|
|
Post by brokennock on Nov 2, 2021 13:14:07 GMT -7
Okay, so, I have actually been pondering this for some time, and the excellent discussion in the clothing section, and how some things were phrased or described, leads me to put it out here for your discussion and opinions.
Truthfully I put it here in the Tavern because it is generalized, it could apply to clothing, firearms, accouterments, even food or cooking gear.
Do we overemphasize "the norm." The usual, the common? Sometimes I think we do.
But, why?
Do we choose articles of clothing, just, because the are well documented,,,, frequently?
Are our own personal preferences influencing this? Is there an element of group think and our current tastes and herd mentality regarding style influencing these things? This "looks cool and like what my peers think is right for someone in the woods."
Should we be doing more with those items mentioned less frequently?
If an article of clothing is mentioned once or twice in some runaway ads or in sales advertising, it shows that item was available and worn. Which shows that while it may not be mentioned often, it may not have been common, then, just as now, people were individuals. And, while I do think people were a little more concerned with stepping outside society's norms then compared to today, they were still individuals with individual tastes.
There are things people wear now, or were in style within my lifetime, that I would not wear regardless of what anyone may think of my not wearing and what I may wear instead. I see things listed from our period of interest and think, "as an individual, as myself, I would not have worn that then and I won't wear it now.
"Blue plush," breeches would be one example. Anything made of corduroy, would be a other. But, I do think that while these items aren't mentioned often, they should be represented.
As maybe other less common, but still documented in some way, items should not be avoided completely, just because they don't appear to have been the norm.
Sorry, I've kind of lost the cohesion of my thought process as my writing can't keep up with my thoughts.
Hopefully you all understand.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Nov 2, 2021 15:52:45 GMT -7
Good question, Nock. I have often thought about this, too. For me, it is all about balance.
When building an impression, 1 or 2 carefully chosen deviations from the "norm" (as long as they are plausible / not outright anachronistic, etc.) add interest and individuality to an impression, in my view, and can provide an invitation to a good conversation - but come to that conversation having done your homework if you want to remain credible.
On the other hand, if overdone, one risks being the "crazy guy" we have all seen haunting large public events. Too many deviations from the norms of your particular ethnic, regional, socio-economic and period impression render it a caricature - then as now.
Granted, there is a lot of room between the extremes of "vanilla" hc/pc and crazy guy. For me, 1 or (at most) 2 deviations from "mark 1, mod. 0" feels right. My 2 cents...
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Nov 2, 2021 17:19:41 GMT -7
I think one must also consider the socioeconomic status of your persona. Those who were of lower status were unlikely to have the "uncommon" items - wealth brings opportunity for customization. The grand reality is that most fit in the former rather than the latter category. More common, more numerous and abundant and more likely to be present and recorded.
In the end, my opinion is to keep the extraordinary items to a minimum unless you portray someone of wealth and means who could afford the esoteric items imported from elsewhere...
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 2, 2021 17:33:17 GMT -7
When you fellows have settled this question you might want to consider its polar opposite, too many of a common type of impression. I'll wager there are at least 10 times (100?) as many longhunters today as ever existed at the time. Doing your reenacting as I do, by yourself, out in the boonies behind a big old tree trunk where no one can see you, has its advantages when such questions come up.  Spence |
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Nov 2, 2021 17:49:59 GMT -7
I do this mostly for myself - as part of a very small group of like-minded individuals that serve as encouragement. We are the "unusual" surrounded by the "common" - read 1970's orange chrome-tan wearing, animal-humping-the-back-of-your-head caps, TC-toting, full leather warshirt, gen-u-w(h)ine buckskinners. I get that we all started somewhere, but when you haven't improved in 20-40 years, you don't fit in the beginner category anymore....
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 2, 2021 17:56:35 GMT -7
Buckskinning is more like cosplay than reenacting, IMNSHO.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Nov 2, 2021 18:13:26 GMT -7
Buckskinning is more like cosplay than reenacting, IMNSHO. Spence Now THAT is damn funny! Best description ever!  |
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Nov 2, 2021 19:35:55 GMT -7
Spence's opposite side is in large part what I an getting at.
Also, maybe it was always the wealthy who had the extremes. The phrase, "beggars can't be choosers," comes to mind.
Maybe our example man is in a low socioeconomic class, his breeches and coat have worn out, he has a chance to scavenge or otherwise obtain cheaply a pair of purple plush breeches and a yellow corduroy coat, both a little too large. It is widely accepted that clothing of the period was well fit to the individual. But, while these may not be common material items, and they don't fit him to the standard of the time, he can "afford" them. Would he have turned them down? Maybe he isn't some destitute man later in life, but a young man just starting out on his own in life without much if any support from his family.
