Introduction and Question on Fabric

[Ian McWherter]

I agree with Ian's basic premise, but would add a little caution.  Nick Sekela also said that instead of marble statues, we should be making the equivalent of aluminum hubcaps  .  Men's clothing was mass-produced in the 1860's in massive quantities, and at least the lower quality garments were made by unskilled laborers.  High-end garments were equal or better quality than the world's best today, but what did the low end really look like?  The surviving garments are mostly high-end while the "slops" were worn until they fell apart and then were consigned to the rag man.  This is NOT an excuse for poor workmanship or ignorance of technique, but I think if we could travel back to the 1860's we'd find common garments with wavy topstitching, fairly loose buttonholes, and the absolute minimum quantity of quilting needed to hold layers together. (As to padding, there are stories of crooked tailors who pasted the layers together with soap, but we won't go there.)  We would definitely find extensive machine stitching (but not serging and zigzag stitching).  Surviving military uniforms (made in haste in large quantities) might be our best reference for mass-produced civilian clothing detailing.

The key is, who is your character and what quality of clothing can he afford?

Thanks,

Jim R.

Men's suits come in different varieties of quality, buying a suit for your 1860s working class impression is a little like going to Sears for a suit rather than Valentino Couture. There are many examples of working class clothing that do exist, and the reality is a little less stark than the Hollywood Dickensian vision of the past. What are period working class clothes supposed to look like? I think many individuals can't find examples because they're looking for ragged, coal stained, poorly constructed, figments of their imagination. There are no hard and fast rules when determining exactly what regular people decided to wear, you might find a working class stiff that dressed impeccably off the job and then you might find another who dressed like a slob. When putting together my impression, I never think in terms of a "character" because I'm not in a theatrical production. I'm trying to represent an actual person who lived in a real world. The name of the individual escapes for the moment, but I remember Jim Miller telling me about a man's trunk they recovered from the doomed steamship The Central America, the man was quite the mover and shaker in the financial world, very well-off, yet when his articles of clothing were examined, they were surprised at how out dated many of the articles were and at how shabby they were. There were many repairs is his clothes and he even had a shirt collar that was held together with a pin!

I think Civil War military contract clothing is a poor example of what mass produced civilian clothing looked like, and here's the big reason: Consumer Quality Control. At the end of the day you, the consumer, get to decide which piece of clothing your going to spend your hard earned money on (which color, quality, price, etc.), soldiers were  issued clothing for free courtesy of our Federal Government. So as far as the Quartermaster Department was concerned, they shouldn't b***h about what they're given. In the 19th century American's were still a long way from "Only the best and most expensive for our troops!" The accounts of soldiers complaining about the quality of their clothing goes on and on and on...

[Dean McElroy]

Mr. Ruley published a relaly good intro to frock coat makings and layers and quilting and all that jazz that easily transfers over to sack coats in the April-May 2007 Citizen's companion. You might call and see if you can order the issue.1-800-624-0281 I have that issue out on my sewing table permanently! It really helps for reference.
Bevin

...it is a handy piece of information..I picked up my copy by chance..at the Cedar creek event at the CampChase Gazette tent..it was a giveaway to promote subscriptions sales..so I grabbed it and a few other issues and some buttons at another tent..because of what I've read here I definitely wanted that article and I usually get CCG and Civil War news at events or G'Burg if I visit there..but amazingly the issue was right there so I grabbed it and for free nevertheless...someone thinks I oughta be lookin' at it..    -DM

[Dean McElroy]

