At this weekend's September Storm event, Hank Trent was wearing a civilian vest that was laced up in the back, sort of like a lady's corset. I had never seen anything like that before and was wondering if this vest was made from an earlier pattern?

Hank, I really wanted to ask you about the vest, but bit my tongue!  

I will let Hank reply as to his vest, but I have seen originals of the type that lace up in the back.

Hi Bill,

That was made based on an original black silk vest that we own. The original is all hand sewn, with three pockets (two down, one up), so I'd date it to the 1860s or 1850s, but not too much before. If anyone has a better idea on the date, or what to look for, let me know. The back was just like that, polished cotton with white cotton twill strips with brass eyelets holding black tape laces.

The one I wore at September Storm was my first test-pattern mock-up of it, made with a checked cotton front, now relegated to wear to dirty trash-your-clothes events like September Storm. In real life, I'd guess that the laced back would be to produce the most adjustable and therefore best fit possible, and would be most logical with nicer front fabrics like silk.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Hank,

From the little bit that I know, that style of vest dates back during the Mormon movement in the late 1840s - early '50s. If you watch Work and the Glory, then you can see the entire cast and extras wearing such vests. I was there on the set during the movie and talked to the woman over the wardrobe department who told me that that was the style most seen during that time period.(she actually had a degree in history and knew what she was talking about) I had to ask cause I was wearing my 1860s civilian vest and had to see if it would pass for the scene I was in for the movie.    

--Last edited by Mossy Creek Boy on 2007-09-12 20:44:55 --

Quote :

Mossy Creek Boy wrote : ... If you watch Work and the Glory, then you can see the entire cast and extras wearing such vests.

By Work and the Glory, do you mean The Work and the Glory starring Sam Hennings?  I'll rewatch that tonight, but I don't remember being impressed by the clothes, but it's been a couple years since I saw it.  

I wonder what Liz thought of the clothes?  

Linda Trent
lindatrent@zoomnet.net

Actually, I just have the first movie, not the later ones, and the first only goes up to April 6, 1830. So I can't comment on the one that you were talking about.  FWIW, there were no vests like Hank's in this movie.

However, based upon the clothing on the first of the series I'd say the clothing is far too Connor Prairie (1836), in fact, even after having served a mission to Rochester, NY and knowing church history like the back of my own hand I forgot that I was watching the 1820s and early 1830 -- I honestly just kept sitting there thinking "this isn't supposed to be the CW this is Conner Prairie era."

Since I watched the movie, let me give my observations on the clothes.  Other than the fact it looked more like fashion plates of the 30s and 40s and even a few 50s... my main gripe is that the stars were typical Hollywood.  Heaven forbid we were a hat, it'll hide this lucious head of hair. No matter whether the men were out working in the sun, calling upon neighbors, etc. they were without hats and coats.  

The only time I see any of the Steeds or Smiths in a coat is when the Church is being organized, and everyone's sitting in the cabin.  

Martin Harris, a man of some money, is on his way to town in a wagon and has no coat, no hat.  The store keeper (apparently quite well to do) is in his vest only.  

And hair?  Don't even get me started with the store keeper's daughter.  Her make-up was so 21st century.  I don't know enough about modern hair styles to know about the men.

And a couple of other things.  Joshua Steed's comment about "regressing from man to ape."  Um, isn't that primarily Darwin?  And if I have to nit-pic the girl saying "hello."

All in all, I'd say costuming was decent, but you could certainly tell that a number of people didn't have coats and costuming didn't have enough of them; but when it comes to the main stars, as usual they must have been hard to work with and refuse to wear what would have been most appropriate.

Just my two cents worth,

Linda

Any way of getting pic on here of the particular vest in question?

Linda,

I would have to agree with your comments on the movie being a lot of Hollywood. Of course, most of the films we watch are. The main actors were those nose in the air, I don't have if I don't want to types. Of course, I didn't care while I was on set...........shoot, I was getting paid $200+ just for being part of the props department during the making of the third one.We took a cannon down to it and got to hang out in the props trailer with the prop guy helping him repair all the antique props they had while we waited. You would have enjoyed looking at some of the antique parasols, baby strollers, wooden wash boards, etc. I just wish I had a truck there that could pull the trailer back to my house.

In some of the later movies, you can see some of the vests that Hank is mentioning (if I remember right) or maybe it is in my memory that some had them on while I was walking around on set. I remember seeing some in the third movie during the Governor's speech while the crowd was gathered listening, and if I'm not mistaken, there were some in the second. I'll have to re-watch that one and see. If you look close enough, you can see me in the third one leaned up on a light pole on the other side of the flame blower.

