How do you motivate others or improve the hobby?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: How's my Widget?

Hallo!

Herr John T. said:

"...How good is good? What do you want to do with your reproduction? Do you want a repro that is good enough to fool a museum curator, or just good enough to fit in with your pards?"

As the Guinness commercial says.. "Brilliant!"

IMHO, that is where we fall (no pun intended) on the Sliding Scale of Imperfection.
The "standards" set by one's pards or one's unit are a force to be reckoned with.

And that includes having repro kit that is good enough to fool a museum curator, but creating problems because one's pards or unit runs on just good enough to fit in with your pards and get out on the field and play ASAP.

The Civil War Community continues to wax and wane, rise and fall, evolve up and down, weather fashions, trends, and fads, cycles of Designer Labels and Vendor du Jour, cyncial, jaded, burned out or actually dying veterans being replaced by excited, passionate, manic newcomers, and the Wheel being reinvented as well as going round, round, round.
:) :) :)

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt
Buffalo Pards
Dinosaur Mess
Fossil Rifles

F/M/C/P/H/A Hasbeen Neverbeen Association

[JimConley]

Re: How's my Widget?

Assumptions:
Scenario 1: You already own the book, you read it, and you've been to the museum and looked at the original widget, or one very much like it. This is a new reproduction widget and you don't have it in hand and you don't know anyone who owns one yet.

Based on this assumption, I already have a pretty good idea of the characteristics of an original widget. Now, if I am to determine whether or not this new reproduction widget is accurate, I would look for a few things:
1. Some reference to an original(s) so I have some idea in what determined the pattern, material, and construction of said reproduction.
2. Does the vendor offer some more detailed information to the original(s) studied? Notes, measurements, quality photos, etc?
3. What about the reproduction widget differs from my studies and the original(s) that I have viewed and why?
4. Based on what information is offered about the pattern, materials, and construction, I would ask myself if there were any way that the particular reproduction could be made better, incorporating my studies and perhaps the current availability of accurate materials.

After reviewing aspects like what is listed above, I could then determine to the best of my ability, without handling the reproduction, what concessions were made and if it is actually worth buying. Of course, I guess I could just wait until someone else shows up at an event with one and have a look that way :D

But despite taking all that information into account, I can't say with confidence that anything is guaranteed upon receiving the reproduction. There will always be some concessions in reproductions vs. originals somewhere. And I like to think that is part of John's whole point...awareness.

By stating that this is a new reproduction and there is no online or published review of it yet, John took out the idea of making a purchase based on others' opinions, and to a degree, buying from a vendor who has an established name. The whole point, I believe, is to get people to open their eyes and be more studious. Even the best reproductions out there can be wrong in some small way. But, knowing what is wrong with it and knowing what is more correct about it than other reproductions is the primary idea.

For example, citing Les Jensen, Geoff Walden, or Echoes of Glory in offering a reproduction Columbus Depot jacket does not necessarily mean that reproduction is the best available. The idea is to take into account books and articles, comparing them with originals, then making an educated purchase having some idea what is right and what is wrong.

Patterns, materials, and construction. How do they compare?

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: How's my Widget?

There will always be some concessions in reproductions vs. originals somewhere. And I like to think that is part of John's whole point...awareness.

You Bet!! There is no such thing as a perfect reproduction. No matter what you do, you will choose to live with some inaccuracy(ies?) with whatever reproduction you choose, even if you choose to make it yourself.

In fact, I think a lot of folks choose to make items on their own in order to get a more faithful reproduction. In the initial goal, they succeed, but there is a nasty side-effect (and I state this from personal experience):

The knowledge gained will allow you to see the imperfections in the item you have reproduced, nomatter how superior it might be to something you could have purchased "off the rack"... and these imperfections will eat at you if you don't learn to accept your best effort and move on!

Anyway, I think an informed purchasing decision is one where the buyer can state the errors in the reproduction, but knows that it is the best available option, given others available on the market. It is NOT one where the purchaser can only state that either (1) "this thing rocks!" or (2) name a detail or two that is better than the next available widget.

Anyone out there ever buy the latest "kewl" item only to hear that its "not-so-kewl" a couple years later and that someone else is now "kewl"? Guess why that happens!

