|
Post by spence on May 28, 2019 10:45:04 GMT -7
Are those original? If so, do you have any info on the age?
Spence
|
|
Keith
City-dweller
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 990
|
Post by Keith on May 28, 2019 16:41:50 GMT -7
Shot pouch seems to be the most popular original term from what I have read. All I carry in my shot pouch is the items I need to keep my flintlock smoothbore functioning. Smoothbore shot pouches tended to be larger than rifle shot pouches because they carry shot & round ball plus wads or wadding, but I prefer a smaller shot pouch regardless. Tools & lock cover go in the bottom of the pouch, shot & wads on top. Pistol wads go in my waistcoat pocket.
"waistcoat POCKET"? A waistcoat with a -single- pocket??? (Teasing you!) Can a guy have enough pockets? Actually I am not a great lover of pockets, I hate the feeling of bulging pockets carrying all sorts of items. I prefer a belt pouch to pockets. I have a purse, reading glasses & a handkerchief in the left waistcoat pocket, & my clasp knife & wads for the pistol in the right pocket. That is quite enough for me. Keith.
|
|
|
Post by straekat on May 28, 2019 16:48:10 GMT -7
Spence,
Those four front pocket breeches are French, circa 1730-40. Appparently they are part of a three piece set currently housed in a French museum. I printed out the page and saved the information as a pdf file in case the link ever went away, along with individual images of the clothing.
I spotted a period image Keith posted of a chap with a lass, and his breeches had a single front pocket. After seeing the image I started looking for other examples and unexpectedly found the four pocket version. I'm not going to make or wear one of those and know what the reaction others would have on seeing them worn.
|
|
|
Post by spence on May 28, 2019 17:43:35 GMT -7
Those four front pocket breeches are French, circa 1730-40. Thanks, I appreciate the info. Good find. Spence
|
|
|
Post by straekat on May 30, 2019 8:54:09 GMT -7
"waistcoat POCKET"? A waistcoat with a -single- pocket??? (Teasing you!) Can a guy have enough pockets? Actually I am not a great lover of pockets, I hate the feeling of bulging pockets carrying all sorts of items. I prefer a belt pouch to pockets. I have a purse, reading glasses & a handkerchief in the left waistcoat pocket, & my clasp knife & wads for the pistol in the right pocket. That is quite enough for me. Keith. I try to keep things the number of items in a pocket to a minimum so I don't get jabbed or stuck by an item I forgot that was there. Also, items can bunch up and hard other to find, than by feel if it's dark. During the night due the problem of things jammed in the ribs/side, etc are no fun. I use small tool bag type rolls of different sizes carried in the pockets during the day, unroll them to get at a particular item, and at night they all go under a bag used as a pillow.
The bony looking character on the right is me, and the other half is meant to keep people from noticing the old fart she's standing next to. All of the clothing being worn except for the shoes, buckles and socks are item I made for both of us entirely by hand. This photo was taken last weekend at Fort Ligonier during an 18th century weekend to mark the opening of the fort for the summer. Normally I'm not this neatly dressed, and because we're supposed to be in a civilized setting so....I cleaned up my act for the event. The "miller" type cap is actually a inverted sack with a tie closure, being worn on the head.
[/div]
|
|
Keith
City-dweller
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 990
|
Post by Keith on May 30, 2019 16:54:02 GMT -7
Actually I am not a great lover of pockets, I hate the feeling of bulging pockets carrying all sorts of items. I prefer a belt pouch to pockets. I have a purse, reading glasses & a handkerchief in the left waistcoat pocket, & my clasp knife & wads for the pistol in the right pocket. That is quite enough for me. Keith.
I try to keep things the number of items in a pocket to a minimum so I don't get jabbed or stuck by an item I forgot that was there. Also, items can bunch up and hard other to find, than by feel if it's dark. During the night due the problem of things jammed in the ribs/side, etc are no fun. I use small tool bag type rolls of different sizes carried in the pockets during the day, unroll them to get at a particular item, and at night they all go under a bag used as a pillow.
The bony looking character on the right is me, and the other half is meant to keep people from noticing the old fart she's standing next to. All of the clothing being worn except for the shoes, buckles and socks are item I made for both of us entirely by hand. This photo was taken last weekend at Fort Ligonier during an 18th century weekend to mark the opening of the fort for the summer. Normally I'm not this neatly dressed, and because we're supposed to be in a civilized setting so....I cleaned up my act for the event. The "miller" type cap is actually a inverted sack with a tie closure, being worn on the head.
.
