I have a sack coat that Joe blunt made and cut down to a 4 button shell jacket. I am also working on converting a frock to a shell jacket.

Eli,

Glad to see you back on the Forum. Welcome home.  

Here is yet another...



It MAY be coincidence, but I am beginning to note that this is more prevalent with mounted troops. This particular image is of the 18th Pennsylvania Cavalry.  

--Last edited by histcloth on 2007-12-16 09:24:05 --

That fella looks like he's been eating good.  It kind of looks like a shirt.

Well, so much for the mounted theory...

AND, back to the infantry, Samuel Carlile, Company K 38th NJ, circa 1864...

Wow , is that soldier skinny.He needs to visit the cook tent more often.I like those fancy pockets on his trousers.Different cut and contrasting colors.
Would this soldier be a "lefty", because of the way he wears his leathers?
I love Common Ground. Thanks to the moderators and all those responsible. I visit almost every day.
Happy holidays. Keep Your Powder Dry.
Com. Sgt. Dan Girton

Take a closer look its a mirror image because everythings backwards!

Dan:

The Horse soldier recently had a pair of mounted trousers with the same pocket configuration which was purely soldier added.






I would wholeheartedly agree with you about this forum. Nice people and none of the nasty, "look-at-me" types. This is a great place for like-minded people to enjoy their hobby.

Quote :

Histcloth wrote : The Horse soldier recently had a pair of mounted trousers with the same pocket configuration which was purely soldier added.

Nick,

Are you saying the soldier removed the usual slash pockets and replaced them with these patch pockets on the front of the trousers? That must have been a winter camp project!

It seems those pockets would be really tough to use if you were sitting on a horse. Was that type of pocket a fashion detail on civilian trousers of the period? I'm just trying to figure out why a soldier would go to the trouble.  

Thanks for the kind words concerning the Forum, We try to keep it both civil and interesting.    

Bill:

This pocket is not all that rare, as shown by the famous picture of the Union dead at Gettysburg:


It is really hard for me to judge exactly what the application would have been since (at least in this study) there are more infantry with this added pocket than mounted service. While I have not seen any civilian trousers with this exact style of pocketing, I will say that very early/fall front trousers have pockets in the same location as this, but are concealed under the bib/fall.

I am telling everyone about this place, as it really has a lot of potential.

Nick,

I'd like to pick your brain one more time. I would assume (And we all know what assuming can do!) that since Confederate trousers were made from a more modern pattern, that the "mule ear" pockets were also used on civilian trousers of the period.

I'm going to need a civilian impression next year. I've already purchased a civilian sack coat. I'm wondering if a pair of my Confederate trousers with the "mule ear" pockets would be PEC for a civilian impression?

Thanks,  

Bill:

You put the OTB to shame!! In any event, there really isn't any "regulation" of civilian trousers, and certainly beyond the limit of the two military styles that we normally encounter in living history.

Of the 8 original civilian trousers I own, 3 are "mule ear", 2 are fall front, 1 is side seam, and 2 are of a mule ear variant.

The mule ear styles are below, and have the pocket configured as we see in living history. The pocket is shaped from the waistband seam to the side seam and is faced with self.



The variation of this pocket DOES NOT extend to the side seam. The original brown jeancloth trousers blw are constructed as the standard mule ear, but it is cut in the front panel as a shape and backed. This is a more complicated way of handling this pocket treatment.

The black ones are of the same configuration, but piped instead of faced.

Hope this helps!

Quote :

Histcloth wrote : Bill: You put the OTB to shame!!

Nick,

Sorry about that. I really should have put this question on the Civilian Folder. My bad!  

Thanks for the outstanding photos from your collection. It's safe to say, you've saved me some money. I know almost nothing about the civilian material culture of the period. At my age, I better start learning.  

Your knowledge and willingness to share that knowledge is a big plus for the Forum.

Thanks again,  

I have to wonder if the owners of those trousers with modified pockets became tired of losing belongings when recumbent. My pocket knife and match safe are known to take a hike sometimes when I flop down for a snooze. Just a thought.

Here is yet another variation on the pocket detail, which appears to be an alteration of the "mule ear" style. In this instance, it is a light artilleryman.

Charles:

In terms of intended use, here is a case of CW monkee see, monkey do... (library of congress image  LC-DIG-cwpb-02008)

Nick,

Interesting photo. Ten men in a line. Two wearing sack coats, three wearing jackets, and five wearing frock coats. Also notice the differest shades of their trousers. (One man seems to be wearing dark blue trousers.) You would assume these gentlemen were all in the same unit.

Bill:

I believe that the jackets are actually frock coats with the tails tucked up into the bodies. What is striking is the inconsistency of fit of these garments.

They do kind of look like frocks with the tails tucked in, but the one on the left has eleven buttons and the one on the right has ten.  Plus, I could see tucking in a sack, but a frock has a good deal more tail about it.