...if all that rambling makes sense... :tounge_sm

By stating that this is a new reproduction and there is no online or published review of it yet, John took out the idea of making a purchase based on others' opinions, and to a degree, buying from a vendor who has an established name. The whole point, I believe, is to get people to open their eyes and be more studious. Even the best reproductions out there can be wrong in some small way (Edit by Wickett: Even the best ARE wrong in some small way... but that's OK, as long as you know and accept it). But, knowing what is wrong with it and knowing what is more correct about it than other reproductions is the primary idea.

Again, you've got it right. Put the brand name aside and take a look at the item.

There is another minor point to the situations that I put forth, and that is that making an informed decision without getting your hands on something (or at least some really good photos) can be really tough.

I'd say you've hit the nail on the head.

[Becky Morgan]

When you can't be perfect?

I have no interest in starting a flame war. However, Mrs. Clark suggested we might want to break this out into its own thread.

Given that the true perfect impression is impossible, since it would require a 19th-century person in original clothing and surroundings, what do we do when real accuracy in impressions or museum displays is impossible? Is it better to do nothing (which would doom many a public venue to closure) or to do the best we can?

In the hypothetical situation I mentioned--a docent thinks the shawl she picked up from the display doesn't go with her dress--there is no reason to think a modern sweater is the next step. Most visitors staring at the shawl would be avid knitters or crocheters trying to figure out the pattern. However, if a real rivet-counter showed up and asked whether the maid was putting on airs, an honest explanation would be the only possible one. Real-life analog: in my old workplace, a modern-day bank, the furnace blew out at midday with the outdoor temperature at ten below zero. We couldn't close. I don't care how well you plan--dealing with a sudden outage called for more than the lightweight sweater in the coat closet. We worked in our coats despite our boss' objections, and customers understood. What would happen in a minor emergency of that type at a historical site? The shawl in question wasn't incorrect for the period, would reasonably be found in the place and at the time portrayed, but might or might not be out of place on the person who happened to be wearing it. In fact, depending on the condition of the shawl and the family's social status, even something that was once fancy might be on the housemaid's shoulders on a regular basis if it had become unfashionable, stained or tattered. What would a reasonable person of the period have done when confronted with the urgent situation?

What do we do when a given item might be safe in the hands of reenactors, but might be seen as dangerous if it were available to the public? I'm thinking of lead seals and bullets, sharpened knives and firearms. The obvious answer is to avoid carrying them around the public, but that leads to a skewed interpretation. Substitutes may also give a false impression and even they are verboten in some schools and other PC venues. The hardline response is to refuse to do any presentation before people who won't allow fully authentic everything. The school's response all too often is to find somebody who will come in with no weapon and omit any mention of shooting (I saw an Annie Oakley presentation of exactly that nature.) Is there no middle ground?

What do we do when an item is too rare, expensive or fragile to exhibit unless it's behind glass? Let's think of a china plate which has been reproduced faithfully enough that only the marking on the back would identify the copy as modern. Is it acceptable to leave the original in its display case and allow the public to handle the most faithful replica we can afford? Should we call attention to any differences--which would most likely *not* be noticed--or should we only answer any question that comes up? Is it better to refuse to set the table because the original might be damaged, or to use the reproduction with a small sign noting the substitution?

Let's consider the not exactly japanned laundry tubs. They LOOK japanned. A casual observer wouldn't know they aren't. At what point do we put off an impression because WE know something isn't absolutely correct, even though no casual visitor would know, the differences don't affect the result, and the substitute functions as the original would? After all, the medical department doesn't insist on real blue mass pills!

Ongoing research is turning up exceptions to nearly every field of inquiry. The recent discovery of another sunken steamboat on the Great Lakes (the General Anthony Wayne, sunk in 1850 after a boiler explosion) will no doubt add to the "Huh?" list. For the sake of discussion, let's say we have labeled a certain widget as postwar, and it was generally believed to be so because no one mentioned it in period letters, only to find a whole case of them aboard the steamboat. Was it or wasn't it PEC, and what do we say to anyone who asks when the widget came into general use? The only honest answer is "We aren't sure because of recent developments."

Finally, what do we do about anachronisms that can't be fixed, if they're even seen? Shoes for children are one example. Given that the alternative to incorrect but plausible-looking shoes is to exclude children (which might not be correct for the scenario) or have them go barefoot (which might be dangerous, depending on place, time and season), what's the choice?

