Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

[JimConley]

This poll/thread is in response to a post a few weeks back that stated:

...it seems to me that the progressive/authentic/or whatever you want to call it movement is really in crisis. There were very few authentic looking impressions...

I replied to the same thread, siding with this statement, which was intended on a general level through my personal observations, and not one event or events in particular.

People in this part of our hobby are into it for various reasons. Some might have a deep interest in Civil War history, some may just be overall history freaks, some may enjoy going out in the field for the camaraderie, some may do it because of their ancestors, etc. Whatever the reason(s) may be for an individual to partake in "authentic" or "progressive" or "hardcore" or "campaign" events, I had always assumed that their were a few universal things that fit the mindset of this facet:
1) To attend events that educate, interpret, and preserve Civil War history (written and physical) with an emphasis on continuous research.
2) To attend events that recreate the life of a Civil War soldier as best as can possibly be done (within reason and 21st century confines) through drill, first person dialect, eating habits, impressions, etc. Again, with an emphasis on continuous research.

Some people have been in the hobby much longer than others. Some are more studious on the subjects than others. Some are always looking for new research finds to bring to the table and improve the hobby. Others simply go along with what's commonly known and said. In short, there are varying levels of interest in research and participation within this particular hobby.

Getting back to the premise of the thread, the initial post that prompted this was focused upon impressions. And out of curiosity, it would be interesting to gather some correspondence and perhaps find some answers.

My observations over more than five years have come to echo that of this "crisis," in regards to material impressions. For example:
There seems to be an extensive mass of participants at these events that totally disregard leather accoutrements and footwear. Leather goods that don't even come up to Jarnagin standards! I can name at least four vendors off the top of my head that are turning out some spot-on leather accoutrements.

Slouch hats that came from god-knows-where. One of the hat vendors used to use as a signature line for his business, "Your Impression Is Only As Good As Your Hat." While said vendor may have been trying to sell more hats, that statement holds a lot of truth. Nothing looks worse than someone with a good kit and the most horrid of hats.

Painted haversacks from Joe Blow sutler. These stick out like a sore thumb and they can be quickly replaced with a much better reproduction for pretty cheap giving the cost of quality gear.

Knapsacks too. If you can't drop the money for a good one, carry a bedroll.

Coats and Jackets that are constructed horribly and from second rate materials. 99% of reproduction coats and jackets are cut on a modern slope-shoulder pattern. That's one of the sacrifices we have to make in order to account for the fact that the average size man these days is larger than 5'7" or 5'8" inches tall and 145lbs. Despite the sizing accommodations, there are a few vendors out there that can cut something to fit like a period garment and of very closely reproduced materials as well. Same thing with trousers.

Shirts follow the same principles as coats, jackets, and trousers. There are a few vendors that make civilian patterned shirts and military patterned shirts with fair accuracy.

Canteen covers. Where do some of these come from?! If there was ever a quicker or cheaper way to take a little step at bettering your impression, get some period-correct material for those things! Last time I checked, they can be had for under $10

Socks and Drawers. I don't ask the guys in my company peel off their shows or trousers, but I have a feeling that there could be some efforts placed in these areas too.

Blankets. Now, surprisingly, I've not noted a strong problem with blankets. Sure, there's always one or two that are out of place, but for the most part, people have been carrying quality blankets.

Rifles/Muskets. Let's not go there because the fact is that weapons are very expensive to get "de-farbed" and even then, most reproduction rifles and muskets leave a lot to be desired.

Guys that make their own uniforms. Very few can actually do it right. Just because you think you can sew doesn't mean that you should. Very very few people actually grasp what it takes to make an truly authentic reproduction.

So what's the reason(s) for these observations? Is it the influx of newer folks jumping over to this side of the fence? Are people not willing to shell out the money for proper reproductions? Do they care?

And where is the enforcement of "guidelines" at these events? Nobody wants to be the one to have to turn someone away, but people registering for these things so sign their name in ink whereupon the event coordinator can only assume that they can meet the guidelines with either their kit or loaned items.

