The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

[paulcalloway]

Ok, my fellow material culture fanatics -

What are your thoughts on having some discussions about the hallmarks of an authentic reproduction garment or authentic reproduction accoutrement? Perhaps some case studies of some original, extant garments and artifacts?

We've been driving home the authenticity triad for years ... but I'm not convinced we're necessarily getting through to the masses. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, perhaps we need to work towards educating our community more rather then assuming they are educating themselves.

I'd think this sort of discussion would be more profitable then the "who makes the best" and "us versus them" threads we see so often.

Thoughts?

[IowaYank]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Paul, I believe this would be a great thread. I am admittedly one that is not great at recognizing the minute details of accurate reproductions. A discussion such as this would definately be a great help!

[MarkTK36thIL]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

2nd that. Too often I depend on Mr. ************'s analysis of uniforms to understand construction.

[mslaird]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Thanks for starting this thread, I am in terrible need of the instruction as well.

[Andy Ackeret]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

I am by no means an expert in material culture of the Civil War. I certainly have done my best to study up on items I feel my knowledge is lacking on. I'm fortunate that I'm in a unit that has been allowed to hold meetings at a museum several times, and after the meeting the curator has allowed us to examine original items in the collection. My trips to larger events also often include trips to parks or museums that hold CW items.

What I would hope any living historian would do before purchasing an item:

1)I'd stress, every time you are given the opportunity to examine an original item, GRAB THAT OPPORTUNITY. Even if it's an item where you have seen others. When you look at it, (even if it's through the glass of a case) see what you can determine about about the construction and materials used. Look at the wear patterns, see what

2)Books are your friend. There are lots of studies out there on garments and equipment. Get your hands on those and read them (several times doesn't hurt if, like me, you don't always grasp things the first time). US coats, hats, weapons, CS coats, leather gear, lots of it has been well researched and is available for you if you look for it.

3)When buying a reproduction, when unsure about provenance or style variations, ask the vendor making the reproduction. I recently had a leather vendor provide me with a good chunk of research on the style belt I purchased from him. My own studies had helped me determine the style I wanted, but he had examined far more originals of that style belt than I even knew existed.

Take items 1, 2 and 3, and when shopping for reproductions, compare the advertised product to the knowledge base you've built. For example, I don't know every variation on cartridge box stitching out there. But, when looking at reproductions, I can say if the reproduction looks like what I've seen on originals. If it doesn't, then I try to find out if there is a reason the reproduction is different. Maybe it's an example of the Walla-Walla Depot, and matches to an original I haven't seen. Or, perhaps, it's not a well made reproduction. In that case, my business will go elsewhere.

Again, I'm no expert in any area of material culture. But I strongly feel that repeated exposure to originals and studies of originals can get anyone to be a knowledgable consumer and avoid the pitfall of questions like "Who makes the best _____?" or "What should I look for in a _____?"

***edit to add***Yes, I agree such studies would do good to forward the authenticity of everyone. Uniform studies can be on books, but they can also be online.***edit to add***

[Milliron]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

You have to know specifically something about what you are looking for. For instance, if you are looking over a repro RDII, do you know what one is supposed to look like? When you look at it that way, you can see the work you have ahead of you. It is however, a labor of love.

For instance, if you want to know something about Richmond Depot jackets, and do not happen to be a curator at the MOC, try this:

http://www.military-historians.org/company/journal/confederate/confederate-1.htm

It's the next best thing to having one.

[paulcalloway]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

I actually did this mean little trick once (like 5-6 years ago) - I saw some buttonholes that someone had redone on a mainstream coat but to be honest, the buttonhole stitch looked like %#*$.

But I took the coat over to some young campaigners and showed them the coat and said, "check these out - these look great." Well, they didn't know a buttonhole from their %@$#hole but they did know I ran some dumb website so... they all wagged their tongues and nodded their heads and said, "Oh wow, yeah those are great."

No they weren't. Like I said, they looked like %#*$.

I remember another time, Woodburn and I took a scarf he had cut from the end of a blanket and by the end of the afternoon we had half the company believing it was an authentic crotch-wrap. True story. But that's a story for another day.

Back to the buttonholes, I then proceeded to explain to them how to do a buttonhole stitch and then showed them a couple repops wandering through camp that had all the hallmarks of a decent stitch.

Now we all know there are extant garments out there with buttonholes that also look like %#*$ - but lets assume for the sake of this discussion we want to show people what was considered good craftsmanship, even back then.

Moral to this whole post though - this aint just about buttonholes and @#$&holes.

[toptimlrd]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Good discussion topic. I'll add my overpriced $0.02 worth.

There are really three things to look at in a reproduction garment: material, pattern, and construction technique. To start with, I'll echo what some have already mentioned; you need to know what the original looked like to have an educated decision. Take Paul's buttonhole example, the very first time I tried myhand at stitching over a mainstream buton hole, I had NO CLUE what I was doing and the results showed but I had more than one person see them and think this was the ultimate in authenticity (Paul, I hope you weren't using my coat back then).

The first thing to look at is the material itself. Does it look like the original, feel like the original, and weigh like the original. I know many hate hearing about warp and weft but it really does make a difference in the overall appearance. We have to bear in mind also that there is no one answer to proper fabric in many cases, Federal sackcoats for example varied a bit in the actual hue of the blue dye used, add to that the fade factor by the time we se them an you understand what I mean.

