Physical recovery is becoming more of an issue---I'm just about in tears right now at the prospect of loading the truck tomorrow night, working the better part of the day Thursday, then cranking up for a 5 hour drive, a tent set up likely in the cold rain, in order to make a Friday morning school program.  And I can't make a bit of progress tonight it seems, as its coming a deluge outside.  

Still, rather go than stay, and recently got a delightful invite that almost promises snow on my petticoats later next month.  I looked at my Dear Husband and said "I'm an absolute fool to be thinking about going"  and he said "You'd regret it more if you stayed home".

Anyway Chris, the invite is open to you. I'll see you in a couple of weeks. Bear in mind that if us 44 coat 38-40 waist late 30 to late 40 year olds didn't hit the tier 1 events, there probably wouldn't be many tier 1 events.  

--Last edited by toptimlrd on 2008-01-29 23:25:33 --

Deleted by poster.  

--Last edited by oldkingcrow on 2008-02-13 14:46:59 --

Quote :

OldKingCrow wrote : The largest CS pants as I understand were about a 30...38 for a jacket.

You're kidding. The largest? I'm assuming you don't mean at a reenactment, you mean the largest historically, right?

Those figures sound, at best, like averages, not maximums. If you're going to base your hobby decisions on those figures, do you have a source?

Edited to add: just to be clear, what I mean is, I'm like everyone else in saying that you'd fit in just fine at any EBUFU event, if that's what you think you'd enjoy. I wonder if you have an exaggerated idea of how thin Confederates were (not to mention how "perfect" EBUFU events are supposed to be--because they're not, they're just a little more accurate than mainstream). Unless you have documentation that 30" really was the largest Confederate waist size, which I'd like to see.

Hank Trent
ROFLOL that I'm too fat to portray a Confederate soldier
hanktrent@voyager.net  

--Last edited by hanktrent on 2008-01-30 09:24:40 --

Quote :

toptimlrd wrote : If us 44 coat 38-40 waist late 30 to late 40 year olds didn't hit the tier 1 events, there probably wouldn't be many tier 1 events.

Robert,

It's been my very limited personal observation that no more than thirty percent of the participants, at the more authentic events I've attended, have been between sixteen and thirty years of age. An even smaller percentage have the average body type of the period.

I based that last statement on the standard size mix of uniforms issued by the Federal Army.

A lot of the events ask your age on the registration form. Has anybody ever compiled the age mix at any of the CPH events?  

Hmm, of course you could always get in shape and maintain yourself.  Less food means smaller waist   !

Deleted by poster.  

--Last edited by oldkingcrow on 2008-02-13 15:53:52 --

Quote :

Ken Cornett wrote : Hmm, of course you could always get in shape and maintain yourself.  Less food means smaller waist   !

Oh how I wish, even when I was in military college and running / exercising daily I never got below a 34 waist and always had a paunch (darn genetics). Now I'm MUCH older and have asthma as well as a weak knee I don't think I'll ever see a 34 waist again, I'm trying to lose a few inches to get back to a true 36.

Interesting discussion.

From the Quartermaster Manual:

Chest measurement of the Sack Coat;
#1-36", #2-38", #3-40", #4-42

Waist measurements of trowsers
#1-32, #2-34, #3-36, #4-38

If sizes were not specified, sack coats and trousers were furnished in the following proportions to the 100:

#1-20, #2-40, #3-30, #4-10

When I was a skinny 24 year old kid in Viet Nam I would have worn size #1 trousers and a size #3 sack coat. My jungle fatiques trousers and jacket were both "Small Regulars". The sizing of military uniforms suggests that our body shapes have changed. It seems our chests have gotten bigger over the years.

Deleted by poster.  

--Last edited by oldkingcrow on 2008-02-13 15:54:27 --

Quote :

The best thing the EBUFU movement could do to up the accuracy and realistic look is to set a requirement that a) You have to fit in a standard FED size b) You have to meet minimum modern height weight standards i.e. @ 5'7 that is below 163 for a large frame.

Chris, how are you going to fight the Rebs with a five man battalion .

You wouldn't get the numbers.

Deleted by poster.  

--Last edited by oldkingcrow on 2008-02-13 15:55:01 --

Quote :

Bill wrote : From the Quartermaster Manual: Chest measurement of the Sack Coat; #1-36", #2-38", #3-40", #4-42 The sizing of military uniforms suggests that our body shapes have changed. It seems our chests have gotten bigger over the years.

There's a thread over on the AC forum from a few weeks ago about "what size are you," and I noticed how many people said they'd need a smaller number trouser than coat.

I wonder if it's based on actually trying on period-sized uniforms, or just on what modern size a person buys? My answer there was based on modern sizes.

I'm narrow-chested, but based on buying modern sizes, even I'd take a #1 trouser and a #2 or #3 coat, although my chest measures 36" like a #1 coat. In a modern 36 coat, I can't bend my arms forward because it's too tight in the shoulders, so I buy a larger size.

I've never tried on a perfect #1 army blouse, since my civilian stuff is custom made and the federal blouse I have is used so I have no idea its actual size.

So I wonder...

Is it true that body types have changed? Or was the fit somehow cut differently, so a 36" chest in the period fit a larger person than a 36" chest today?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net  

--Last edited by hanktrent on 2008-01-31 13:34:10 --

Hank, if you get a chance at W64, pull Chris Peiring aside, he's a MD and he can give you the wherefores and whytoo's about the very subject of our bodies changing. Basically, "they" used muscles on a daily basis, in ways we never will/do. And, we have the benifit (I guess its a benefit) of better diet and medical care from birth and as we grow older.  