Am I wrong in saying that there seems to be a large disregard of material impressions going on at this point and time?

Do I have a perfect kit? NO! Who does?
Am I continually working on it to the best of my ability? Damn right.

Quality gear is out there. So, why am I not seeing it on the majority of the hobby?

I don't care who you are, your kit will never be perfect. We all need to continue working on bettering our impressions.

Please keep in mind upon your responses that this is just simply my opinion and I wish to, in no way, single-out any group(s) or event(s).

Also, the answers to the poll are anonymous. No one can see which selection you have made. So, please, answer honestly.

[theknapsack]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Jim,
I wholeheartedly agree. I have oft been disappointed to attend a quality event and still see more than a few impressions that need improvement. My pet peeve is really how people wear their uniforms and also the modern perception of uniformity.
-It is amazing to see the difference in a correctly worn uniform compared to a poorly worn uniform. True, the wear is up to the wearer, but one can learn quite a bit by just looking at photos from the war. Just as certain ways to wear clothing now is popular, it was as well back then. As far as I'm concerned, if the uniform is not worn properly (based off of period styles), then it might as well be crappy gear. Recently I've seen an increase in photo study and etc., leading to a better looking crowd of people.
-The modern perception of uniformity has always got me in the authentic unit. Sure, there were plenty of uniform regiments/companies, but just as many that weren't. Okay, we can't say whether or not a regiment was not uniform if there is no pictures or documentation, but (along with period styles), it is easy to see (even in eastern photos) the apparent un-uniformity of the soldiers in the Civil War. I see three different types of jackets in photos more often than not. Either way, it seems to be viewed as incorrect if one is out of place in a military unit, which in a citizen army I think is just plain wrong.

I'm not one to speak up much, my impression has TONS of room for improvement, and it always will. I've just been looking for proper appearance above construction, even though both are very important.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Interesting thread. The thesis, however, seems to cover quite a bit of ground ("quality of physical impressions is on the decline"... is that right?).

For the curious, here's the original post:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?p=58478#post58478

Is it possible to condense it down into a few points to tackle? Such as...
- How gear is worn
and, looking at various categories of gear (clothing, leathers, shoes, etc.)
- Pattern
- Material
- Construction

Just curious what you are seeing to prompt this thread? (For example: I can say, I've seen a lot of "flacid" bayonet scabbards recently, indicating a problem of either materials or construction or both.) It might be helpful to break it down and address the points because guys might be researching and doing their best, but, for whatever reason, are not "getting it".

A General Comment: This is why I think we need to be able to be frank on these boards about specific products and their strengths/weaknesses. I think the Lorenz thread(s) were very useful for those who might have been pondering buying one.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Hallo!

In my burned-out, jaded, and cynical Point of View, I think that train already left the station... ;) :)

I am always looking to improve my kit through what my own research shows is an accurate reproduction

IMHO, there is a divide here. A divide between those who say they are always "looking," to improve...
And those who, at somepoint in Future Time hopefully sooner than years or decades later, actually, physically improve their kit. (Plus I would add impression/persona to the basic concept of "kit.")

But that is a different malady, er discussion, and I will not hijack the thread (although I expect the outcome in advance.... ;) )

Curt

[TKlas]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Hi Jim,

I think your thread and a re-view of the Campaigner Manifesto should be enough to get guys re-focused on the total picture of an accurate impression. Unfortunately back in 2002ish many folks were stating lets get beyond the gear and I have always stated lets not only improve what we wear continously, but also work equally on military deportment and tactics, your attitude towards an accurate portrayal, research, and understanding the civilian culture of the time period we attempt to re-create.

Many of the problems you cite come from not having standards upheld at events and it is a challenge. A small inspection going over kit is always something I have stressed at events I have hosted in the past. No one likes to be mean, but by explaining what is wrong and how to correct it goes a long way to avoid those instances at future events. At past AC events over the last three years or so I have seen an increase in poor kit issues as well. It is not a big deal, but by addressing it and not ignoring it, we will better represent the men we attempt to portray.

