|
Post by artificer on May 23, 2022 10:43:10 GMT -7
Spence, Thank you for your thoughts. Man, it would be great if we had Tom Winuck's thoughts or if he kept a record of his collection as to what he believed each piece was and why. I don't doubt the items he purchased were original/authentic, but I think we may be jumping to conclusions if we believe they were all 18th century. IOW, though I'm sure he treasured each piece, there is the real chance many, if not most of them are 19th century and that was what he believed them to be. Speaking of his collection, let's look again at the following picture for the pouch on the left. i.pinimg.com/originals/ff/ae/1c/ffae1cd248e815672df6cd4b9e381bde.jpgIF this is a civilian Shot Pouch and IF it is 18th century, it sure tends to blow the theory out of the water that all or most 18th century civilian Shot Pouches are small/minimalist. That's a BIG Pouch with a WIDE Shoulder Strap!! I also believe it to be the product of at least a semi professional, if not a professional leather worker. Now IF this is a civilian Shot Pouch, it may have been one used by a market hunter and that would explain the size. It may also have been for someone who did a lot of "shooting flying" and he may have kept his bird shot in a smaller bag inside this pouch along with everything else needed for a day of extended shooting. Actually, I'm not so sure this is a civilian shot pouch at all. I would not be surprised if it is a civilian made Cartouche Pouch for Militia use, especially after Congress passed the Federal/National Militia acts of 1792-4 and a LOT of people were scrambling for arms and accoutrements to be in compliance with those laws. THEN later in it's working life, someone added the knife holder, because it is not professionally done and not to the same standards/quality as the rest of the pouch Gus This bag shows up in a number of places, including T.C. Albert's book. As to size, the dimensions are 10" × 6", certainly a little off of the 7" x 7" for the Gussler Virginia pouch, but not as drastically as many of the 19th c. pouches I have seen in the neighborhood of 9"x 9". As to date, you can see Albert's estimate, as well as his echo of the cartridge box idea. As to construction, I disagree with the professional maker attribution. Everything about this bag says "make do" to me, from the hybrid hemp -leather strap to the potential use of a "soft sided" belly box and the use of simple iron harness buckles. While it is unecessarily complicated (with 5 strap keeper loops on each side to compensate for the lack of center bar buckles), it is not particularly well finished, nor does it use high end materials (plain brass weskit button closure, unreinforced buttonhole) My own recreation of this pouch is shown below. picture sitesFirst of all, thank you for the pictures and text of this pouch that you took from Albert’s book, as I found it very interesting. Looks like I need to finally add it to my library. I disagree with your “make do” attribution, but it may be because I have seen a few original and truly “make do” cartouche pouches of the AWI through not only the end of the 18th century, but also into the War of 1812 for militia troops. Any leather cartouche pouch is a huge step up from a cartouche box (belly box) both in protection of the cartridges from the elements and loss, when the belly box turns over at inopportune times and dumps cartridges on the ground, as well as utility and comfort to the soldier in use. Such “soft” cartouche pouches were quite common early in the war for everyone on the Patriot side and continued to be common for militia use well into the War of 1812. They may/would have had wooden blocks with holes for the cartridges on the inside of the pouch to further protect the cartridges, though the blocks were not normally nailed in place. The ”most basic” of this type of cartouche pouch was made with two pieces of leather, one short piece for the front and a longer piece for the rear, of which the top served as the pouch flap. The two leather pieces were sewn together with NO welt along the seams and then turned inside out. OR if it was more economical use of the leather, 3 pieces were used and the flap was sewn to the top of the rear piece before or after the pouch was turned inside out. The bottom end of the flap was often straight across with only the sides rounded on the corners. When leather was in short supply, a woven/loomed strap with NO decoration was used and with NO adjustment buckles or any kind of adjustment feature at all. One end of the strap was turned over and sewn to the pouch with the end next to the leather, so it would not unravel. Then they had the soldier hold the pouch where it was supposed to hang and with one strap end attached, the maker would pull the strap over the soldier’s shoulder and mark the end of the strap so it would fit the soldier. Then the strap was cut to fit and likewise sewn to the pouch. “Rolled” leather buttons were the norm on