Non-wool options for Union issue shirts?

[wuzreb]

Good evening all,

I realize my subject line may be an anachronism. The Union issue fatigue shirts were wool flannel.

I am not in the hobby now, have not been in years. However, just thinking ahead to the faraway land of "maybe" ... if I did decide to dip a toe back in, is there any such thing as a Union issue fatigue shirt that is not wool?

I am not close friends with wool. Wool directly against my skin makes me itch. I live out west where it gets hot, and hot and itchy is not how I want to spend an afternoon. There are less uncomfortable ways to be uncomfortable, while running around in an otherwise wool uniform.

One of the awesome things about a Confederate impression was the diversity of allowable shirts. My little South Carolina Sharpshooter got away just fine with a couple of cotton homespun shirts. If I galvanize, homespun is not an option.

And there is the point I sold all my kit 5 years ago because life happens.

So back to my question. Is there such a thing as an acceptable Union issue shirt made of cotton? That is not totally farby or made in Pakistan? Or does that exist only in the realm of flying pigs?

Respectfully &c

 

[captaindrew]

There's not a cotton issue shirt but there's options out there for well made cotton civilian shirts. Yeah Federal issue shirts are terribly itchy, unless you were going to a hard core event that required them I'd wear a civilian shirt. Glad I usually do Confederate, like you say way more comfortable shirts.

 

[wuzreb]

There's not a cotton issue shirt but there's options out there for well made cotton civilian shirts. Yeah Federal issue shirts are terribly itchy, unless you were going to a hard core event that required them I'd wear a civilian shirt. Glad I usually do Confederate, like you say way more comfortable shirts.

Thank you for the advisement! I would not get along with itchy. There is an abundance of other discomforts without adding that.

Still haven't made up my mind about anything, it would be an investment to even barely get started. The only thing I still own is my musket. And it's been a long time since I did it. Somebody want to reteach me the manual of arms?

Given your advice, probably I would then look for some sort of civilian shirt. Maybe mother or sister sent it to me from home. Especially if I asked her to send one in white or off-white!

I would be unlikely to cross paths with any serious authentic campaigner folks.

 

[3rdBrigade]

The big advantage with a federal issue domet flannel shirt is the fact after sweating all day in it, once it is taken off it dries relatively quickly allowing you a dry shirt at night , whereas a cotton shirt soaked with sweat will stay wet and damp and chill you at night. Yes, tho that federal issue shirt is hard to get used to!!
Is it all types of flannel that don't agree with you? Maybe a softer weave wool would help?

Bill

 

[wuzreb]

The big advantage with a federal issue domet flannel shirt is the fact after sweating all day in it, once it is taken off it dries relatively quickly allowing you a dry shirt at night , whereas a cotton shirt soaked with sweat will stay wet and damp and chill you at night. Yes, tho that federal issue shirt is hard to get used to!!
Is it all types of flannel that don't agree with you? Maybe a softer weave wool would help?

Bill

Good point about cotton staying soggy. That is a fact. It can be great when it's hot in the summer, but it sucks if you get caught in the rain or snow in the winter. Wool wicks water away and dries out faster.

I haven't actually had any chance to experiment with different makes of wool flannel shirts. The opportunity simply has not been there. I can wear merino wool socks and prefer them. But wool fabric in direct contact with my body, in general, doesn't agree with me. I'm fine with wool hats because they have a sweatband.

Perhaps if there was a soft enough wool flannel, I could cease being a princess and get along with it! I just haven't met it yet.

 

[captaindrew]

There is an alternate issue shirt that's more agreeable than the white domet flannel issue shirts. It's grey and made of a wool flannel that's much softer. Wambaugh and White make them and I see South Union Mills is making them now as well. The trade off is they are heavier and might not be better in very hot weather. Another option is get a period correct cotton undershirt to wear under your issue shirt. Again though it's a trade off in hot weather adding another layer.

 

[iron bender]

So I bought one of the W&W wool flannel shirts. It's gonna require some sweating in to make it not itchy as he!!. The two shirts I currently use are pre war WW2 german collarless in a natural white with replaced buttons. I just ordered this from SouthUnionMills as an in between. I also collect original images, and you see lots of different shirts on Yank infantrymen. I know the issue shirt should be worn, but I can't do the issue domet, period.

