Snipped:
... I am comfortable with my impression.

That's great. I'm pretty comfortable too, but I keep finding ways to push the envelope, so I never stay 100% comfortable for long. I'm constantly questioning, expanding, reviewing... seeing if there's something that would work better. (It helps that I'm a Textile Addict.)

My favorite bit of the Authentic Civilian Manifesto is the part about "arranging my personal finances so that budget constraints are not a reason to have a less-than-ideal impression." Dressing four people, and one of these days, five, isn't something we skip eating to do, nor do we go into bankruptcy. We do make choices that allow us to budget for it. We're not making millions each year, and manage to make it happen--because it's what we WANT to do.

Siigh... I'll stop beating the dead horse, I promise.

:)

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Woolrich?

Hallo Kameraden!

Just for clarification of my post...

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? None, if one does not believe in angels... ;-)

Meaning. IMHO it is not the standard of perfection. "Perfection" in the CW article or item ALWAYS remains a constant and fixed quality. Our physical ability to achieve that constant IS the first consideration, and what fractionof portion of anything less we personally and collectively aspire to, reach for, allow, accept, embrace, reject or deny is the second.

The problem for reenacting, living history, experimental archeology, et all, etc., etc., lies with the Slippery Slope of hoe much LESS we personally and collectively aspire to, reach for, allow, accept, embrace, reject or deny.

While I might say a "microscope" or chemical/metallurgical tests, I mean just that.
Because, I see microscopic and not the unaided human eye as a minimum standard- others say 100 yards, 50 yards, 15 yards away.

I believe that the danger to H/A concepts and practices lies not necessarily in the 15%, "nylon" content but from those at the F/M level, or ANY level of Mental Pictures who argue that since Pefection is unattainable, why bother trying, striving, or persevering? (So 15% becomes 100% nylon/polyester.)

A Slippery Slope, if not Pandora's Box.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

And yes, to some eyes, the 15% nylon shines and has a sheen at arm's length...

[Hank Trent]

Re: Woolrich?

Another non-microscopic consideration...

Years ago, on the advice of my mainstream unit, I purchased a Quartermaster Depot military greatcoat. Years later, wanting to get some more use out of it, I decided to disassemble it, re-dye it and turn it into a civilian coat.

You didn't need a microscope to see the 15% blue fibers left, after using a brown dye which only worked on wool. Although theoretically the same problem should occur with the manmade fibers in "100% wool," it's apparently not enough to be noticeable.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Agate]

Re: Woolrich?

Mark,

Yeah, we do have some information concerning production of army cloth. We have the standard that was supposed to be met. We have what amounts to a stress test, to determine the strength of cloth by pull on the warp and weft threads and what was to be that standard. We have a very few official reports or reviews such as the Woodhall report. We have a very few articles or reports concerning claims filed by contractors, or claims filed by the government against contractors.

One of these for example deals with one fellow who agreed to supply army cloth to the QMD, the final product being rejected by inspectors, he pursued, and it was found that his material matched the sample that he was initially shown.

We have our modern articles that discuss much of this with conclusions drawn, this for review and consideration.

Too, we have descriptions of the process of manufacture of army cloth. We can find some of this in the "Scientific American" for example. There, we can find something concerning the histories, or descriptions of some of the companies that undertook this.

In some cases, such as with tweezers and indigo, we might even find out something on the production or cultivation of the raw materials used in the process.

It wouldn't surprise me of "official" samples housed somewhere. The Kentucky Historical Society contains samples of cloth authorized for use by her Militia. Something like that survives at NARA I believe, and there may be more tucked away in some unknown archive.

Surviving garments made of Federal army cloth are not high on the "rare" list, although it takes more and more effort to view them as they increase in value, gobbled up by "investment" collectors. We would have to consider the provenance of some of the garments. Former costume shop pieces for example. What is the effect on finish considering 100 years on a coat hanger or of periodic use over decades. What about dry cleaning? This opposed to a garment kept as a memento of Gettysburg, maybe resting in a case in a GAR hall, maybe not far from sunlight for 70 years.

We must balance this with at least a partial understanding of the purchasing methods or habits of the QMD. We must consider periods of exigency, and periods of surplus.

We must have a handle on the history of mass production, in its infancy in this country during our period. The effects of strain on differing markets, understanding effects on advanced and relaxed markets.

All that info could be gathered to the best of ones ability, analyzed, considered.

Then we compare our resources.

That is at least what I believe it would somewhat take. It could be done by someone, hopefully impartial and with a true interest in our history.

In the end, as with similar discussions on oilcloth and the use of non-period materials, much depends on where you find yourself in the process of your journey in your hobby, and probably will not be settled here or at least settled yet.

I believe because of limitations beyond any ones control it is give and take. My personal challenge being to find the person who replicates in a fashion I agree with based on my personal level of experience and knowledge.

Some vendors have spent the majority of their lives trying to understand this stuff and how it was made, and how to replicate it. We have others who just order kits and assemble the work of others. All are billed as "authentic" and "period" some in conjunction with the word "most," said either by themselves or others, or both. The former being not necessarily the better for our purposes.

I would encourage everyone to demand from those who replicate at least something of the process used. Don't accept that goods are "most accurate" or "absolutely authentic" by word alone. Have them present it to you, it is only fair.

Only when that is demanded will we understand collectively if some take advantage of the honesty of others, and how much is truly known or unknown by "those in the know."

Regards,

John

John Sarver