more jenny tree talk

[Jesse Bailey]

Re: more jenny tree talk

As promised earlier, although a little delayed, I should have pictures of the Jenifer trees tomorrow. A couple of different sizes. One is painted with white lead paint, the other is in the raw beech wood. More to follow with the pictures.

[Jesse Bailey]

Re: more jenny tree talk

http://s1087.photobucket.com/albums/j463/jbailey1066/

Here are the pictures of the trees...one is in white lead paint with all the proper iron hardware and screws, the other has been left in the natural beech, so you can see it before it is painted. The non-painted example is also about 1 size bigger than the white tree. Let me know if you have any questions. Love to hear your thoughts.

[Ken Knopp]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Jesse, wow, very nicely done New Jenifer tree! Would love to see them rawhided then finished. How many do you plan to make? Ken R Knopp

[Jesse Bailey]

Re: more jenny tree talk

hi ken, thank's' we plan to make as many as people need, in the tree form and finished. I plan to bring one or two to the cavalry drill next weekend so people can get a good look and I can listen to some input.

[malachi]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Jesse,
It is a beautiful tree indeed. I have one question though, and that is how difficult would it make things on your end if a man wanted the pommel brought up to more of a point? Not very pointed, but not round either. Again, beautiful work.
John G Tucker

[T.Kern]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Caba's book, really... where jenifers are labelled grimsleys and span-am saddles are called CW, and mosby rangers rode eagle horn saddles so they could hang off the side of the horse to shoot! really , really.
interesting book but seriously flawed.
Todd Kern

I've been going through Caba's book on Southern Saddles and here is what he had to say about Jenifer saddles.

Jenifer capialized on learning from first hand knowledge the attributes and defects in the archetecture of the experimental horse equipment. Unfortunately, the inventor did not operate a saddlery which caused confusion in the percise details of the saddle pattern for local Southern makers. The Jenifer saddle,therefore, was exposed to local individual interpertation by the saddlers. The manufactures, wether large or small, retained the flat, English seat and rigging, but compromised and altered the structure of the cantle and pommel. Of all the saddles used during the rebellion by the Confederacy, both army issued or privatley purchased, the Jenifer was produced with the greatest variations without any attempt to establish a standardized form.

Sounds to me like there is a basic shape but no real pattern as far as the pommel and cantel goes.

Tommy Jackson
Critter Co.

[T.Kern]

Re: more jenny tree talk

critical thinking 101, or playing the devil's advocate... just food for thought to be clear.

Mark and Ken,
Is there any primary documentation that mentions the specific changes of the bars and pommel you speak of? The footnote , specifically #25, for chapter four does not give specifics as to the changes directed towards the tree makers.
Are we sure the harmfulness to the horses back comes from the general design (which would mean all jenifers) or merely shoddy workmanship of numerous and quickly produced hand made trees (which would mean some)? Certainly one wonders, when I have seen soldiers mention, he traded for a Yankee saddle and it didn't fit any better than the one he had.
Next, how is one to be sure the Jens at Gettysburg are the new pattern? Or vice versa. Are the changes mentioned in documents clear enough to identify them as such or could it be a variety from contractors. The primary documentation to the specifics of the changes directed to the tree maker would go along way to clear this up.

Next, the trees produced by James or Bowden, unless under strict watch, have been at best poor representations of altered Jenifers. It is with Great delight that Jesse is following the period example of tree making in which up till now has been plywood and soft wood made trees on haphazard patterns. I look forward to seeing one of these new old trees.
Todd Kern

[Jesse Bailey]

Re: more jenny tree talk

John,
As of right now there is no plan to change the tree we are making other than sizing for man and horse. We really want to do a good run of these new model Jenifer's before we move on to another pattern. If you have one that you want copied than we can probley fit it in.
Jesse

[The Egyptian Homeguard]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Todd, Not trying to start a flame war here or get you and I both banned... but what part of Tommy's post is in question? Caba's book IS flawed, show me one that isn't. It was not cited as an authentic upstanding source, it was cited for the fact that there didn't seem to be a set pattern for the Jenifers. There is little work out there about military saddles, Ken's, Caba's, Ahlborn's, Steffen's and Dorsey/McPheeter's. Am I missing any major published source? None of these are the end all research gospel source and shouldn't be taken as such. Just my observation. Z

[Ken Knopp]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Todd, well, good questions. Much of which has been addressed in earlier posts. I am sorry- I will try to quickly answer your questions as I do not have a lot of time right now. We leave for the COI on Wed evening and there is much to do.
First, let me say that this research was done 15 years ago so I do not have it all off the top of my head (and age is fast fading that) nor at my finger tips. Particularly as to footnotes and, in its proper context which is critical. I will do the best I can here.....

