Question on Uniform Sizing - What's all the Fuss About?

[J_V]

I'm going to stick my neck out here and possibly betray some ignorance. I've read through a few research articles that uniform sizing (specifically in the Union forces) was standardized, and I cannot imagine the Confederate quartermaster goods were any more versatile in this area. There are, of course, examples from both sides of private purchase goods or goods received from home, which may or may not have been more form-fitting at various times, and this board has discussed those instances many times.

That said, I get rather puzzled when I see reenactors trading, buying, and selling repro uniforms for one size smaller or larger. I can understand if one were to lose a lot of weight and something is just way too big, or the reverse, a person has since gained weight and their garments have become unwearable. That, I get. But I don't get this constant search for the perfect size, just short of private tailoring.

Is there something I'm missing beyond the considerations of private purchase or good received from home, already discussed? It seems like a lot of money to expend, just to get something a little bigger or a little larger. One is entitled to do that if one likes, but what benefit, if at all, does this obsession with sizing bear upon authenticity?

In sum, my frock coat is big on me. So what?

[NYCivilWar]

Re: Question on Uniform Sizing - What's all the Fuss About?

I have to respond here, as I feel that this post may have been somewhat influenced by a recent post I made about trading for a better fitting fatigue blouse. Here's my reasoning... My fatigue blouse use is HUGE on me.

"but what benefit, if at all, does this obsession with sizing bear upon authenticity?"

I completely understand that issued uniforms were sized 1-4 (36-42) normally, with a few exceptions for larger fellows. From what I have gathered, soldiers would trade comrades for better fitting garments. I understand that the fatigue blouse was supposed to be a lose garment, patterned off of, more or less, a civilian sack coat. Military issued frock coats, like their civilian counterparts, were designed to be tight fitting at the waist giving a pigeoned appearence in the chest. Just because these men were in the military didn't mean that they didn't care about their appearence. Was the garment issued to you going to fit you PERFECTLY? Probably not. If you look at original photos, yes there are men in garments that are obviously too big or too small on them, but I think I can say with confidence that most soldiers had a somewhat proper fitting garment.

Look at the attached photo of the 149th PA at Petersburg. I don't see a single solider whose Frock is enormous on him. Nor, for that matter, a single soldier whose coat is way too small. There are a few soldiers whose frock looks a bit loose around the waist, but I think we can say for the most part, these men had a proper fitting coat.

Today... As everyone well knows the price of garments are not cheap. I don't understand spending the bread on a garment that could fit two people in it. My fatigue blouse is too big for me, so I am hoping to trade for it. If the practice of trading garments for a proper fitting one occured during the war, I feel as though trading for a proper fitting garment in 2009 is "authentic."

Just my thoughts and reasoning,
-Kyle M. Stetz

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Question on Uniform Sizing - What's all the Fuss About?

Check out this drummer's tight-fitting frock! :wink_smil
(Note the cuffs of the sleeves!)

This being said, he's obviously a kid and may be smaller than commonly available standard issue sizes ...A problem not common to we 21st Century weekenders.

[J_V]

Re: Question on Uniform Sizing - What's all the Fuss About?

Not a half-bad answer, thank you. And yes, your trading post served as partial inspiration, but this practice observed was hardly limited to you.

I don't question properly-fitting attire, and I don't advocate dogma one way or another. Your study of period photos renders your approach valid, but there are other considerations, of course, for different impression scenarios and circumstances.

Consider the "clothes sent from home" scenario. It has been opined on this board (reasonably so) that such clothing was likely to fit better because the tailor knew and loved the tailee. That's reasonable to assume, but the tailor's last contact with their citizen soldier was likely to be pre-War. Under the rigors of hard campaigning, and in some cases, a scant or poor diet, the soldier for which the clothes were constructed may have dropped a good deal of weight. Unless this fact happened to be mentioned in a letter to the homefont, it may or may not have been considered by the tailor.

Pending further research, my conclusion is that properly fitting, too large, or too small can all be considered PEC, depending upon the timeframe and impression.

Thanks for your response.

[J_V]

Re: Question on Uniform Sizing - What's all the Fuss About?

Check out this drummers tight-fitting frock! :wink_smil
(Note the cuffs of the sleeves!)

Right - thank you. There are, of course, many other images of too tight or too big, and all of them associated with circumstances which I hope I can interpret according to context.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Question on Uniform Sizing - What's all the Fuss About?

We all have our own picture in our head of what our impression should look like. As long as that mental picture and its physical manifestation (in the form of our impression) is based on good information (and valid interpretations of that information), I don't have a problem with how a guy's issued coat fits.

This is within some acceptable limits, of course. I'd not expect to see some Goliath in a coat that is too big for him. Also, the garment itself should be of proper proportions (and construction and materials), regardless of the size of the wearer.