[Hank Trent]

Re: When you can't be perfect?

What would a reasonable person of the period have done when confronted with the urgent situation?

We've all heard the saying about learning: you remember most of what you do, some of what you see, less of what you hear. It's often brought up as the key strength of living history as a teaching method, with its hands-on interactive visual presentation, compared to just giving a lecture.

But it's hard to promote living history as a teaching method, while falling back on the excuse, if it's not right I'll just explain to people what's wrong if they ask (or even if they don't ask). Most people won't ask, while others will remember what they saw instead of what they heard.

So I see a distinction between doing something inaccurate and thinking it's okay because you've explained it away, and doing something inaccurate and accepting you're giving the wrong impression to many people.

In both cases, obviously, one needs to compensate for the inaccurate thing as best you can, explaining, minimizing, whatever.

But the first attitude encourages complacency. The second encourages an interpreter to look at the overall picture and try to figure out how it could be improved or prevented in the futuer.

What do we do when a given item might be safe in the hands of reenactors, but might be seen as dangerous if it were available to the public?
...
What do we do when an item is too rare, expensive or fragile to exhibit unless it's behind glass?
...
Was it or wasn't it PEC, and what do we say to anyone who asks when the widget came into general use?

Those kinds of questions, I think, are why one needs an overall goal. My favorite one is to give the illusion that I'm someone from the historic time and place, that visitors or other reenactors can interact with. Someone else might have a completely different goal, but using the overall goal, one can answer those questions.

Will I still give the illusion if I... use a safer substitute? guard the dangerous thing carefully? don't have the dangerous thing with me at all? use this not-quite-right reproduction? Omit this item if no reproduction is "good enough"? Choose to go with this best guess till we learn more?

They're all judgment calls, and they depend also on who's the audience for the illusion. But they're what create one's individual impression, like an artist choosing to put a dab of red or green there, when creating a painting. Will the critics think the painting is good or bad? The artist decides, and when it's finished he and his audience judge the result. If he made the wrong choice, he takes his lumps and learns from it. To continue the metaphor, there can be no "right" paintings because it's art, not science, but there can be good paintings, and even though critics will disagree, some concensus will generally emerge about what's better and what's worse.

Finally, what do we do about anachronisms that can't be fixed, if they're even seen? Shoes for children are one example. Given that the alternative to incorrect but plausible-looking shoes is to exclude children (which might not be correct for the scenario) or have them go barefoot (which might be dangerous, depending on place, time and season), what's the choice?

I was following along, until you gave that specific example. I was picturing jetstreams overhead, Japanese beatles, legal restrictions, performing amputations, etc.

Children's shoes can be fixed, if they're your own children. They're just too darn expensive to do so. But it's a problem that throwing money at would, in theory, immediately solve--money that some reenactors might have, not hundreds of thousands of dollars--so I'd put them back up there with "not good enough" reproductions that you figure out how to deal with.

There are social things that could be changed, but not without a major hobby shift. That would include other children's shoes. "We really need 1,000 participants, but in practice, only 300 are going to register if we set the standards at this level." Or, "if we let them have tents, we just know they'll hide all kinds of farby stuff in them." Or, "it's a tradition for everyone to act farby Friday night, so we can't make them be accurate until Saturday morning, and then they'll all want to leave before noon Sunday so we can't continue all day." Again, I'd look at one's goal, as an event organizer in this case. Can you achieve it, given the current state of the hobby? What do you need to do to compensate for in human nature, to come closest to your goal?

There are some insolvable physical things that could be solved, but not by an individual reenactor. Some sites are more accurate than others, and will have big honkin' anachronisms right there, or little things that really hurt, like visually good but nonfunctional items. Again, I'd look at one's goal. Can you achieve it despite the site limitations? How can you work around the limitations?

There are some things that can't be solved legally or practically. Medical and safety issues like performing real amputations or using real bullets, drinking untreated stagnant water, carrying weapons where they're banned, truly unavailable reproductions or things only theoretically available for more than you could ever possibly spend (railroad engines, natural-dyed calico). Again, how can you work around them while best trying to achieve your goal?

One can only decide that after defining what one's goal is. Once the goal is defined, though, the decision-making afterwards gets easier.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[LindaTrent]

Re: When you can't be perfect?

