Are these picture taking duds ?

[Ian McWherter]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

For those wanting to see some excellent examples of working class clothing, check out the link below. Lots of dark trousers, patterned shirts, mixed gray knit shirts, and a mix of hats and caps.

http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?q1=lysh;sid=5e5f75d86cfd7a10867b44053fb564a7;type=boolean;rgn1=lysh_all;view=thumbnail;g=imls;med=1;c=lysh

Laborer's clothing came up earlier in the thread and it took me a few days to find this grouping!

Many of these men are posed in the clothing they clearly wore while working, some others are posed outside of their work clothes, so some distinction should be made between them. There are some images in that collection of men posed outside their work clothing such as George Murrin who worked for Lyon, Shorb & Company, also known as the Sligo Iron Works of Pittsburgh, as a boiler. He is posed wearing a fine broadcloth frock coat of the current 1860s style.

Not all men dressed this way for work though, for some jobs men were expected to wear decent clothing and maintain a respectable look, it just depended. A poor coal miner isn't going to dress for work the same way a poor law clerk would.

[Peachfuz]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

One thing I noticed looking at the photos of the workers at the Sligo mills is the mix of belts and suspenders, regardless of dress (i.e. work vs. dress clothes). Here is a picture of Pat Rocket (cool name BTW) in his dress clothes and co-worker James Young in his work clothes. I have zoomed in on Pat’s waist line so you can better see the belt.

[PetePaolillo]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

The image above is a pic of a quartermaster department. It is LOC Image cwpb 04249
There is a little discussion of it on a very similar thread to this one that I started about a month ago.
What to wear, linen or wool? A question of temperature, culture, social class, or formality?

Luke, Here is another shot at the same location.
Washington, District of Columbia. Group on steps of Quartermaster General's office, Corocoran's Building, 17th Street and Pennsylvania
Digital ID: (digital file from original neg.) cwpb 04251 http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cwpb.04251
Reproduction Number: LC-DIG-cwpb-04251 (digital file from original neg.)
Repository: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA

[lukegilly13]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Luke, Here is another shot at the same location.
Washington, District of Columbia. Group on steps of Quartermaster General's office, Corocoran's Building, 17th Street and Pennsylvania
Digital ID: (digital file from original neg.) cwpb 04251 http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cwpb.04251
Reproduction Number: LC-DIG-cwpb-04251 (digital file from original neg.)
Repository: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA

Cool! I wonder why they strike the pictures from different angles? To ensure the pictured that they will be satisfied with the outcome like they do now-a-days maybe? That's a good reference for men's shoe styles.

[MissMia]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Luke, Here is another shot at the same location.
Washington, District of Columbia. Group on steps of Quartermaster General's office, Corocoran's Building, 17th Street and Pennsylvania
Digital ID: (digital file from original neg.) cwpb 04251 http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cwpb.04251
Reproduction Number: LC-DIG-cwpb-04251 (digital file from original neg.)
Repository: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA

The clarity of the photo is incredible, from the detail of the mens' clothing, to the sheen of the silk hat (held by the gentleman on the left.)
Thanks for posting.

[PogueMahone]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I've never seen a double breasted sack coat before! That is what I need!

[Ian McWherter]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I've never seen a double breasted sack coat before! That is what I need!

I have an original pattern draft for one of these dated 1855.

[PetePaolillo]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I've never seen a double breasted sack coat before! That is what I need!

He definately has a unique but miltary look to him. Possibly a Velvet collar as well? interesting kepi he is wearing also.

[PogueMahone]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Two things I'd like to point out from several of the photos posted:

1) notice how many of the hats appear to have the crown "punched out", in other words they pushed the shaped crown out to give the hat a domed shape. I think this may have been a practice during rainy weather to keep the rain from collecting in the recessed crown and pooling water until it soaked thru. If the crown is pushed out, the rain will actually run off and your head stays a bit drier. This is just speculation on my part, but I have tried it and found it to work, except in a deluge when nothing keeps you dry.

2) notice how many of the coats that are buttoned appear to be straining at the buttons. I wonder how many men bought coats a smaller size from either vanity or a desire to have the coat pull open naturally to expose the vest? But then they button the coat for the photograph? Maybe one of the reasons we see comments about "well-fitted" or "tailored" coats is because ill-fitting garments were so common?

Just more grist for the mill,

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Two things I'd like to point out from several of the photos posted:

2) notice how many of the coats that are buttoned appear to be straining at the buttons. I wonder how many men bought coats a smaller size from either vanity or a desire to have the coat pull open naturally to expose the vest? But then they button the coat for the photograph? Maybe one of the reasons we see comments about "well-fitted" or "tailored" coats is because ill-fitting garments were so common?