With the above taken into considertaion, I'm not going to hassle someone because their sack coat is drooping off of their shoulders or because they have on high-water trousers. What fun is that!?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Question on Uniform Sizing - What's all the Fuss About?

Hallo!

IMHO...

There are two threads (no pun intended) woven in here.

The first is the hisotircal concept of issuances not being made according to actual size- and the need to be lucky, make do, trade off, or tailor or arrange to have altered sizes to better fit.

The second is the difference between the sizes and dimensions formally specified in the manual. Erratic quality passed by inspectors and innaccurate sizing (read as innacurate as well as incorrectly labelled). As a result of these unresolved problems, the sizes, figures, dimensions of clothing shoul dbe considered an "ideal" moreso than an "absolute." (No real attempt was pubished duirng the War to resolve sizing issues. The closest it got was when General Meigs appointed Coonel Alexander Perry to be in charge at Schuylkill so that in 1864 Colonel George Crossman could investigate and resolve the problem. Crossman completed the project but his manual of standards was never published.)

So, even when measuring say Schuykill Arsenal trousers of the same unaltered "size" one could find as much as a one to FOUR inch diffrence in lengths or waist.

The same applies to modern makers, depending upon what original or pattern they drafted it from. Meaning, Maker A might just use the "chart" that said a Size trouser had a 34 inch waist. Maker B might have used an original with an actual waist of 30 inches. Maker C, an original with a 31 inch waist.

Switching over to the reenactign world. Hobbywise, few lads trust to the CW Period issuance system, and try to "fit" themselves closest to their size.
IMHO, partly due to self image, partly due to not wanting to pay Big Bucks for an ill-fitting uniform, (and partly because they do not have pards willing to trade).

There are a few lads, who choose to depict/present/portray the lads (as found in Period images) who were NOT lucky enough to raandomly receive their size, NOT able to trade for a better fit, or who were NOT able to self-tailor or hire a "tailor" or lad handy with needle and thread to alter a garment to a better fit.

There are a few. For years, I ordered my uniforms 1-2 sizes too large, and even one size too small to depict that "look." There are others, so I do not think there is an "obsession with sizing."
Other than by dealing with Civil War garment patterns and sizes, one is closer to CW practice and history than say wearing form fitted, sprayed on, modern style pants without pockets and with a button fly, down around one's hips as is often done in other segments of the CW Community with different standards and Mental Pictures.

Curt

[JimConley]

Is there something I'm missing beyond the considerations of private purchase or good received from home, already discussed? It seems like a lot of money to expend, just to get something a little bigger or a little larger. One is entitled to do that if one likes, but what benefit, if at all, does this obsession with sizing bear upon authenticity?

We're always going to do things that some think might be a little excessive to achieve "the look" of the guys we see in so many photographs. I have seen images of soldiers wearing uniforms that are both too big and too small in size. However, I do not think that the issue is finding that size you're after, it's the reproductions.

Nearly every vendor that makes reproduction clothing, the better ones included, uses a modern guide for drafting patterns. Even if the specific reproduction is based upon an original and measurements were precisely taken on every square inch of that original article of clothing, in order to create patterns that will cover the various sizes of that vendor's customer base, a new pattern must be drawn out for each size. And, because 99.9% of the vendors out there do not use or do not know how to use a period tailor's guide or drafting system, the end result is a modern cut pattern, which fits differently, even if it is modified to appear more like a period cut. Then we have the vendors that do not draft any sort of pattern for clothing at all. Commonly these vendors will modify a County Cloth pattern enough to where it is no longer, technically, a County Cloth pattern and call it their own. But, even County Cloth patterns (which are still the best available) are not drafted using a period system because when the pioneer Charlie Childs began, most period tailoring manuals and drafting systems had been out of print for a long long time.

This is a subject that will never die. Guys will always be looking for that coat that just has "the look" to them. But, these reproductions are not cut using true period techniques or systems. For one thing, and probably one of the most obvious characteristics is that reproduction jackets and coats are cut too wide across the back, which obviously effects how it will fit in the body. Ever wonder why the sleeves at the shoulder are a bit too low? Or you just can't seem to get a snug fitting jacket without it suffocating you?

[J_V]

Re: Question on Uniform Sizing - What's all the Fuss About?

Thanks to all who responded. Very educational.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Question on Uniform Sizing - What's all the Fuss About?

I follow two different ideas on fit.

By CW standards I'm a big infantry man (6' 3+", 235 pounds) with a 72" wing span. My modern size is 44-46

But I made the concious decision to buy a size 4 sack coat for 'feild' duty on the assumption that I wouldn't have regular access to a 'plus' size federal coat but I would probably be able to get my hands on athe largest size regularly available. My sleeves are also way too short and the coat is snug.

For my 'parade' outfit I went with a properly tailored frock coat. Got to llok good when honoring the vets and for the spectators.

So I look "authentic" when appropriate and good when it is appropriate.