Jaguar-Skin Trousers

[Jeff Prechtel]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

Don, Robert-

absolutely right! If one looks at the photo you can actually see the buttons
(probably brass) running down the side of the leg, the buttons are set
on what looks like a wool tape, much like the Napleonic style overalls
that the Lancers, Hussars & all other cavalrymen wore.

The only thing that seems to be missing is a reinforced
leather seat and ankle cuff, much like the Napoleonic style
had for riding wear? Don, any ideas on that, as far as this pair?

AND If you'll pardon the pun......I wonder if the leopard skin
chapperaras (sp) vest, & etc, were the "cat's pajamas" as far as
clothing items went, back then. Very tony.

[tmdreb]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

It is intersting that folks are calling these trousers.

In fact if one looks closely there is no fly to the front of these. As these are Spanish style Chaperaras (Chaps) that button up the side. These are a type of over all or over trousr, to use the american term. Also there are two top down flaped pocket in in the waist.

Don S

I find it fitting that the proponents of the misguided "PEC" concept always trot out the "jaguar skin trousers" to back up their position.

[D F Smith Historic]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

Hi Phil,

I agree, funny how that happens...

Personally, I think the perceived PEC rule is stagnating the hobby & is causing the hobby to not necessarily follow history as it was.

I think it is stunting the hobby's growth in the area of accepted reproductions & newly researched items (repops of originals) that are developed for use to more accurately portray the soldier and civilian.

I have found that what was actually common then, is not necessarily common now or accepted by the C/P/H end of the hobby at large.

Simply because it is unique, odd or not considered "Kewl" to do something or have an item, that is improperly considered different, just because it does not conform to the perceived "norm".


That being said. As with any new item introduced and used, context is everything. Basically, if the particular item was used in a particular unit, theater, region or army. It should be permitted with in its context, and not rejected out of hand. As happens too many times.

Just my opinion.

Don

[BenjaminLDavis]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

Hey all,

Some time ago I did some reading on Berdans, and remember an interesting bit
of gear sported by one company, consisting of not one but two black squirrel
tails stuck (I presume) in their hat bands - anyway, each man had two black
squirrel tails coming out of their hats.
Imagine the howls if you came to an event - most events of any caliber will not
even allow this. BUT - if you were portraying this company, it would not only be
correct but demanded for the impression.
Berdans scholars - which company would this be? I cannot remember the
text I gleaned this information from.

Information like this should ONLY be used for specific impressions, or it leads
to individuals in buckskins with Hawken guns who want to fight along side
Johnnies at the seige of Williamsburg (this happened to my old unit at a main-
stream event once, a shining example of what not to do in the hobby!)

Chris, thanks for the new take on a much-talked-about picture.
Don, thanks for adding more observations and information.

[BobbyHughes]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

Sounds more like Birge's. I vaguely recall reading somewhere on the net they were known for the squirrel tails. Berdan's had a thing for black ostrich plums in the forage cap.

[GreencoatCross]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

James,

I've studied the U.S. Sharpshooters for almost a decade now, and I haven't heard of that particular story. The 1st U.S.S.S. appears to have been issued a number of black ostrich plumes for their forage caps, in 1861, and at least one photo shows a member of Co. H 1st U.S.S.S. with his feather stuck in his seamless cap ("Whipple cap").

Ostrich feathers were one of a small few ornamental items worn by the Sharpshooters early in the war. Some accounts state that a number of seamless caps were outfitted with the letters "1 USSS" surrounded by a stamped brass wreath. Not quite ornamental but almost assuredly as short-lived as the feathers were the famed Tiffany & Co. "Prussian" knapsacks, tall leather leggings, gray felt seamless caps, and wool felt seamless overcoats...all of these items were discarded early, lost in combat, lost while in storage, or destroyed while in storage.

Despite the dashing appearance that the feathers presented, it's not believed that they made a resurgence among the U.S. Sharpshooters. Interestingly enough though, the stamped brass "USSS" letters became popular among Sharpshooters after their return from veteran furlough. Even the leather leggings made a brief resurgence in early 1863, along with newly issued complete green uniforms, in time for President Lincoln's visit to the AoP in April of that year.

Sorry for the tirade....I'm waiting for season 4 of "Lost" to start and I'm a bit excited!

[FTrooper]

Fuel to a fire?

I also agree with Phil and Don (YES I agree with Don Smith and heck didn't freeze).

One of MY issues with the "authentic" movement has been the issue with copying only know originals, for the most part those are either officers items or very late war contracts! Look at all the "early" war militia jackets and coats in pictures that NO example exists of, or for that matter find me one of the thousands of Richmond Depots Type I's made...there aren't any (unless someone has more up to date info than I have).