Just more grist for the mill,

Some milling.

I have to disagree here. Other than the man whose coat in the second row is obviously strained because of the rather large book/box/whatever tucked into the inside breast pocket...they all generally appear to fit. For some reason, people think that "fitted" or "tailored" means "tight". That's just not the case...it means it "fits."

If you (the collective) bought your modern clothes with the same scrutiny, demand, and criteria regarding cloth, pattern, and construction and spent the money to have things like bespoke suits made...not even talking made to measure here...then that "fit" would be and is...the same as the guys in the photo. Baggy/loose/boxy has become the standard American fit...just look at a Brooks Brothers today. Knowing what "fit" means would give an entirely different perspective on the "tightness" that doesn't exist in that photo.

[yeoman]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Sir and ma'am, if I may, here is another group image.

The caption reads, Washington, District of Columbia. Group of Quartermaster Corps employees, 1865 April.










This image may be found on this LOC page.

An after thought... here are a couple of shots of the foot wear these men have, thanks.

[PetePaolillo]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Love the look of the Gentleman in the checked waistcoat and matching trousers! Notice all the waistcoats. They are seen sparingly in our hobby aren't they? Thanks for sharing them Mel.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

That's a great picture.

What's going on with the sleeve of the fellow who's standing in the front row, in front of the window? It looks like he has it pinned up, maybe, but how'd he get it to make the little funnel shapes?

Also, my reaction to the picture is that they were photographed the way they were working inside, and at most some may have grabbed their hats, but in general they just trouped outside dressed as they were and lined up. Would they be clerks at desks? Warehouse workers lifting and loading? Any guesses what type of work they were most likely doing, dressed like that?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Is his sleeve actually pinned up, or does he have a list or other paper stuffed through a buttonhole? That would make sense if he'd been preparing a requisition. Most of the shoes and boots are muddy to one degree or another, which suggests they've been moving around outside. Note the guy with the "funnels" also has shiny shoes, so he's probably a foreman of some sort, not walking back and forth in mud. He has both sleeves rolled up, so he must move things in the warehouse; if it were to keep from smearing his shirt cuff while he wrote, he'd probably only turn back one side. They all seem able-bodied, but not weightlifters, and their clothes aren't dirty, so I'd guess whatever they lift and move isn't terribly heavy or apt to make a mess--might be medical supplies, clothing or odds and ends of rations like candles and soap.

That long, low building behind them has the look of a warehouse with an office attached. Is that structure beside the chimney a ventilator or an ice box?

I wonder whether the boys in the foreground were there in any professional capacity or whether they were playing hooky, saw the photographer and got in the picture.
This helps put the "a man wasn't dressed without a coat on" business. If it were really that taboo, they wouldn't have gone out in shirt sleeves.

Lots of light-colored shirts here, and probably a good many white, but note how many are plaid, striped or pleated in fancy ways. For a horrid moment I thought the man on the far left was wearing paisley, but it's a splatter on the edge of the plate :)

I see only two, possibly three, watch chains, and no rings. That would also make sense if these men do a lot of crate-toting.

[OlszowyTM]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I don't believe the argument is that men weren't "dressed with out a coat". The discussion should be, more a matter of what is situationally appropriate, in much the same way there is a time and a place to wear or not wear a tshirt & blue jeans today. When should men wear coats and when is it appropriate to go without? Folks sometimes tend to take pictures like this and use it for justification in inappropriate situations ( and vice versa for the "always wear a coat position).

For me, the picture taken in tandem with its caption April 1865, suggests co workers who had an opportunity to have a photo taken for posterity in the waning days of the war (& given the huge flag that appears to to be quickly and casually draped, perhaps even the the day Lee's surrender was announced). If you accept the caption QM emloyees, then they were "at work" which is a different situation than being on Main Street. It also appears to be a male dominated environment where there may have been no expectation of "polite company". Thus the rules are perhaps relaxed. We see the same thing in genre paintings of farmers in shirtsleeves.

Discounting distinctly uniformed military photo settings, since the military has its own dress codes, juxtapose this last pic, with the first one in this thread on a public street & the one of the gentlemen in the other QM picture in front of an office building, some of this starts to come thru. Places where there may be more exposure to society at large, coats abound. In a rougher worksetting they start to dissipate. The real question we can't answer from this picture is-- How many coats are hanging on pegs to be donned when the worker leaves the site?