|
Post by prestontoprail on Jul 3, 2006 6:12:12 GMT -6
Yeah, there are soo many impressions you can represent as a Civil War interpretor that it really does depend on the scenario and documentation.....that must never be questioned. I was simply suggesting that there needs to be a more "worn in" look to alot of impressions seen around these days. And by this I mean to do as you suggested and not shave for a few days before an event, and hell try not to shower a day or 2 before if you really want the oily hair, dirty appearance. And in most cases alot of guys have clean kits all the time because they only attened 5-6 max events a year and that only amounts to around 15 days of sun/activity wear. Nothing really happens to a jacket hanging in the closet.
But like you said it all depends on documentation or scenario and the means of looking freshly caked in powder or trampled through mud would adhere specifically to a "combat" impression. I am a proud supporter of simply wearing in your gear and uniforms to settle the natural look, although I try to wear my stuff as regularly as I can. I truly believe that if your in the front line of a civil war battle whether it be for a fortification scenario or a napoleonic fight in an open terrain your going to get very dirty. There really doesn't seem like a logically argument against that. As reenactors, the mentality at an event is to generally avoid marching through creeks, stomping through incredible depths of mud, black powder on the face or a rip on their garments.....generally speaking. But then again, it's only a suggestion and not a rule.
|
|
|
Post by charlesheath on Jul 3, 2006 6:58:13 GMT -6
Preston, At the other end of the spectrum are those who dry clean their uniforms after every event. Don't ask me why, but that is generally part of that other hobby. The mention of mud and soiled trousers reminds me of an campaigner adjunct (event march) back in mid-March 2000 at Bentonville, NC. This was simply a walk in from Ben Tart's family farm to the mainstream event through some fields, along some roads, and one fairly typical sweet gum swamp with murky black water up to the knees. While in that swamp, we had to wait for the mounted folks to figure out a way to get around a deep and wide lead ditch. Thus standing there, watching a nice fat blacksnake swim by, our trousers became stained from about the knees down. We didn't notice this until marching into the event site, and throughout the remainer of the event, men who did not know each other could recognize they were part of the same small battalion by their "black legs." As wool tends to repel dirt rather than absorb it, these black legs were gone by the next couple of events, but it was fun while it lasted. The cuffs and knees on trousers wear quickly, especially jeancloth, and it seems shirts lose integrity around slash pockets, and rip out in the side seams. I hear a lot of complaints about the crotch wearing fast, but I have noticed more trouble (mostly with satinette) with the waistband separating from the rest of the trousers leaving stretched out fabric along the way. Canteens tend to rust out along the bottom seam, the covers on federal canteens go away along the edges, and don't get me started on sharp canteen halves in a haversack. Charles Heath
|
|
|
Post by Timothy Arnold on Jul 3, 2006 9:00:07 GMT -6
I have a shirt that has truely been worn enough. While the Top Rail Mess was employed at a museum where we worked almost daily for several months, I wore the same shirt every single day except when we did WWII and Federal Navy. This shirt has seen hell, and because I was wearing it... I guess I have too.
If any of you had the chance to see 80 Acres of Hell, the shirt I was wearing while being hung from my thumbs, that's the shirt. Like Charles said, the slash pockets have ripped away from the shirt on the sides. The side seams up around the armpits are ripped, the shoulders have even ripped before. The collar became separated from the rest of the shirt at one point. So, for exhibit A... I present the "yellow shirt." It just happened to be my first shirt I made 12 years ago. Good times...
If anyone does some sort of construction work farm work etc. I believe it would be wise to wear some of your clothingwhile doing these trades every once in a while. Mowing the lawn is a good thing too. For someone like me, I live in a nice place where I can just hang my stuff outside in the sun and rain for days and days... this does help. It is almost a natural wearing in for the sun faded look.
anyway... I gotta go play with Charles wooden [censored], somehow it ended up in the back of my truck after Granger...
|
|
|
Post by steffenopolis on Jul 3, 2006 12:31:10 GMT -6
Ive seen this shirt Mr. Arnold talks about. Its less of a shirt and more or a scrap. Not even sure if there is enough cloth to wipe a gun down with.