...Oh ,I think Civil War military clothing is quite representitve of massed produced clothing of the 19th century..you have the Skuykill Arsenal in New York where a majority of,if not all,enlisted uniforms were hand cut and stitched by tailors and seamstresses employed by the firm. Additionally there were contractors that fabricated garments employing a lot of machine stitching. I would agree with Ian's comparison as far as made- to- measure or custom tailoring is concerned. Enlisted fatique uniforms were not tailored(with rare exception)by the quartermaster,but issued in four sizes,there are two examples I can think of in regard to those instances in the case of bootees(Swedish recruit with size 14 or more feet) and an exceptionally tall recruit close to 7ft. tall. Enlisted frocks for recruits in the Regular US Army were ,indeed, tailored to fit once the recruit was processed in.(even then all the measurements that could be taken were not taken,only two or three) Also at the end of the war,existing stocks were reprocessed and marked for resizing,when measurements didn't equal the marked sizing number on the garment. Besides all of this.. a pair of pants is a pair of pants and they are either hand stitched or machine stitched(Army or civilian)..To say that Civil War military clothing is a poor example of massed produced goods is denying the processes developed  for the mass production of  clothing in general..Civil War military clothing is massed produced clothing...(quadrupal cut capes for the US Army overcoat and have employees attach them to four overcoats and you have a massed produced item,can done by hand or machine)...peace

[Jim_Ruley]

I think Civil War military contract clothing is a poor example of what mass produced civilian clothing looked like

How can this be?  It must have been produced by the same firms that were making civilian clothing before the war, probably by many of the same workers working the same facilities using the same tools and processes.  Why?  Before the War, the Regular Army was exceedingly small (~15,000) and had its own specialty clothing factory, the Schuylkill Arsenal.  There was no gradual build-up, the crisis erupted suddenly and first 75,000, then 300,000 Federal soldiers had to be uniformed and equipped.  At the same time many clothing firms were facing bankruptcy due to the blockade and the loss of their Southern trade.  What did clothiers like J.T. Martin make before the War?  Probably civilian clothing.  Who knows, some may have even carried over their patterns for military use, since apparently there were no "master patterns" provided by the Government.

and here's the big reason: Consumer Quality Control....The accounts of soldiers complaining about the quality of their clothing goes on and on and on...

A good point, but -- how much quality control did the lower class "consumer" exercise at the time?  Even today, if you don't like what WalMart has in stock you can run over to Meijer's, but what if it's substantially the same and you can't afford better?  What if your small town only had one clothing store?

Thanks,

Jim R.

[Ian McWherter]

How can this be?  It must have been produced by the same firms that were making civilian clothing before the war, probably by many of the same workers working the same facilities using the same tools and processes.  Why?  Before the War, the Regular Army was exceedingly small (~15,000) and had its own specialty clothing factory, the Schuylkill Arsenal.  There was no gradual build-up, the crisis erupted suddenly and first 75,000, then 300,000 Federal soldiers had to be uniformed and equipped.  At the same time many clothing firms were facing bankruptcy due to the blockade and the loss of their Southern trade.  What did clothiers like J.T. Martin make before the War?  Probably civilian clothing.  Who knows, some may have even carried over their patterns for military use, since apparently there were no "master patterns" provided by the Government.


A good point, but -- how much quality control did the lower class "consumer" exercise at the time?  Even today, if you don't like what WalMart has in stock you can run over to Meijer's, but what if it's substantially the same and you can't afford better?  What if your small town only had one clothing store?

Thanks,

Jim R.

Many millions more sets of civilian clothes were produced from 1861-1865 than military uniforms. The fashion industry whether it's 1860 or 2008 doesn't make money by producing poor quality clothing that they run the risk of people not buying. They manufacture clothing to meet consumer demand. Do you think Civil War soldiers would buy their own uniforms of that quality? Nonsense. Clothing manufacturers were accepting cheap government contracts and therefore they cut every corner they could and since this clothing is issued who cares whether the soldiers like it or not. Not the same for mass produced civilian clothing, you have to please the consumer in order to make a profit, nobody issues them clothing.

The Schuylkill Arsenal is located in Philadelphia, PA they employed only a handful of tailors "in-house" to cut garments that were then pieced out to local women. Where did the Schuylkill Arsenal learn this practice? The Ready Made Clothing Industry.

