The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

I have several pictures of original buttonholes and the stitching.

Rob,

If you're willing to share those pics, it would be greatly appreciated. I'd be very grateful if you'd please post them on the buttonhole thread (yeah, "buttonhole thread" ...that's a punny statement).

Thanks!

[Steve Acker]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

I really like the idea of learning more about the material culture because it seems the more I know the more I need to know. For example, I thought the original cartidge boxes I had a chance to study offered a fairly solid blueprint of the various cartridge boxes used during the war. That is until myself and a bunch of ONV guys saw a confederate box that defies standard construction explanations. Also we saw a pair of confederate manufacture drawers with one leg hem machine sewn and other the other hand sewn.

My point is we need to be sure to study material culture, not for a blueprint, but to learn more about the variety of constructions as well as the consistancies.

Steve "Needin to learn more" Acker

[ElizabethClark]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

There are really three things to look at in a reproduction garment: material, pattern, and construction technique.

As this question is not just a military one (citizens have these same concerns for their material culture items), I'll add a few comments to Mr. Collet's excellent notes above.

He touched on the aesthetic of period garments: the proportion and hang, etc. One vast difference between Originals and repros is often this aesthetic; the balance and proportion of trims, placement of details, and overall line/look *can* be duplicated in repro, but it takes a keen eye and a lot of looking at Originals and Original Images to get the eye developed. One cannot, in my opinion, train the eye for a period aesthetic by looking at repros; it can only be trained by looking at Originals, and carefully considering what factors give the items "the look"--then replicating them on garments that are already designed around the basics of highly-historically-consistent fabric, shapes, and techniques.

Small aspects, like fit, are also very key. Not every garment was a perfect fit for every person mid-century... but certainly, the more highly placed a person is, the more expectation of excellent fit should be used. One can create, very deliberately, a slovenly, low-class appearance, or a very tidy working-class appearance, just by altering the fit of the garments to reflect "got from the charity bin" or "made by skilled hands at home" or "made by a skilled professional," once those basics of fabric, shapes, and techniques are in place.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Hallo!

A wonderful idea this...
But, IMHO, it is cursed to failure (as have been previous discussions of the same over the years) for several reasons- the least of which is:

1. the lack of any concensus as to what a "Universal Standard" for reproductions should be, could be
2. what that Standard actually is, qualitatively and quantitatively, on a Sliding Scale of Imperfection
3. who decides that, who enforces that, who embraces that, and what do event hosts and units do to "impose" any or all of that at the various "Alphabet Letter" models under the CW Umbrella
4. who is the reviewing body, agency, panel, collection of knowledgeable and objective folks in a position with access to sufficient numbers of original uniform, gear, and firearm items AND old and emerging new reproductions, who are in a position to print or broadcast "publish" their findings (or have the legal funds to support themselves from egomanical vendors/makers suits... ;-) ) (I know old and new vendors/makers, and the Italians do not send me any products to review... ;) :) :) )

Historically, IMHO, we "evolved" in the Hobby. The "hardcore" standard of 1976 was wearing "wool." The "hardcore standard" of 1986 was C & D Jarnagin. "It" has evolved and moved on for 1996 and 2006. (Well, aside from some progressing "de-farb" concepts, gun culture has laggeed way behind, and "custom" " authentic" guns have not caught on let alone become a joint standard with clothing and gear.)
Yet, as befits different lads' Mental Pictures of what they see themselves doing and where they see themselves fititng in.. we even see the gamut (if not gauntlet) of Mental Pictures on this board (and others) of folks saying things along the lines of "I would rather play with a lad in bad kit with a good attitude, than a lad with perfect kit and crappy attitude."
Or the old Mantra of "It's Time To Get Beyond The Gear."

IMHO, the Civil War concept of arsenal/depot and contractor made clothing and gear does well from the Triad of Period Raw Materials; Period forms, patterns, and models; and Period methods of construction/manufacture (on our weird mix of subjective and objective Sliding Scale of how much or how little, or how much" it can be right or wrong and still meet the "popular approval rating").
But as continuing research shows, the arsenal/depot, contractor, and more "CS" commutation and sent from home/home made nature of CW material culture keeps reinforcing that one should not, and cannot apply the illusion of 21st century robotic assembly lines to CW clothing and gear (and to some extent guns as well).