All those that were extras and the ACW reenactors were wearing hats and caps, but your right about non of the main cast wearing any. This is where technical supervisors that know what needs done should be on hand.  

Quote :

Ken Cornett wrote : Any way of getting pic on here of the particular vest in question?

I photographed the reproduction rather than the original because the original is in the fourth box down in the second row back, which means I'd have to move seven heavy boxes to get to it. I can do it if everyone insists, but for now...  Here's the reproduction vest I just photographed.  http://hanktrent.com/Vest.html  

Sorry, can't figure out how to get it as a hyperlink.  Which it probably did now I'm saying it won't do it.  

Linda Trent  

--Last edited by Linda Trent on 2007-09-13 12:17:04 --

Liz's precise thoughts on the clothing are far, far, far too... ummm... Opinionated for most open forums. I will edit and tone them down here.

I do not have much good to say on the quality of and sensibility of the costuming. It does NOT serve as a good example of historic clothing for this time period, or any other.  And the plot was so darn poorly paced, and the dialogue so painful, there was nothing much to distract me from the bad clothes.  (Really, it followed those Dod-Awful books very, very well, which is a tragedy.  Some authors could benefit from an editor with some dominatrix tendencies.)

SO... a few main gripes, having forced myself to watch most of all three movies.  

Women's things: Predominantly Awful.  There are a few shots of Emma where they got the good stuff, and did it well, so SOMEONE knew what they were doing, which makes the Awful even more dreadful--it had to be deliberate.  I think they borrowed the old zipper gowns from North and South for the southern floozy widow chick in the second/third movies.  And they USED A HOOP on her two decades before it comes back into being.  On the Shopkeeper's Daughter... I think Mr. needs to have a chat with Mrs.  Husband: pasty Scottish fellow.  Wife: pasty Scottish woman.  Daughter: vaguely Portugese-looking. Did the canal system in New York employ Portugese boatmen?  Someone might question her parentage, even without her SLC accent and loooooong droopy hair.  MAJOR big wrong stuff all the way through.  I cannot make myself sit through SIC HOURS of torture again to get the specific notes on the whole thing.

Men's things: No rational correlation between the class/situation of the character and his clothing. (Also a problem for the women).  The men in Missouri apparently all shop at Mob Thugs R Us and the Mullet Factory.  Just stinky bad.  

Children's things: No Words.  I was tempted to just point at the screen and holler "Unclean!  Unclean!" the whole time.  (Come to think of it, my husband made me turn off #3 when I was still rooting for the mob to kill everyone and put me out of their misery.)

Worse "Mormon History Movies" do exist, costuming-wise.  "Handcart" was particularly painful distillation of bad clothing, for instance.  But W&G was really, really, really painful for me, as it lasted longer.  And it was like a vast car accident.  I didn't WANT to watch the whole trilogy.  But something perverse MADE me watch.  I sat there astonished that people could set out to do a "historic movie", and totally screw up so much material culture.  We Have IMAGES, people.  It's not that hard.

SIGH.

Okay, now you all know how truly mean-spirited I really am when it comes to "professionals" getting things really wrong.  I am far, far more forgiving and tolerant when it's "just folks."  

OK, I'll put that movie on my "don't waste valuable life time watching," list. My wife, did buy me N&S some years ago. I keep it prominatly displayed on a bookshelf next to the TV. Just displayed mind you, once or twice was enough.

Understand, though, that most people will not watch costumed movies with me.  I'm a VERY tough audience.  And a lot of people really liked the movies.  If you watch the first one, I think you'll get a feel for whether or not you'll like the others.  Just don't bother trying to use them as an example of any kind of historic clothing, that's all.

I agree with Liz, that if you watch movies for the costuming you'll leave disappointed. What I wanted to do was point out that there are a lot of people in the hobby who have the study of historic clothing as their forte; and that a degree in history does not necessarily translate into knowledge of historic clothing.

I'm sure one of my history professors in college didn't know much about historic clothing, but ask him about Native Americans and he could talk one's ear off.

The books and movie have a huge following, and I'm not meaning to belittle either one of them.  If you'd like to watch them for the entertainment value, by all means do it.  But if you're watching any movie to base your next CW reenactment outfit on -- find another source.