--Last edited by grumpydave on 2008-01-31 17:59:14 --

I have no doubt that changes in exercise, nutrition and medical care have affected our bodies over time.

It just seems counterintuitive that less exercise would make our waists smaller and our chests larger.

I could see that poorer nutrition and more illness during youth would slow growth and make people smaller-boned, but you'd think it would affect the chest and waist (or at least pelvis) equally.

And I can't think of any typical period exercise that would develop the abdominal muscles without also developing the chest/shoulders.

It may be the answer, but it just seems the opposite of what one would expect.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Chris,

Don't be so sure about the height idea. We have as a population become taller since the 1860's. At 6'1" I would have ben considered a very tall man but now I am just a bit above average.

There's a good discussion on heights in Fox's Regimental Losses.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/chapt7.htm

Quote :

The average height of the American soldiers, as shown by the records of the recruiting officers, was 5 feet 8 1/4 inches. The men from Maine, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and Kentucky, were slightly above this figure. The West Virginians averaged 5 feet 9 inches in height. The general average would have been greater had it not included the measurements of recruits from 17 to 20 years of age, who evidently had not attained their full stature when their measurement was recorded. Out of about 1,000,000 recorded heights of soldiers there were 3,613 who were over 6 feet 3 inches, and among them were some who were over 7 feet.

This article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8423112/ gives modern military recruits' average height as 5' 9.6" and gives Civil War soldiers' height a little less than Fox's at 5' 7.2".

In the chart, it also includes comparative weight and waist measurements, though with no specific historic sources other than "U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine." No chest measurements for comparison, unfortunately.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Gents:

One serious point to consider is that the Quatermaster's Manual was never published, and consequently, NEVER had any impact on the production of clothing during the war. What has yet to be discovered, is exactly how they arrived at the numbers they did, as a considerable number of uniforms that I have examined DO NOT correspond to that sizing schedule.

Moreover, there are a considerable number of mistakes in the manual. I have seen correspondence from Col. WW Vinton of the New York Depot specifically requesting 4 sizes of drawers and 2 sizes of shirt, where the Quartermaster's Manual specifies 3 and 1 respectively. MOREOVER, the original Alvin Rose Contract drawers that were formerly in the Stamatellos Brothers' collection were marked with 4 bars on the waist.

I have also seen correspondence from the US Arsenal at Troy NY to Vinton, requesting trousers up to a 44" waist for the Ordinance Department Staff (which made me chuckle; some things never change, and who'da thunk that many reenactors DO HAVE the correct body type for that impression.

I have yet to find a definitive document that emphatically states how the army came up with the sizing. Notwithstanding, the original garments are all over the board, and if anything, the Quartermaster Manual was an attempt to get the sizing issue under control.

Here are some of the chest measurements from the O.R.--Series III-Vol. V p. 880 that I posted ages at least 4 years ago on a list.

Quote :

Table No.8.--Showing measurements of chest, heights, and ages of recruits and substitutes accepted, as classified in to Americans and aliens, white Americans and colored Americans, white aliens and colored aliens, examined from July 4, 1864, to April 30, 1865. Since most reenactors are white, I am only using the white American/alien averages, although if you have access to the O.Rs. you can get all the averages. Americans 1,383 Aliens or foreign born   138 Total of all examined    1,521 Measurement of chest Average measurement at inspiration Americans 35.05" Aliens 35.48" Average measurement at expiration Americans 33.04 Aliens    33.59 Average height of all examined. Americans 5 ft. 7.45 inches Aliens    5 ft. 6.32 inches Greatest height of any examined. Americans 6 ft. 4 inches Aliens    6 ft. 6 inches Least height of any examined. Americans 5 ft. Aliens    5 ft. Average age of all examined. Americans 24.43 yrs. Aliens    27.09 yrs. Greatest age of any examined. Americans 44 yrs. Aliens    43 yrs. Least age of any examined. Americans 16 yrs. Aliens    18 yrs.

Linda.

Mrs. Trent:

I thank you immensely for this posting, for the pure anthropological value. This study was taken of draftees in Ohio, and was done to determine the physical ability of the recruit for military service. The down side is that the measurements were taken by surgeons and not clothing professionals, and by their own admission is inconsistent, if not inaccurate. Their intended purpose of measuring the chest was crude way to examine for lung capacity and/or related diseases. The following quote is from the same passage..

"The measurement of the chest will differ materially if made at different points, and in the absence of any positively established rule the measurements have been made around, at, or immediately above the origin of the pectoralis major muscle. Expiration at ordinary and not forced contraction of the chest, and inspiration at full inflation. Many subjects with good lungs will not make that free inspiration their ability would permit, and are indifferent to the request; while boys of eighteen and too youthful to be accepted, having imagined or been informed that success depended upon the size of the chest, will inflate themselves with an elasticity almost equal to Aesop's toad."

This is a great piece of data, but I don't know if this passed along the same desk as the writers of the Quartermaster's Manual. Louis Devere's Practial Guide to Cutting on the Centre Pointe System was published in France and then England and subsequently found its way here. He lists 38 1/2" as the standard "base" size for men's wear. While this is a starting point, it is rather common knowledge that the French (chasseur) uniforms that arrived here were so small as to be unfit for use.  

--Last edited by Histcloth on 2008-02-07 07:11:59 --