Tweet
After seeing websites and products of late, I notice most items for sale these days are a little better in accuracy and the variety of available than generally in the past. A couple items still need to be addressed though, as I find makers falling into the same traps of the last decade. Often, rather than doing their own research they follow whatever secondary sources say or sketch. So when one of these is flawed that flaw makes it's way into current production and hence poor history is set in "fact". Very much like the art work of Strain and Kunstler has taken license to leave historical accuracy behind in favor of reenactorism. An example of this passed down mistake of the last decade is the watering loop on the federal bridles. Steffens book sketched out how these things must appear, without taking into consideration size and construction. So for years federal bridles had these huge loops wrapping around the cheek piece and into the seam. When in fact this would be impossible given the dimensions. Most have now corrected that mistake. But with each advance we see new areas that need to be addressed. I'd like to point out a few of these.
First, nearly every original piece of tack had the edges dressed, I notice some of the modern makers do not do this and leave edges raw. This short cut saves time and cost but is not accurate in it's presentation.
Second, I would have to say the continued use of iron horse shoe buckles as confederate issue is misleading at best. While these buckles may have commonly been used by civilians, contractors, and even government production early on, it was in an effort to use what was available and get something in the field. Without a doubt the buckle being used on confederate tack, especially enlisted in the eastern theatre, was the iron wire roller buckle. While this mistake I believe arises from the illustrations in Ken Knopp's book on CS saddlery, I do not want to take away any of the fine research he has provided with this book. This is a mistake that was overlooked and much like steffens work is copied by those makers looking at illustrations. There is a letter which I will post later when I can find it, from Maj. Downer to, I believe, Col. Gorgas stating, (and I'm paraphrasing since I can't lay my hands on it right now) that nothing can be made here until he gets more sheet iron for the Buckles and this is the buckle that nearly everything is made with. Another letter from Downer to Gorgas which Knopp partially included in his book states," no other buckle is made in the Confederacy except a brass one which is... denser and... weaker than a wire buckle un welded." Sheet iron needed for rollers and a un welded wire buckle says it all, The buckle being used is an un welded iron wire roller buckle. The brass buckle while produced, is not preferred. If these letters had been printed and quoted rather than summed up, as authors often do, any confusion would have been cleared up. No work is ever perfect and new data is constantly coming in, often after publishing. We as the reader often have to read with a critical eye and be aware of new research.. While there is no doubt iron wire horseshoe buckles were used, as illustrated, there is no doubt that the vast majority of CS leather work used the roller buckle!
Third, the five ring halter. Again this comes from illustrations in "Confederate saddles & Horse equipment". The connecting strap under the chin was not twisted as illustrated it was sewn in as anyone can see looking at many modern nylon halters. A ring under the chin has three pieces of leather sewn on it. Very simple, sometimes we over think the data.
Fourth, The weight of the leather. Makers still seem to be under the impression that heavier is better. Specific weights were called for certain items. The quality and the cut from the hide of the leather is what provides strength not thickness.
Well these are just a few things we should all be aware of. Again I do not want to disparage Ken's book as I think he did a fine job with a very difficult topic.
Todd Kern
First, nearly every original piece of tack had the edges dressed, I notice some of the modern makers do not do this and leave edges raw. This short cut saves time and cost but is not accurate in it's presentation.
Second, I would have to say the continued use of iron horse shoe buckles as confederate issue is misleading at best. While these buckles may have commonly been used by civilians, contractors, and even government production early on, it was in an effort to use what was available and get something in the field. Without a doubt the buckle being used on confederate tack, especially enlisted in the eastern theatre, was the iron wire roller buckle. While this mistake I believe arises from the illustrations in Ken Knopp's book on CS saddlery, I do not want to take away any of the fine research he has provided with this book. This is a mistake that was overlooked and much like steffens work is copied by those makers looking at illustrations. There is a letter which I will post later when I can find it, from Maj. Downer to, I believe, Col. Gorgas stating, (and I'm paraphrasing since I can't lay my hands on it right now) that nothing can be made here until he gets more sheet iron for the Buckles and this is the buckle that nearly everything is made with. Another letter from Downer to Gorgas which Knopp partially included in his book states," no other buckle is made in the Confederacy except a brass one which is... denser and... weaker than a wire buckle un welded." Sheet iron needed for rollers and a un welded wire buckle says it all, The buckle being used is an un welded iron wire roller buckle. The brass buckle while produced, is not preferred. If these letters had been printed and quoted rather than summed up, as authors often do, any confusion would have been cleared up. No work is ever perfect and new data is constantly coming in, often after publishing. We as the reader often have to read with a critical eye and be aware of new research.. While there is no doubt iron wire horseshoe buckles were used, as illustrated, there is no doubt that the vast majority of CS leather work used the roller buckle!
Third, the five ring halter. Again this comes from illustrations in "Confederate saddles & Horse equipment". The connecting strap under the chin was not twisted as illustrated it was sewn in as anyone can see looking at many modern nylon halters. A ring under the chin has three pieces of leather sewn on it. Very simple, sometimes we over think the data.
Fourth, The weight of the leather. Makers still seem to be under the impression that heavier is better. Specific weights were called for certain items. The quality and the cut from the hide of the leather is what provides strength not thickness.
Well these are just a few things we should all be aware of. Again I do not want to disparage Ken's book as I think he did a fine job with a very difficult topic.
Todd Kern
Comment