Personally, I'm a glutten for punishment when it comes to movies, so I'll probably get the other two and watch them.  Of course I used to love Douglas Fairbanks portraying Brigham Young in, what else? Brigham Young!   -- hey, Fairbanks and Young had a lot in common, they both had lots of lady friends!  

Linda Trent
lindatrent@zoomnet.net

There's something wonderfully dreadful about some of the Classic Hollywood historic movies, isn't there?  I don't get nearly as cranky about those as I do with anything made in my lifetime.

Rather off-topic, but Linda, do you get as big a kick out of that old goodie "Pioneers in Petticoats" as I do?  "You look like a yard of pump water!"  I still love that one... zippers and pointy bras and 60s bouffant hair and all.

someone tried to convince me that zippers and elastic (everyday skirt elastic) are completely time period appropriate...  had to give them a lesson in their history!  and yes... they were wearing both and making fun of my handsewn buttonholes (as in... thats way too much work just put in a zipper... personally i find zippers a pain!).

Dulcie,

It sounds like they need to put a zipper somewhere. You just keep doing it right.

OK, be ready........ I'm going to use a word I despise and is generally frowned upon here but I am going to use it even though I am a mod.......Anyone who thinks that a zipper and elastic waist such as you described is "period correct", thinks that doing it right is "too much work", and refuses to learn the correct things is what I classify as a FARB (especially when they refuse to learn and improve). There I said it, I meant it, and I don't take it back. I can live with people not knowing better, not understanding, etc. but when they show a contempt to anyone making an effort to actually do the research and do things right, my tolerance level goes to zero. Ken, sorry if this is innapropriate for the common ground, but I think there are some minimal standards at least.

While we are on the subject of bad costuming, I watched "The Great Locomotive Chase" the other night (the Disney work). Growing up where that took place has caused it to always have a special significance to me and I did and do enjoy the film for what it is. But the costuming of the Confederate soldiers has always driven me batty. Those grey coats with the electric blue trim..... ugh! And every one of them had the same identical coat on and they all looked to be freshly issued. Ialso kept thinking to myself....."Why is Davy Crockett stealing a train?"  

--Last edited by toptimlrd on 2007-09-15 12:16:35 --

Quote :

Why is Davy Crockett stealing a train?"

Please tell me Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone were dressed period correct.

As to why Davy Crockett was stealing the train?  He wants to try to change the ending of "Davy Crockett at the Alamo," and thought that perhaps a better "General" would help.  

Linda.

Quote :

toptimlrd wrote : Dulcie, It sounds like they need to put a zipper somewhere. You just keep doing it right. OK, be ready........ I'm going to use a word I despise and is generally frowned upon here but I am going to use it even though I am a mod.......Anyone who thinks that a zipper and elastic waist such as you described is "period correct", thinks that doing it right is "too much work", and refuses to learn the correct things is what I classify as a FARB (especially when they refuse to learn and improve). There I said it, I meant it, and I don't take it back. I can live with people not knowing better, not understanding, etc. but when they show a contempt to anyone making an effort to actually do the research and do things right, my tolerance level goes to zero. Ken, sorry if this is innapropriate for the common ground, but I think there are some minimal standards at least. While we are on the subject of bad costuming, I watched "The Great Locomotive Chase" the other night (the Disney work). Growing up where that took place has caused it to always have a special significance to me and I did and do enjoy the film for what it is. But the costuming of the Confederate soldiers has always driven me batty. Those grey coats with the electric blue trim..... ugh! And every one of them had the same identical coat on and they all looked to be freshly issued. Ialso kept thinking to myself....."Why is Davy Crockett stealing a train?"

As farby as that movie is, when I was a youngster, that movie, and the "Horse Soldiers" got me interested in WBTS History.
Look at those Confederate Uniforms in "The Horse Soldiers"....UGH!

Quote :

TexReb wrote :   As farby as that movie is, when I was a youngster, that movie, and the "Horse Soldiers" got me interested in WBTS History. Look at those Confederate Uniforms in "The Horse Soldiers"....UGH!

Jay,

I still love them both, just see them through different eyes today.

Ok, since this is still going and I don't have to post another thread with the same title I'll ask this question here.

I'm finishing making a vest for a guy that ordered one from me and I'm thinking about putting cloth covered buttons on it using the same fabric that the front body of the vest is made from. How can I go about doing this more authentic than going out and buying those button kits from the World of Wally? I know they may be easier, but yet they are not authentic as far as the backing and the shank is considered. Can I take shell buttons, cut the material larger than the button itself, and make the shank part out of the material gathered behind the button or what? Any help will be appreciated.