|
Post by brokennock on May 13, 2022 17:36:36 GMT -7
Black hats matter.
(Just asked at jump school, lol)
|
|
|
Post by spence on May 13, 2022 19:29:36 GMT -7
paranger said, "Just interested because it's NOT black, and thus unusual."
I understand. I just scanned all my files for hat colors. Color is very rarely mentioned in all the stuff I've collected, but besides 3-4 black ones there are about 8-10 white ones, no other colors.
Spence
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on May 14, 2022 6:12:14 GMT -7
It's seems there is, and has been, a general consensus on almost every forum I've been on, that hats were predominantly black in color during the 18th century. While I know it can be shaky ground applying 20th/21st century reasoning to the 17th century, I can't help but question why hats would be mostly, if not all, black? If they could dye clothing so many other colors, with varying degrees of difficulty, why not hats? Especially the earthier browns and greys. I know "black goes with everything" seemingly, but did it apply then to hats, did most people really care?
|
|
|
Post by lenapej on May 14, 2022 7:37:55 GMT -7
RyanAK Thanks for the great info and images, I really enjoy this subject. Here is an image you may or may not have seen from 1757, The pockets on the breeches of the guys labeled 11 I find interesting.
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on May 14, 2022 7:59:08 GMT -7
RyanAK Thanks for the great info and images, I really enjoy this subject. Here is an image you may or may not have seen from 1757, The pockets on the breeches of the guys labeled 11 I find interesting. Thanks, man! That’s a new image for me and the ‘common people’ are interesting for a number of reasons. Breeches - fly front and what appears to be exterior thigh pockets sewn on. Frumpy hats. And… they appear to only be wearing sleeved waistcoats, judging by the length and cut. I find this point most interesting because I feel this dress may be underrepresented by living historians.
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on May 14, 2022 8:04:50 GMT -7
It's seems there is, and has been, a general consensus on almost every forum I've been on, that hats were predominantly black in color during the 18th century. While I know it can be shaky ground applying 20th/21st century reasoning to the 17th century, I can't help but question why hats would be mostly, if not all, black? If they could dye clothing so many other colors, with varying degrees of difficulty, why not hats? Especially the earthier browns and greys. I know "black goes with everything" seemingly, but did it apply then to hats, did most people really care? Great question, ‘nock. I don’t know the reason, but I would suspect it has to do with the manufacture of the fur or wool felt in the era. Because it’s felt, maybe dying had an effect on the stability of the material? Interesting to ponder.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on May 14, 2022 12:26:18 GMT -7
RyanAK Thanks for the great info and images, I really enjoy this subject. Here is an image you may or may not have seen from 1757, The pockets on the breeches of the guys labeled 11 I find interesting. Great picture, thank you for providing it. Those pockets are interesting for sure. At 1st glance they would seem to be sewn to the outside front, like 20th century sailor's work dungarees. But, looking at the character on the right of the pair, his hands appear to be in his waistband making me wonder of for some reason the pocket access isn't from the inside, like a pair of modern pants turned inside out. This would seem to be a pain to get stuff in and out of, but, upon thinking about it, your stuff wouldn't be coming out to get lost, and with the tighter fit of clothing in this period, the bulk of what is put in the pocket wouldn't be inside the tight fitting breaches.
