Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Uniform alterations

Expand Messages
  • Sue Draper
    I wasn t going to comment on this thread, but holy cow! We re worried about groundcloths, period skivvies and eyewear, and yet we re supposed to accept a
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but holy cow! We're worried about groundcloths, period skivvies and eyewear, and yet we're supposed to accept a blatant disregard for army uniform regulations and accuracy in the most basic aspect of our portrayals (as in our costuming)? Altering your uniform to try and make it look less skimpy rather goes against the grain, if you'll pardon the pun. IMHO, you could, if you're going to bugger the uniform anyway, try altering the spacing between the loops. Going from 9 to 12 loops is going to stand out when you put him in line with every one else who has 9.

      -sue
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bateman, Andrew <abateman@...>
      To: 'WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com' <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: January 30, 2001 1:16 PM
      Subject: RE: [WarOf1812] Re: RedCoat Pattern


      > From: BritcomHMP@...
      >
      > This raises an excellent point. On particularly large persons
      > the front
      > lacing on British Jacket can look very skimpy, is there a scale to
      > proportionally expand the lace to cover the same amount of
      > the front of a
      > modern man as it did on the period soldier?

      Andrew writes:

      I will let Jim Yaworsky explain how he went about fitting a coat to one of
      our latest recruits. Suffice it to say the guy is 6'7" and powerfully
      built: the number of bastion loops on the front had to be increased from 9
      to 12 to avoid the "skimpy" appearance.

      Of course if you are of normal height and the problem is "portliness", don't
      overlook altering your belly to fit the coat by diet and exercise. Your
      body will thank you and you will look and feel better on and off the field.
      I have made some progress in this regard this winter and hope to take the
      field looking a little less like Tweedledum next spring. Those crossbelts
      aren't forgiving of bulk.

      Andrew Bateman, 1/41st

      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



      The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • fullerfamily@sprintmail.com
      ... worried about groundcloths, period skivvies and eyewear, and yet we re supposed to accept a blatant disregard for army uniform regulations and accuracy in
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In WarOf1812@y..., "Sue Draper" <suedraper@s...> wrote:
        > I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but holy cow! We're
        worried about groundcloths, period skivvies and eyewear, and yet
        we're supposed to accept a blatant disregard for army uniform
        regulations and accuracy in the most basic aspect of our portrayals
        (as in our costuming)? Altering your uniform to try and make it look
        less skimpy rather goes against the grain, if you'll pardon the pun.
        IMHO, you could, if you're going to bugger the uniform anyway, try
        altering the spacing between the loops. Going from 9 to 12 loops is
        going to stand out when you put him in line with every one else who
        has 9.
        >
        > -sue

        Sue,

        when it comes to British and Empire uniforming, I agree. I have seen
        some Rifles groups put 10 to 14 buttons on each row of buttons on
        their jackets to "fit" the individual wearer, when acc. to the
        uniform regs of 1802, each row of buttons should be a dozen each, no
        matter who is wearing them. This was done in one group, bec. they
        read Cuthbertson's book from 1779 where he suggests that the lace and
        buttons be fitted in an even fashion to cover the length of the man's
        chest, and translated it to the Nap era Rifle Regiments. They either
        didn't know or ignored the later regs. Maybe this tactic would work
        for a guardsman's coat (Scots Guards?), but not for anybody else.

        Roger,
        3/95th (Rifles)
        (who still wears an old greenjacket from another group with the wrong
        # of buttons... I'll redo mine after I've got everybody else's gear
        done :^)

        Remember, "the shoemaker goes shoeless, until everybody else's feet
        are shod"...(Old Latvian saying....not... :^) )
      • Andrew Bateman
        ... From: Sue Draper ... the spacing between the loops. Going from 9 to 12 loops is going to stand out when you put him in line with every one else who has
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Sue Draper"

          > I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but holy cow! ... try altering
          the spacing between the loops. Going from 9 to 12 loops is going to stand
          out when you put him in line with every one else who has 9.

          Andrew writes:

          He'll stand out anyway. (LOL) This particular coat fits like a greatcoat
          when you put it on a normal-size person and the lacing pattern had to be
          expanded somehow to fill the space. Just so you can visualize the problem,
          there are no "spaces" between the loops on a 41st coat. The 41st uses a
          "Jew's harp" style bastion loop and the corners of the loops are supposed to
          be touching the corners of the adjacent loops. Check out
          http://members.tripod.com/~fortyfirst/images.htm and you will see what I
          mean. I believe Jim tried scaling up the size of the loops but they came
          out proportioned wrong (the dreaded "skimpy" look). And introducing spaces
          between the loops would have looked even worse, hence 12 loops.