these to hold the flap in place (because they were the cheapest as they were made from leather scraps and VERY common on even British Ordnance Cartouche boxes) and the button hole was NOT reinforced. NOTE: Even as basic as this style pouch was, they were often made that way by Saddlers or at least those who had some training in leather working. Not everything any tradesman did in the period was anywhere close to that person’s best possible work all around and every day. They made things according to what customers could afford and what materials were available. Actually, some of the most common homemade shot pouches extant and from the late 18th/early 19th century, share many if not most of these design features. You mentioned, “While it is unnecessarily complicated (with 5 strap keeper loops on each side to compensate for the lack of center bar buckles)” I am not following your point and that may be my fault. Not sure how a center bar buckle would correct this, unless you are referring to a leather strap? To me, those 5 strap keeper loops on each side actually help demonstrate this pouch was sewn by at least a semi-professional, if not a professional leather worker partly because they are so complicated. It seems to me a way of adding a little style to the pouch. Would an untrained person have added that many of them? I certainly don’t see a reason for it. Well, I’m about at the end of what my arthritic fingers can handle for right now, but I did want to ask about the way the strap ends are attached to the body of the pouch. Is there a second layer of leather stitched over the ends? I’m not sure as I can’t make it out. More coming later, Gus
|
|
|
Post by artificer on May 23, 2022 11:05:44 GMT -7
Gus, I agree it would be helpful if we knew Tom Wnuck's thoughts/opinions on the pouches and other items in his collection. BTW. for what it's worth, most of the pouches from his estate do not claim to be 18th-century, don't mention a time frame.
Spence Thank you for that confirmation, Spence. Gus
|
|
|
Post by paranger on May 23, 2022 11:38:00 GMT -7
This bag shows up in a number of places, including T.C. Albert's book. As to size, the dimensions are 10" × 6", certainly a little off of the 7" x 7" for the Gussler Virginia pouch, but not as drastically as many of the 19th c. pouches I have seen in the neighborhood of 9"x 9". As to date, you can see Albert's estimate, as well as his echo of the cartridge box idea. As to construction, I disagree with the professional maker attribution. Everything about this bag says "make do" to me, from the hybrid hemp -leather strap to the potential use of a "soft sided" belly box and the use of simple iron harness buckles. While it is unecessarily complicated (with 5 strap keeper loops on each side to compensate for the lack of center bar buckles), it is not particularly well finished, nor does it use high end materials (plain brass weskit button closure, unreinforced buttonhole) My own recreation of this pouch is shown below. picture sitesFirst of all, thank you for the pictures and text of this pouch that you took from Albert’s book, as I found it very interesting. Looks like I need to finally add it to my library. I disagree with your “make do” attribution, but it may be because I have seen a few original and truly “make do” cartouche pouches of the AWI through not only the end of the 18th century, but also into the War of 1812 for militia troops. Any leather cartouche pouch is a huge step up from a cartouche box (belly box) both in protection of the cartridges from the elements and loss, when the belly box turns over at inopportune times and dumps cartridges on the ground, as well as utility and comfort to the soldier in use. Such “soft” cartouche pouches were quite common early in the war for everyone on the Patriot side and continued to be common for militia use well into the War of 1812. They may/would have had wooden blocks with holes for the cartridges on the inside of the pouch to further protect the cartridges, though the blocks were not normally nailed in place. The ”most basic” of this type of cartouche pouch was made with two pieces of leather, one short piece for the front and a longer piece for the rear, of which the top served as the pouch flap. The two leather pieces were sewn together with NO welt along the seams and then turned inside out. OR if it was more economical use of the leather, 3 pieces were used and the flap was sewn to the top of the rear piece before or after the pouch was turned inside out. The bottom end of the flap was often straight across with only the sides rounded on the corners. When leather was in short supply, a woven/loomed strap with NO decoration was used and with NO adjustment buckles or any kind of adjustment feature at all. One end of the strap was turned over and sewn to the pouch with the end next to the leather, so it would not unravel. Then they had the soldier hold the pouch where it was supposed to hang and with one strap end