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 2, 2021 20:09:34 GMT -7
This is a question which is discussed from time to time, I've never really seen an answer to it and I don't know that we will. Our points of view vary so, maybe there can't be a consensus. I can see that if a person is involved with a group doing a joint reenactment, say manning a fort with a realistic population, there might be a problem if too many of a marginal item or character were involved. That's the only situation in which I can imagine a problem. At a rendezvous, for instance, each man's impression stands alone even though he's in a crowd. From my perspective working solo it is a non-problem, because I'm only reenacting a generic single character, not for public consumption, so too much or too many doesn't compute. In a way, whether we see it as a problem depends on our individual situation and what we are trying to portray. All those longhunters I mentioned earlier are not really a problem as long as they are considered as individual interpretations, not as a group. brokennock, many of those weird items of clothing I've run across, such as the blue plush breeches, were provided to runaway indentured or convict servants by their masters, hand-me-down used clothing. If that's your persona they would be totally appropriate. I think you'd look spiffy in them.  Spence |
|
Keith
Hunter
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 1,002 
|
Post by Keith on Nov 2, 2021 21:17:16 GMT -7
I know exactly what you mean Nock & I see where you are coming from. You do raise a good point, but I think this comes down to the individual. Everything I wear & use has come from my experience as well as my research. If I am too hot I take my waistcoat off, if I am too cold I put on two shirts & two waistcoats. Again, this is from experience plus research to make sure this was actually done. But frankly I would have done it anyway, because it is more practicle & lighter than carrying two blankets.
I hope this helps.
Keith.
|
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Nov 3, 2021 7:16:16 GMT -7
Great perspectives and we'll stated on both of your parts.
Regarding not gaining a "concensus."
I think concensus is what gets us in trouble here in the 1st place.
While I agree that too much of the less common would be problematic if doing a public presentation of manning a for or blockhouse. Because most often in the back country these were manned by people local to the fort,, there would be some variation in dress and equipment.
Too much of the same thing would also be odd to me. If we only look at the men and their clothing was mostly made by their wives, daughters, and sweethearts,,, there would be variation just within the same item, waistcoat or hunting shirt or whatever.
Try to stick with me here, and I will try to maintain my line of thought in writing. Apologies if I offend and custom Harley Davidson riders who may read this.
I used to be really into motorcycles, or so I thought. I attended many bike shows, made the near religious pilgrimage to Daytona Beach for Bike Week and Biketoberfest every year... I found I was bored. I don't really love the machines, I love to ride. If I can't ride it,, what's the point in staring at it?
Anyway, part of the dissolusionment came from the realization that ultimately everyone's attempts at customization and "individualism" ultimately followed the latest trends and all wound up looking essentially the same to me. The same but slightly different.
I feel that that is what I am seeing in some of the trends in our own clothing and gear. Or at least there is the potential for it. "You can have any style hunting shirt you want, as long as it's walnut colored," or another crowd, "as long as it's white." Etc. Etc.
I don't think if I went to observe the manning of Pricket's Fort and everyone had on hunting shirts ranging from dingy white to walnut, linen or wool breeches of the same color range but to include black, all cut from the same pattern, moccasins no period shoes or boots, and so on (I think/hope you catch my drift) that it would look right. It might to some. But, is it?
Spence, I'm with you on the solo thing. I prefer just to do what I do as solo hunts and scouts. There are a couple of you I would love to go do a hunt or trek with.
I would like to attend one or two of the better events just for a chance to learn from folks far more versed than I.
But, the impetus is still to make my solo experience better and more authentic.
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 3, 2021 8:53:25 GMT -7
But, the impetus is still to make my solo EXPERIENCE better and more authentic. By George, I think he's got it!  Spence |
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Nov 3, 2021 10:59:02 GMT -7
Do it for you and "damn the torpedos"...
|
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Nov 3, 2021 20:14:43 GMT -7
Do it for you and "damn the torpedos"... Whole different reenactment... |
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Nov 4, 2021 6:17:54 GMT -7
I do it for myself and those who take interest to follow suit.
I am not boastful about my endeavors, rarely discuss them with others and keep to myself. To many of the public events showcase the finest of the fine individual characters already discussed. In my experience many of the "historical reenactment" folks focus largely on the show versus the results.
To me I focus on the results of my research. Having the skills to survive amongst the forest is an admirable quality in its own right. However, to be one who is completely competent and able to do so utilizing period equipment and techniques of the 18th century is very humbling.
For me I've always felt backwards amongst the many a-typical reenactment events and folks. I've met many fine people who do it well but I've met VERY few who actually focus on the skills of period woodsmanship besides the outward appearance to their persona.
Like Spence my efforts anymore are solely personal. Besides sharing things amongst this forum with you gentlemen... I'll be poking my head around that massive oak, steel forward and cock back with my blade and eye focused on that big grey whilst in period garb... Why? Thats the normal for me. All for the appreciation and humility of the past, just to try and get a small glimpse of how the old fellas did it.
Give me my firelock, a full horn of powder, my shooting bag, knife and hawk then we are off for a fabulous time!
|
|