          It was a known practice to remove a loop from the coat of an exceptionally
          small size man to preserve the appearance of the loops, so adding loops to
          the coat of a large man is reasonably well grounded in fact. The regimental
          tailors in the Rifles would obviously not have this problem because they
          have no lace.

          Andrew Bateman, 1/41st
        • BritcomHMP@aol.com
          In a message dated 1/30/2001 4:34:09 PM Central Standard Time, suedraper@sympatico.ca writes:
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 30, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 1/30/2001 4:34:09 PM Central Standard Time,
            suedraper@... writes:

            << I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but holy cow! We're worried
            about groundcloths, period skivvies and eyewear, and yet we're supposed to
            accept a blatant disregard for army uniform regulations and accuracy in the
            most basic aspect of our portrayals (as in our costuming)? Altering your
            uniform to try and make it look less skimpy rather goes against the grain, if
            you'll pardon the pun. IMHO, you could, if you're going to bugger the
            uniform anyway, try altering the spacing between the loops. Going from 9 to
            12 loops is going to stand out when you put him in line with every one else
            who has 9. >>

            Sue,

            Such 'buggering' probably was done and is certainly current practice. I
            myself have seen a uniform jacket for an officer of the RHA (present day)
            which had 4 extra rows of braiding on it to compensate for the fact he was 6'
            6" tall. I think we can also agree (perhaps not, but I think so) that people
            today are not the same shape as they were back then, the lace on an other
            ranks coat covered a certain proportion of the breast, as peoples body's tend
            to be 'thicker' today, keeping them the same size will make it look smaller
            than it was. You will also find that such anomalies were come across at the
            time. I seem to recall that a certain sergeant of the 1st Foot Guards needed
            3 coats of the standard large issue for the regimental tailor to construct
            ONE for him.

            I am not in any way saying that everyone should 'do his own thing' just
            wondering if some thought had been given to this for those 'substantial'
            gentlemen about. According to my research it WAS done at the time :-)

            Cheers

            Tim
          • Larry Lozon
            From: Sue Draper I wasn t going to comment on this thread, but holy cow! We re worried about groundcloths, period skivvies and eyewear, and yet we re supposed
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 31, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              From: Sue Draper
              I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but holy cow! We're
              worried about groundcloths, period skivvies and eyewear, and
              yet we're supposed to accept a blatant disregard for army uniform
              regulations and accuracy in the most basic aspect of our portrayals
              (as in our costuming)? Altering your uniform to try and make it look
              less skimpy rather goes against the grain, if you'll pardon the pun.


              Suzy Baby..........

              .....we are talking about a guy who is damnear' 7' tall !
              ~ if we did the lace thingie as per Warrant,
              he would look like he was wearing a bib!












































              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Sue Draper
              Gotta disagree with you, honey. First off, it s not right. Second off, it can be worked around by adjusting the loop length and distance apart. Ask Forbes
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 31, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Gotta disagree with you, honey. First off, it's not right. Second off, it can be worked around by adjusting the loop length and distance apart. Ask Forbes about extremely tall people and their coatees. He looked just fine in his, and has made them for tall guys such as he.


                -----Original Message-----
                From: Larry Lozon <lalozon@...>
                To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
                Date: January 31, 2001 1:24 PM
                Subject: [WarOf1812] Uniform alterations


                From: Sue Draper
                I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but holy cow! We're
                worried about groundcloths, period skivvies and eyewear, and
                yet we're supposed to accept a blatant disregard for army uniform
                regulations and accuracy in the most basic aspect of our portrayals
                (as in our costuming)? Altering your uniform to try and make it look
                less skimpy rather goes against the grain, if you'll pardon the pun.


                Suzy Baby..........

                .....we are talking about a guy who is damnear' 7' tall !
                ~ if we did the lace thingie as per Warrant,
                he would look like he was wearing a bib!












































                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                www. .com




                The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • chimera1@sympatico.ca
                I have been waiting with great anticipation for the campaigners aka hard liners to weigh in on this thread. Where are you, guys? Doug ... off, it can be
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 31, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  I have been waiting with great anticipation for the "campaigners"
                  aka "hard liners" to weigh in on this thread. Where are you, guys?