|
|
|
Post by pogue on Jul 4, 2006 14:09:02 GMT -6
Boys,
I marched 50 miles and campaigned for 6 or 7 days one time back in '99 with that awful Charles Heath. I lost about 15 lbs. that week, but otherwise, my kit was the same going in as coming out. During the course of the week, we marched on dusty roads, slept in fields and woods, dug, toted, chopped, cooked, and sweated. Oh, yeah, we also skirmished most days and fought three battles. I've never before or since felt so much like my clothing was a second skin. I stunk from the sweaty, dirty clothes. I got dusty from head to toe and never once looked like one of those guys that smears dirt on his face or rolls in the dirt or tosses dirt all over his gear. I've torn a few thousand cartridges in my day and never gotten black ALL OVER my face like that. It just doesn't work that way.
Dust settles over exposed areas, not just those spots you rub. Powder stains your lips and maybe runs down your beard a little, but a soldier is more likely to rub his dirty sweaty face with his sleeve to wipe off his face, not with his hand to rub it in and all over.
To counter some of this, remember that soldiers were issued new gear all the time. You might have new trousers and a worn jacket. Every man in the company might have new hats and worn shoes. One guy might get a new coat, trousers, hat and shoes at once. It happened.
Let your impression be driven by the scenario being interpretted.
Rob Hodge? He is soooo Y2K.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by charlesheath on Jul 4, 2006 14:24:00 GMT -6
Reminds me of a shirt story. A fellow who was little known then, but is well known now sold me one of his shirts back about 1995, and I wore it often. That shirt replaced one my mother had made back in 1991. (The green coarse linen overshirt to that old shirt was still going strong at Athens 2005, by the way.) The new shirt had pockets, excellent pattern, good construction, nice buttons, and was made of a sturdy cotton fabric. This was before folks got into brand name vendors, and I just thought he was a nice fellow selling stuff. It was one of those dark green with some black and other colors in a small pattern plaid. Very nice fabric. This was one of two shirts I wore on a regular basis while at Sailor's Creek Battlefield in 1998 and 1999. The shirt started out dark green, but soon faded from being worn 3-5 days per week in the sun, and the usual wear and tear. It wasn't long before it started to fade, turn light green, and then almost white in spots. This was normal.
So one day, some little peckerhead was doing the "I know everthing hardkewl dance" and shouted, "ha, ha, you washed that shirt with bleach!!!!!," whereby I listened to this fellow for a few moments, dropped trou, showed him where it was darn near the original color from the 19th century waist down, and proceded to explain UV fade to the little know it all -- in front of his equally uneducated comrades in the Sutler Row Hardkewl Klub.
I shall be providing free education of a similar nature on another forum a little later on. Some of you may be witness to that.
Charles Heath
|
|
|
Post by prestontoprail on Jul 4, 2006 14:31:45 GMT -6
Well, i'm reffering to a look that has not been photographed but has only been described by soldiers of their appearance after a good fight. A 7 day , 50 mile march is very impressive and I only wish somebody would come up with one of those soon.....but it still doesn't measure up to normal campaigning activity for months at a time. The amount of dirt clogs smeared on your clothes or powder on your face comes from dealing with the artillery shells in open combat. The explosive shot and solid shot created pandamonium everywhere and not too many people could escape the reality of the blood and chunks of bone flying through the air as guys are being torn down by volleys of mini balls and canister. That is what i'm reffering to by live, fresh dirt on your uniform. I'm sure that during campaigning you would run into some streams and mud.....and surely it would eventually fall off as you can easily dust your jacket. I wonder how many real soldiers had a problem of muskets being discharged soo close to their face all the time. You know that if your an intense situation with an enemy your not going to be worried if his left ear is between your barrel bands. And as far as the campaign look, it does...once again...depend on the scenario. Although I can't understand how new clothes were being issued constantly on active campaigns....could someone provide some documentation on this? I'm just not familiar with it's practice. I'm aware of quartermasters, but how often were they frequented on campaign? Maybe I just assumed it wasn't common to spend the monthly pay on extra uniforms. And there is a need to mention all the greese from cooking, coffee and weaponry. I'm sure that sweat doesn't mix well with any of this either. For a campaign appearance I'm simply suggesting to go for a worn, at least sun-tanned face with slightly faded in clothing (continuous sun exposure). These guys look sunburned, marched to death.....and in need of new clothing. I'm sure they weren't the only ones. By the way, not trying to be "hardkewl". I hope i'm never identified with that term.
