more jenny tree talk

[malachi]

While Hadlock Fox keeps promising to send me images I have yet to recieve anything yet. I have tried repetedly to reach George but he is never around. I haven't given up on them yet but they've not shown me anything so far. I just got off the phone with Ed Steele and have sent him some photos of patent model jenny images. I also reffered him to Border States Leather to take a look at the patent model saddle featured there and its tree. If anyone has a different model tree they'd like to see made, let me know, but as of now I'm hoping for the patent model. If I may be so bold, I would like to ask Mr. Knopp to give Ed a call and give his insights into the making of this tree, particularly the pommel and bars, as they are currently generically shaped q.h. bars. Ed really wants to get this thing right and said he'd love to hear from Ken on this. I hope I have not been too annoying with this particular thread and if so, beg your indulgence.
with regards,
John Gregory Tucker

[Ken Knopp]

Re: more jenny tree talk

John, I understand Karl Pepper is working an angle with the Steele's too. Still, I'd be happy to help. We are all probably in agreement that it would be preferable that Mr Steele examine an original rather than a reproduction.

Ken R Knopp

[Mark Choate]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Fellas,

I am hopeful that my schedule will let me go by the Steele facility this week or next, to meet with them as I discussed here and with Karl. If you have anything that you particularly want me to show or discuss with them, please send it to me. Ken, I could carry my Jenifer that we discussed this past weekend if you think i would be of benefit.

I might as well turn this into a "show and tell". :wink_smil

regards,
Mark

[J.H.Berger]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Gents,
I would also like to know if tey make decent M1859 McClellan saddle trees. Bowden is scrap and if James Marcus is not making them any more I know of no source any more.

[The Egyptian Homeguard]

Re: more jenny tree talk

I agree with Jan, if they are willing to undertake the Jenny, would they be willing to pick up the staple of our hobby??? Z

[VaTrooper]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Ok I gotta step in and be the jerk. Why are we showing this guy pictures of trees that are sub par? Get this guy an original and tell him we need it done right. The last thing we need is a crappy copy of a crappy copy.

[malachi]

Re: more jenny tree talk

the images i have shown him so far have been of originals or those made by james, and previously used by doug kidd. they are the closest i can find.
john gregory tucker

[VaTrooper]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Well showing him pictures of originals is as close as you're gonna find. We don't want him to see how James leaves out details and yet people buy them anyway.

[malachi]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Please tell me anything you can to help make a better product as now would be the time to do so before he jigs up. I can use all the input I can get on this thing. What type of thing was James lacking in or adding tht was wrong? I can relay this to Mr. Steele and he can hopefully make corrections!
thanks for your help in this,
john greg tucker

[1st Maine Trooper]

Re: more jenny tree talk

From my seat to this show, I understand that the effort is to have Mr. Steele reproduce a patent Jenifer tree. My question is how many patent trees were turned into saddles and used? Wouldn't it be more prudent to have a tree that is more reflective of he majority of trees that were produced and turned into trooper saddles? That is assuming that Mr. Steele is willing to reproduce only one model of the tree.

Dave Myrick

[malachi]

Re: more jenny tree talk

That is a fine question and one I had considered myself. According to Mr. Knopps book though, there were some 10,000 first model Jenifers produced under the first pittman contract with some of these being made into transition saddles. The second pittman contract produced another 8,000 with some of them also presumed to be transition models as well. Now whether or not they were english rigged or not I don't know, but I assume the overall tree design was in keeping with Colonel Jenifers patent model. The bars were incorrectly contoured on the horse side by the tree makers but would have looked the same as the patent model I would assume. Jenifer himself lodged a complaint about its altered rigging and skirts. I have not read that he mentioned any variation from his tree design. I took this to mean that they copied the patent model tree in appearance, but I may well be mistaken.
john greg tucker

[Mark Choate]

Re: more jenny tree talk

No, they did not copy the patent tree in appearance. The cantle stayed basically the same but the pommel was made less blunt and rounded and more "streamlined". Also, the bars were widened a bit to correct the narrow bars that cut into the backs of the horses and made the originals soreback the horse. Of course, as I posted a week or so ago, the Jennie had more variations than just about any saddle of the day due to many, many reasons.