                  Doug


                  --- In WarOf1812@y..., "Sue Draper" <suedraper@s...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Gotta disagree with you, honey. First off, it's not right. Second
                  off, it can be worked around by adjusting the loop length and
                  distance apart. Ask Forbes about extremely tall people and their
                  coatees. He looked just fine in his, and has made them for tall guys
                  such as he.
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Larry Lozon <lalozon@n...>
                  > To: WarOf1812@y... <WarOf1812@y...>
                  > Date: January 31, 2001 1:24 PM
                  > Subject: [WarOf1812] Uniform alterations
                  >
                  >
                  > From: Sue Draper
                  > I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but holy cow! We're
                  > worried about groundcloths, period skivvies and eyewear, and
                  > yet we're supposed to accept a blatant disregard for army uniform
                  > regulations and accuracy in the most basic aspect of our portrayals
                  > (as in our costuming)? Altering your uniform to try and make it
                  look
                  > less skimpy rather goes against the grain, if you'll pardon the
                  pun.
                  >
                  >
                  > Suzy Baby..........
                  >
                  > .....we are talking about a guy who is damnear' 7' tall !
                  > ~ if we did the lace thingie as per Warrant,
                  > he would look like he was wearing a bib!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  >
                  > www. .com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of
                  hundreds of square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the
                  fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Sue Draper
                  I think we can also agree (perhaps not, but I think so) that people today are not the same shape as they were back then, the lace on an other ranks coat
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 31, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    <snip>I think we can also agree (perhaps not, but I think so) that people
                    today are not the same shape as they were back then, the lace on an other
                    ranks coat covered a certain proportion of the breast, as peoples body's tend
                    to be 'thicker' today, keeping them the same size will make it look smaller
                    than it was.
                    {sue}: I'll agree that they weren't the same shape, although I doubt they were the svelte, lithe things we imagine. I look to Tracy's short, stocky Irish family and ancestors for that...'fireplugs' is his term.

                    The proportion issue is something I'll cautiously agree with, and cautiously suggest that if it's proportion we're trying to maintain, adding 3 rows of lacing isn't going to maintain it. Lengthening the loops will maintain the look, without sacrificing the regulated number of rows.

                    And it's important to remember that they were concerned with symmetry and line and appearance. Adding rows of lace isn't going to maintain that: it will alter it. I understood that the look isn't just per individual coat, it's also the coat's affect in the overall appearance of the line. If you add rows of lace, and then stand the guy between two people with fewer rows, it's going to look skewed, and if you're going for similarity and symmetry, it won't look right.

                    The point of soft tailoring (which is what they used as opposed to our tailoring methods now) is to fit the garment to the body, not vice versa. In so doing, allowances would be made for anomalies in body shape, wouldn't they? Of all the coats I've made, I've never done two the same. It's like meatloaf: you work with what you've got at the time (ie the body) and tailor it to be an appropriate end product.

                    <snip> Such 'buggering' probably was done
                    {sue} but why would you wager on this when regulations dictate what we can and cannot do? I'd think we'd want to stick with them, if only because they're the only thing we know that we can do with relative surety of accuracy.

                    <snip> and is certainly current practice. I myself have seen a uniform jacket for an officer of the RHA (present day)which had 4 extra rows of braiding on it to compensate for the fact he was 6'6" tall.
                    {sue}: but then the question of is it correct comes in, especially in light of the two very different tailoring styles between then & now. What happens present day isn't what we're portraying, and I thought we were trying to portray what we knew was going on then, as opposed to taking present day and working backward?

                    <snip>You will also find that such anomalies were come across at the
                    time. I seem to recall that a certain sergeant of the 1st Foot Guards needed 3 coats of the standard large issue for the regimental tailor to construct ONE for him.
                    {sue}: I agree that indicates a certain ominous size, but the coats the tailors were using were shipped in pieces and then assembled. Isn't it likely that the tailor used the 1 coat as his base and then borrowed from the other two in order to have sufficient fabric?

                    <snip> According to my research it WAS done at the time :-)
                    {sue}: I haven't managed to come across anything in my research to say that it happened, so I've been going by that. I'd be interested to see yours! (oh, stop, stop)<grin>.