Has anyone actually looked at original ready-made men's clothing? Well, it's pretty damn impressive stuff, let me tell you. As with anything, research, go and look at original clothing and then make up your mind. Think ready-made working class clothing was of poor quality, prove it, don't assume it. Lets look at some examples of men posed outside of their work clothes shall we:

http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?xc=1;g=imls;sid=c3d552e44790638bd752ec42572ae3d6;q1=Lyon%20Shorb%20&%20Company;rgn1=ic_all;size=20;lasttype=boolean;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;subview=detail;cc=lysh;entryid=x-pss6.b002.i22;viewid=LYSH2330.TIF;start=41;resnum=48
http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?xc=1;g=imls;sid=c3d552e44790638bd752ec42572ae3d6;q1=Lyon%20Shorb%20&%20Company;rgn1=ic_all;size=20;lasttype=boolean;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;subview=detail;cc=lysh;entryid=x-pss6.b002.i19;viewid=LYSH2327.TIF;start=41;resnum=45
http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?xc=1;g=imls;sid=c3d552e44790638bd752ec42572ae3d6;q1=Lyon%20Shorb%20&%20Company;rgn1=ic_all;size=20;lasttype=boolean;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;subview=detail;cc=lysh;entryid=x-pss6.b002.i17;viewid=LYSH2325.TIF;start=41;resnum=43
http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?xc=1;g=imls;sid=c3d552e44790638bd752ec42572ae3d6;q1=Lyon%20Shorb%20&%20Company;rgn1=ic_all;size=20;lasttype=boolean;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;subview=detail;cc=lysh;entryid=x-pss6.b002.i14;viewid=LYSH2323.TIF;start=21;resnum=40
http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?xc=1;g=imls;sid=c3d552e44790638bd752ec42572ae3d6;q1=Lyon%20Shorb%20&%20Company;rgn1=ic_all;size=20;lasttype=boolean;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;subview=detail;cc=lysh;entryid=x-pss6.b002.i12;viewid=LYSH2320.TIF;start=21;resnum=38
http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?xc=1;g=imls;sid=c3d552e44790638bd752ec42572ae3d6;q1=Lyon%20Shorb%20&%20Company;rgn1=ic_all;size=20;lasttype=boolean;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;subview=detail;cc=lysh;entryid=x-pss6.b002.i13;viewid=LYSH2321.TIF;start=21;resnum=39
http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?xc=1;g=imls;sid=c3d552e44790638bd752ec42572ae3d6;q1=Lyon%20Shorb%20&%20Company;rgn1=ic_all;size=20;lasttype=boolean;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;subview=detail;cc=lysh;entryid=x-pss6.b001.i25;viewid=LYSH2307.TIF;start=21;resnum=25

Once again these men are posed outside of their work clothes which are practical and utilitarian, but if you were to show up at an event dressed like these humble men in their fine broadcloth frocks you'd be called a "Upper-Crusty" or "Dandy". Trust me, I've dressed far simpler than these men and still have received those cat-calls. Do you think these men were visiting a bespoke tailor?

I love this photograph of Government Leather Workers posted by Marc Hermann on the Authentic Campaigner:



Wow look at all those cravats and paper collars! Looks much better than the clothing being issued to soldiers in the field. Where do these guys buy their clothes, government jobs can't pay much?

Now my point isn't that everyman should dress nicely or even that all period clothing is well made, but maybe we should consider for a moment that the clothing that our forefather's wore is a little better made, and stylish, than we give them credit for.

Remember also, if there wasn't a clothing store for miles, then I'm sure your mother or wife wouldn't mind making you something truly special. Maybe this is why soldiers wrote home so much for clothing, what mother or wife is going to make her son or husband a crappy shirt or pants? Your wife/mother could go to a local draper and purchase fine cloth and then pay a tailor to cut a garment from it (she could also purchase cloth right from the tailor). This way the difficult job of making a pattern and cutting is over and all she has to do is assemble the pieces, and I'm sure she'd do a fine job of it.

[Ian McWherter]

I buy my red flannel interlining from B. Black and Sons.  It's the same 100% wool material I use for Federal sack coats, just in red instead of navy blue.  Ian may know of other sources -- I know a friend of his had red jeancloth used in his coat because that's what he'd found in an original.

Thanks,

Jim R.

