Civil War Halters

[BryantHarness]

I have recently seen halters at reenactments this past year that had an incorrect leather chape for the watering bridle frogs. The ones I saw went completely around the cheek pieces, like a standing loop for a strap or belt end. My understanding of the original specs called for this to be a flat piece of sewn leather, which did not circumvent the cheek piece strap. Any thought or discussion on this? What else is anyone seeing in the way of cavalry equipment that may not be up to par or ill-fitting for the period, or maybe, if I can say it, just downright wrong?

Mr Bryant please sign your full name to all your post, per forum rules.
Thank you, Coley Adair, Moderator.

[tmattimore]

Re: Civil War Halters

From the 1862 ordnance manual.
Watering Bridle
Reins-2 reins sewed together at one end,-the other sewed to the rings of the bit.
Halter
2 cheek pieces, sewed, one end to 2 square loops (No 2 A) and the other to 2 cheek rings,( No 1 A); 2 standing loops for the toggles of the watering-bridle sewed to the cheek pieces near the square loops:

No chapes or frogs. To be sure there were variants but all I have seen follow this basic pattern

[lesterschumacher]

Re: Civil War Halters

Tom..... Great response.

For clarification of Mr. Bryant's post, the standing loops of the Halter are what Mr. Bryant is referring to as Chapes and the bit toggles are what he is referring to as frogs. Chapes are those leathers that working horsepersons (and some pleasure riders) wear over their pants and Frogs are associated with Bayonets. Only my better half knows what I mean when I describe something as a "Whatchamacallit" .

Mr. Bryant....The Cavalry folks on here are well researched.Your queery is appreciated, however, misinformation is responded to very quickly and constructively responded to. Keep returning!! We help each other.

Best Regards
Lester (The Elder)

Lester Schumacher

[BryantHarness]

Re: Civil War Halters

Good thoughts, men. The Ordnance Manual of 1861 states that these cheek-piece loops, as they are correctly called, are to be 1" by 1.25" cut, and 1.125" after sewing. the problem is, I have yet to see this correctly designed on any halter product on the field. I have seen many a standing loop that goes all the way around the cheek piece, but this is incorrect.

Now that the three of us agree about a 1.125" piece of sewn leather, I was curious as to whether or not you gentlemen wish to respond to the second part of my query. What other problems do you see with the horse equipment that needs improvement or change?

Matthew Bryant

[tmattimore]

Re: Civil War Halters

Well since my horse turned thirty and I will soon turn 55 we don't get out much any more. When we did I was more concerned with my own and my teams gear to worry much about any one else's. As long as Doug Kidd and Dave Carrico are around the options of getting the correct gear are not limited.

[wildrose]

Re: Civil War Halters

Good thoughts, men. The Ordnance Manual of 1861 states that these cheek-piece loops, as they are correctly called, are to be 1" by 1.25" cut, and 1.125" after sewing. the problem is, I have yet to see this correctly designed on any halter product on the field. I have seen many a standing loop that goes all the way around the cheek piece, but this is incorrect.

Now that the three of us agree about a 1.125" piece of sewn leather, I was curious as to whether or not you gentlemen wish to respond to the second part of my query. What other problems do you see with the horse equipment that needs improvement or change?

Matthew Bryant

A big problem is that a lot of the people making the gear don’t have the knowledge of the finer details and closely guarded tricks of the trade of the saddle making business. But the biggest problem is that most of the purchasers are unwilling to pay for the correct detail to be done. The hand sewing of the standing loops to be done correctly will had considerably to the cost of the halter and slow down production. When asked about the addition of the loops most customers request not to have them added.

Bobby Rose

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Civil War Halters

The Ordnance Manual of 1861 states that these cheek-piece loops, as they are correctly called, are to be 1" by 1.25" cut, and 1.125" after sewing.

Matt,

Tim Byers and I had this discussion about 8 or 9 years ago. He was of the similar opinion that these loops should be stitched directly (or flat) onto the cheek piece. He arrived at this based on the dimensions as well. In case any don't know Tim, he was (and still is) the primary saddler of the 5th U.S. cavalry under Tommy Williams.

Most people, including Doug in this case, I think have it wrong. If you've ever tried to use a watering bit (I have), it does not work the way most assume. Most think (incorrectly, IMO b/c of the "standing loops" reproduced) that the toggles are to be pulled through the square loops (hardware No. 2A) and then through the standing leather loops entirely. Well, anyone who has tried with a properly reproduced watering bit (Doug makes these w/ proper number of links) quickly finds out that it just doesn't work.

However, if the standing loops are secured directly onto/on top of the cheeks pieces of the halter (I agree with Tim here), then the bit can be used correctly. The toggle should be pulled through the square loop (hardware No. 2A) and only the longer end of the toggle introduced "under" the standing loop. Because it is sewn flat onto the cheek piece, the tension holds it in place.

It is simply impossible to make the toggles work any other way.

Regarding your second inquiry, there are extremely few out there correctly reproducing cav equipment. Others have alread stated that people simply do not care. This quote sums a lot up as well.