                    -Sue



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                    In a message dated 1/31/2001 6:47:35 PM Central Standard Time, suedraper@sympatico.ca writes: and is certainly current practice. I myself have seen a
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 31, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 1/31/2001 6:47:35 PM Central Standard Time,
                      suedraper@... writes:

                      << <snip> and is certainly current practice. I myself have seen a uniform
                      jacket for an officer of the RHA (present day)which had 4 extra rows of
                      braiding on it to compensate for the fact he was 6'6" tall.
                      {sue}: but then the question of is it correct comes in, especially in light
                      of the two very different tailoring styles between then & now. What happens
                      present day isn't what we're portraying, and I thought we were trying to
                      portray what we knew was going on then, as opposed to taking present day and
                      working backward?>>

                      Perhaps I did not make myself clear Sue, this was the full dress jacket, the
                      one directly copied from the mid-Victorian which (apart from the staff chord
                      as opposed to Russia braid) is very close to the Jacket worn at Waterloo. The
                      fact was that giving the man the correct number of loops made the jacket look
                      wrong because there was FAR more space between his loops than every other
                      jacket in the regiment. The front of his jacket was 5" longer than the
                      longest one in service and the Colonel just didn't like the look so he
                      ordered it altered, and Colonels today have FAR less say about what their
                      regiments wear than they did back then!

                      <<<snip>You will also find that such anomalies were come across at the
                      time. I seem to recall that a certain sergeant of the 1st Foot Guards needed
                      3 coats of the standard large issue for the regimental tailor to construct
                      ONE for him.
                      {sue}: I agree that indicates a certain ominous size, but the coats the
                      tailors were using were shipped in pieces and then assembled. Isn't it
                      likely that the tailor used the 1 coat as his base and then borrowed from the
                      other two in order to have sufficient fabric? >>

                      I will admit that there is no account as to how these coat were altered.
                      However with even spaced lace I think it is possible that lengthening the
                      jacket would have called for an extra row or two of lace to make the spacing
                      look the same as the rest of the regiment, though I suppose a sergeants sash
                      could cover a multitude of sins.

                      << <snip> According to my research it WAS done at the time :-)
                      {sue}: I haven't managed to come across anything in my research to say that
                      it happened, so I've been going by that.
                      >>

                      I will admit that I got a bit carried away when I said a definitive 'WAS' but
                      I have come across drawings and accounts of alterations that indicate it was
                      a distinct possibility. Remember that the Colonels were very involved in
                      uniform supply (some shelled out extra for it, some made money out of it) but
                      in a 'smart' regiment anything that did not look uniform would be jumped on.
                      I suppose in the end that is the criteria, the ONLY reason for doing this is
                      to make someone look the same as everyone else.

                      <<I'd be interested to see yours! (oh, stop, stop)<grin>.
                      >>

                      Ah yes many say that; I will make sure to bring it with me, so remind me when
                      we are next at an event.
                      You know, I was going to make a rude joke about you requesting a position on
                      the staff but I decided against it! ;-)

                      Cheers

                      Tim
                    • chimera1@sympatico.ca
                      Hey, Larry - where are you? Nobody can seem to document deviations from uniform regulations, but we do so in our re-enactment so we look good. Doug ...
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 31, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hey, Larry - where are you? Nobody can seem to document deviations
                        from uniform regulations, but we do so in our re-enactment so we look
                        good. Doug



