Steele and Miller Saddlery

[woolhat1864]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

Mark and All,
Are these trees by the same maker as the few pictures in the other thread? Which tree is Karl planning to use? With all the post in the COI thread about the event, I was wondering if the tree pictured in the other thread was brought and looked at by those at the COI?

Hey Rob,

Yes, Jesse brought the jenny trees up to the COI, and not that my opinion means much, but they were dead on the money.Hands down one of the best looking trees I've seen in every way, construction,material and pattern. Once Jesse gets the trees going I don't think anyone will be dissapointed in them.

Tommy Jackson
Critter Co.

[Mark Choate]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

Tommy,

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that Rob was referring to the trees that Ed Steele is doing and sending to Karl Pepper for production.

As far as the trees that Jesse brought, yes they looked very nice, indeed. But, I don't know who his manufacturer is.

Mark

EDIT: No, I am sorry, I went back and read Rob's post again and he did refer to the ones in the other thread. My mistake..........sorry fellas.
Mark

[rbruno]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

Mark,
I kind of jump threads, but had just lost track of which trees were going to be viewed at you COI. I am glad it looks like there is a good tree. I will PM Jesse directly to get more info.
Thanks

[Jesse Bailey]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

Hey Rob! Yes indeed, I did bring the Jenny trees up to the COI. Just for input and review. The few people who were interested, looked at them very closely, and I thought, were very satisified with the trees. I actually thought there were be more talk about these particular Jenny trees from the standpoint of their quality of construction and authenticity, but so far no one has chimed it except for Tommy! Thanks Tommy for the input and your evaluation of the trees. I would like to hear from those folks that started the Jenny Tree thread, that saw the trees at COI, to chime in and let me know what they thought. I know it has been a real labor of love for myself and the maker, Rory Hay, to see this project come to fruition. Rory has also made it known that he would be willing to do the Pattern Model as well. So come on, learned ones! Tell us what you think! Also, for those of you that saw Ken's talk on saddles, he had all three of my Jenny saddles on display, so hopefully ya'll got a look then.

I am going to post this on the "more Jenny talk" thread too.

[malachi]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

I have a question to ask anyone who has ever seen an accurate Mcclellan tree without its rawhide. I am to get a Mac tree from Steele soon, and he has said that besides the finish work in sanding, I can forge my own irons for the pommel and cantle. I read on page 162 of Ken's book that both the federals and confederates used these irons to "be used in attatching the pommel and cantle to the bars". I have seen carrico's trees and they have tabs which appear to screw into the pommel and are attatched to the iron arch in front in three places- about ten oclock, twelve and two. Did the original macs have such tabs? I have canabalized an old mac I found in an old barn(1904 I think) and while it has both arches, they in no way support the pommel or cantle. They only add strength between the bars. Somebody please fill me in on this so I can begin making them. by the way, those on page 162 show no means of supporting the pommel/cantle either;federal or confederate.
john tucker

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

Hey John! I thank you for this post and for the private message. Please allow me to answer your similar questions here on this forum as a means to provide information to others that perhaps, have the same inquiries. I point out that there is a great disertation on the various models of the McClellan saddle tree in Dorsey and McPheeters book THE AMERICAN MILITARY SADDLE 1775-1945 that will give much more detailed information than I can provide here. I garnered alot of my information below from that great source.
As you note, the Federal M1859 Mac had iron pommel and cantle arches that do not attach to the those appendages but do support them. Rather, as you describe, they attach to the bars of the Mac tree. Another seperate iron arch was countersunk into the pommel (and another in the cantle) as a means to support those portions of the tree. Later model Macs, the M1896 (and thus the M1904) I believe, had an improved version in which these metal archs in fact, do attach to both the pommel (or cantle) and bars at the same time.
In answer to your more important inquirie as to what kind of arches or, as I note on page 162 "saddle irons" (CS Ordnance terminology) were employed by the Confederacy I suggest they were copies of that employed in the M1859 Federal Macs of the period albeit- often somewhat crude. The CS ord. officers were generally former U.S. Ord officers, familiar with the articles or at least had captured saddles in which to use as models so in short, they were familiar with them 1859 macs. However, while I have seen several references to these pieces in CS Ord Bur. correspondence and a couple of probable excavated pieces I can honestly say I have never tore down an original CS tree to learn its true employement. Though I never asked, the owners of the few surviving trees were probably not very favorably inclined to such an inquisition.
More direct to your question as to "what to do" with your CS Mac I suggest you copy the M1859 Fed Mac as close as possible (which is what the CS Ord. Officers did) and not any "reenactor interpretations" regardless of their good faith efforts. How to do this? It would be best to get a copy of the chapter in the Dorsey/McPhetters book that talks about this. It containts numerous photos of all of the iron work and details sizes, rivets, rawhiding, etc. It is very detailed and enligtening. That is your best bet.
Sorry I was not of better help.