Collarless Cotton "On the Square" Shirt

Excellence in Authentic textile recreations and straw hats

www.southunionmills.com

Here's one of my favorite images in my collection....

...and another out of the collection..

...and one of the two shirts I currently use. Early WW2 German, 100% machine sewn, but kinda gives the knit undershirt look. I know, farb...

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

I've sewn several federal pattern domet flannel shirts, and personally think the itch factor is a bit overstated. I've never really had that problem once I switched to the correct material. Although I know several people who have had a different experience, that hasn't been mine.

Have you considered an undershirt under your issue shirt? Canton flannel is very cozy in the winter.

In hot temperatures, I find that not only is a domet flannel shirt quick to dry, the incredibly loose weave and damp fabric makes for an amazing AC unit. If you are doing any sort of physical activity where you break a sweat (as opposed to say a presentation indoors or in a tent) the shirt isn't nearly as itchy when it's drenched. This coming from someone who doesn't care for the feel of wool either, in general.

 

[wuzreb]

So I bought one of the W&W wool flannel shirts. It's gonna require some sweating in to make it not itchy as he!!. The two shirts I currently use are pre war WW2 german collarless in a natural white with replaced buttons. I just ordered this from SouthUnionMills as an in between. I also collect original images, and you see lots of different shirts on Yank infantrymen. I know the issue shirt should be worn, but I can't do the issue domet, period.

Collarless Cotton "On the Square" Shirt

Excellence in Authentic textile recreations and straw hats

www.southunionmills.com

Here's one of my favorite images in my collection....

View attachment 583584
...and another out of the collection..

View attachment 583585
...and one of the two shirts I currently use. Early WW2 German, 100% machine sewn, but kinda gives the knit undershirt look. I know, farb...

View attachment 583586

Good morning!

Your photo illustrations are great! They show more than the photos where the guys are buttoned up formally for a photographer and you can't see much under their blouse.


I know the Army wanted people uniform even then, but we've also read accounts of soldiers asking the folks back home to send socks or shirts or whatever. Union boys weren't running around in houndstooth homespun, but your photos seem to show a little outside the ordinary issue.

Food for thought, anyhow. Especially if one is concealing pretty much everything under a uniform coat or blouse. I'm probably semi allergic to wool, which is why I'm sensitive to it. I love the stuff as outerwear, just don't want to snuggle with it.

 

[wuzreb]

I've sewn several federal pattern domet flannel shirts, and personally think the itch factor is a bit overstated. I've never really had that problem once I switched to the correct material. Although I know several people who have had a different experience, that hasn't been mine.

Have you considered an undershirt under your issue shirt? Canton flannel is very cozy in the winter.

In hot temperatures, I find that not only is a domet flannel shirt quick to dry, the incredibly loose weave and damp fabric makes for an amazing AC unit. If you are doing any sort of physical activity where you break a sweat (as opposed to say a presentation indoors or in a tent) the shirt isn't nearly as itchy when it's drenched. This coming from someone who doesn't care for the feel of wool either, in general.

An undershirt could work. Especially if I wasn't doing something really physical like digging or schlepping heavy stuff around.

As I said in a comment above, I think I'm actually slightly allergic to wool. I used to have some wool blend longjohn shirts that were soft to the hand and wonderfully warm, and made me scratch like a hound. I hate being fussy about something like this, but I hate itching more!

You do make domet flannel sound a little more attractive. I haven't had the chance to actually handle and look at it, maybe one of these days I will. More food for thought! I'm not purchasing anything anytime soon, just basically thinking out loud.

 

[DoctorKingSchultz]

So I bought one of the W&W wool flannel shirts. It's gonna require some sweating in to make it not itchy as he!!. The two shirts I currently use are pre war WW2 german collarless in a natural white with replaced buttons. I just ordered this from SouthUnionMills as an in between. I also collect original images, and you see lots of different shirts on Yank infantrymen. I know the issue shirt should be worn, but I can't do the issue domet, period.

Collarless Cotton "On the Square" Shirt

Excellence in Authentic textile recreations and straw hats

www.southunionmills.com

Here's one of my favorite images in my collection....