The wool interlining in the original garments I've examined is actually more of a deep reddish-orange than a true red. Edwin Sims and Jim Miller chose undyed jean cloth from Family Heirloom Weavers for the interlining in their reproductions because Pat Kline's fabric best matched the weight, weave and texture of the interlining in both of Jim's original frock coats, which date to the late 1840s early 1850s (the same period that their reproductions, which were made off an original full size pattern, dates to). Jim, I'm not sure about Ed, hand dyed his wool to perfectly match the color of the interlinings in his original frocks. I also examined the interlining in a frock coat in another friends collection (dating to the same period) and it matched the interlinings in Jim's coats.

I also hand dye my own interlining to match the color of the originals I've examined, using cloth that I feel matches the original fabric very well.

[Jim_Ruley]

Jim, I'm not sure about Ed, hand dyed his wool to perfectly match the color of the interlinings in his original frocks.

I admire Mr Miller's dedication.  However, I'm also reminded of this bit of practical advice from Robert Doyle's "The Art of the Tailor":

I have, in my collection of mid-nineteenth century clothing, an evening waistcoat that has a section of woolen blanket laid on the interior breast area, with a wadding of combed sheep's wool laid on the chest area, giving an additional contour to the wearer's torso.  The wearer in this case was Sir Robert Borden (1854-1937), former Prime Minister of Canada (1911-1920).  So you see, it really doesn't matter what material is used, but it should be positioned for a specific purpose and not inserted just because some document says it must be.  When making clothes, always bear in mind the question "What is it I wish to achieve?"  Then use all your technical know-how to achieve the end result.  You call the shots, because you are making the garment to fit your own requirements.

Apparently some period tailors felt this way as well.  I found a piece of what appeared to be upholstery fabric peeking out of a moth hole on one of Philip Whiteman's original frocks at last year's Conference  .

Thanks,

Jim R.

[Doug Frank]

Mr. Ruley asked the question of my impression, so here it is, in a nutshell:

Thirty year old male of German descent, having crossed the pond at an early age with his family.  Recently bought his own farm, either fresh from the government or from another landowner "moving on" from a farm that he improved, then sold for the profit.  The farm itself is from 40 to 80 acres if just getting started, possibly several hundred if established.  Of course, only a few dozen acres are arable, the rest hillsides and woods.  Two or three horses, perhaps half a dozen cows, and the requisite pigs and chickens.  The area in question is somewhat remote, although the Missouri River is only about fifteen miles to the north.  The first generation lived in dogtrot cabins, although two story wood frame buildings are starting to emerge.

A parish centennial book from the early 1900s indicates a tailor in the town in the 1850s, how such a small town could have supported one is a question I don't have an answer for yet. Further research in the census is needed.  "Old logic" would have me believe these folks are living quite spartan lives, and perhaps they were, but I have a feeling that each man owned at least one nice suit of clothes.  I am starting to nose around now for photos of citizens from my local area, and at least one of an ancestor (date uncertain, but an initial guess would be a decade before the 1860s or the 1860s themselves) shows him wearing vest and frock (I can try to post a "copy of a copy" of this photo, if there's any interest - need to get my hands on the original to scan).

May be more than you wanted to know, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.  So, for starters I am going to go with the sack coat - and a vest, which may actually be made first, but I am hoping to get the materials for both at the same time.  Anyone know a good source for sleeve lining material?  I am sure they probably came in many varieties as well. 

It may not be right for this thread, but I'm also giving thought to what these men would have worn upon "answering the call."  I find it slightly difficult to consider them wearing their "Sunday best," especially as some ended up wearing their civilian clothes for quite some time after enlisting (especially the State Guard), but perhaps that is a 20th/21st century thought.

I am going to give a call to the Citizen's Companion today to see if they still have any copies of that back issue with Mr. Ruley's article.

Thanks again to all who are contributing to this fantastic discussion.

Doug Frank

[Ian McWherter]

Apparently some period tailors felt this way as well.  I found a piece of what appeared to be upholstery fabric peeking out of a moth hole on one of Philip Whiteman's original frocks at last year's Conference  .

Thanks,

Jim R.

Jim chose to hand dye his wool interlining because he has two original frock coats he can look at any time of the day, so why not be as exacting as possible.

