When it comes to making quality reproductions of clothing and equipment there seems to be two schools of thought. One is to make an exact as possible copy of a single specific surviving item. For want of a better term, the other is to make a reproduction from the average of surviving relics. As an example, making a sack coat that looks like a lot of originals, but doesn't look exactly like any of them in every detail.

There is a third option, where no original example exists and a lot of guesswork is required; but that option really doesn't enter into this discussion.

It is my opinion that making reproductions on the average basis is actually more authentic. There were thousands and sometimes millions of items made for the use of the soldiers during the Civil War. Today, hundreds or sometimes only one or two still survive. In many cases, these surviving originals differ in their details. Why should we think that nothing the soldiers used varied from these few survivors?

What do you guys think?  

Sir:

This is a very interesting topic and I salute you for introducing this into the forum. As a maker of reproduciton items and a garment industry professional, please allow me to share some of my experiences on the topic.

There is a without a doubt a "sect" of the hobby that subscribes to the idea that one MUST have an original to copy, or that an example MUST exist before making this. Owing to the scarcity of some of these artifacts, this approach is not realistic. As much as that radical sect espouses that "rule", they could not follow this with full fidelity. If, for example, they have chosen to portray a Confederate Regiment where a known example of a shell jacket exists. If ONLY the shell jacket survives, they would not be able to portray the impression accurately. As much as the sect espouses this as a superior approach, unless they can point to a single complete uniform, they are compelled to compromise.

To make a TRUE reproduction of a single item is an extremely costly and difficult thing to do. What this means is that you are first having a SPECIFIC fabric reproduced for this garment. You are then making a custom pattern based upon measurements of a surviving original, which you would then create in different sizes for the reenacting community. Very few, if any reproductions actually follow this approach, owing either the the lack of skill or exreme costs involved. For example, there are almost as many examples of federal kersey as there are surviving examples. The fabric varies in color, weight and finish. This would mean that you would be making different fabric for EACH garment you reproduce. All makers average out their fabrics, and use the same kersey for all the garments in their line.

There are many aspects to making an item, which include:

1). Pattern which reflects (often unique) silhouette of a particular garment or time period. This is a highly skilled step, where most will modify an existing pattern. More often than not, makers need to do nothing more than have a photograph of SOME original SOMEWHERE, and it bypasses any need to create a fresh pattern. In other words, since most reenactors cannot see the sublte differences in pattern, the make their decisions based on the advertised documentation that it was "based on an origninal in the Macaroni Brothers collection". The defense to any review of the final product is either to block access to the original or challenge the reviewer if they have actually surveyed the original. One can counter this approach by taking two steps back and look at a particular maker's line. If all of their forage caps (for example) look the same, then one can deduce that it is not a copy of a particular item, but a modification of existing patterns.
2). Aesthetic, which reflects a unique character of a particular garment. In other words, if a particular garment appears to be sloppily made in mass produced haste, then the reproduction must also reflect this. The real "check" for this approach is whether the maker offers different aesthetics for the differnt products in his line. In other words if ALL of the items produced by the maker look sloppy, one can reasonably conclude that the aesthetic is actually a reflection of a lack of sewing skill and workmanship. The maker must be equally able to make a sloppy mass produced piece as well as a equisitely executed tailored piece.
3). Period sewing techniques and equipment. Many of these items were produced using obsolete or rudimentary equipment and tooling that is neither practical or avaialable in today's market. Obviously, the high production oil bed sewing machines of today are easier to maintain and get parts for than an original sewing machine. Using an maintaining original machines MUST be reflected in the final price of a garment. Most people are not willing to spend the extra costs involved in this detail.

Almost, if not ALL items produced today are a compromise on some aspect.

This being said, one CAN create an item, using a forensic approach. Owing to limited transportation (especially in the south) most of these garments reflected a regional individuality to them. If one can establish "norms" for that region, it is possible to formulate a hypothesis of how an item originally looked. One can use original period drafting manuals that were either published in the region or used on other known surviving examples. This approach is not only the most sophisticated, but also one of the most difficult to undertake, one must not only have expertise in patternmaking, but also PERIOD patternmaking manuals. Louis Devere, while dominant, was not the exclusive patternmaking manual of the time.

One is faced with the option of finding an original or recreating the surroundings environment in which these garments were made.

And basing on homemade is going to make things difficult. Everyone has different sewing techniques. You can take 5 people give them the same pattern and instructions, yet all 5 items will turn out slightly different.... looking at them quickly they may look identical, but look at the stitching and such, and you will find differences. Especially when it comes down to handsewing. I know my buttonholes vary from someone elses, just as if I had to sew stitch by stitch would vary.  And then if you take things  that dont have patterns, theres going to be a huge difference in how its made.

Madam:

Your point is well taken, but I think that the level of sophistication you mention is many years down the road. If I am correct, I believe what you are describing is an even more refined sensitivity to the aesthetic of a garment. To actually capture the sewing style of a particular workman is pur mastery.

I would wholeheartedly concur with you regarding homemade items. My perspective was purely on commercially avaiable items from the period. However, if you are able to produce a highly sophisticated commercial item, a homemade item should be "kid's stuff".

The new act currently in Congress (see below) may drastically change the ability to make an accurate reproduction:
 

--Last edited by Histcloth on 2007-12-06 08:36:58 --

Nick, please keep us updated on this if you can.

I have mixed emotions concerning this proposed law. I understand that marking the goods we use with the maker's mark does reduce the authenticity of those goods. I also know that some of the quality products being produced by people like Mr. Sekela are rather difficult to distinguish from the originals. Not so much today, but in fifty years, after they have aged to a certain degree.