Let's consider the not exactly japanned laundry tubs. They LOOK japanned. A casual observer wouldn't know they aren't. At what point do we put off an impression because WE know something isn't absolutely correct, even though no casual visitor would know, the differences don't affect the result, and the substitute functions as the original would?

This is the age old question of where do we draw the line, and it's a decent question at that. I know that most of my clothes aren't 100% accurate because they weren't dyed with the proper period dyes, the fabric originated as 45" instead of the narrower fabric of the day, and I can't swear that the wool used in my delaine dress is from a period breed of sheep. I can probably get a dress that's much more accurate for a price. But then most anything is available today at the right price. Basically reenacting (whether it's at a less history heavy event on up to an immersion event) is all an illusion with varying degrees of "right."

I agree with you about ongoing research always turning up new things, and we do need to remain open minded, and accepting of change. I consider myself a progressive. By that I know that there's always room for improvement in my impression in every respect (what I wear, my material culture, my speech, and my actions...), but I do the best I can with what is currently available to the hobby. If I were to wait until everything was "right," I'd never reenact. 'Right' to me is a synonym for 'authentically accurate,' and that's a goal that I will never achieve, but enjoy striving toward.

Finally, what do we do about anachronisms that can't be fixed, if they're even seen? Shoes for children are one example.

I would say that shoes for children is not something that "can't be fixed." It's something that someone chooses not to fix, and something that a lot of event organizers overlook due to the cost of period shoes and the rapidity with which children grow.

Anachronisms that can be fixed are those things that participants bring with them to an event: modern coolers, sleeping bags, electronics, cameras, clothes, and that sort of thing. Anachronisms can also include what's said and done at events. But then it all depends upon the individual event and how stringent the organizer is at enforcing the rules.

What I would call anachronisms that can't be fixed are most often due to the choice of site, such as power lines, paved roads, airplanes overhead, modern facilities... Most other things can be fixed.

Linda.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: When you can't be perfect?

Hallo!

As a soldier who is not in a uniform all the time... ;) :)

"Given that the true perfect impression is impossible, since it would require a 19th-century person in original clothing and surroundings, what do we do when real accuracy in impressions or museum displays is impossible? Is it better to do nothing (which would doom many a public venue to closure) or to do the best we can?"

"One can only decide that after defining what one's goal is. Once the goal is defined, though, the decision-making afterwards gets easier."

Indeed...

Perfection is impossible. Striving for Perfection is not impossible.
We are all on a Sliding Scale of Imperfection created by, or dictated by, many factors such as knowledge and skill- but more likely driven and set by our various Mental Pictures of what we see ourselves doing and where we see ourselves fitting in.
As Herr Hank said, that depends upon defining what one's goal (or in my Paradigm, one's Mental Picture) is.

Many Damen und Herren, Flora and Fauna, are on a Sliding Scale somewhere on the F/M/C/P/H/A Paradigm because of where their personal chosen Mental Picture places them, but also more importantly where that Placement is set by the folks they chose to play with and the events they chose to attend.
How many straws can a camel actually carry before one breaks it back?
Who gets to decide?

For me personally, as the result of years of having entered our "Hobby" as a Beginner and moving somewhere a little on down the Path of learning, growing, evolving, and moving somewhat "closer" to the ever-retreating and impossible goal of Perfection in the Man/Material Culture/Methods Triad... I strive to be the "best one can be" when it comes to the Past Imperfect.

Speaking only of Material Culture.. I strive for the "best" I can reasonably (a subjective and objective concept) have based upon what Current Research and Documentation speaks to as to period raw materials, period patterns and forms, and methods of construction.
But it is still Past Imperfect for a variety of reasons. For example, sometimes it is the size of my pocketbook and Disposable Income (I canot hire a company to build me an 1860's town). Sometimes it is because the period process is no longer being done- such as accepting "hot dipped tinware" instead of period "pickling process" made canteens.
And sometimes it is a matter of Illusion and Suspending Belief when it comes to having a Believeable Image (for myself and the folks I play with). And that uses the concept of Psychological Standards. A Psychological Standard is one that exists only in one's mnd because what one is looking at cannot be perceived as anything different to the unaided human eye short of microscopic, chemical, or metalurgical analysis as not what it is supposed to be. A common example is the aniline blue dyed federal fatigue blouses I wear dyed with modern dyes to simulate Period indigo dyeing without using indigo.
I know how to dye with indigo, and also know maker/vendor offering indigo dyed blouses- so I compromise with an "imperfect" Psychological Standard. On the other hand, ny Confederate kit is logwood or sumac dyed...