I agree we need to stay a little open minded. When we copy and wear ONLY what is in museums we run two problems...several dozen people wearing what is in reality a one of a kind garment...is THAT authentic? And are we REALLY portraying the "typical" soldier or the exception?

When I was going through my Master's in Museum Studies the director of the program made a very good point that shocked me and has stuck to this day:

Daily stuff is used up! You can go into ANY county museum and there will be dozens of wedding dresses, but try and find an 1890's pair of farmer's overalls! Human nature does not tend to preserve the "norm" we preserve the exception. Most of the "Mexican War" uniforms in the Smithsonian were actually made in 1876 to fill collections gaps! We are very lucky that with the end of the CW that the Smithsonian made an effort to preserve the uniforms and equipment of that war right after it ended, but what happened to all the stuff from 1861 and 1862 and even MORE importantly for this thread...the Civilian Stuff!?!?!?!

Case in point...The uniform of 30th Texas Cavalryman Marchbanks and worn at Honey Springs was almost throw away by a noted civil war expert as just unimportant "slave" cloths and that was less than 50 years ago. How many similar garments DID get discarded because they were not "civil war " artifacts?

It is truly sad to imagine what we have lost due to ignorance, but I feel I digress.

We need to grow and explore. I am NOT trying to preach discontent in this board, but again I agree with Don that we may be pigeon holing ourselves just because we don't think something fits our current perception. I think knowing period construction details are important and then using that knowledge to make a variety of garments from pictures is not against authenticity even if the original has not been handled. I agree we need to keep it in moderation for the fact that as mentioned above all sorts of "weird" stuff will start to appear, but I also agree we need to be more objective.

So here is MY wish list: Yall know that picture of the goofy lanky soldier holding the saw next to his cute laundress wife and their "brood" at their feet? Where is her neat kint pull over sweater? I want THAT form my significant other! (and for ME the shield shaped hardee hat officer's eagle)

Again, just FOOD for THOUGHT.

Most Respectfully,
Chris Fischer
F-Troop

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

Chris...

One of MY issues with the "authentic" movement has been the issue with copying only know originals

I agree 100%... while copying known originals is our BEST idea of what was really worn, we do severely limit ourselves in refining and "exacting" our impressions... we need to balance this with the other end of the spectrum and that would be wearing incorrectly made/non-proven/non- correct historical pattern junk or stuff that someone wants to wear just because he is able to.

Thanks- Johnny

[BenjaminLDavis]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

Sounds more like Birge's. I vaguely recall reading somewhere on the net they were known for the squirrel tails. Berdan's had a thing for black ostrich plums in the forage cap.

Thank you, Robert, and to Mr. Brian White (hope we see you boys at Old World again
this next season) for the edification. The only thing I am absolutely sure of as I climb
this mountain that is time is that my remembery is not what it once was.
I have seen plumes in the field, and they do not last long - did they carry a large stock
of replacements in the wagons?

[Hank Trent]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

Personally, I think the perceived PEC rule is stagnating the hobby & is causing the hobby to not necessarily follow history as it was.

I think it is stunting the hobby's growth in the area of accepted reproductions & newly researched items (repops of originals) that are developed for use to more accurately portray the soldier and civilian.

I have found that what was actually common then, is not necessarily common now or accepted by the C/P/H end of the hobby at large.

I'm an advocate of PEC, but I think maybe there's an underlying assumption I'm making, that not all PEC advocates do.

The assumption is that things should be PEC for what you're portraying. Which, in most cases, should also be PEC for the particular historic time and place being re-created. Obvious example: a blue military sack coat is PEC for a federal soldier, not so much for a female civilian. Less obvious example: research may show that jaguar chaps were PEC for men of a certain age, background, occupation and location, not so much for others.

Some things are PEC nationwide, others very local. Some are dependent on age, sex, occupation, political views, etc., but are otherwise nationwide; others may be dependent on those things and be local.

The goal is not so much to define a single nationwide PEC impression, as it is to understand the context of why and where things were common, so you can understand the social pressures which would have led you to become what you were.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[FTrooper]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

Mr. Trent.

Very well put! Probably one of the best summaries I have ever read.