Q. Is there any primary documentation that mentions the specific changes of the bars and pommel you speak of? Are we sure the harmfulness to the horses back comes from the general design (which would mean all jenifers) or merely shoddy workmanship of numerous and quickly produced hand made trees (which would mean some)? The footnote , specifically #25, for chapter four does not give specifics as to the changes directed towards the tree makers. Certainly one wonders, when I have seen soldiers mention, he traded for a Yankee saddle and it didn't fit any better than the one he had.

A: There can be no doubt that the CS ordnance department thought the trees were defective due to poor Confederate production by A. Pitman. Pitman was the Richmond arsenals largest provider of trees making some 25,000 in 1861-63. So, in short....were all Jenifers defective? - No. All CS Jenifers? No..... but, a great many for sure. Possibly all or nearly all of the first contract. This is borne out by a lot of the subsequent bureau correspondence addressing this issue.
As an addition to your question: After receipt of delivery on Pitman’s first contract, Col. Jenifer was sent by Rich. Ar. Supt of Armories, W.S. Downer to Pitman’s shops to advise and correct this problem. In a letter to Major W. S. Downer (Oct 1862) he noted that the bars of the current trees were too rounded and did not fit the horse’s withers. He advised that the bars be flattened out to make them fit better suggesting that the naked tree be put on their horses back to ascertain the proper fit. He worked with the firm to fix subsequent manufacture but could do nothing with those already delivered and finished (the ord dept tried to solve the problem by issue under padding). Jenifer intimated that additional sample trees were being made to correct this problem and further suggesting other design changes were being offered but the letter does not go into any more detail. As a result, some of the second Pitman contract were made into New Jenifers (3,835) and some into Macs. Still, some 18,000 poor quality Jenifers were already in the system. However, Downer talks more about all of this a year or so later in a full written account to Gorgas regarding the Jenifer tree problem but sadly does not go into detailed design changes.

Q: Next, how is one to be sure the Jens at Gettysburg are the new pattern? Or vice versa. Are the changes mentioned in documents clear enough to identify them as such or could it be a variety from contractors. The primary documentation to the specifics of the changes directed to the tree maker would go along way to clear this up.

A: We do not know what the “New Jenifer’s” ( A Confederate applied term not mine) looked like or how it differed materially from the Patent Jenifers but they certainly were different enough for the ord. dept to make specific note of them and apply their own name- “New Jenifer” to the new model. How they fully appeared or differed I do not claim to know but it is certain significant changes were made. I go into more detail on this in my research as published and “abridged” in this and earlier posts. Please read those for more information.
As for the second part of your question... (“The primary documentation to the specifics of the changes directed to the tree maker would go along way to clear this up”) You are right! ....but not enough of the documentation has survived or,.....it has yet to be found to full answer that question.
I should point out there is quite a large amount of detailed minutia regarding the CS Jenifer saddle issue that cannot be fully explored here. My memory is faulty and the context and chronology is critically important. However, it is detailed as good as my limited abilities could do so in my book. I have continued to study this saddle since the book was published in 2001. Some little new information has come to light and many other Jenifers saddle artifacts have since come to the surface. Still, what I have learned since its publication is not material enough to suggest I materially change a word of what I wrote. So, if one would read the chapter regarding this saddle it would offer the best explanation I know of at the present time. I am certain this is not the answer we all want but it is the best I can do.
Writing about history is precarious business. Whatever you write is set in concrete and also sets you up for multitudes of criticism the minute you publish. I do the best I can. If perhaps, others would like to undertake to write more about this issue I would genuinely and happily offer my assistance.


Ken R Knopp

[T.Kern]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Thanks Ken,
I've read most of it and am not calling into question your research, just asking if documents survived that detailed the changes that would clear up any of these questions. They certainly are clear there are changes, but to what extent is the question and where. You have labelled the Gettysburg Jen as the new pattern , from the evidence and your hunch this may be likely, but are we sure is what I ask. Is there still a chance that it may be vice versa, that all.
Having worked as a curator for 10 years, I appreciate that we have to logically surmise to a conclusion when given a limited amount of primary documentation. So I understand the difficulties one faces when writing on a lost aspect of history. I was not trying to cast aspersions on your work. Just too many readers often put things in absolute categories before they should.