IMHO, where we "are" on the Sliding Scale of Imperfection needs to, should, might, may be, do three things:

1. Meet or approach how we define our "goals"

2. Meet how and where our Mental Pictures work for us in giving us a positive "return" for the investment of time, energy, and money we put out.

3. Meet how and where our Mental Pictures work for those we play with and for in creating and maintaining Believeable Images and Suspending Disbelief.

And last... as Dr. Phil's Life Law #3 shares: People do what works. (Identify the pay-offs that drive your behavior and that of others.) ;) :)

Meaning, birds of a feather flock together. Trying to mix too many folks separated by too many miles on their own rightfully chosen Paths on the Journey that may or may not eventually lead toward a Past Imperfect Horizon that always retreats before us the closer we seem to get.... ;)

Others' mileage, and heresies, will vary...

Curt
Soldier and Civilian

[Becky Morgan]

Re: When you can't be perfect?

Hallo!A common example is the aniline blue dyed federal fatigue blouses I wear dyed with modern dyes to simulate Period indigo dyeing without using indigo.
I know how to dye with indigo, and also know maker/vendor offering indigo dyed blouses- so I compromise with an "imperfect" Psychological Standard. On the other hand, ny Confederate kit is logwood or sumac dyed...
Curt
Soldier and Civilian

This is one point that brings up the conflict quite well. The original soldiers had a whole lot more to worry about than whether their coats might fade to Barney purple. With constant wear and constant movement, their clothing wore out in a relatively short time and was expected to be replaced (note I didn't say "was" but "was expected to be".) While true indigo dyeing shouldn't be a lost art, most reenactors don't need to replace or re-dye their coats when the alternative is an accurate but lasting color whose origin would never be known if we didn't tell. I suppose the purest form of authenticity demands constant replacement of equipment, but in this case the difference is not detectable.

Can we agree on substitution if--
the original is unavailable with less than a desperate effort and the disposable income of Bill Gates,
the substitute cannot be identified as a substitute without a label of some kind, and
the alternative is to teach nothing about that phase of history?

[Becky Morgan]

Re: When you can't be perfect?

...Basically reenacting (whether it's at a less history heavy event on up to an immersion event) is all an illusion with varying degrees of "right."
...
If I were to wait until everything was "right," I'd never reenact. ..
Linda.

The perfect venue doesn't exist, the perfect clothing doesn't exist, and (sigh) none of us are perfect, whether we reenact or research. However, there's virtue in the effort itself, in the mindset that insists we can always do better and can always learn more.

It comes down to the equivalent of the EPA's BAT/BPT: Best Available Technology vs. Best Practical Technology. At what point does the benefit from a more exacting process outweigh the inconvenience, expense and perhaps financial impossibility?

The question comes up constantly when steam locomotives are involved. There aren't a lot of surviving operable engines, especially very old ones. If they operate, the FRA demands certain modifications (two water glasses, NO link and pin couplers, safety glasses and ear protection for the engine crew...) There is a school of thought that says all locomotives should be static displays because the modifications would be there even if they aren't visible. The other school of thought is that no static display explains steam like the live hiss of breath and shadow of warmth when a locomotive passes by. For about four million dollars, give or take, we could have a perfect replica built, but it would still have to have the modern safety gear in order to operate. The honest choice most museums make is to point out the required changes and show pictures of how things used to be. It generally leads to many questions about industrial safety, which is all good.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: When you can't be perfect?

Hallo!

"Can we agree on substitution if-- the original is unavailable with less than a desperate effort and the disposable income of Bill Gates, the substitute cannot be identified as a substitute without a label of some kind, and the alternative is to teach nothing about that phase of history?

Yes, but the so-called H/A segment does it all the time, or even less, on the Sliding Scale of Imperfection.

Federal greatcoats, trousers, fatigue blouses, dress coats, etc., are aniline dyed not indigo (or the rarer logwood) dyed. (Why is it that we pride ourselves on logwood or sumac dyed jean for CS, but accept non-indigo for US?) ;) :)
Or more invisibly, we accept the substitution of Italian Hardwood for Pennsylvania grown American Black Walnut in Springfield stocks, or modern hard barrel steel for the mild steel or iron of 19th century gun barrels.
Etc., etc., etc.