MEANING, when "copying" originals, IMHO it is best to copy the original surviving speciment that is IN HAND as the standard for thge copy of that original surviving specimen.
True, one can study the shallow pool of surviving "Any Garment," make it say "Columbus Depot" jackets, and glean and learn what makes a jacket a "CD Type I" or "CD Type II" in terms of the Material Culture Triad. But if the original
I am recreating was made by Sally Seamstress and yours was made by Nanny Sewer, there are tell-tale "evidences" of the quality and style of Sally's work and Nanny's work co-existing at the same time.
And "Who made the better 1862 CD jacket, Sally or Nanny? Or which do we "copy?" becomes subjective. And worse when a Mary Needelcraft CD jacket is found in a trunk in an attic that belonged to private Jones turns up. Etc., etc.,

So, IMHO it is a Chutes and Ladders game. We tend to be "consumers of research" done or not done by other folks, and/or "trusters of vendors that they have done the research for us and then put it into their products," and/or "slaves to the second, third, fourth, and fifth-hand opinions of others on boards and fora, around campfires, in the back seat of car pools, and in the booths of restaurants on the way to and from events."
Such is often the Nature of the Beast, as well as the view from in the Belly of the Beast.

And others' mileage will vary...

Curt
Heretic Mess
Devil's Advocate Rifles

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

I suspect there is no such thing as a 100 percent fair and totally objective review of anything. The reviewer's bias and knowledge always come into play, whether it's reviewing the latest sack coat from the ABC Repro Company or in reviewing the latest Will Smoth movie or the new restaurant that just opened down the street. Nevertheless, the human population typically enjoys reviews (written by others) of stuff they haven't tried yet, particularly when they don't feel qualified to understand or judge it themselves.

I'm not any type of expert on any type of material culture. That's why I enjoy reviews of repro products that are as objective as possible, but recognizing that there's no such thing as something that's free of subjectivity.

It's an imperfect world, and we all live in it.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Hallo!

"The reviewer's bias and knowledge always come into play, whether it's reviewing the latest sack coat from the ABC Repro Company..."

Especially if he hopes to get some more free goods from ABC Repro Company. ;) :)

Seriously, IMHO, that is a two-sided coin if not sword.
If I am "reviewing" say an Italian reproduction M1861 Springfield "against" six other
M1861 Springfields... a measurement is a measurement, or a detail/feature is a detail/feature. It is ultimately black-and-white, cut-and-dry. Emperical Evidence does not lie.

IMHO, where bias and subjectivity come in lies with what so-called "Standards" are currently in place on the percentage level on the Sliding Scale of Imperfection set by where the collective level of acceptance/rejection turns on its hinge as set by "the Hobby," a particular Board or Fora, an association/unit/company/mess, or myself/oneself individually.

While "perfection" is a concept not an event, IMHO it is not so much imperfection or the impossible quest toward perfection (whatever that is), but rather what level of "imperfection du jour " the reenacting/living history community subjectivity sets for itself- followed by what percentages of that arbitrary creation/invention events, units, and lads accept or reject for themselves.

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt
Heretic
Lover of Objectivity Rifles

[SamuelCathey]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

People who are not experts at 19th century clothing can still eliminate a lot of bad uniforms simply by asking themselves "Would I buy this item in a store today?" My wife doesn't know much about Civil War uniforms but she can tell when something is poorly made. I see lots of guys in jackets where the shoulder seams are in different places, the 2 sides of the collar are different heights, overcoat capes have noticeably different lengths, sleeve seams are on the side of the arm etc. etc. All these things are very common at "progressive events". I believe the same people wearing these repro uniforms would reject an item from LL Bean or K-Mart if one shoulder seam was above the point of the shoulder and one was well below. People love to talk about the crappy examples of original stitching, but an awful lot of original items were extremely well made. A hastily made garment back then was still often cut out by a real tailor and sewn by a woman who had had a needle and thread in hand from about age 3. If a sutler who has been in business for a handful of years rushes through buttonholes, they will look very different from a 40 year old woman in 1863 rushing through buttonholes. There are a lot of guys out there reproducing items who don't really know that much about 19th century patterns or sewing. I think some of them would be written off by authentically minded reenactors simply deciding whether or not uniform items might pass muster in today's world.

Sam Cathey

[WoodenNutmeg]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

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.

Haha, a crotch-wrap.

But that's a story for another day.

I'll wait for that day.

[cap tassel]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Hallo!

M1861 Springfields... a measurement is a measurement, or a detail/feature is a detail/feature. It is ultimately black-and-white, cut-and-dry. Emperical Evidence does not lie.

Empirical evidence is still only as good as the observer's intentions. It can cause somebody to think they're doing research when in fact they're doing nothing of the sort.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Hallo!

