Sorry to have taken so long to reply to this fancinating thread, but let me state for the record Chris, that you could more than hold your own when it comes to any level event.  It's not always about the physical characteristics (of which you are by no means out of the realm of realistic - you would fit right in and be far from the largest lad at any of these)it is everybit just as important to have the knowledge, desire, kit, and heart, and you have that in spades.  I know of few folks in the hobby, and nobody else in Florida so free to share contemporary knowledge and outstanding research to so many people.  You are cheating yourself and your ancestors by not honoring them further by coming to the good events.  I'm proud to call you a friend and I'd share a piece of saltbeef with you anywhere, be that a low tier, middle tier, or top shelf event, even when we plan something good for Florida in the future like we're going to discuss at Ocean Pond here in a few days.  You're selling yourself and your impression way too short on this forum!

Quote :

Histcloth wrote : 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.

Nick,

As I understand the depot system, at least as it operated in the north; uniform parts were diecut in large quantities and the various parts were put together in kits, for women to sew at home. I would think there should have been a reasonable amount of consistency in the sizes of garments being issued by a particular depot, even if they didn't match the QM specs. I understand there would be some variation becaues of seam allowences; but it seems if the ladies were starting out with the same size parts, the final product shouldn't be that different. What am I missing?    

Bill,

I think he is referring only to the references in the Quartermasters records and how they are inconsistent with the actual sizing that came from the Depots. I'm sure Nick will explain further later but he is in California at the Winter Quarters conference for the next few days.  

--Last edited by toptimlrd on 2008-02-10 23:48:00 --

Bill:

Thank you very much for your reply.

I spoke about this VERY topic at the winter conference this weekend, and got a hearty congratulations and thanks from attendees Les Jensen and Juanita Liesch. Judging by the tremendous variety of variation in styling of the garments, it is self evident that the sizing is a matter of a lack of consistency in patterns. The Quartermaster Manual is a very "modern" in its attempt to control the final garments reaching the army.

The scenario you describe would only be possible if the styling of the garments were consistent, which the originals clearly show wasn't the case.

Deleted by poster  

--Last edited by oldkingcrow on 2008-02-13 14:39:35 --

I plan on going to New Hope Church and Westville.  

Hey Joe,

haven't seen you in a while.

Quote :

Ken Cornett wrote : Hey Joe, haven't seen you in a while.

Hey,

Yea sorry I had to do without some things such as Internet and such to finish getting my wife through school. She is out so now I can have my toys back haha

I would love to do Marmadukes Raid. Though I doubt I can find the time or money to drive to MO. Looks like a awesome event. Heard great things about PM as well. I have made a promise to myself to get out west in the next year or two. Hope that I can.

Chris, if you can make it from Patrick Springs to Stuart's Draft up I-81, there may be a way to make that trip to Mizzourah happen. Nothing is finalized yet, but it is entirely possible.

[cit]flattop32355 wrote :  

Anyone who has to go South to get to Winter of 64 live too far north!

One can never live too far north.  

New Hope Church and Marmaduke's Biggie Deluxe for me!

[quote]

Quote :

hanktrent wrote : There's a good discussion on heights in Fox's Regimental Losses. http://www.civilwarhome.com/chapt7.htm 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

These numbers have the simple fallacy in them: who is recruited/volunteer versus society yields a different number. The average height of a Draftee during WWII was over 5' 10" for example. It would be wrong to draw the inference that society is now shorter because modern recruits are only 5.9 and change. There are more 6' 3" +, 6' 7" +, 7' + individuals in society today.....as a percent of the heights, than in 1861. We are Taller now then then. Modern recruits are from 5'? to 6' 7" No 4' 4" drummer boys age 14 in the ranks. And no 7'. Abe Lincoln was a tall oddity.....now he'd fit right in.

Quote :

RJSamp wrote : We are taller now than then.

Not sure what you're arguing about. The statistics I posted all support the premise that we're taller now than in the 1860s. Even the World War II soldier on the chart I linked to was about an inch shorter than the modern soldier. While you can say that military statistics aren't representative of society as a whole, I'm not sure I see the point of doing so, since they still support your claim.

What I'm really curious about, though, is your statement comparing the percentage of 6'3"+ individuals in society today vs. in the 1860s. In particular, what's the 1860s percentage based on, for society at large? I agree with your conclusion, but I'm just curious what other period height data is out there, that's not military-related.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net