|
|
|
Post by lenapej on May 14, 2022 13:50:14 GMT -7
Here is a close up of the common men. RyanAK Your observation that they are wearing sleeved waistcoats rather than a jacket interests me, in your opinion what is the difference between the two, or is there a difference? a friend of mine and I have talked about this and I have kinda come to the conclusion that a sleeved waistcoat was almost always worn under a coat and rarely worn openly in public by itself, and seems to generally have a greater number of buttons than a jacket, and quite often the sleeves were of a different material than the body such as this photo where as a jacket, in references and images many times was worn as an outer garment over a shirt by common working folk,... sorry for the rabbit trail but I have been infatuated with jackets lately, Lol your thoughts? Brokennock Hopefully the above photo shows it more clearly, but to my thinking the pockets are on the outside as they seem to have flaps on them. Maybe he is tucking in his shirt or just being a perv...the other dude looks kinda freaked out, Lol
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on May 14, 2022 14:17:55 GMT -7
The breeches pockets do seem to have flaps. I think they’re sewn on the exterior. More research needed! Ah… waistcoats and jackets and coats and frocks and… the terminology of the times can be confusing! In my reading and research, which admittedly isn’t as extensive as almost everyone else here, “Jacket” and “Waistcoat” were often used to describe the same article of clothing, that of the first ‘exterior’ garment covering the shirt. My reading of the period conventions says that if a man’s shirt was visible, he want properly attired… naked even! This was such that in warm weather a man working up a lather would doff his sleeveless waistcoat and put his outermost garment, his coat, back on. Now, if his waistcoat or jacket had sleeves, this would be an entirely appropriate outer garment. So then… I think the terms “Waistcoat” and “Jacket” were interchangeable in the 1750s, but I agree with where you’re going. I think we have three unique garments here. First, the waistcoat as most of us refer to it. A sleeveless garment worn over the shirt, buttoned from collar to waist. Overall length with the ‘skirts’ reaches to mid-thigh in the 1750s. Lower pockets with flaps and buttons as on the coat. The sleeved waistcoat would be as above with sleeves, either of matching or different material. It’s murky to me whether or not contrasting sleeves would be acceptable if uncovered. A jacket I think of as a short garment. Like a sleeved waistcoat without the skirts and pockets, ending at the waist, as laborers or seamen might wear. This may be a modern appropriation of the term, though. The period use of “jacket” isn’t all together clear to me from my reading of the 1750s. I think the important distinction would be that a jacket or waistcoat is the first (and sometimes only) proper outer garment worn over the shirt. If sleeveless, it should always be worn under a coat. So… we’re likely talking about the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on May 14, 2022 18:46:43 GMT -7
lenapej I noticed the flaps after I wrote that about the pockets. It would still seem that having them on the outside might be more comfortable with stuff in them than having them, and the stuff, on the inside.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on May 14, 2022 18:57:40 GMT -7
RyanAK I think we are on the same page roughly regarding the designations of these garments. The jacket has been a point of confusion for me for some time. Primarily the difference between the jacket and the sleeved waistcoat. My thinking has come to be much as yours. That the sleeved waistcoat is longer/skirted like the sleevless one, but shorter and tighter fitting than the outer coat. The jacket would be tight like the waistcoat but short, cut at the waist and buttoned to same, most likely collar less, maybe a short "band collar?" I am curious as to what the cuffs on the jacket were like? Did they button, if so, how many buttons? Did they just taper to a well fit hemmed end? Were they banded like a shirt cuff? And what of the "straight" jacket?
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on May 15, 2022 12:39:03 GMT -7
All good questions and thoughts. As they say, more research is needed on jackets.
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on May 15, 2022 12:55:43 GMT -7
Hi-Low, Startup, Upstart, Buskin or Half-BootBecause of the lack of footwear detail in a lot of the images, it’s hard to determine just what a lot of these subjects are wearing on their feet. Before the images, here’s a good write up with references on Fugawee’s website: www.fugawee.com/2018/03/26/hi-low-also-called-startup-upstart-buskin-or-half-boot/I’m interested in these since I lucked into a pair of Fugawees for $50 shipped. Ha.
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on May 15, 2022 13:11:39 GMT -7
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on May 15, 2022 13:58:06 GMT -7
From Cloth and Costume 1750 to 1800 Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Tandy and Charles Hersh have this to say: “When Cumberland County was established in 1750, traditional dress for men in Pennsylvania consisted of a coat, a waistcoat - usually called a jacket - and a pair of breeches.” One of the estate inventories in this wonderful work lists under jackets one of “white flannel with sleeves”.
Also “1 suit - coat, jacket and breeches, light blue”.
|
|