Bibbed Shirt with Star

[Forrest]

This guy is a real mystery - the Bibbed 'fireman style' shirt with a six-sided star is odd enough, but if you look very closely, you'll also see that he is wearing multi-striped pants. Not pinstripes, but fat stripes.

In digging around, I've found three photos of men wearing bibbed jerseys with a star, and all were Civil War soldiers;e.g-3rd MS Co. C 'Sunflower Preservers'. He could also be a fireman, a cowboy or a member of some order;e.g-Mason. Thoughts?

 

[Forrest]

Here's a Civil War soldier who was in the Navy:

 

[Poor Private]

It could be a partisan ranger shirt. Some of those shirts in Missouri are really wild.

 

[Forrest]

It could be a partisan ranger shirt. Some of those shirts in Missouri are really wild.

Those, along with the 'cowboy' and 'guerilla' bibbed shirts.

 

[Private Watkins]

That's a really neat image... I have no clue though as to what kind of uniform that is, or even if a uniform at all.

Is this a CDV, or a hard image mounted in/on paper? You can sometimes get an idea of the date range of a CDV based on various factors such as size, borders, corners, etc. For example...
http://www.phototree.com/id_cdv.htm

Borders
While a little riskier to use as a definitive dating technique, it is still worthwhile to know the border styles as they evolved, particularly in the later 1860s and early 1870s. The earliest CDVs had no border. In about 1862 a single thin line, sometimes two lines were used to outline the picture area. In1864 two lines, a thin inner one and a thicker outer line, became popular. In the early 1870s, much thicker lines came into vogue, and then disappeared again later in the decade.
No Borders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1860-1862
Two thin lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1862-1863
One thin, one thicker line. . . . . . 1864-1869
Very Thick Border . . . . . . . . . . . 1874-1880
General Rule: Thin borders pre-1868​

There are experts around here (I'm not one) who could probably give a whole lot more insight on the image...

Here's another source: http://www.cycleback.com/photoguide/mounted.htm

1850s-60s cartes usually had the albumen print pasted to a thin mount that is white, off white or light cream. The mount corners are square. A square cornered CDV is reliably dated the 1850s or 1860s. While often there is the studio name printed on back, there usually is no printed text on the front. 1860s cartes often had one or two thin red or blue lines around albumen print. Unusually small vignetted images (oval images) date to this period.

Starting in the early 1870s the mounts had rounded corners and came in more colors. By the mid 1870s gold gilded, beveled edges were used. By the 1880s dark colors were common and the mount often had scalloped edges. ​

 

[Forrest]

No, it's a tintype. It's very hard to date tintypes, other than the cheap images from the 1890's on. I generally do not buy them, but I needed a few examples for a interactive 19th century photo display I'm doing at a card show this summer. I thought this one would be a good conversation piece. As you say, CDVs are not terribly hard to date. 'No border' CDVs hung around a bit longer than 1862, but the later ones are easy to distinguish from the really old ones. I like that distinction you make between 'two thin lines' and 'one thin, one thicker...' I have attached an image of one of my favorite CDVs of the latter type - it is dated to 1865 on the back, has a revenue stamp and some boxing info. I guess it could be considered a very early boxing card, if you assume that the image is of the guy involved in the boxing match described on the back.

As far as Civil War photos go, I am only collecting ambrotypes. The Civil War was an amazing time for photography, as ambrotypes were fading out and cdv's and tintypes had just begun. Daguerreotypes are not nearly as common as the other three, but when you find them they are spectacular. In reading Civil War letters, you'll frequently hear references to "likeness", "image" or "ambrotype" - all meaning "photograph" - but not so many references to the actual word "photograph".

I only collect ambrotypes for one reason: I generally can't afford CW images that show weapons, so with my limited knowledge, non-weapon non-id'd soldier images in tintype or cdv format are usually a crapshoot as to whether or not they depict a CW soldier. On the other hand, if you find an ambrotype showing a soldier, it's almost always Civil War - you don't have to worry about figuring out if the uniform or weapons were from Indian Wars, etc. Daguerreotypes are a whole different ballgame - you have to figure out if the uniform is PRE-Civil War!

 

[Private Watkins]

No, it's a tintype. It's very hard to date tintypes, other than the cheap images from the 1890's on. I generally do not buy them, but I needed a few examples for a interactive 19th century photo display I'm doing at a card show this summer. I thought this one would be a good conversation piece. As you say, CDVs are not terribly hard to date. 'No border' CDVs hung around a bit longer than 1862, but the later ones are easy to distinguish from the really old ones. I like that distinction you make between 'two thin lines' and 'one thin, one thicker...' I have attached an image of one of my favorite CDVs of the latter type - it is dated to 1865 on the back, has a revenue stamp and some boxing info. I guess it could be considered a very early boxing card, if you assume that the image is of the guy involved in the boxing match described on the back.

As far as Civil War photos go, I am only collecting ambrotypes. The Civil War was an amazing time for photography, as ambrotypes were fading out and cdv's and tintypes had just begun. Daguerreotypes are not nearly as common as the other three, but when you find them they are spectacular. In reading Civil War letters, you'll frequently hear references to "likeness", "image" or "ambrotype" - all meaning "photograph" - but not so many references to the actual word "photograph".