Good one straekat, & if I may say so, you make a handsome couple. Keith.
|
|
|
Post by straekat on May 31, 2019 4:35:35 GMT -7
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jul 19, 2019 4:02:04 GMT -7
Black Hand,
Thank you for the three PDF articles, I found them most interesting, especially the number made with "hair on" leather. I imagine that was for water repellency like British 18th century Military Knapsacks/Packs. However, that brought some questions to mind.
I have only brain tanned one deerskin, but it seems to me the hair slips off too easily when the leather is tanned in that manner? Does the "hair on" leather signal leather it was vat tanned? .I know there is period documentation that many, if not most people on the frontier had their own tanning pits. Would that kind of tanning allow "hair on" tanning where the hair would stay on the leather pretty well in use?
The reason I'm asking is I'm wondering if the "hair on" leather may be a way of determining if the leather was tanned by professionals, rather than in a home tanning pit/vat?
Gus
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jul 19, 2019 5:27:42 GMT -7
Unless I see an obvious casting void in the sprue area, the balls are shot as they come out of the mold. I have no need for pinpoint accuracy, just within an inch or so of where I aim. To be perfectly honest, I could shoot much better if I practiced, but I just don't have the opportunity to shoot regularly. That said, if I can put meat in the freezer (without any unnecessary suffering to the animal), that is all the accuracy I need... I am the same way, have a few winkles in it, don't worry about it. The first 5 go back into the pot , after mold is hot all the rest go into the ball bag. I think we are "spoiled" by the fact that many/most modern molds are made so well that the balls don't come out with rings around them from misalignment of the two halves or slightly off center where the two halves of the mold come together. This because most modern molds are made on Milling Machines that were not available in the 18th century, nor the 19th century pretty much until after the period of this forum. However, I have seen very few original balls in person or in hunting pouches or in pictures that had wrinkles on them. I suspect this was because they were picky enough not to use them. Gus
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Jul 19, 2019 5:30:41 GMT -7
Most likely, the hair-on hides were from cattle.
Ungulates (Deer, Elk, Pronghorn, Moose, Caribou in the US) have brittle, hollow hair. The hair will break & slough regardless of how it is tanned unless the hide is tacked to a wall and never touched. Also, there is a difference between summer and winter hair & hides (from what I remember, they preferred summer hides because the hair wasn't held as deep/tightly or something about the veins that I vaguely remember). I do have one Whitetail hide from a fall deer that is in rawhide form that could be used as a sleeping mat and the hair doesn't seem to break/fall out (I haven't slept on it yet). Perhaps the ultimate quality of the leather would be a better indication of home vs. factory tanned, but this also seems a fairly weak indicator.
I do have a commercially "brain-tanned" Elk hide that I used for a while as a robe covering my blankets at camp - messy affair, hair everywhere each time it was used. Mind you, it merely sat on top and was not walked/slept on...
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jul 19, 2019 6:55:07 GMT -7
Most likely, the hair-on hides were from cattle. I do have a commercially "brain-tanned" Elk hide that I used for a while as a robe covering my blankets at camp - messy affair, hair everywhere each time it was used. Mind you, it merely sat on top and was not walked/slept on... Very interesting, thank you. Then if the "hair on" hides were mostly cattle or oxen, then it may be a safe bet that most, if not all of them were "period" commercially tanned. I speculate this because my very old/well worn copy of "The Leatherworker in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg" by Harold Gill, notes a cow or oxen hide took anywhere from 14 to 20 months to properly vat tan and dressed.. Of course a smaller piece of cow/oxen hide might have been tanned faster, but I don't know how much faster. Though this is not the same publication, the following link is to "Leather Workers in Colonial Virginia" by Harold Gill and some folks may find it interesting: research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/View/index.cfm?doc=ResearchReports%5CRR0107.xmlI've had both commercially tanned "hair on" Bear and one Horsehide skins. The Horsehide skin did not seem to lose much if any Hair and I used it as a ground cloth over the ground straw when provided. The Bear skins were quite old when I got them and had lost some hair, but didn't seem to lose much when I used them for bedding, either. Gus
|
|
Keith
City-dweller
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 990
|
Post by Keith on Aug 15, 2019 16:16:07 GMT -7
Found it very interesting in part I was a bag with a mold and round balls in it. Of course the balls were anything but round and all look a little different. When we read about running ball now a lot of people weight them and if not bright and shinning and perfect they 86 them. Same with the knifes, it just shows how things were not the way we would think them to be. We have to be very careful not to try & improve on 18th century methods & results if we really want to experience what it was like in the period. If one wants to patch a round ball in a smoothbore for better accuracy over a longer distance, fine, but don't kid yourself that you are truly emulating the period. You will learn nothing that way. In those days they were hunters, not shooters. If it meant having to stalk in close to game, then that is what they did. Keith.
|
|