Do we just let the buyer beware?

 

Any ideas how the phrases “clearly marked as copies” and “’plainly and marked ’copy’ or ‘facsimile‘” going to be addressed by those who defarb various weapons?  

Curtis,

I've had my weapons defarbed by John Zimmerman. He restamps the serial number on the bottom of the barrel.

Here is the bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.4125:

Nick,

Thanks for this information and the very good explaination about garment techniques. Like Bill I see both the good and bad in this legislation. Let's take your forage caps or coats for example. They are so true to original pattern, material, construction, markings, and sewing techniques that with proper aging they will be difficult to tell from originals. Most people obviously buy these as the reproductions they are, but we have also seen the charlaitains selling artificially aged top drawer gear as original for prices that are much too expensive for a reproduction but way too cheap for an original.

Let me give full disclosure that I am a business associate of Mr. Sekela and am a seller of his goods so I may be a bit biased in my opinion but my personal feeling is that when making reproduction equipment it should be a bit of buyer beware on originals. If you are prepared to spend the kind of money that originals require, you should be willing to do the research into the items in question and be able to confirm the history of the item. This reminds me of something I read a while back where someone saw a battered army dress hat in an antique store one day and picked it up to examine it since it appeared to be an original, on closer inspection he found the name of someone he knew under the hatband proving the item was a well made repop. This is in fat one place I disagreed withthe CRRC II when they made the comment that one should avoid buying items that are too acurate for this purpose. My question is what is next? Will it be illegal to take a 1969 Chevelle Malibu and restify it to be an SS 454 clone? If so I may be in rouble as I am considering changing a 72 Monte Carlo 350 I've owned for about 20 years to a 454 clone.

Nick please keep us informed

Nick,

I read the bill. That sure made everything clear as mud.  

I also have a personal stake in this discussion. I used to make Gardner Pattern canteens and hope to make them again in the future. I used to stamp "WRR" under the sling keeper, where it would be hidden by the sling. I finally stopped, because I figured I was kidding myself. On the short haul, the stamp was too easy to remove and in a hundred years nobody would know what "WRR" meant anyway.

My philosophy on making canteens prompted my original post. I never once attempted to make an exact copy of an surviving original. I studied lots of originals and knew what they looked like. I made canteens that looked like the originals I had viewed. Every canteen I made was a little different in their details. In terms of authenticity, I never made any claims. I just let the product stand on it's own merits.    

Sirs:

I also have mixed feelings about the legislation. It already is illegal to make a fake/counterfeit item, and this is supposedly intended to take the burden of knowledge OFF of the collector. What surprises me is the often limited knowledge many collectors possess considering their substantial investment. They should be the absolute experts in the field, yet one of the strongest selling points is the "appraisal" by a leading expert in the field.

There are limitations as to how much you can protect a collector from himself. Many are highly competitive and competet to outdo each other. If I live to be 350 years old, I will never forget the experience of my friend Ron, who was collecting Imperial Czarist Russian militaria 10 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall. He was approached by a "dealer" who lived in a house boat, and on a bi-weekly basis would come up with mint condition original items. Common sense should have prevailed, and where it failed, his close friends warned him that there was something fishy going on. How could this "dealer" find so many pieces without leaving his houseboat? It was Spence Waldron who got the "dealer" to finally admit that he made the items from original WWI American uniforms.

There is also the story of a collector of Nazi German headgear whose had a room filled with display cases of visor caps, which he had been buying/collecting since the 1960's. In the early 1990's collectors of that era begain using flourescent blacklights to search for phosphates in thread and fabric. In other words, when viewed in a darkened room, artifacts would "glow" under blacklight if the presence of phosphates were detected. Supposedly, when his collector first learned of this "test" half of the hats in his collecting room glowed. The flaw in this test is that many household fabric detergents also contain phosphates as whiteners, and one could destroy the value of a known original artifact by washing it with modern detergent.

On the other hand, if one reads the indictments against the Pritchards regarding the famous Picket artifacts, it is surprising just how ignorant collectors are. They openly altered original garments to increase value, and also "disposed of" completely valid original garments given to them for appraisal, because they were "band uniforms" in their opinion. If, for example you took your car to a garage to have the state inspection preformed, and when passed by to retrieve it, you were told that it was unsafe to drive, so the garage decided to donate it to charity. YES, what the Pritchards did was unconscionable, BUT how could those collectors be so stupid??

In terms of the business side of making reproductions it MAY be a blessing for the makers. If people are required to mark things they produce, it will put an end to, or bring to the government's attention the kitchen table "manufacturers" and blanket sale "sutlers". From the manufacturing side, it has evolved to a point that just about ANYONE can sell anything, and most, if not all, are operating below the government's radar. By doing this on the sly, they are not subject to the random inspections, registration fees and workman's comp expenses that a highly visible maker such as myself is forced to bear. Oftentimes, these low key makers can thumb their noses at how much cheaper they can sell their items. This legislation may force them to toe the same line that the visible, advertising makers do. My fear is that they will also start to dip their hands into the reenactors pockets with this legislation.

Nick,

A while ago I was talking to an antique firearms dealer, who joked there are now more Confederate revolvers in circulation then were ever manufactured during the Civil War!    :/

When the Government talks about a "fake", do they mean an object that has been made to look old and is designed to pass for an original item?  

Interesting piece that just came in from WWII German militaria dealer Craig Gottlieb... Seems that Civil War is not the only area that should be worried.