                        --- In WarOf1812@y..., BritcomHMP@a... wrote:
                        > In a message dated 1/31/2001 6:47:35 PM Central Standard Time,
                        > suedraper@s... writes:
                        >
                        > << <snip> and is certainly current practice. I myself have seen a
                        uniform
                        > jacket for an officer of the RHA (present day)which had 4 extra
                        rows of
                        > braiding on it to compensate for the fact he was 6'6" tall.
                        > {sue}: but then the question of is it correct comes in, especially
                        in light
                        > of the two very different tailoring styles between then & now.
                        What happens
                        > present day isn't what we're portraying, and I thought we were
                        trying to
                        > portray what we knew was going on then, as opposed to taking
                        present day and
                        > working backward?>>
                        >
                        > Perhaps I did not make myself clear Sue, this was the full dress
                        jacket, the
                        > one directly copied from the mid-Victorian which (apart from the
                        staff chord
                        > as opposed to Russia braid) is very close to the Jacket worn at
                        Waterloo. The
                        > fact was that giving the man the correct number of loops made the
                        jacket look
                        > wrong because there was FAR more space between his loops than every
                        other
                        > jacket in the regiment. The front of his jacket was 5" longer than
                        the
                        > longest one in service and the Colonel just didn't like the look so
                        he
                        > ordered it altered, and Colonels today have FAR less say about what
                        their
                        > regiments wear than they did back then!
                        >
                        > <<<snip>You will also find that such anomalies were come across at
                        the
                        > time. I seem to recall that a certain sergeant of the 1st Foot
                        Guards needed
                        > 3 coats of the standard large issue for the regimental tailor to
                        construct
                        > ONE for him.
                        > {sue}: I agree that indicates a certain ominous size, but the
                        coats the
                        > tailors were using were shipped in pieces and then assembled.
                        Isn't it
                        > likely that the tailor used the 1 coat as his base and then
                        borrowed from the
                        > other two in order to have sufficient fabric? >>
                        >
                        > I will admit that there is no account as to how these coat were
                        altered.
                        > However with even spaced lace I think it is possible that
                        lengthening the
                        > jacket would have called for an extra row or two of lace to make
                        the spacing
                        > look the same as the rest of the regiment, though I suppose a
                        sergeants sash
                        > could cover a multitude of sins.
                        >
                        > << <snip> According to my research it WAS done at the time :-)
                        > {sue}: I haven't managed to come across anything in my research to
                        say that
                        > it happened, so I've been going by that.
                        > >>
                        >
                        > I will admit that I got a bit carried away when I said a
                        definitive 'WAS' but
                        > I have come across drawings and accounts of alterations that
                        indicate it was
                        > a distinct possibility. Remember that the Colonels were very
                        involved in
                        > uniform supply (some shelled out extra for it, some made money out
                        of it) but
                        > in a 'smart' regiment anything that did not look uniform would be
                        jumped on.
                        > I suppose in the end that is the criteria, the ONLY reason for
                        doing this is
                        > to make someone look the same as everyone else.
                        >
                        > <<I'd be interested to see yours! (oh, stop, stop)<grin>.
                        > >>
                        >
                        > Ah yes many say that; I will make sure to bring it with me, so
                        remind me when
                        > we are next at an event.
                        > You know, I was going to make a rude joke about you requesting a
                        position on
                        > the staff but I decided against it! ;-)
                        >
                        > Cheers
                        >
                        > Tim
                      • Scott McDonald
                        ... Well, the 93rd once had such a lad in the regiment. Of course I m speaking of Big Sam MacDonald. He stood 6 10 and 48 around the chest. He was born in
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 31, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >Suzy Baby..........
                          >
                          >.....we are talking about a guy who is damnear' 7' tall !
                          >~ if we did the lace thingie as per Warrant,
                          > he would look like he was wearing a bib!


                          Well, the 93rd once had such a lad in the regiment. Of course I'm speaking
                          of "Big Sam" MacDonald. He stood 6'10" and 48" around the chest. He was
                          born in 1762 in Lairg, Sutherland (Scotland). He served in the Sutherland
                          fencibles from 1779-1783 and in the Royal Scots from 1783 to 1789 where he
                          was Fugelman, the man chosen to stand in front of the regiment to lead the
                          time and motion when drilling. From 1791 to 1793 he was employed by the
                          Prince of Wales and while there appeared in the play 'Cymon and Iphigenia'
                          as Hercules. In 1793 he gave up his acting career :) to join the 3rd
                          Sutherland Fencibles and was promoted to sergent. On 16th April 1799 he
                          joined the newly formed 93rd Regiment where he made sergent in less than a
                          week. Sam was too big to stand in the ranks so he stood on the right of the
                          line and at the head of the column. On the parade he led the Reg. mascot, a
                          red deer. The Countess of Sutherland allowed him extra pay because 'so
                          large a body must require more sustenance than his military pay could
                          afford.' He died in Gurnsey in 1802 where the Regiment was stationed.

                          There is a drawing of Big Sam wearing his 3rd Sutherland Fencibles uniform
                          which of course has a much earlier style coat (1793 ish) but it is
                          interesting that it has the 10 buttons down each side lapel which I think
                          was per regulation at the time and in my humble opinion they appear to be
                          spaced a little further apart than some other illustrations of the same
                          type uniform.

                          I'm not really trying to stir anything up here. I know that Regimental
                          tailors had considerable lattitude within the regulations to make certian
                          changes so the uniform would fit and they could add certian embellishments,
                          especially to bands and flank companies, But regs were regs, especially
                          regarding the number of buttons, right?

                          OK I could be wrong

                          Scott McDonald
                        • Larry Lozon
                          From: Doug: chimera1@sympatico.ca Hey, Larry - where are you? Nobody can seem to document deviations from uniform regulations, but we do so in our
                          Message 12 of 14 , Feb 1, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            From: Doug: chimera1@...