|
|
|
Post by Timothy Arnold on Jul 4, 2006 14:47:08 GMT -6
I'm a hardkewl... hell yeah I am.... eat my shorts....
sorry I'll go back to grilling my ribs, Sorry for the outburst. Thanks for the input guys.
|
|
|
Post by Timothy Arnold on Jul 4, 2006 14:52:31 GMT -6
I remember in Iraq, we had Haji do the laundry and stuff... the were using gasoline trying to get the grime out. It never happened. I even told one of them to try and boil it.... hehe... yes, I was thinking about the civil war {blushing} and it didn't work. Nothing works when it is combat grime. NOTHING. Its stays in the fibers. Good times crackers, good times. Maybe Clif Hicks will speak up on the "combat grime."
|
|
|
Post by charlesheath on Jul 4, 2006 17:15:04 GMT -6
One of my favorite vignettes is when Sherman's army stops during the Carolinas Campaign to draw federal uniforms from the wagons because he has ordered the men to cease wearing civilian and confederate clothing. Another set of orders tells the men to cut up trousers for chevrons, and be PDQ about sewing them on. Both instances are in the ORs on CD at the Corps level, but the bigger question asked is "what is the length of a campaign?" Obviously, some lasted but for a few days (The Mud March comes to mind) and others lasted a very long time, such as the Vicksburg, Overland, Atlanta, or Petersburg campaign. Come to think of it, I've yet to see a list that spells out the campaigns, start date, end date, and the number of days. Good project for somebody....
Back to the photos....it would be nice if they had a little caption, such as where and when and who (if known). Out of context images is probably not the greatest gig in the world. For example, that last batch looked like the June 1865 shot of the Henry House Hill marker for 1st Bull Run. If you happen to find a CW-era photo of the contemporary marker at Groveton, please let me know.
Charles Heath
|
|
|
Post by pogue on Jul 4, 2006 17:52:19 GMT -6
The difference between those photos and reenactors is that reenactors are obsessed with being pretty. Reenactors like to have fancy duds and doo-dads. They would never consider crushing a brand new hat.
One of the reasons, especially among Federal soldiers, that they treated their gear like trash was because they knew they could draw another.
The QM travelled with the army. What, did you think they only issued clothing in winter quarters or in forts? Campaigns that last for months include days of inactivity where the army rested, fed, and issued new gear. Some "campaigns" also included the investment of a city, like Chattanooga or Nashville. Heck, the Tullahoma Campaign lasted for weeks and both armies sat still for most of the time.
Where are those pics from? I thought they were prisoners.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by prestontoprail on Jul 6, 2006 10:56:31 GMT -6
Good point Joe, and I wish more reenactors would try to acheive the worn in look as opposed to having their new bender civilian hat look brand new for 4 years in a row. In all the photos of confederate soldiers as fresh prisoners I can't seem to find one hat that looks newly shaped and clean in appearance. But I understand that a typical federal soldier would not be wearing the same sack coat for more than 5 months at a time before aquiring one that isn't falling apart.
So , live-active- combat impressions aside......there would be little excuse to have black powder or mud slapped all over your clothing. Now, there were huge dust clouds that would form with all of these infantry companys marching on dirt roads.....so it's obvious to believe (similar to chickamauga 99) that your uniform would be fighting a constant dust cloud during many durations of march. And of course, as you did, you'll stumble across creeks, rain=mud, thickets, dirt roads. I think that a hard march would get you looking different compared to a fresh recruit. And you read of the western federal veterans from books like Si Klegg and Hardtack and coffee where they would pride themselves on their "veteran" appearance as a proof to the campaigns they were part of. Then again, apparently they were known to steal from new recruits, so that concept had a back-fire.
And so marching with huge columns of soldiers, horses, artillery, trampling through multiple terrain, practicely being outside for months at a time..........these are things that we reenactors cannot participate in, therefore we are usually "too" clean to be portraying troops during certain campaigns. And the equivilant to this is not necessarily live dirt all over your junk, but letting some of your uniforms hang on a coat hanger in your backyard for a week or 2 is easy and harmless approach to achieving that certain look.