View attachment 583584
...and another out of the collection..

View attachment 583585
...and one of the two shirts I currently use. Early WW2 German, 100% machine sewn, but kinda gives the knit undershirt look. I know, farb...

View attachment 583586

The WW2 undershirt is reproduction... right? Shirts and especially anything closer to the body is one place I'll never go with originals personally! Just curious.

 

[wuzreb]

The WW2 undershirt is reproduction... right? Shirts and especially anything closer to the body is one place I'll never go with originals personally! Just curious.

Not WWII. W&W is short hand for Wambaugh & White, one of the better makers of Civil War uniforms. But yes, they are reproductions made to original specifications.

One of life's little ironies, Confederates were happy to make their shirts out of cotton. The Union went with mostly wool. It's a little itchier to portray a yankee.

 

[wuzreb]

The WW2 undershirt is reproduction... right? Shirts and especially anything closer to the body is one place I'll never go with originals personally! Just curious.

That said, there are a few small makers creating shirts to the correct specifications but out of more comfortable fabrics. Like you say, you kind of have to pick your battles. Wool right against my body makes me scratch!

 

[DoctorKingSchultz]

Not WWII. W&W is short hand for Wambaugh & White, one of the better makers of Civil War uniforms. But yes, they are reproductions made to original specifications.

One of life's little ironies, Confederates were happy to make their shirts out of cotton. The Union went with mostly wool. It's a little itchier to portray a yankee.

Oh I know Wambaugh and White, but he mentions at least two shirts, seeming to separate the new W&W shirt from a "pre-WW2 shirt" quite clearly:

With the SUM link below specifying what the inbetween shirt was, so 3 shirts..

??

I am asking because I really do know of people who do wear original shirts over a century old.. rather unsanitary and unwise in my humble opinion. (pre-WW2 may be under a century ago but same applies)

 

[wuzreb]

Oh I know Wambaugh and White, but he mentions at least two shirts, seeming to separate the new W&W shirt from a "pre-WW2 shirt" quite clearly:

View attachment 590944
With the SUM link below specifying what the inbetween shirt was, so 3 shirts..

View attachment 590945??

I am asking because I really do know of people who do wear original shirts over a century old.. rather unsanitary and unwise in my humble opinion. (pre-WW2 may be under a century ago but same applies)

Okay, I got it. I'm not sure what he means about the pre World War II German shirts. But it sounds like that was just his personal choice for comfort. As he says, it's not historically accurate.

I'm not sure why anybody would be wearing original, century-plus old garments. There are lots of makers producing quality reproductions that will last longer, and not result in the wear and destruction of a historical garment.

I wouldn't think of it as unsanitary, I mean I wouldn't want to wear 100-year-old underwear. But germs don't live in the open air very long, and properly kept clothing shouldn't be nasty.

Mainly I think it would be wasteful and extravagant to wear genuine antique clothing. At least not for anything strenuous or active.

 

[DoctorKingSchultz]

Okay, I got it. I'm not sure what he means about the pre World War II German shirts. But it sounds like that was just his personal choice for comfort. As he says, it's not historically accurate.

I'm not sure why anybody would be wearing original, century-plus old garments. There are lots of makers producing quality reproductions that will last longer, and not result in the wear and destruction of a historical garment.

I wouldn't think of it as unsanitary, I mean I wouldn't want to wear 100-year-old underwear. But germs don't live in the open air very long, and properly kept clothing shouldn't be nasty.

Mainly I think it would be wasteful and extravagant to wear genuine antique clothing. At least not for anything strenuous or active.

Indeed, and I agree. Such is the case though and why, reading the post that way, I assume he meant it; I know of/have seen many people, especially turn-of-the-century wearing real originals - not necessarily an issue personally, as I myself have originals dating to before the Civil War, but with the likes of shirts, undershirts etc. and actually wearing those, I'm not so sure I can agree with it...