                            Hey, Larry - where are you? Nobody can seem to document
                            deviations from uniform regulations, but we do so in our
                            re-enactment so we look good.

                            Doug: I'm here,
                            I was leaving this discussion to the tailors, menders,
                            seamstresses, sewers, et al.

                            My only input was that the dude that we started this thread
                            about is 7'ish feet tall,
                            sooooooo
                            modification would happen to his coat whether it
                            be 1812 or 2001.

                            The research I have done and the books I have read,
                            all say that Regimental tailors altered uniforms per solider,
                            again this guy is the "Friendly Giant"
                            SOOooooooooo.........

















































                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • mike dollinger
                            ... _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
                            Message 13 of 14 , Feb 1, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >From: Scott McDonald <raintree@...>
                              >Reply-To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                              >To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                              >Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Uniform alterations
                              >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:39:50 -0600
                              >right o Scott, any tailor or officer in charge would see the need to
                              >stretch the spacing between the loops and it would be done. Uniforms are
                              >and were a thing of pride they wouldnt be made to look silly. Mike
                              >Dollinger tailor for 78th, 93rd, Von Riedesel and countless other well
                              >dressed reenactors!
                              > >Suzy Baby..........
                              > >
                              > >.....we are talking about a guy who is damnear' 7' tall !
                              > >~ if we did the lace thingie as per Warrant,
                              > > he would look like he was wearing a bib!
                              >
                              >There is a drawing of Big Sam wearing his 3rd Sutherland Fencibles uniform
                              >which of course has a much earlier style coat (1793 ish) but it is
                              >interesting that it has the 10 buttons down each side lapel which I think
                              >was per regulation at the time and in my humble opinion they appear to be
                              >spaced a little further apart than some other illustrations of the same
                              >type uniform.
                              >
                              >I'm not really trying to stir anything up here. I know that Regimental
                              >tailors had considerable lattitude within the regulations to make certian
                              >changes so the uniform would fit and they could add certian embellishments,
                              >especially to bands and flank companies, But regs were regs, especially
                              >regarding the number of buttons, right?
                              >
                              >OK I could be wrong
                              >
                              >Scott McDonald
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >

                              _________________________________________________________________
                              Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
                            • Craig Williams
                              All I want to say about this is, what do the regs say about the number of loops and who are we to alter that? Craig (Sorry folks I ve been away) ... From:
                              Message 14 of 14 , Feb 4, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                All I want to say about this is, what do the regs say about the number of
                                loops and who are we to alter that?

                                Craig
                                (Sorry folks I've been away)
                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: chimera1@... <chimera1@...>
                                To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
                                Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:22 PM
                                Subject: [WarOf1812] Re: Uniform alterations


                                >I have been waiting with great anticipation for the "campaigners"
                                >aka "hard liners" to weigh in on this thread. Where are you, guys?
                                >
                                >Doug
                                >
                                >
                                >--- In WarOf1812@y..., "Sue Draper" <suedraper@s...> wrote:
                                >>
                                >> Gotta disagree with you, honey. First off, it's not right. Second
                                >off, it can be worked around by adjusting the loop length and
                                >distance apart. Ask Forbes about extremely tall people and their
                                >coatees. He looked just fine in his, and has made them for tall guys
                                >such as he.
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> -----Original Message-----
                                >> From: Larry Lozon <lalozon@n...>
                                >> To: WarOf1812@y... <WarOf1812@y...>
                                >> Date: January 31, 2001 1:24 PM
                                >> Subject: [WarOf1812] Uniform alterations
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> From: Sue Draper
                                >> I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but holy cow! We're
                                >> worried about groundcloths, period skivvies and eyewear, and
                                >> yet we're supposed to accept a blatant disregard for army uniform
                                >> regulations and accuracy in the most basic aspect of our portrayals
                                >> (as in our costuming)? Altering your uniform to try and make it
                                >look
                                >> less skimpy rather goes against the grain, if you'll pardon the
                                >pun.
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> Suzy Baby..........
                                >>
                                >> .....we are talking about a guy who is damnear' 7' tall !
                                >> ~ if we did the lace thingie as per Warrant,
                                >> he would look like he was wearing a bib!
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                >>
                                >> www. .com
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of
                                >hundreds of square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the
                                >fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of
                                square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of
                                square miles...
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.