A big problem is that a lot of the people making the gear don’t have the knowledge of the finer details and closely guarded tricks of the trade of the saddle making business.

Most people just accept mediocrity today, which is really sad. This goes beyond saddles...but also to most all other leather working to include shoes, boots, accouterments, etc. Its becoming harder and harder to find the very few who have the skills and take the time to properly work with leather.

Chris

[tmattimore]

Re: Civil War Halters

Chris
I think the problem is that most people see the drawing in Randy Steffan's book and think that is the way the toggles hook up. A five minute ride will soon dispell that notion. R.S. got a few things wrong and that is one of them, he may have drawn it that way just to clarify the toggle end.

[ferraius]

Re: Civil War Halters

I have a repro C.S. copy of a Federal halter that has a roller-buckle with the correct watering bit stands on the cheek pieces. I got it a while back from Heartland House and I have also seen some made by F. Burgess & Co. that are almost as nice. I don't have any idea if either is making them currently.

Jon O'Harra
California

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Civil War Halters

...Heartland House...I don't have any idea if either is making them currently.

Jon O'Harra
California

Jon,

I know Nick is working on his Masters and hasn't been producing things on a regular basis for some time. There are a couple of people that seem to be able to get things now and then. Good rule of thumb with Heartland House is if its available, buy it because it may be the only opportunity you have. :wink_smil

Take care,

[10nycav]

Re: Civil War Halters

Chris,

Do you have a way to get in contact with Nick? Do you ever speak to him in person? I ordered a M1859 McClellan saddle from him in August of 2000 and a (correct!) halter and lead strap in Feb 2001 and have yet to see either. Halter and lead strap were paid in full, and I paid half down on the saddle. He did not reply to my last e-mail sent 1-1/2 years ago. At this point I'd just be happy to get my money back . . . .

Thanks,
Ken Morris

[10nycav]

Re: Civil War Halters

Well son of a gun! Nick actually answered my last e-mail. He says that my equipment will be done "very soon." At this point, however, I am not counting my chickens until they are hatched.

Ken Morris

[J.H.Berger]

Re: Civil War Halters

Dear comrades,
very interesting topic!!!!
As i am making horse equipment here in Germany I came along this "loop problem" as well.
The measurement stated in the Ord. Man. simply irritated me but that is the same with the length of the carbine socket ( unstitched) and the 3 buckle bridle as well!!!
So a piece of leather just sewed to the cheek piece is the correct thing?
I know that Burgess has used a real standing loop and i think Nick has done it as well.
But it is right, I couldn't find these standing loops on any photo of a haltered horse, but this may also be because the bridle cheek piece is very close.
If anybody will find a photo where one could clearly make it out I would be most happy to get a look at it!!!
Euer
Jan H. Berger

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Civil War Halters

Dear comrades,
very interesting topic!!!!
As i am making horse equipment here in Germany I came along this "loop problem" as well.
The measurement stated in the Ord. Man. simply irritated me but that is the same with the length of the carbine socket ( unstitched) and the 3 buckle bridle as well!!!
So a piece of leather just sewed to the cheek piece is the correct thing?
I know that Burgess has used a real standing loop and i think Nick has done it as well.
But it is right, I couldn't find these standing loops on any photo of a haltered horse, but this may also be because the bridle cheek piece is very close.
If anybody will find a photo where one could clearly make it out I would be most happy to get a look at it!!!
Euer
Jan H. Berger

As Tom stated earlier, I think most people originally looked to Steffen's work and assume a standing loop...not sure about Nick, but if I remember a friend's halter from Heartland House correctly...its applied on top as it should be.

Good luck finding a close-up in the field...use of a halter in photos is a minority occurance to begin with. Because halters by design then and now are utilitarian in nature...they are never looked upon as a piece of equipment to be viewed in public. Its kind of like leaving the house in your pj's!! Equestrian paintings, prints, photos, etc. have always focused on the horse...usually the barer the better. Most men, officer's especially, transferred this etiquette to equestrian pictures in the field. Look at most any picture with a saddled horse...saddle, bridle, martingale maybe...that's it. Its funny to realize that even with specific orders to everyday use of a halter in conjunction with a bridle...that men still wanted a formal picture with bridle alone!

Here's a picture of an enlisted man from the 21st PA cav with such an arrangement.

Source: Civil War Image Database, Valley of the Shadow: Two Communities in the American Civil War, Virginia Center for Digital History, University of Virginia (http://valley.vcdh.virginia.edu/govd...ch_images.html).

[10nycav]

Re: Civil War Halters

It's an interesting photo on more than one account. I see that the mane and forelock of this horse have been cut or "roached." Major James Congdon of the 12th PA Cav wrote in his 1864 Cavalry Compendium that "the mane and tail must never be cut." Perhaps the horse was received in this condition, but if not I wonder why standard practice was not observed in this case? I don't recall seeing a wartime photo of a horse with a roached mane before.

I know that in modern driving shows, the halter is to be removed from under the bridle when showing, even though it's common practice for halters to be left on under the bridle otherwise.

Ken Morris