I believe y'all can chill just a bit on this as Karl Pepper is in deep communication with him and is providing a wealth of good info. When I go by to visit him, I may ask if we can get some sketches before he goes into manufacturing.

respectfully,

Mark

[Ken Knopp]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Gents, allow me to try to illustrate difference between the original saddle designed by Walter H. Jenifer (according to his patent); the “CS Patent Jenifer” and, the "New Jenifer" as well as variations. It is my hope to illuminate the history of this remarkable saddle.

*NOTE: ALL Saddles are identified by their tree patterns. The manner in which leather and hardware is subsequently applied is of no material consequence to the true identification of a saddle. The Jenifer is no different.

All of the saddles herein are “bonafide” Confederate Jenifer saddles. All are Richmond Arsenal products. While Jenifer saddles of unclear appearance were made in the western Confederacy, the “CS” pommel shields and “clipped corner plates” are exclusively Richmond Arsenal products and few appear to have been shipped west. Most of these saddles are found in my book CONFEDERATE SADDLES & HORSE EQUIPMENT. (sorry the photos loaded in a funky way!)


1. Jenifer’s Saddle from his original patent drawing (1860)

Saddle Photos 3, 6,and 5: The Confederate version of Jenifers Saddle. I call this the CS Patent Jenifer tree because it was meant by the Confederate Ordnance Dept. to duplicate as close as possible Jenifer’s original saddle. In addition, W.H. Jenifer himself took time to work with A A Pitman & Co. to produce this first version of the Confederate Jenifer saddle. The tree of this saddle was made by AA Pitman but possibly a few other contractors as well although I could find no record of it. Of the two basic Confederate Jenifer patterns (the "Patent" Jenifer and the "New Jenifer") made in the eastern Confederacy the patent pattern was clearly made in larger numbers. From my research, it appears that 18,047 of the Patent pattern were made (most if not all by Pitman from Jan - Nov 1862 in their two contracts) The majority if not “all” of these were eventually finished into saddles and issued or sold to officers. Interestingly, several variations of this pattern exist. Some with quite pointed pommels but most fairly consistent in appearance with the patent and each other with slight variations. Moreover, while some of these trees were problematic, the best of them were kept on hand for making high end officer’s saddles until the end of the war. This was the most common CS Jenifer tree and the one I believe that should be replicated.

3 & 6: A very narrow Jenifer. Note the photo of the very narrow pommel.
5: Clarksville (Richmond Arsenal) Jenifer saddle.
*There are many other “certain” CS Jenifer saddles of this pattern and several more “probables”.


Saddles 2 and 4: Confederate “New Jenifer” Saddle. This moniker “New Jenifer”, is the name applied by CS ordnance officers to distinguish it from the earlier CS pattern Jenifer. Approx. 13,185 of the New Jenifer are known to have been manufactured (by Pitman, Hutchings, Broun and Borst from Nov 1862-Spring 1863). I believe this may be that New Jenifer saddle or at the very least, a widely divergent contractor variation. It is possible not all of these trees were finished and issued but my belief is that it is likely that most of them were eventually. Note the difference- a very round pommel.
Both of these saddles belong to the Gettysburg NMP collection. These are rare. Few others like this tree pattern have survived.

The Confederate “Transition saddle” (Jenifer to McClellan) is a bit of an unknown. The surviving record provides almost no clues as to how it appeared. However, since few appear to have been made and issued it is not likely of much historical impact or importance.

Hope this helps.............

Ken R Knopp

https://www.confederatesaddles.com

[Ken Knopp]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Here are a couple of more ...

The R.E. Lee Saddle. I believe this to be one of two saddles purchased and given to R E Lee by Chief of Ordnance J. Gorgas in late 1864 and then subsequently captured in the ANV retreat to Appomattox. I wrote an article on this recently discovered saddle but it has yet to be published.


The Jefferson Davis Saddle from the Chicago Historical Society


Ken R Knopp

[Mark Choate]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Ken,

Photos 3, 6 and 5 are listed as Confederate versions of the "Patent" Jenifer and yet there is a great deal of difference in the pommels between the 3 & 6 shots and the #5. Since there is obviously a large amount of interest on this subject, may I make this suggestion?? Could you possibly bring sample trees from your collection to the Camp of Instruction in March? It would be a great addition to your already superb presentation on saddles and tack and having a "hands on" chance to see the difference would help everyone. Me included!

If there is too much risk to the trees to try this, then we understand.

regards,
Mark