Mr. Lloyd, please reread my post. I never advocated "non-proven" items, items not made in the period style, nor items not at least based on period patterns...I just suggested that they not always be straight from an original extant example, but also possible from know photographs, in academic historical research a photograph and an artifact are both considered valid primary resources of the period. A good example. There are no known original knit sack coats, just descriptions, lots of pictures, and other period knit garments to compare the period fabric of...does that mean we should not allow Nick ************ to sell his here or allow our member to wear it because he did not copy the exact pattern, cut, and unique stitching of an extant original? Or can we accept that he used all available resources to make an as accurate copy of an extremely common item? *

*please note, I just advocated the use of a correctly constructed (to known period techniques), proven (QM receipts and photographs), correct historical pattern (using basic sack coat patterns based on several originals) to create an item.

But I deeply apologize as this is not the time nor place to have to "defend" myself and I am sorry if I have created a situation that had required me to do so.

Finally, to all....since the topic of Jaguar skin trousers, leopard print vests, bits of dead animals, etc. would really be more of a typical individual fashion statement of the era I am wondering if this thread should not be discussed as a "Civilian issue" as it is definitely no longer just a "cavalry" topic?

Most Respectfully,
Chris Fischer
F-Troop

[D F Smith Historic]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

Don, Robert-

absolutely right! If one looks at the photo you can actually see the buttons
(probably brass) running down the side of the leg, the buttons are set
on what looks like a wool tape, much like the Napleonic style overalls
that the Lancers, Hussars & all other cavalrymen wore.

The only thing that seems to be missing is a reinforced
leather seat and ankle cuff, much like the Napoleonic style
had for riding wear? Don, any ideas on that, as far as this pair?

AND If you'll pardon the pun......I wonder if the leopard skin
chapperaras (sp) vest, & etc, were the "cat's pajamas" as far as
clothing items went, back then. Very tony.

Hi Jeff,

Interesting point, although I think that the Jaguar Chaparraras are a little different. Maybe one inspired the other historically?

The Napoleonic Overalls and the Chaparraras are very similar in the respects you mentioned. They do share many of the same attributes. But are different pieces of horse related clothing/protection. One being military, and one civilian being used for military purpose. But both are used to protect clothing from brush and dirt.

Although, I think the need for the reinforced seat would be more needed for a heavy cloth garment, than for one made of animal hide. Although, maybe the reinforcement for the Jaguar Chaps is on the inside of crotch/ seat area, or is just not visible in the picture.

Other examples of this type of clothing should be looked at for clues in construction to answer this question.


On a completly separate note a set of Jaguar skin civilian pommel holsters for horse pistol can be seen in the book Packing Iron. these also have gold bullion tape trim ont he flaps and silver caps on the ends.

All the best

Don

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

Hallo!

I have never comes across a reference to black squirel tails for Berdan's (or Post's) Sharpshooters.
As shared, I also suspect it is an outgrowth of the Dress hat "style" black ostrich plume that was an early Period Berdan "fashion/fad" for a spell.

"The goal is not so much to define a single nationwide PEC impression, as it is to understand the context of why and where things were common, so you can understand the social pressures which would have led you to become what you were."

It is probably not fruitful to add the discussion of "PEC" onto the jaguar thread, but here goes... ;)

IMHO, PEC is all too often misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied.

As I learned it, which may not be right...

When everything is possible, nothing is probable.

The earliest writings I know on the concept come from some guy named Curt Schmidt in a 1978-1987 newsletter for Rogers' Rangers in the 1750's.
At that time, Rogers' Rangers reenactors, in the absence of an original RR uniform, particulary the post 1758 "jacket," were relying on the tradition of imagination and campfire lore to base recreations on. in particular, Benjamin West's series of a similar painting called "The Death of Wolfe" where Hobby lore had made the kneeling figure of Colonel William Johnson to actually be Major Robert Rogers (who was not actually there).
The problem with that, on several levels, was that it was art, and the green clad figure is seen only from 3/4 behind.

To counter that, the concept of 'PEC" was developed to say that in the CURRENT absence of documentation and originals, that it "was better" to "borrow" from what was supported by the research and documentation thus far, in the realm of what was "plain, everyday, and common" and to trust to inference, assumption, and "educated guess" to fill in the missing "reality" rather than trust to whim, imagination, and fantasy to create modern recreations of polyester with no relationship to 18th century Rogers' Ranger military clothing other than it was green.

That was further extended in the mid and late 1980's again by Curt Schmidt and by Mark Baker for developing frontier impressions where the history, archeology, and artifact/relic pool was missing- but as "reenactors" or "living historians" we need "three dimensional" objects to play with.
What was happening was that lads WERE doing research, but "misapplying it." Meaning, as lower class, and working class impressions or personae, they were finding examples of clothing and gear, or fancy rifles owned by nobility that could not have likely ever been seen by let alone purchased by the "middlin' and lower sort."
So finding a nice gold, silver, ivory inlaid prince's hunting rifle in the Saxe-Coburg Fortress Collection, and using one's modern wallet to recreate it for say the impression of a run away indentured servant was better served by a less 'fancy" "PEC" rifle that contributed toward Suspending Disbelief and creating a Beliveable Image for oneself, one's pards, and where applicable the site or event public.