Nice post Jim,

Tom

[J_V]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

A philosopher whose name escapes me at the moment once said that we can perceive only that which is already in the mind. Could part of the problem be rooted within interpretation of research as opposed to no research? A Bible study conducted by one with lousy hermeneutical skills will likely yield an interpretation that lacks context. Therin lies the rub, or at least the rub of differing fine points.

Jonathan Vaughan

[Duff]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Personaly, I think the uniform aspect of authantictiy is secondary to the way you speak, and the ways you do things (the "man" and "methhod" if you will). The uniform is still very important, and I'm not giving anyone an excuse to buy farby gear, but honestly, anyone can go buy a high quality hardcore uniform, but still camp in an A tent, eat Top Raman, talk in modern terms, and sleep in a sleeping bag. Does that make him more authentic than the guy under the shabang eating skillygalle, but still wearing a medium-grade uniform?


DISCLAIMER: I wear a high quality uniform, as do most people in my unit. I am simply stating that the way you do things is more important than what you wear while your doing it, not that the uniform is not important. It is very important.

[theknapsack]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

James,

Anyone can buy "authentic" gear, but how do they know it is authentic? Anyone who sleeps in a A frame and sleeping bag and eats Raman at events is not going to take the time or the money to research and buy proper clothing.

I figure Jim's contention is that a person who has the right attitude (i.e. attending the right events) should be putting forward the time and money for good gear, because they already have the attitude part right. Problem is, there seems to be a lack of people who move beyond attitude. Even so, I've seen people with poor attitudes and kits at authentic events as well. The thesis, in short, is therefore that people, although they act correctly, do not have the right attitude because they only have part of the right attitude, if you catch my drift.

I agree with Tom, we just have to uphold standards in both attitude and gear, which together make the right attitude.

[DougCooper]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Jim - part of the problem is that you define "impression" as soley kit.

The campaigner end of the hobby is not in crisis...unless you identify marginal kits on a number of new campaigners a crisis. I call it a problem - and it always will be. Its evolution - many folks are not up to snuff yet because many of them just got on the train. The folks who attend campaigner events aren't all wearing perfect kits - they never were.

I was more than a little annoyed at the original thread because it was from an authentic reenactor of great ability who is not involved in the campaigner end of the hobby, but had just attended a mainstream event out of the blue and used it to pass judgement on the campaigner end of the hobby. Huh?

Start attending events like BGR, Shiloh, Wilderness, SG Picket Post, etc and then pass judgement.

For most of the campaigners, kit is just part of the impression process. Recreating the army is key for us - the fidelity of the environment is Job 1. As Tom says, we need to do both. As we slogged mile after mile through real soldiering at BGR I noticed some bad accounterments, shoes, uniforms and even a bad hat or two. But I tell ya, it was less noticable than the few bad commands and poor leadership skills we observed, and that is true of all campaign events.

So taken as a whole, the Campaigner end of the hobby is in better shape now than ever - all one has to do is read the AAR's and rosters of the events to see that. We have a long way to go, but we always will.

That being said, there is a strange dynamic going on vis a vis the vendor end of the hobby and this has been a bad year for everyone. Folks are willing to buy 15% plastic fabric pants from some vendors but not garments constructed from Charlie Childs fabric made by excellent vendors. Why? Few of us seem to be willing to wait for quality. The hobby is not going anywhere - waiting is OK if that is what it takes. So if the head is willing but the wallet is weak - what should you do while you wait to buy the right kit? Study the drill, soldier skills and get involved...ie., impove the part of your impression that does not cost money - your knowledge.

There is an old Russian proverb that says: "Better is the enemy of good enough." Not so concerning impressions - but I think a lot of folks will answer the poll with the 2nd response - good enough is good enough to get in.

I agree 100% with pre-event inspections - they work, and as Tom says, they can and should be instructive, not punitive.

Anyway Jim - thanks for starting this - lets start at the top of the head with bad hats.