"Empirical evidence is still only as good as the observer's intentions. It can cause somebody to think they're doing research when in fact they're doing nothing of the sort"

Quite true, but the artifact being viewed remains the artifact being viewed. IMHO, it is what is in the mind of the observer and for what end, purpose, or agenda he deviates from the "evidence."
As with the Scientific Method, the recording of the observations (of an original) should be repeatable, and repeatable by multiple observers.
But, I agree, often times the agenda or "intentions" can color, cloud, and distort the "observations" just as easily as the viewer/observer looking at an artifact and not knowing what it is he is seeing or why it is the way it is. But, be that as it may, the artifact remains the artifact; the artifact remains the constant.

Often times in reenacting and living history what we "measure" is not the artifact itself, but rather what percentage of the Material Culture Triad's imperfections we CHOOSE to accept and still live with for a variety of reasons: raw materials are no longer made, or methods of production no longer exist, or methods of manufacture are cost prohibitive to recreate for such a small market demand, etc., etc.
So we "decide" what percentage of Missing Perfection or Short Comings our Mental Pictures will allow for us to still Suspend Disbelief and have clothing and toys to play with that are "close enough" for our Alphabet Letter Model's reenacting use."
But, IMHO, that does not alter the reality of the "original artifacts."

Others' mileage may vary...

Curt
Furthering the Discussion Mess

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

So, Curt, inherently everything authentics do is "farby" to some degree by your above assertion... We just choose to ignore, to a degree, certain methods/materials/construction for items we feel through our own research cannot be reproduced either effectively or even at all to the standard of a proven original..?

But we don't have to like it! :p

It's ideas like that which keep me going in this hobby, my friend, and the historical discovery that comes with it all along the way.

Once you see the light, you won't turn back. I guarantee it...

Thanks -Johnny Lloyd

PS- Were the 'streamers right- we ARE farbs?!?! Do I have to worry how pure "my authentic blood" is compared to its impurities??? :p

[cap tassel]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

As with the Scientific Method, the recording of the observations (of an original) should be repeatable, and repeatable by multiple observers.
But, I agree, often times the agenda or "intentions" can color, cloud, and distort the "observations" just as easily as the viewer/observer looking at an artifact and not knowing what it is he is seeing or why it is the way it is. But, be that as it may, the artifact remains the artifact; the artifact remains the constant.

Often times in reenacting and living history what we "measure" is not the artifact itself, but rather what percentage of the Material Culture Triad's imperfections we CHOOSE to accept and still live with for a variety of reasons: raw materials are no longer made, or methods of production no longer exist, or methods of manufacture are cost prohibitive to recreate for such a small market demand, etc., etc.
So we "decide" what percentage of Missing Perfection or Short Comings our Mental Pictures will allow for us to still Suspend Disbelief and have clothing and toys to play with that are "close enough" for our Alphabet Letter Model's reenacting use."
But, IMHO, that does not alter the reality of the "original artifacts."

Others' mileage may vary...

Curt
Furthering the Discussion Mess

We're in agreement. But I think when too much weight is given to an artifact it actually halts progression and knowledge of the past. The reason is that an artifact existed in its time within a culture and was a product of that culture (somewhere on a curve). Ultimately it's not a presentation of artifacts the hobby is trying to convey. For whatever personal reason someone does LH and reenact, they're at the end of the day trying to learn &/or tell a story of the past, of which proper recreations of artifacts is an important part. But I believe an artifact and its reproduction should correctly be seen more as a prop in a story and not the subject of a story that ends with the completion of the artifact itself. It's a paradigm thing that runs so close to the usual ways of thought it goes unrecognized and unappreciated. One result of the artifact-first philosophy is of where the best investigations are done by vendors who naturally see merchandise as the end product. Once the construction methods and materials are known investigation ends on that artifact's place in the story (if it ever was considered), which is different than ending investigation on the properties of that artifact. A phenomena happens here. The community is taught in this process that the chief goal is the physical characteristics of that item and how to reproduce it. The result is the 'progressive' with a great attitude who is a walking encyclopedia but who is in actuality a zombie when it comes to understanding the fluid cultural essence of the past.

I don't mean to lessen the significance of observing and jotting down properties of the artifact. It's very important. I just think it's human to get slightly off track and preoccupied in minutia worship and miss the big picture. In the end you have somebody doing LH who can't answer simple questions about the cultural existence of an object back then. Of course some culture will never be known no matter how much effort we put into it. Learning the cultural side of material culture is harder than learning the material side.