attached, the maker would pull the strap over the soldier’s shoulder and mark the end of the strap so it would fit the soldier. Then the strap was cut to fit and likewise sewn to the pouch. “Rolled” leather buttons were the norm on these to hold the flap in place (because they were the cheapest as they were made from leather scraps and VERY common on even British Ordnance Cartouche boxes) and the button hole was NOT reinforced. NOTE: Even as basic as this style pouch was, they were often made that way by Saddlers or at least those who had some training in leather working. Not everything any tradesman did in the period was anywhere close to that person’s best possible work all around and every day. They made things according to what customers could afford and what materials were available. Actually, some of the most common homemade shot pouches extant and from the late 18th/early 19th century, share many if not most of these design features. You mentioned, “While it is unnecessarily complicated (with 5 strap keeper loops on each side to compensate for the lack of center bar buckles)” I am not following your point and that may be my fault. Not sure how a center bar buckle would correct this, unless you are referring to a leather strap? To me, those 5 strap keeper loops on each side actually help demonstrate this pouch was sewn by at least a semi-professional, if not a professional leather worker partly because they are so complicated. It seems to me a way of adding a little style to the pouch. Would an untrained person have added that many of them? I certainly don’t see a reason for it. Well, I’m about at the end of what my arthritic fingers can handle for right now, but I did want to ask about the way the strap ends are attached to the body of the pouch. Is there a second layer of leather stitched over the ends? I’m not sure as I can’t make it out. More coming later, Gus Gus, 1. IF this was a cartridge box, my suggestion is that it was of the tin tube type, as I said, which is of different construction than the block and flap type. Furthermore, IF it started life as a dragoon belly box, it would have had neither strap nor button. Those would have to have been later additions. That said, I see no evidence of holes where former belt loops would have been, though it is admittedly difficult to tell from the pictures. 2. The 10 (TEN!) keepers seem to make up for the fact that with no center bar buckle to tuck the adjustment end of the strap in (leather in this case) the end will flap in the proverbial breeze risking entanglement and more importantly, will potentially not stay securely engaged by the buckle tongue as the pouch bounces around. Why so many? I can only opine that it is because as the strap is adjusted for increased length, it will begin to "back out" of the uppermost keepers, as these are not floating but fixed keepers. Since a floating keeper would have to slide over both hemp and leather straps - which have very different widths, a floating keeper was not practical. Professionals typically, in my observation, do not intentionally make complex designs, but rather simple ones. 3. The strap ends appear to be sewn to the back corners of the pouch in a simple "U" shape. These are the conclusions I came to in recreating the pouch. Debatable? Sure. But it was one of the main reasons I selected it to recreate: figure out why this odd ball was made the way it was. And after making many different types of bags with varying techniques, I found the design of this one to be (delightfully) clunky and cumbersome. Hence my conclusion that no experienced professional would deliberately lay out a Franken-pouch like this unless severely strapped for materials for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on May 23, 2022 11:54:10 GMT -7
OK, I am confused by the references to the "re-enforced" button holes, supposedly being a sure sign of professional work. Where does that come from?
I keep looking at the two original belt pouches in my first post as well as the Virginia pouch and I don't see those slits having been re-enforced?
Now I agree that really thin leather can stand reenforcement for the hole, such as deerskin.
What am I missing?
Gus
|
|
|
Post by paranger on May 23, 2022 11:59:17 GMT -7
OK, I am confused by the references to the "re-enforced" button holes, supposedly being a sure sign of professional work. Where does that come from? I keep looking at the two original belt pouches in my first post as well as the Virginia pouch and I don't see those slits having been re-enforced? Now I agree that really thin leather can stand reenforcement for the hole, such as deerskin. What am I missing? Gus Well, as one example, the Gussler Virginia pouch has a welted and sewn flap edge, which would help prevent button tear-through, as obviously happened on the pouch in question. [As you can see, I copied that one, too! 😉] laptop resolution checkNot that I necessarily believe the Gussler bag was professionally made, either....