IMHO, the thornier one is the "teach nothing..." part.

"We" moderns know more about some aspects of 19th century Material Culture than the 19th century folks themselves. I supsect few if any Confederate soldiers could explain the differences between a Richmond Depot "Type II" jacket and Columbus Depot jacket.
Obviously, they did not know they were wearing Type I or Type II forage caps (or any "Type" item) as the typology would not be invented.
They did not worry about "authenticity" because they were "authentic."

What "we" often do is interpet History in the form of first taking ownership of History creating "authentic-looking" moments that are judged "authentic" because they closely resemble what documents History- photographs and artifacts. Meaning, "we" create an "illusion," and the illusion first is that "we" and the period photographs are inter-changeable
Then, we add elements of the person and the environment, and activities too flesh out the illusion and make it work first for ourselves, then for our comrades, and maybe for a
"spectating Pubic" (if our goal is historical and/or site intrepretation and not just Public Entertainment.)

Here is a picture of my wife. Artifact-wise she is, actually "perfect." Head-to-toe, inside and out, she is kitted out in original early 1860's women's items. Lookng at a picture, persona-wise, impression-wise, history-wise, or site-interpretative--wise she is a two dimensional static mannequin that teaches nothing but what one 1860's women's day dresswear looked like.


If I would ague any point, is that "what works for people" is what works for people. Folks may be on the Sliding Scale of Imperfection at a 10% or at a 90%, but yet what they "do," works for them.
Folks happy at 10% teach themselves and the Spectating Public "something" everyday.
And sometimes it is a vague as evoking a passing thought of that time called the "Civil War." Sometimes it is remembering an ancestor or looking him or her up on the WWW. Sometimes, it is a spectator's feeling they got good entertianment for the price of their entry ticket, or their 8 year old son's face lit up to see "the soldiers." Sometimes it is a reenactor's joy at having gotten off a hundred rounds, and "killed Yanks or Rebs."

At any rate, I employ Psychologcial Standards myself, while looking for the indigo dyed Federal fatique blouse. But rather than dyeing it myself, I use aniline dyed ones as my circle of friends and fellow hobbyists accept it as H/A. :)
But when talking about blouses, I still teach about indigo dye ranges.
As we are all on the Sliding Scale somewhere.

As one can see, I am not longer "big" on the "teaching" and "educating" the Pubic unless I am doing particular site or historical interpretation.
What I do, instead, is interpret History and history for myself and to myself first- and then to and for my pards and associates. And together we move, hopefully forward instead of back, as the illusion grows and the percentages hopefully increase.

Curt
Heretic Mess

[LindaTrent]

Re: When you can't be perfect?

At what point does the benefit from a more exacting process outweigh the inconvenience, expense and perhaps financial impossibility?

It depends upon what the goal is. One day our farrier came out to trim my mare's feet. As we were walking out to our barn, (which is located on the Bradford Place, an 1863 recreated rural home), he stopped, walked up to the board fence and studied it. He then turned to me and said, "Lin, those are cut nails!" We continued to walk out to the barn and as we got close enough for him to see the 6' hinges on the big doors he said, "Lin, those are real wrought iron hinges!"

Heck, this wasn't a tour, we were in 21st century clothes and he had no reason to suspect that anything would be different than any other farm he stopped at. Board fencing is still used on horse farms, and English framed barns were typical in this area of Ohio. But still he noticed. In this case, going the extra mile and having period correct nails, and true wrought iron hinges -- we showed him that we were serious about what we were doing.

In the museum world you never know who's going to be coming through next, what their specialty is, or what's going to turn them on. Clothing, blacksmithing, cooking, child-rearing, quilting, laundry, candle dipping, soap making, farming... The more accurate the items and the information the more a person with a specialty is able to see how much research and care has been given to his or her area of special interest and will be more likely to trust the rest of the research. But specialty or not, it is a museums duty to educate the public with the most informed living historians, and with the best material culture that the participants and/or museum can afford.

Artifact-wise she is, actually "perfect." Head-to-toe, inside and out, she is kitted out in original early 1860's women's items.

Curt, I almost hate to ask, but by any chance is that a typo for 1880?

Linda.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: When you can't be perfect?