Ken R Knopp

[malachi]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

Ken
Thank you so much for your response, and the images. They are infinitly helpful!
with regards,
john tucker

[J.H.Berger]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

John, the arches were most probably made of sheet metal stamped out and not forged.

[malachi]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

One more question for you all in the interest of authenticity. I have ordered my Mac tree from steele today. I know tht the average civil war soldier weighed in at about 145lbs. I have that beat by a fair margin at 210. Seele offers a Mac in a 13 inch seat. I had read in Ken's book that officers saddles were to be constructed from Jenny or Mac trees up to 13 inches. Is it alright for me to represent an enlisted man in a 13 inch seat, or is this much ado about nothing? While I don't think it will be ovious to the naked eye, is it still within the bounds of authenticity to do this. Please advise!
John Gregory Tucker

[Mark Choate]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

John,

My answer would be no. Let me say, to begin with, that I am heavier than you are and probably taller (I am 6'6" and I can hear Zack snickering already) and I have never had the first problem with the 12 inch seat and have literally ridden it thousands of miles with no problems. Your 210 lbs is not that heavy that the 12" would be a problem, but it goes further than that. It ties into the responsibility that we have to represent the men of that war with what they had and used. Not just what we can get customized.

I have a story to relate to this. Back in the mid-nineties, just before I did my first really long campaign ride in the Red River Campaign, I called Missouri Boot and shoe company in Neosho, Mo. I spoke to Robert, the master bootmaker and told him that I would like to order a pair of his roughed out civilian boots. Well, there was no problem with that until I said that due to my height, I would like to add two inches in the height of the boot. There was a long pause on Robert's side as he pondered my request. When I asked if he was o.k. he said yes, but I don't think I can do that. I replied, "Oh, I will pay for the modification." To which he said that it was not the money, but the fact that he had never found an example of those boots with that pattern of height and dimensions. As he told me then that there were surely tall men back then (and heavier men, too), but without the proofsource to back it up, we run a dangerous route by modifying the products based on our size and preferences of today. It is just like clothing or anything else, we can certainly improve upon it with our current technology if it was just a search to make it more comfortable or more durable or more practical or more whatever, but we are not in the hobby for modification, but rather for accurate representation.

Sorry for the long winded answer, but I hope it helps and I don't think you will have any problems with the 12" seat.

regards,
Mark

[malachi]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

I hear you Mark. I feel much the same way, but since a 13 inch might have indeed existed I didn't know if it would pass muster or not. I guess a larger point might be that if we were to all do our best impressions, we would all drop dramatic amounts of weight! I do get amused when watching movies in which reenactors take part, to see the size of many of the belly's. Its the same reason I hate seeing myself on a horse in a photo. I'm too darn fat. I would think a more lean hungry look would be more accurate for most cases, but I'll be darned if I can pull that one off!
Thanks for the reply Mark,
John Tucker

[BigD]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

John,

I have to agree with Mark. I too am a "large frame" guy. While not as tall as Mark, I am 6'2" and about 240lbs. I had a 1904 Mc with 12 inch seat and rode it all day on my TWH. I was actually surprised at how comfortable it was, albeit made you sit rather straight in the saddle. Stick with the 12 inch.

Dennis DeAtley

[Mark Choate]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

John,

The rule of thumb is to portray the "average" not the "exception". Yes, they had them, and yes some carried two revolvers, and yes occasionally there was a pommel holster or a mid-war Remington, etc, etc, etc. The vast, vast "average" was however not the 13" Mac. Are you doing a officer impression?? if not, even more reasons to stay away from it. If you have a bit more weight than you need, well I don't mean to be a smart alec, but ..............lose the weight, don't buy the exception saddle.

No, the earth won't shift on it's axis if you get it, but remember why this forum exists. It is to improve the quality and accuracy of the impressions in the field and give credibility to the mounted cavalryman. Anything short of that would be hypocritical on our part. Again, not trying to be cruel..........

Make your impression fit history, not history fit your impression.

regards,
Mark

[malachi]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

Don't get me wrong Mark, I see what your saying and you are right! Intellectually I suspected it all along, but wanted to hear from you guys on it. I always appreciate the advice I receive on this site and have the greatest respect for those of you who work so hard to get it right. And by the way, please don't think that I was taking any shots at anyone about the weight thing. I simply mean that a rawboned face and frame of a hard campaigning confederate appears much more convincing than the cheeky face or muffin top sported by so many in general today. I am at the top of that list!
Thanks again for your response,
John Tucker

[Mark Choate]

Re: Steele and Miller Saddlery

No problem, John.

I never thought you were "taking shots" at anyone and it was a very legitimate question.

Thanks for your interest in doing it correctly!!

regards,
Mark