I do it often as well. Here is one of those surmised conclusions you can pick apart, see what you think. I think those first texican rigged Jenifers, the quarter straps were under the skirt. Why , because Gorgas was on the board that reviewed the Jenifer for the US before going south where it was adopted. And one of the points they liked about the Jen was that the flap was free and hence would keep the horse cooler. When the south begins to produce them under Gorgas, I think he works in the quarter straps and the loose flap, something they liked a year or so before. Thoughts?

And Zack my only point is when a work is so flawed, as Caba's is, it is not a good source to quote from without making aware his many un-founded assumptions, so the reader can decide of what worth the resource actually is.
Todd Kern

[woolhat1864]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Point made and taken, but really , do you have to be an ass about eveything? Really, really?


Sorry mods I couldn't resist.

Tommy Jackson



And Zack my only point is when a work is so flawed, as Caba's is, it is not a good source to quote from without making aware his many un-founded assumptions, so the reader can decide of what worth the resource actually is.
Todd Kern[/QUOTE]

[rbruno]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Todd and All,
I had a similar conversation last night with someone in my unit on basically the same question about the documentation.
Here is a qoute from the CS Ordnance Manual:

2 Saddle-Skirts (thick harness leather) fastened to the side bars by 38 brass screws No. 6, 3/4 inch; 2 stay loops for saddle-bags straps, sewed to the rear edge of the skirts

Girth - 2 girth-straps pass over the pommel and cantle-arcs, to which they are fastened by 4 copper rivets No. 1/2 C and 4 burrs: they are fastened to the side bars by 4 brass screws No. 6, 3/4 inch: the ends are sewed into 2 D rings No. 1 A; ........

This and the rest of the description with the exception that it mentions the jennifer saddle is excatly like the Fed. MaClellan saddle because the manual was copied from the US manual. So if the manual said one thing, but examples show another, where do we fill in the gaps? The example Todd list above and the another discussion that has been had before is with "fair leather" used instead of harness leather for the skirts as well as the quarter strap rigged vs the English rigged. Where do we go to try and piece this together? Is this going to be in correspondance and letters between Gorgas, Pride, Dimwiddie, etc between each other and not put into a manual? If that is the case, we could go crazy trying to reproduce a saddle that could change on a dime depending on what correspondance was written and at what point during the war. Still, we have surviving examples and have some of the correspondance and at least the manuals to go by to get a good reproduction. My compliments to Jesse and others working on the trees. That is certainly the start to process. I think this has been a great thread and continues to bring forth good ideas. I will be very interested to see what people think of the tree Jesse has developed after the COI this weekend in TN.

[Mark Choate]

Re: more jenny tree talk

Todd,

Is it documented that Gorgas believed the quarterstraps being under the skirt would benefit the horse? Logic would dictate that the very minimal heat loss would be countered and even trumped by the binding sensation of the quarterstraps "cutting" into the mounts side. The presence of the skirts are not only for the protection/comfort of the riders legs, but also for the broad distribution of the relatively narrow quarterstraps. The most basic of "skeleton-rigged" saddles would have a tendancy to succumb to this, too. Just an humble observance and an application of basic physics, you understand.

regards,
Mark

[malachi]

Re: more jenny tree talk

I have been following this with interest and am very impressed with the model shown here by Jesse, but wanted to chime in on the patent model thing. When I first mentioned this I had in my minds eye....The patent model.... as shown in Col. Jenifer's own patent drawing. While I know there have been numerous variations, certainly someone at some time during the war thought to make it look like the Patented model in the drawing. This would seem the purest form of the saddle if any had indeed been produced. While I applaud the commitment to authenticity on behalf of Jesse and the others, I was looking to find an English rigged very early war model and thought it would have been the one shown in Mr. Knopps book of the patent model drawing. It may well be his intention to introduce one at a later date. I just never cared as much for the thin round arched pommel. By the way, do we know definitively if the quarter straps were over/under skirts in enlisted mens models? Mr. Knopps bood stated that it wasn't a certainty at the time (of the printing at least.). For that matter do any of you know if the majority of Jennys were english or quarter rigged? I've not been able to find this out. As for them gouging into the horse, I find it interesting that the U.S cavalry continued with the use of quarter straps up until 1928 I think. It must not have been too great a burden on the animal though I've never asked one personally!
John G Tucker