When it comes to the pattern, do the piees fit together like the original and does the item give the correct shillhouette? Are the sleeves set in correctly, is the length right, is the ratio of dimensions right, etc. If a hard item(canteen, plate, boiler, etc), does it look like the ones in the display case at the museum? When you wear or use the item, does it look like the originals in period photographs or in museums or does it look like a good Civil War costume? It's a fine line.

Finally in construction methods, is the item in question put together the same way as the original? Is the stitching correct? Is the material and assembly method for that tin cup correct for the period? One thing that gets me is how many people look at a JT Martin contract variant shirt I have and dismiss it because of the crude stitching. The truth is it has crude stitching because the ORIGINAL had crude stitching. Likewise I see some horrible examples of stitching that on the originals would have been done by someone with a lot of experience in the day. Take my first buttonholes for example, in the 1860s anyone making a garment would know ho to make a correct buttonhole stitch and do them well. I have a sack coat I wear that you have to look close to tell the stitches are hand done because they are done so well that at first it could be mistaken for machine done, but that is corect for that garment.

There are compromises though on almost everything. My son carrys a confederate haversack that looks every bit like one in Echoes of Glory save two small details. I won't say what they are, but so far only one person has found one of them after examining the article. The reason these details are wrong is one was based on a personal choice and the other was due to the information on how it was done was not available to the seamstress when she made it.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Paul,

Once upon a time, a once-respected hobby publication engaged in doing reviews of repro wares compared to originals. That's still a darn good idea. Shame that almost no one's doing it today.

Perhaps this forum would be a good place to do that type of thing. Once a month, similar to the "bully buy", a piece of kit is evaluated not just by any ol' person, but by someone who knows the originals, and who hopefully also has knowledge of the limitations of the current marketplace (for example, some stuff that would make a "great repro" is simply not available today).

These types of reviews would not only be enlightening from a scholarly aspect, but also enlightening from a merchantability aspect of the repro--no matter who is making the product being reviewed. It may even lead to increased demand for "better" (more accurate) goods, instead of just less-expensive goods, once again.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

OK...
I'm taking the first crack at this:

http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?p=86043#post86043

I'd love to see discussions on other items (belts, cartridge boxes, jackets, shoes, caps, frocks, whatever).

... or even elements of construction, perhaps.
For example: What are some good examples of period topstitching? ... buttonholes? ...linings? Setting of collars?

Get your cameras out!

[JimKindred]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Articles about original pieces is a very good idea. The main problem when comparing reproductions to originals is that you have to have the original piece that the reproduction was copied from otherwise you do not have a fair comparison.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Jim,

I will agree and disagree with you on this point.

Yes, you must have the original to determine if a particular repro is a true "replica" of the original item. However, if one is examining (for example) a "RD3" jacket, one does not need the particular original relicated (if one exists!!) to determine if the fit/pattern, materials, and construction adequately represent features/attributes/qualities seen on a variety of original RD jackets.

Often, I think many vendors offer products "loosely based" on original items, but not replicas, per se (this is not an indictment of vendors by any stretch... just an observation). The bayonet scabbard discussion is a good case study on this point. Regardless of whether a particular scabbard was sewn with a butt stitch or a welted seam, one can tell if this feature was well-rendered on a particular repro after viewing several examples of originals.

[cap tassel]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

We've been driving home the authenticity triad for years ... but I'm not convinced we're necessarily getting through to the masses.

I believe there is a reason for this and it's not just a matter of cost. In almost every case where I've talked with someone over this there was a lack of knowledge and curiosity of the culture aspect. To them an item is an item. They'll nod their head and agree that this is unlike that and that exceptions exist. But they never appreciate why. And it's also the case that people promoting authentic construction may know a lot about the material but not why.

[JimKindred]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

John,

I agree, I was thinking more in terms of metal items when I wrote that rather than uniforms.

Another of the problems I have seen in the past with reviews of reproduction items is the that the reviewer may review item XYZ from sutler A comparing it to item ABC of sutler B giving the first glowing remarks while finding problems with that offered by second sutler. The problem which could only be known to me is that the items were sold by me to both sutlers and that the items were identical. Now that makes you wonder just how fair a review was it.

[rbruno]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Paul,
I am a little unsure of what you are looking for. I like the buttonhole post because it is specific to a particular element of construction of a garment. I have had the great fortune recently to look at original uniforms. I have started making clothing for myself and othe members of my unit. So, I tried to look at as many originals for construction as I could before I started. I have several pictures of original buttonholes and the stitching. Yes the stitch is the same, but the talent of the tailor is different in each one meaning some essentially look better than others. I have tried to copy the better ones. However, mine are not as good as the best orginals yet, but they are not as bad as the worst of the orginals. So, would mine be authentic because they are hand done using the correct stitch but not as nice as some of the originals I have seen?
I agree with the person that posted that reading as many books/articles on a particular item is important. I don't have any idea how many times I have read Less Jenson's study of RD jackets. However, it can't compare to seeing a garment first hand. The first time I had the chance to see an original garment, I was amazed. Anyway, I think I am off topic. I would like a discussion of comparing original items to the repros. I have much to learn and improve myself.
Rob Bruno
1st MD Cav