Undress / Fatigue dress / Waistcoats

General discussion forum
Paul Durrant
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 20:42

17 Jan 2012, 17:29 #31

Was just about to post but Eddie beat me to it.

Yes, I too don't understand this 'tails' business. I can see what looks like a slight sloping away on the Atkinson drill illustration - but a tails??

Naa! Don't buy it.

Also on Ben's Atkinson drill post - the Finart occupation print - are those small pockets in the jacket?
Reply
Like

simon shephard
Forum Recruit
simon shephard
Forum Recruit
Joined: 26 Sep 2011, 07:34

17 Jan 2012, 20:14 #32

By tails, I meant the small tang, diamond, drop bit in the centre back of the illustrations, rather than a full tail coat (ought to be more specific really).  Still learning lots of terms and may use them incorrectly, as I have a massive 1 season under my belt!
Back to lurk mode.
Grenadier 2nd Queens foot rgt.
Reply
Like

Paul Durrant
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 20:42

17 Jan 2012, 20:26 #33

Simon,
That's cool. By all means lurk, but don't hesitate to speak out. Sometimes the simplest questions are the best. Sometimes a new eye makes all the difference.

We all started out on our first post!
Last edited by Paul Durrant on 18 Oct 2014, 20:36, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like

Iain Dubh
Forum Rifleman
Iain Dubh
Forum Rifleman
Joined: 03 Mar 2009, 11:21

17 Jan 2012, 22:34 #34

All,
I am always amazed by the stuff you guys manage to turn up; there are lots of paintings in this thread that I have not seen. Nice work!
My 1812 group started moving over to the Kersey body/Serge Sleeves combination for our fatigue coats last year, but continued with the cuff facings. From a construction standpoint, it makes sense that there would have been some more durable material at the cuff as the serge we get now-a-days seems to be more delicate than the good old British wool used in the body. That said, maybe our concerns didn't mean a great deal in the face of all the prints sans cuffs!
It is nice to see more evidence of the round fatigue caps in the occupation prints...
Aye,
Iain
42nd Royal Highland Regt, Napoleonics
http://www.the-black-watch-lha.org/1815/
1st Royal Scots, 1812
7th Bn, The Black Watch 1939-45
Burns Battle Bonnets, hand knit Kilmarnock, Hummel, and Fatigue Bonnets for the Highland Soldier
Reply
Like

Eddie
Forum Lieutenant
Eddie
Forum Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 11:49

18 Jan 2012, 10:58 #35

Simon - I wasn't picking at you - actually I think it was our forum General(all hail and praise etc) who used the term " tails" on this thread -  meaning what Richard described as the "skirts" of the coat I think.

Paul is absolutely right in his encouragement for you to pitch in.
This forum is a great open space visted by novice and"expert"alike and as Iain Dubh says it is amazing what turns up.

I don't hold back from asking basic questions because some of what is assumed to be established fact is actually based on very little evidence but has been repeatedly replicated from secondary sources.

Its also good to prod experts with a stick sometimes!
"Far the calling bugles hollo,
High the screaming Fife replies,
Gay the files of scarlet follow:
Woman bore me, I will rise"
Reply
Like

Ben Townsend
Forum General
Ben Townsend
Forum General
Joined: 19 Nov 2007, 21:35

18 Jan 2012, 11:41 #36

But what is a skirt if not a truncated tail, ergo still a tail in shortened form?
:q21:

Rifleman LaLa
I'm part of the problem
Reply
Like

Bryan
Forum Private
Bryan
Forum Private
Joined: 10 Nov 2010, 15:11

18 Jan 2012, 13:27 #37

Ben. It's interesting you should say that. I have a book on the history of the art of tailoring men's coats and jackets which seems to say that the use of the terms "tails" and "skirts" are all bound up with the introduction of the reducing horizontal waist seam which mainly happened shortly after our period, I say mainly because there are odd examples with said seam shortly before our period.

Most of the examples without a horizontal waist seam being described as tailed. Anything after the introduction of the seam being described as skirted. The term tailed coming back into use after a long absence in the mid Victorian period to describe formal evening jackets.
Neither Kings nor Queens nor Royal Marines but 28th. Old Bragg's. Brass before and brass behind never feared a foe of any kind.
Reply
Like

Ben Townsend
Forum General
Ben Townsend
Forum General
Joined: 19 Nov 2007, 21:35

18 Jan 2012, 17:44 #38

The thing is, regimental undress is regulated by the Colonel of the regiment, so one can expect variety from regiment to regiment. The Atkinson image seems to be quite early, will be interested to find out more about the King's Own image from the Chartrand book. As Eddie rightly comments, we don't even know if its period yet, but I'm on it.

Rifleman LaLa
I'm part of the problem
Reply
Like

Radford
Forum Rifleman
Radford
Forum Rifleman
Joined: 29 Oct 2010, 04:58

18 Jan 2012, 20:08 #39

Eddie:8941 wrote:White COTTON jackets ?
Strong white COTTON trousers not nankeen?
BLUE trousers?
Black LACQUERED gaiters?

What happened to white FLANNEL ?
What about linen trousers?

Tell me it isn't true - I think I got a headache coming on....
Dear Eddie and List-

An answer to the puzzle about "cotton" may be found in these few quotes from Florence Montgomery's Textiles in America, 1650 - 1870  Florence defines "cotton":

"A term used to designate certain woolen cloths from at least the fifteenth century, so one must be cautious in reading the term...the explanation of the use of the word cotton may lie in the fact that it had also the sense of nap or down, and the process of raising the nap of woollen cloths was called "cottoning" or "frizzing"...At the end of the sixteenth century, Manchester was "eminent for its woollen cloth or Manchester cottons"..."

One source suggested that it took until the mid-19th Century for "cotton" to come to refer exclusively to the fabric made from plant fiber.

Notice the line "2 pr of strong white cotton gun-mouthed trousers- not nankeen ". Nankeen is a durable brownish yellow fabric originally hand loomed in Nanking, China from the plant fiber cotton. Since the mid-18th Century trousers were commonly made from nankeen, so much so that nankeen became a name for trousers. Since the WO27/121 General Order 25th Jan 1814 specifically says "not nankeen", I figure that they were being extra sure that no one misunderstood and got plant fiber cotton trousers instead of wool fiber cotton trousers.

Cotton, having a nap, would be similar to flannel. The other references to "flannel jackets" paint a picture of soldiers in white woolen jackets and trousers - so no headache.
Cheers!

Radford Polinsky
(Sjt. John Savage, Col's Coy. HM 33rd Foot -AWI)
www.33rdfoot.org

(Rct. Joseph Radford 559, 33rd Foot 1815)
Reply
Like

Ben Townsend
Forum General
Ben Townsend
Forum General
Joined: 19 Nov 2007, 21:35

20 Jan 2012, 09:07 #40

Some great insights here, keep 'em coming. Sometimes it seems as if contemporary clothing terms are not only inconsistent from individual to individual but also withinn a single source, viz some of the tailoring books. Heres a reference to 'white stuff' from the regimental order book of the 13th Foot, 1802.
"Commanding Officers of Companies will immediately compleat such of their Men as may be in want of them with White Jackets and trowsers of the Uniform Pattern. The Regimental taylors cannot be spared for the purpose. A pattern piece of White Stuff will be shown by the Qr Master Serjeant: which if approved of Captains can be procured on very reasonable Terms- It is hoped that the Men will in future wear their Fatigue Trowsers when they go to Winehouses and not carry the disgraceful marks of their drunkeness to Parade with them."

Rifleman LaLa
I'm part of the problem
Reply
Like