|
|
|
Post by artificer on May 23, 2022 12:19:21 GMT -7
OK, I am confused by the references to the "re-enforced" button holes, supposedly being a sure sign of professional work. Where does that come from? I keep looking at the two original belt pouches in my first post as well as the Virginia pouch and I don't see those slits having been re-enforced? Now I agree that really thin leather can stand reenforcement for the hole, such as deerskin. What am I missing? Gus Well, as one example, the Gussler Virginia pouch has a welted and sewn flap edge, whuch would help prevent button tear-through, as obviously happened on the pouch in question. laptop resolution checkNot that I necessarily believe the Gussler bag was professionally made, either.... Thank you for the pic, as I've never seen the article with the original Gussler/Virginia Pouch, nor the actual pouch itself. However, one must question WHEN original pouches actually tore through the button holes. It could have been decades later and long after the original leather was no longer being properly oiled and cared for. In my experience and I don't use super thin leather for my pouches, all you have to do to ensure the slit doesn't tear through is: 1. Not have the hole too close to the edge. 2. Use some manner like rounded ends to the slit or even small holes the slit is cut into on each end and the holes don't tear out for many decades or at all. That is UNLESS the owner never bothers to give it the needed occasional oiling and then the leather tears/cracks through the slits. Gus
|
|
|
Post by artificer on May 23, 2022 12:55:19 GMT -7
Paranger wrote:
"3. The strap ends appear to be sewn to the back corners of the pouch in a simple "U"
shape."
Thank you. Though this doesn't all by itself show it was at least semi professionally made, it does show the person was using a correct period leatherworking technique. Amateurs who didn't or don't know this technique, set up the strap ends to fail prematurely and we do see that on quite a few period "home made" 19th century pouches as well as many modern repro's.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by paranger on May 23, 2022 13:04:29 GMT -7
Paranger wrote: "3. The strap ends appear to be sewn to the back corners of the pouch in a simple "U" shape." Thank you. Though this doesn't all by itself show it was at least semi professionally made, it does show the person was using a correct period leatherworking technique. Amateurs who didn't or don't know this technique, set up the strap ends to fail prematurely and we do see that on quite a few period "home made" 19th century pouches as well as many modern repro's. Gus Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on May 24, 2022 5:50:27 GMT -7
"Button hole tearout" simply avoided by stop holes, two at each end of the slit. I haven't actually nailed nor found specific evidence of it being done, but it's so simple in nature. Taking the stress off the button slit it essentially means you can't tear it. I make two small stop holes on the ends of each button slit on every bag I make and it works like a charm.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on May 24, 2022 8:13:54 GMT -7
OK, I am confused by the references to the "re-enforced" button holes, supposedly being a sure sign of professional work. Where does that come from? I keep looking at the two original belt pouches in my first post as well as the Virginia pouch and I don't see those slits having been re-enforced? Now I agree that really thin leather can stand reenforcement for the hole, such as deerskin. What am I missing? Gus Well, as one example, the Gussler Virginia pouch has a welted and sewn flap edge, which would help prevent button tear-through, as obviously happened on the pouch in question. [As you can see, I copied that one, too! 😉] laptop resolution checkNot that I necessarily believe the Gussler bag was professionally made, either.... You know, the more I look at this, the more it seems like that welt may have been a repair to correct the button slot being too close to the edge and having torn through, rather than an original design element. Gus
|
|
|
Post by paranger on May 24, 2022 10:14:04 GMT -7
Well, as one example, the Gussler Virginia pouch has a welted and sewn flap edge, which would help prevent button tear-through, as obviously happened on the pouch in question. [As you can see, I copied that one, too! 😉] laptop resolution checkNot that I necessarily believe the Gussler bag was professionally made, either.... You know, the more I look at this, the more it seems like that welt may have been a repair to correct the button slot being too close to the edge and having torn through, rather than an original design element. Gus As Sigmund Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
|
|
|