I only collect ambrotypes for one reason: I generally can't afford CW images that show weapons, so with my limited knowledge, non-weapon non-id'd soldier images in tintype or cdv format are usually a crapshoot as to whether or not they depict a CW soldier. On the other hand, if you find an ambrotype showing a soldier, it's almost always Civil War - you don't have to worry about figuring out if the uniform or weapons were from Indian Wars, etc. Daguerreotypes are a whole different ballgame - you have to figure out if the uniform is PRE-Civil War!

I like ambro's too... for all the reasons you mention plus the image quality on a nice ambrotype can be really amazing.

 

[Forrest]

Agreed on image quality - I was talking to an advanced ambro collector, trying to pick his brain, and I told him that almost all of my ambros are ruby glass. It

I like ambro's too... for all the reasons you mention plus the image quality on a nice ambrotype can be really amazing.

Speaking of ambrotypes - here's a 1/6 plate beauty I just received, circa 1858-60:

 

[Forrest]

A couple more bits of info:

According to a website I found (which might not mean much), the tintype is probably 1861-63, just because of the paper case it came in. The early ones were printed, then around 1863 they changed to embossing.

The ambrotype is probably a little older than I thought. Because it arrived in a lot with 7 tintypes and 1 ambrotype, I removed it just to check. The glass with the image was not painted black, but rather had a black piece of metal as its backing - this was a feature of earlier ambrotypes that began after the practice of using two pieces of glass. Given that they were only around for ten years, that's a very fine age distinction. The odd result is that if you hold it at an angle you see a mirroring - not like in a dag, but something that you don't see at all in ambros where the back is painted black.

 

[Private Watkins]

Agreed on image quality - I was talking to an advanced ambro collector, trying to pick his brain, and I told him that almost all of my ambros are ruby glass. It


Speaking of ambrotypes - here's a 1/6 plate beauty I just received, circa 1858-60:

View attachment 93726

Beauty indeed... love it! Very nice...!

 

[Forrest]

Here's one that is a good companion piece to the one above. In both cases the subject looks like he crawled out of a tent, the first not even changing out of his nightshirt and the second simply covering his hair with a hat. I had my eye on the one below for quite some time, as it reminded me of what I thought a Confederate soldier would look like toward the end of the war; however, I was bothered by the center part of the front of the case being scraped off - I had not seen the back, so I didn't know what had been removed, only that it had been done a long time ago. I later found an intact patriotic case that had similar edges, and it dawned on me that it might have been a patriotic case where the Union shield and eagle had been intentionally scraped off by a Southerner. I went back and compared the edges of the two cases and they were a perfect match. Not conclusive evidence that he was a soldier, but I like it.

 

[Private Watkins]

Here's one that is a good companion piece to the one above. In both cases the subject looks like he crawled out of a tent, the first not even changing out of his nightshirt and the second simply covering his hair with a hat. I had my eye on the one below for quite some time, as it reminded me of what I thought a Confederate soldier would look like toward the end of the war; however, I was bothered by the center part of the front of the case being scraped off - I had not seen the back, so I didn't know what had been removed, only that it had been done a long time ago. I later found an intact patriotic case that had similar edges, and it dawned on me that it might have been a patriotic case where the Union shield and eagle had been intentionally scraped off by a Southerner. I went back and compared the edges of the two cases and they were a perfect match. Not conclusive evidence that he was a soldier, but I like it.

View attachment 93882

Very nice... love the hat!

 

[Borderruffian]

It could be a partisan ranger shirt. Some of those shirts in Missouri are really wild.

Naw.One it's not a "Guerilla" shirt which was more like the old long hunter shirt with large pockets(4) on the front, they were finely embroidered in some cases but not bibbed or shielded. Two the bak navy flap is visable on his shoulders and the embroidery om,n the bib and the bib itself was common to sailors of the era as liberty wear.

 

[major bill]

In the first image I have wonder about the striped trousers. Without The striped trousers I might lean navy. Has anyone thought about this being a boat club member? I have read accounts of boat clubs wearing "naval uniforms" or "uniforms like those worn in the navy" but all the photographs I have seem of boating clubs of the Civil War era showed bibbed shirts with club emblems and the rest of the dress was civil style clothing. I am not say for certain this is a Civil War era boat club member, just asking those who might be more knowledgeable on this subject than I what they think.

 

[Borderruffian]

In the first image I have wonder about the striped trousers. Without The striped trousers I might lean navy. Has anyone thought about this being a boat club member? I have read accounts of boat clubs wearing "naval uniforms" or "uniforms like those worn in the navy" but all the photographs I have seem of boating clubs of the Civil War era showed bibbed shirts with club emblems and the rest of the dress was civil style clothing. I am not say for certain this is a Civil War era boat club member, just asking those who might be more knowledgeable on this subject than I what they think.

Possible or a merchant sailor.

 

[Forrest]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I purchased it purely as a 1861-65 tintype example (old printed mat) for my exhibit, thinking the bibbed shirt with star would add interaction with viewers. Now I have even more to talk about, so thanks.

I just found this daguerreotype of a man with similar striped pants, circa 1850. It looks like a Spanish couple. Maybe such pants were a European fashion at the time?

 

[Forrest]

Oarsman dag:

 

[major bill]

All bibbed shirts have some things in common (the bib for one) and this one does look a bit like the bibbed shirt with a star.

 

[Forrest]

I agree, except the collar on my guy's jersey is smaller than either a typical oarsman's or sailor's.

 

[chubachus]

I feel like I have seen a star like that somewhere before in some photo, but I don't remember where. My guess is that he is a fireman.