I absolutely agree with Mr. Doyle, and there are original garments out there to support his statement, such as an original 1850s broadcloth frock coat in the private collection of Greg Mowry, http://www.geppettoproductions.com/, that I examined. It has no wool interlining, just linen canvass interfacing, cotton wadding for padding and then the lining. I also examined another 1850s original in the private collection of Charles Nohai (another costume designer friend and the owner of the infamous non-buttoning tailcoat), this frock was only lined in the sleeves, with cotton sateen, and in the forepart with a black figured wool silk blend material. The forepart lining is in bad condition so you can see right in to the "guts" of the breast, not much wool padding remains and there is no wool interlining (his tailcoat has a the reddish-orange interling that matches Jim Miller's frocks I mentioned earlier).

So you see, interlining is not always necessary, I do, however, prefer using it. I fell it gives the garment better shape.

[NoahBriggs]

soldiers were  issued clothing for free courtesy of our Federal Government. So as far as the Quartermaster Department was concerned, they shouldn't b***h about what they're given.

The second part is correct; the first part isn't.  Soldiers technically did not receive their uniforms, camp and garrison equippage and ordnance "for free".  It may have felt like it was free.  In reality every soldier was issued a clothing allowance from which he may draw clothing or whatever in between official quarterly issue of new stuff.  If the soldier requested, say, new shoes because the old ones were worn out, (before the quarterly issue of shoes to the Army) then his clothing allowance would be docked the price of the shoes.  If he overdrew on the clothing allowance then the balance would be docked from his regular pay.

A soldier who was honorably discharged from the Army would receive his pay and the balance of his clothing allowance.

Soldiers who threw clothing or equipment away would be charged against the clothing allowance and their pay for the replacement.  They were also fined for clothing or equipment which was excessively dirty or in disrepair.  Thus the soldier had a financial incentive to keep his clothes and gear clean and ready to go.

[Ian McWherter]

soldiers were  issued clothing for free courtesy of our Federal Government. So as far as the Quartermaster Department was concerned, they shouldn't b***h about what they're given.

The second part is correct; the first part isn't.

Yes it is, just as long as he didn't overdraw and if he under-drew his uniform allotment he would be paid the balance.   But really, I thought this conversation related to civilian clothing that Doug Frank was interested in making, so while I'd love to debate the practices of Army Contractors, and the Quartermaster Department, it's of little relevance to the subject at hand.

New thread anyone?

[Jim_Ruley]

May be more than you wanted to know, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.  So, for starters I am going to go with the sack coat - and a vest, which may actually be made first, but I am hoping to get the materials for both at the same time.  Anyone know a good source for sleeve lining material?  I am sure they probably came in many varieties as well. 

Hi Doug,

I think a "suit of dittoes" (sack, vest and trousers all same material) in a sturdy woolen (like tweed) would be just fine.

I like cotton sateen both for body and sleeve lining in sacks.  It's slick enough to make the garment easy to "don and doff", but breathes better than polished cotton and is more durable than silk.  Any local fabric chain (Jo-Ann's, Hancock's, etc.) should stock it.

Hope this helps,

Jim R.

[Doug Frank]

Ah, thanks for that piece of information.  Depending on what source I was looking at (mainly Shep's Civil War Gentlemen), I was under the impression (perhaps woefully misguided) that dittoes were still just coming into vogue through the 1860s.  I don't have it in front of me, perhaps that is the 1850s it was referring to.  It would make it easier when ordering to have just one type of body fabric to get.

Doug Frank

[Jim_Ruley]

Depending on what source I was looking at (mainly Shep's Civil War Gentlemen), I was under the impression (perhaps woefully misguided) that dittoes were still just coming into vogue through the 1860s.  I don't have it in front of me, perhaps that is the 1850s it was referring to.

According to the preface in Shep's reprint of DeVere's, ditto suits were coming into fashion in the 50's, were more popular in the 60's, and were very common in the 70's.  So I'd say you have a wide latitude, from all three pieces matching, to two, to none alike.

Thanks,

Jim R.