As initially used in my Civil War experience, "PEC" was basically the same. Until documentation is found, in the absence of history, archeology, research, documentation, and original artifacts and relics that do indicate what a particular man as part of a particular unit at a particular place and particular time had- then it was "less wrong" to substitute something known of the Period as "PEC," that it was to imagine, invent, fabricate, and create unbvelieveable fictions and fantasies for to use.
Is that "right?" Nope. It is just a form of "less wrong" by degree. Much like "Jurassic Park" using frog DNA for the missing dinosauria DNA strands.
When documentation is found, then we replace the flawed and "upgrade."

IMHO, I think where "PEC" earned its negative context was not in its temporary value in plugging holes and gaps in our Colelctive Knowledge by making the value-judgment to subsitute something more in accordance with history, circumstance, and factors like issuance systems, depots and arsenals, or in the civilian world city versus rural factors, socio-economic class, market access, etc., to create Believeable Images and Suspend Disbelief.
Instead, where it went astray in some circles and among some people is when it was misused as first an excuse for not doing research and documenting, and then as an attempt to make messes and units more "homogeneous" appearing (vanilla), more along the lines of "by like company issuances" when they 'brigaded" together to form companies and battalions so as not to confuse the Public as to why Joe has a 1st Corps badge and Bill has a 5th Corp badge... or why Tom has an "Enfield" and Chris a "Lorenz" and Sean a "Mississippi?" Or why me as a Federal cavalry private in 1862 is using a diamond and ruby encrusted presentation sabre...

And, IMHO Richardson's jaguar skins ARE indeed PEC for the time, place, and context of how and why he was wearing them when the image was taken.
Putting them on say every trooper in Marcus Reno's 12th Pa Cavalry's Company "M," in 1863 not so PEC. (At least my great-great grandfather does not wear or carry any in is image...)

Others' "PEC" history, experience, interpretation, and mileage, will vary....

Curt

[FTrooper]

Pec

My last bit one this.

All in all I agree...there is ALOT of misunderstanding about PEC, and too often the misunderstanding is coming from peoples personal ideals.

I think many of the posts here are clearing up alot of the misconceptions. Too often PEC is quoted as a RULE not a guide.

Its a great discussion, not sure where it goes? the Sinks maybe? But would be nice to move the discussion there and some of these posts.

Again, I think this is a good discourse.

Your Comrade,
Chris Fischer
F-Troop

[ButtermilkRanger]

Re: Jaguar-Skin Trousers

Let's see if this link works: http://tides.sfasu.edu/AN18/SMM1981_...rono=5&index=0

This is Sam Houston's jaguar vest. It looks like it's made from the actual skin to me. This may or may not shed some light on Capt. Richardson's pants. CJ, you may possibly be right. I hadn't considered that possibility before.

Here's old Sam wearing the vest: http://tides.sfasu.edu:2006/cdm4/ite...SOBOX=1&REC=16

Phil,

The very vest in question is on display at the Sam Houston State Memorial at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville. I was there this past weekend and examined the vest as closely as I could without actually taking it out of the glass display case. Luckily, the display case is a 360 degree case and you can get a good look at it. The vest is indeed real animal skin. There are several places along the back of the collar where the hair has worn off and the leather underneath is plainly visible. The vest has been identified by the museum as a gift from Chief John Jolly of the Cherokee to Houston and is indeed jaguar skin. Houston frequented the vest as a US Senator, which seems to have made quite a splash in Washington. According to museum sources, Houston often told his companions in DC that the vest was leopard skin, "because I can't change my spots". Typically Houston, for sure. If you're in the area, I strongly suggest you stop by the museum and look at the vest and the other artifacts on display there.

Since this is a cavalry forum, it's important to note that General Santa Anna's personal saddle and tack is on display there as well. It was the saddle used by Santa Anna during the Texas campaign. Cavalry nuts like me would salivate for a chance to examine it more closely.

I for one hope the mods don't delete this thread. There is something positive to be gained from a real analysis of even the unusual and non-PEC material culture of the period. We can discuss jaguar skin trousers and vests all day long without advocating their common presence in the Living History community. That shouldn't mean that we have to ignore the academic study of the less common. I firmly believe that we should be students first and Living Historians second.