I've got to go right now but your point of proper construction methods vs proper materials is a very good one. There are times when the lack of proper materials make the proper methods of construction useless because the end product is so grotesquely off the mark it doesn't resemble anything that would have existed back then. On these rare occasions I've had to reject the authentic methods of construction and produce something aesthetically correct although authentically incorrect. But I keep it a secret ;)

[Guy Gane III]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Here is a pic of an OG, Richmond Depot I that I just viewed a few days ago...

[Curt Schmidt]

Warning: Zen content alert!

Hallo!

So, Curt, inherently everything authentics do is "farby" to some degree by your above assertion... We just choose to ignore, to a degree, certain methods/materials/construction for items we feel through our own research cannot be reproduced either effectively or even at all to the standard of a proven original..?

My heresy is YES, everything is on a Sliding Scale of Imperfection in reality with few exceptions- but I do not care for the word "farby."
Going Zen here... ;) :)
My heresy is that we tend ot temporarily occupy a Bench Mark or Sign Post marker somewhere on a journey, some distance or not, on an Imperfect Path. (Although some lads , rightfully and happily, choose stay where they enter the Path)
What makes up, or constitutes, what defines and operationalizes, the Bench Mark tends to be a mix of:

1. how far current "research and documentation" has revealed the secrets of CW Material Culture and how it was used

2. having the knowledge, how "reproduceable" in terms of CW Period raw materials and manufacturing/construction technology or methods, and COST to do so- are our reproductions

3. how far our individual and collective Mental Pictures "demand" that we need to have a certain level or criteria for a Bench Mark BEFORE the Sliding Scale of Imperfection breaks down the Suspension of Disbelief; destroys our Believable Image; ruins our Historical vision; AS WELL AS "value" in interpreting history to the public, to ourselves, interpreting sites, educating ouselves, educating the public; returning a decent bang for the investment of self- time and money, and just plain having fun.

As I shared previously somewhere else, in my heresies, I strive to NOT separate the legs on the three legged stool of Period material culture, the Period mental and physical man, and Period activities. IMHO, the "quality effort" and "quality result" is derived from sitting on a stool with three legs in place.
Meaning, embracing only one or two, and the stool falls over. Not that that is not fun.

So yes, IMHO, "material culture" is not an end-all nor should it be worshipped.
However, my current Mental Picture, for me, demands a striving for all three legs. Otherwise, I could skip Material Culture and skip the Mental and Physical Man, and tell my story and interpret History in the nude with a stick for a musket. ;)

But while I strive, "availability" and what my Alphabet Letter segment of the CW Community currently allows even at the so-called H or H/A end is just a Bench Mark.
For example, my federal greatcoat, dress coat, numerous blouses, and state jackets, made by the top "names" in the Hobby... are all dyed with aniline dyes and not indigo. Or, my heavily so-called Italian "de-farbed' "Enfield" and "Springfield" is the standard. Or my electroplated sheet steel canteen that was "hot dipped" because no one does CW era "pickling vat process" hidden under a logwood dyed jean cover is "standard" even though it is off in size and shape... Etc., etc.,

IMHO, the Sliding Scale of Imperfection just sets how high or low, or long, the THREE legs on the stool are and how "high" or "low" we choose to sit as individuals and how high or low our Segment of the CW Community allows us to sit in trying ot look back to an understanding of the people, and events of the Past.
Meaning, because one ultimately can never reach the state of "Perfection," (although the illusion can be "not so bad.' ;) ) it can become a Mantra for not striving to reach it. When everything is possible, nothing is probable. The more we shorten the three legs of the stool, the closer we sit to the ground, or uneven legs tip us over on the ground...
And since some lads are rightfully happy in what they do sitting on the ground and not the stool, 'we" fight amongst ourselves like the Blind Men and the Elephant.

Of course, others' mileage, and where they like to sit, will vary...

Curt
Heretic Mess

[D F Smith Historic]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Hi All,

I think some caution is needed here

As depending on what original a repop is copied, say a US sack coat

The button holes could be either finely done or really crappy. There are Crappy Originals out there that if accurately copied. The repop should reflect that standpoint.

Likewise, the same goes for a well made original & the repop of it.

Basically, the repop should match as close as possible to the original(s) it is copied from.

The old US Sack Coat Article published in the Company of Military Historians Journal back in the day, is a wonderful example of showing differeing qualities of sack coats in its notes. One coat , if I remember correctly, just had button hole slits cut with out stitching.

In short. When reviewing an item the Original or informationand or notes on the original should be at hand to make an accurate assesment of th ereproduction and its accuracy

Just my .02

Don S