I keep going back to my own basic questions:

1: What did the original people do, think, use, say, etc?

2: Can I replicate it exactly?

3: If I can't, is there another historic option that I can replicate?

4: If there isn't, what's the least obtrusive substitution possible?

5: What's my solution?

I look at how many "systems" (for lack of a better word) are in use, mid-century. Remove key articles of clothing from a woman's wardrobe (for instance, a supportive undergarment), and the rest of the system doesn't function as well. That one element, however, has several valid mid-century options to choose from, and one of them is going to work for my own budget, situation, time-frame, physical limitations, etc.

In my area, we have two "best, brightest" sites within 6 hours of driving each way; one is a set of gold mining towns in Montana, and another is a living history village in Salt Lake City. Neither is perfect. Both have compromises from a 100% accurate mid-century world. Some of the compromises can be easily fixed, with minimal budget and effort (namely, clothing. Hey, I teach dressmaking. I notice that stuff first. Second, interpreting historic fact, rather than Hollywood and Little House--but that can be easily improved, too, in the grand scheme of things.)

Other aspects are nigh unto impossible to change. The gold towns have a connecting railway that saw heavy use in the 1860s--but the locomotive in use is from the 1910s, and getting an 1860s version will not happen anytime in my lifetime, I'm afraid. The park in SLC sits on the edge of a major city, and from certain vantage points, you see all of downtown. (I just don't look that direction, when there touristing.)

As a spectator with knowledge of a few things, though, when I visit that village, I can overlook it being on the edge of SLC. I get very, very jazzed when I see the details of research that went into various programs... such as the use of a particular breed of cattle or sheep or goat, because that breed can be documented as present and common in the valley by 1865--even though other breeds would be less fuss all around. It's an intellectual integrity thing, and as Linda points out, we never know what the knowledge base of the next visitor is going to be.

Back to laundry as an example: we can document that one of the first things people did with a teeny bit of "disposable" income was to buy laundry services. Those services in populated areas tended to happen in larger, commercial-scale laundries, from what little reading I've done myself. It's going to be very, very difficult for an historic site to come up with the scale of equipment to outfit a commercial-scale laundry.

But, that commercial-scale is not the *one, true gospel laundry method* of the mid-century. There are other valid variations on that topic that may be well within the reach of replicating very precisely, or simply stages of the process that can be very precisely presented, with short, interesting discussion providing some of the presently-not-available stages.

For instance, if I'm set up as a dressmaker at an event, and my goal is to educate on the process of hired dressmaking *and* give an accurate picture of "how the systems worked then", I won't be doing a public bodice draping. No decent woman of 186X would stand in a public space in her undergarments while strangers watched her dressmaker take a pattern on her. It's a valid part of the system, but I can't accurately show it without compromising the second, equally important goal. That doesn't mean my impression must fail. I *can* have apprentice sewists busy at work in a well-lit section of the shop, working on segments of new garments. I *can* have "patrons" emerging from the dressing areas to see their final garments in the mirror. I *can* treat a spectator like a prospective patron, and discuss the process of using my establishment for their new garments. I *can* show fabric selections, and the accurate wrapping of a finished garment, and a range of services and prices, and discuss what wages the girls are paid, and what goes into an excellent fit. Just because there is ONE step that cannot be accurately shown, does not mean the rest of the presentation or impression cannot be up to a very high standard of replication.

Random thoughts, anyhow. :) It's dinner time soon, isn't it?

[Drygoods]

Re: When you can't be perfect?

I know for some, this will sound very critical, however, I'm saying this to make a point. I would say never settle. Work on your impression until you have it right because if you don't than you've just fooled yourself and the public with history. Those who are willing to settle are the difference between being a farb instead of an authentic.

If you don't have a japaned tub, have someone make you one and get it japaned. No shoes for children, make them or ask someone who does shoemaking to do it for you. Oddly enough, you can find children's leather boots and have them resoled and have elastic sewn into them at the sides. a good leather worker can replace leather and redye it to make it look good. As for the shawl, then knit something different, or have a range of clothing for people to use in inclement weather.

When you let just one thing slide, you loose and so does the public. Seeing blue jeans under a dress or sneakers, or expensive jewelry worn in the scullery, just that one thing makes me doubt anything that the best living history interpreter has to say.