I'm still jealous of the 7 day march! The photos above are of some veterans at a monument dedication on Manassass battlefield in 1865. I think it was right after the fighting and nobody is sure (that I know of) who these men are with or if they are eastern or western troops.
|
|
|
Post by pogue on Jul 6, 2006 19:47:26 GMT -6
Preston,
I recall the '99 Chick event as the only place I ever saw dust "shoe mouth deep". It was years before all that dust came out of our clothes and blankets!
The veteran look comes from living in your gear, day and night, for weeks on end. It is slow and gradual. Veterans could tell when a regiment of fish came in by the clean clothes, the level hat brims, and because they "marched", all tensed up and stumbling to the step, very self-concious. Self-concious is the last thing a veteran would be, because he has confidence.
By the way, I thought of a good example of veteran troops in new clothes on campaign: When Longstreet's corps came west, they had just been issued new uniforms and flags all around. I believe I have read that some were issued clothing at the train station as they boarded the cars. The westerners took one look and didn't like them instantly. And it has been that way ever since.
hahahaha!
I tell you, if you want to have a good veteran impression, my advice is to buy used gear. It won't fit right and will have stains you won't be able to figure out. I've bought just about everything but shoes used and come out okay.
If you want to give your hair a good period look quick and easy, it is simple. Get your haircut with scissors instead of clippers. Let it grow a little longer. (I try to space out haircuts so I get them after events.) When you arrive at the event, douse your hair soaking wet. Comb it straight back and put your hat on tight. As it dries, it will curl up a bit. The water will bring the grease out, even if you washed it that morning.
just some thoughts,
Joe
|
|
|
Post by charlesheath on Jul 6, 2006 21:35:06 GMT -6
The photos above are of some veterans at a monument dedication on Manassass battlefield in 1865. I think it was right after the fighting and nobody is sure (that I know of) who these men are with or if they are eastern or western troops. A few weeks ago, we camped right next to that monument on Henry Hill at part of a NPS LH program. It is made of a dull red stone that reminds me of iron ore, which was once plentiful in parts of VA and MD. One of the fellows in the unit gave a brief talk about the monument, and those boys are the ones who built it. (Some of the other NARA photos show the dedication, and some are out there from the 50th anniversary of Bull Run, as well.) While I can't recall which group he said built it, the thing that struck me was the artillery rounds contributed by a Pennsylvania Heavy Artillery unit were still live until they were disarmed in 1975 during a restoration job. A lot of these photos have stories, and Miller's photographic history tends to have some good captions. That series was reprinted recently, but the images are small. They show up on ebay frequently. A similar, but not as ornate, monument was erected at the same time over by Groveton to commemorate the loss at 2nd Bull Run. Joe will have a chance to see that one up close in a few weeks. The Henry Hill monument is also incorrectly stated to the be the first one erected on a battlefield; however, the one at Stone's River beats it by several years. Charles Heath
|
|
|
Post by williampicking on Mar 27, 2007 16:34:03 GMT -6
Fellas, this is an interesting topic. The dirt infrsted, mud soaked idea is great. However I must agree with Mr. Heath in that the smearing of the face ond rolling in the mud doent look "right" wear your uniform while doing dirty chores or other activities like Mr Todd suggested work just fine. The typical victorian man would try to keep as clean as POSSIBLE. If you are portraying a soldier who is and has been constantly under fire or harrassed by the enemy chances are that you've had no time to wash your face orother parts much less clothing. But if you are portraying someone on the march especially in terrain interlaced with rivers and creeks you might have had time to splash your face and hands with water. Of course the same terrain would splash and cake your uniform with mud. This is only natural in this type of terrain. If you leave the mud on your uniform it eventually will dry and flake off most likely leaving a stain. Now if the campaign you are taking part in was or is in dry take into consideration on eof the soldiers worst adversaries on the summer marches.DUST. Marching in a column of several thousands of feet will stir up a very large dust cloud. This dust as we all know will, did and does get in and over every thing you are carrying and wearing. Now mind you that a cloud od dust settles very differently than splatered or an impressionof mud. Just something to consider when portraying an active, front line soldier. Yours, William"Naitive "Picking Fightingboysmess Fightingboy48@yahoo.com 661-619-8347
|
|