What we need to discuss is: "What makes a good slouch hat?" Lets educate the board. Discussing the merits of individual vendors on here is a slippery slope that can quicky become mean spiritied and slanderous. Recommend we do that only if the vendors themselves are prohibited from posting about another vendor.

So let's concentrate defining what makes a good hat, and go from there, head to toe.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Hallo!

The other night I was watching a current program that featured reenactor footage from Manassas 125.
What struck me sadly, was that that 20+ year old footage could be substituted quite easily for "some" events today... (However, some footage/events done recently is near the best ever done, in comparison!)

Seriously (as if the above wasn't), IMHO and Heretical view, to borrow from the CCR's RC- I am a firm believer and practioner in the "Three M Paradigm" (man as the impression, material culture as the clothing and gear, and activities as the snippets of historic life).
As a Three Legged Stool, IMHO, when one is missing one of those legs, the stool falls over. Sorry.

IMHO, the problem in Life is that one tends to get less in Reality than one asks for on Paper.
As a result, "less is okay" gets seen as the maximum some lads need to strive for, and "less works" becomes not only acceptable but the norm and the Status Quo.
Kind of like... I know a French Chassepot bayonet is not appropriate for my Civil War impression, and I as a Progressive I know it is 'wrong' and am 'saving up' for a Springfield bayonet bayonet in four or five years.

IMHO, as the Life Cycle of the Civil War ebbs and flows, waxes, and wanes (I have survivied 22 years' worth man and boy, with the scars to prove it), Newcomers come in at one end of the Paradigm while Veterans leave at the other.

But I still argue, or maintian, that one canot build a stool and sit on it with just one or two leg (pick any of the three legs). IMHO, the key is to build a three-legged stool. Granted, the height one can build at first is low, but at least one can sit on it and not fall off.
And yes. I have seen so-called H/A's in Premium Maker uniform and kit who could not march, drill, or maneuver. I have seen so-called C/P's in Run of the Mill Sutler Row uniform and kit march, drill, and maneuver like a preWar drill team miita unit.
But, the stool falls over for want of three legs everytime.
And that furthers the "Hobby" or the passage down the Path toward "Authentic Campaigning" or just possibly the H/A Segment how again?

IMHO, build your stool to the height you are able. And they raise its height!
By accepting less, one gets even less in return. And no place to sit either...
Set the Bar. Meet the Bar. Raise the Bar.

Otherwise, we are reliving the Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant, over and over and over...

Others' mileage, and wounds/scars, will vary...

Curt

[Guy Gane III]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

I may be alone, here, but I'm an "Uniform-Whore". or addict.

Hey, at least it isn't Crack.

...or is it? :D

[Marylander in Grey]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Gentlemen,
I agree with Curt. Harry Home Owner's stool, built in his garage with crude tools, is no where near the quality of Geppeto's but Geppeto has been building stools for a life time.
As a Senior "old" Veteran of this hobby I feel there is Fadism when it comes to Vendors.
When I first started in this hobby very few of the current vendors were in business. Some of those Vendors could not give away thier ealier work.
In those days so and so was the right stuff today some of those are now considered farby or are gone all togeather.
My advice is do your reasearch. Talk to the Veterans, then research thier research.
On more lighter note: a pet peave of mine is just how many "Authentic Campainers" are so fair skinned, "non tanned or sun burnt " and have soft hands. Do we need to inspect this for authenticity also for admission to the elite events?

[Marylander in Grey]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Guy,
Your not alone I to am an Addict.

[13thnhv]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

I admit that I, too, am an addict.

[JimConley]

Re: Authenticity Levels: Progress or Decline?

Doug,
I don't think that I defined "impression" as solely kit, rather my intention was to focus on the material (uniforms and equipment) aspects of impressions. If my words came across in a manner that warranted such a definition, that was certainly not what I wanted to get across.

I don't think that the hobby is necessarily in "crisis." I simply used the term in quotations to reference the severity of the idea and the problem.

And, while I agree with your thoughts behind evolving into this part of the hobby, but what about the guys who have been around for a while and still neglect parts of their kit? This problem is not only specific to new participants.