Post by paranger on May 24, 2022 10:14:28 GMT -7
Well, as one example, the Gussler Virginia pouch has a welted and sewn flap edge, which would help prevent button tear-through, as obviously happened on the pouch in question. [As you can see, I copied that one, too! 😉] laptop resolution checkNot that I necessarily believe the Gussler bag was professionally made, either.... You know, the more I look at this, the more it seems like that welt may have been a repair to correct the button slot being too close to the edge and having torn through, rather than an original design element. Gus As Sigmund Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on May 24, 2022 10:15:19 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by artificer on May 24, 2022 11:36:16 GMT -7
Pararanger's post in the tavern section reminded of the following pouch, though it is a portrait. I'm quoting his description: This image is a portrait of Sir Edward Hales, Baronet of Hales Place, Hockington, Kent, by Phillippe Mercier c. 1744 housed at the Yale Center of British Art. 3.bp.blogspot.com/-lW2IMVkKWWk/VyPNet8rBkI/AAAAAAABnIs/UGPPDV34TEMYSfQXrHGsC6ONqIjEfoqUACLcB/s1600/9%2B-%2B00165.jpgHere is obviously a VERY wealthy (at least by his clothing) member of the Nobility, which means he could afford the very best of Shot Pouches. The double pouch is shall we say rather unique in many ways and I'm assuming it was made by a professional Saddler or other Leather worker. Notice it has red banding/piping and at least one brass suspension ring, which shows professionals added things to pouches that amateurs did not. However, take a good look at the suspension strap. It looks downright simple/lower quality compared to the workmanship of the pouch and quite frankly if the portrait artist painted it accurately, it shows a MAJOR design flaw. I certainly would not expect a professional to put the buckle in that position where it would rub near the collar bone/upper torso whether the buckle was worn on the front or back. IOW, I would expect it to be further down one side of the strap where it wouldn't rub on his fine clothing. Also, there are no border lines or other decoration on the strap we might/would expect on a pouch made for a high end customer. Additionally, there is no sliding or fixed keeper to keep the end of the strap from curling or going astray. Now if the buckle was worn in the back, a curling end to the strap would not matter, but if worn in the front, it could get in the way. I am not saying this is so, but I'm wondering if the Shot Pouch was originally made as a belt pouch and then later converted to an over the shoulder strap pouch? Gus
|
|
|
Post by artificer on May 24, 2022 12:24:18 GMT -7
Paranger wrote about the original pouch, that he also recreated: "2. The 10 (TEN!) keepers seem to make up for the fact that with no center bar buckle to tuck the adjustment end of the strap in (leather in this case) the end will flap in the proverbial breeze risking entanglement and more importantly, will potentially not stay securely engaged by the buckle tongue as the pouch bounces around. Why so many? I can only opine that it is because as the strap is adjusted for increased length, it will begin to "back out" of the uppermost keepers, as these are not floating but fixed keepers. Since a floating keeper would have to slide over both hemp and leather straps - which have very different widths, a floating keeper was not practical. Professionals typically, in my observation, do not intentionally make complex designs, but rather simple ones." Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner on this. Thank you for the further explanation. First of all, I do agree this is a design flaw the way the pouch maker used two buckles like that with the strap ends going upwards. So it may indeed show the maker was not a professional or at least one not used to making a "double buckle" strap arrangement, considering such strap arrangements pretty much went out not long after the FIW. To me, the strap ends are upside down as I'm used to seeing them attached in this method: c8.alamy.com/compfr/pe58fx/british-grenadiers-garde-a-pied-du-1er-et-3e-regiments-dans-les-coldstream-1751-peint-par-anglo-swiss-artiste-david-morier-specialiste-des-sujets-militaires-lun-dune-serie-connue-sous-le-nom-de-peintures-de-grenadiers-pe58fx.jpgI used a similar arrangement on my second pouch, though I included sliding keepers, on a FIW period militia cartouche pouch I made in the mid 1970's and it still is my favorite pouch to this day. I only used two buckles on mine though, and thus each end with a buckle went further up than in the pictures above. Mine was more like the following, but with the two short straps going further up. s3.amazonaws.com/m1.miiduu.com/store1/8761/image/data/SANY0385.JPGGus
|
|