See, forget the possibility of getting smallpox from some old shirt (or any number of diseases) - it's not happening; the unsanitary part to me is the fact that actual clothing someone may have worn for years, a century ago are being worn... it just seems a bit gross, not to mention that with such things as shoes, shirts, underclothing they are going to wear out with time... at which point, you the owner would be the one responsible for wearing out and ultimately destroying something that survived over a century! Germs entirely aside that is a gripe for me, and I have seen all of these things being done. With shirts/underclothing meanwhile there is the same general issue I have with the thought of wearing something that directly touched someone else's skin, potentially bodily fluids etc. let alone a century old and wearing them yourself.. sweating or staining something that better belongs in a museum display is the destruction of history as much as grinding up a mummy into fertilizer, ultimately you are wearing out and/or aging something that really should not be being worn.

Of course this is all redundant in the case that he clarifies he didn't mean actual pre-WW2 vintage, but in any case these are my opinions surrounding wearing a lot of real, antique clothing in general. Shoes as well, again - imagine wearing down the sole of some high-quality shoes that survived a century so far without that. While it is great to see the wider interest in accurate clothing we have seen in recent years, this is an alarming corner of it.

 

[wuzreb]

Indeed, and I agree. Such is the case though and why, reading the post that way, I assume he meant it; I know of/have seen many people, especially turn-of-the-century wearing real originals - not necessarily an issue personally, as I myself have originals dating to before the Civil War, but with the likes of shirts, undershirts etc. and actually wearing those, I'm not so sure I can agree with it...


See, forget the possibility of getting smallpox from some old shirt (or any number of diseases) - it's not happening; the unsanitary part to me is the fact that actual clothing someone may have worn for years, a century ago are being worn... it just seems a bit gross, not to mention that with such things as shoes, shirts, underclothing they are going to wear out with time... at which point, you the owner would be the one responsible for wearing out and ultimately destroying something that survived over a century! Germs entirely aside that is a gripe for me, and I have seen all of these things being done. With shirts/underclothing meanwhile there is the same general issue I have with the thought of wearing something that directly touched someone else's skin, potentially bodily fluids etc. let alone a century old and wearing them yourself.. sweating or staining something that better belongs in a museum display is the destruction of history as much as grinding up a mummy into fertilizer, ultimately you are wearing out and/or aging something that really should not be being worn.

Of course this is all redundant in the case that he clarifies he didn't mean actual pre-WW2 vintage, but in any case these are my opinions surrounding wearing a lot of real, antique clothing in general. Shoes as well, again - imagine wearing down the sole of some high-quality shoes that survived a century so far without that. While it is great to see the wider interest in accurate clothing we have seen in recent years, this is an alarming corner of it.

I hear what you're saying. I just dont know any reenactors wearing antique clothing. For one, it's old! Cloth gets fragile and tears easily. It won't stand up to hard use.

The reenactors I know wear reproduction clothing. There are makers who make exact replicas, they are no different from the originals, to the last detail. So there's no reason to wear fragile antique clothing. If anyone is doing that, they're going to wreck antiques.

 

[DoctorKingSchultz]

I hear what you're saying. I just dont know any reenactors wearing antique clothing. For one, it's old! Cloth gets fragile and tears easily. It won't stand up to hard use.

The reenactors I know wear reproduction clothing. There are makers who make exact replicas, they are no different from the originals, to the last detail. So there's no reason to wear fragile antique clothing. If anyone is doing that, they're going to wreck antiques.

Oh, most typical reenactors, i.e. military do not. There is a small subset that does among civilian reenactment as I said. Real, 120+ year old shoes, shirts, undershirts etc. and there are not that many makers who make exact replicas and/or very close to original civilian clothing. You can count the number of them for the 19th century as a whole on all your fingers and toes at best. Nobody is wearing an original sack coat that was reportedly at Gettysburg, at the Gettysburg 160th.

But yeah, there's little reason for doing it. I emphasize shoes because even those may seem tough, but with use they will, of course, wear! At least some of the reenactors and general enthusiasts between the late 19th and early 20th century wear originals, i.e. 1910s, 1930s which fits right into where a pre-WW2 original undershirt would believably be being worn. If you know various people who do civilian impressions between 1890 and 1940 you'd know someone who wears originals. Hence why I would believe if what was meant, was that it was an original shirt he was using... the vintage crowd really has a market wearing 80-year-old shirts.