Last, even after your impression is right, keep working at it. Never stop working on improving yourself with your history research and appearance and presentation. Never, ever, settle. I'm sorry, not much advise like the other posts, instead it was just my opinion.

[Silvana Siddali]

Re: When you can't be perfect?

Such a great discussion. Some time ago Mrs. Clark pointed out either in a post or perhaps on her web site, that the real point isn't whether you can hide inaccuracies and "get away with it" but whether you know that the inaccuracy is there. After all, isn't that what wrecks the period moment for which we're all yearning? Example: you know the plastic is under the canvas. So, no trip back to 1860 for you. Maybe none of the spectators see it, but you know it's there. (Mrs. C probably put it more eloquently.)

I've seen lots of references on this board to the notion that on the whole, the practical solutions of the 1860s work very well. Normally it isn't necessary to neglect one's health in the cause of authenticity. For example, if you're willing to eat a little less at an event (by not bringing food that can spoil) you can forego the doubtful pleasures of the cooler.

I was especially intrigued by the comment sabove regarding the sounds of jets, traffic, etc., as well as the problems of having to "pretend" that one does not see or hear what is obviously there. Lately I've been very interested in the soundscape of the nineteenth century & have been trying to find out exactly what mid-19th c people would have heard on a daily basis. It occurred to me that besides the sounds of 19th century conveyances and animals, the main difference between their "heard world" and ours would probably consist in the absence of certain kinds of noise. Yet for me, sounds like jets, traffic, etc., are so commonplace that they don't disturb me too much. That is, it doesn't require an extraordinary degree of effort to ignore them.

On the other hand -- I do think we still have a way to go in the area of "suspending belief." Let's face it, a tent is not a house. At my age I can no longer look at a tent and pretend to myself, in all seriousness, that it is a building. I have to confess that for me that's been the final frontier in my search for authenticity. Tents may be acceptable at mainstream events, but I'm convinced that we're going to have figure out a more plausible solution. That's a different discussion, and I don't want to derail this excellent conversation, so maybe we can take it up elsewhere. I do think, though, that the willing suspension of logic isn't serving the authentic civilian movement.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: When you can't be perfect?

Hallo!

First, Mistress Linda..... there is a subtle Zen-like "teaching moment" going on with the picture and comments about my wife. So, I will leave it at that. ;) :)

"Tents may be acceptable at mainstream events, but I'm convinced that we're going to have figure out a more plausible solution. That's a different discussion, and I don't want to derail this excellent conversation, so maybe we can take it up elsewhere. "

IMHO, it does not derail the discussion, it rather amplifies it.

Getting back to analogies and the Three Legged Stool one I had used previously somewhere or another... I personally hold the stool to the three legs of man/woman, material culture, and "activities."
I could stretch the analogy to a four legged chair by making one leg the "physical environment" but I personally lump it in as part of the three-legged stool's "activities" leg because what one does and where supports the other two legs to make a seat without falling over.

I am seriously weighing "giving up" being a "soldier" and turning "civilian" (as I already "do" a three decade 1865-1885 "civilian."

I have been "asked"" to work on creating a national or regional living history "hobby" that deals with life between 1865 and 1885 as a similar "Authentic Campaigner" H/A concept.
What has stalled the discussion is akin to the civilian "tent" discussion (all dressed up and nowhere to go except in a tent...).
We have no 1865-1885 town or community we we "live." If we go western and pick say "Deadwood" in 1876, we have no "camp."

IMHO we "soldiers" have it so much the easier. A field, a pasture, a woods can become the 1860's environment for our activities. But it limits what the "civilian" can do in or with that. Spy? Refugee? Traveller?
Or. although a so-called Mainstream or PRogressive mainstream event, by and large, the "civilian" interaction at McDowell- even in what amounts to a modern town- might be the best we can hope for... But even at McDowell, how many "civilians" were living in period town houses, businesses, or farmhouses?
From a Yanks POV, civilians lining a modern street can go only so far in Suspending Disbelief or creating a Believeable Image- but the brief moment of having to duck a hard potato chunked at one... ;) :) Or for the civilian doing the chucking... ;) :)

As my ignorance and lack of knowledge for modern things "civiian" is painfully showing, I will return pen to well and excuse myself...

Curt
Their Suffering Was In Tents Mess

As someone once said... "World War I without trenches, is just Civil War with different uniforms and guns..."