Padding In Uniforms

A 35-36 chest was average, even in the army evidently.


A Sanitary Commission examination of over 1,500 soldiers with the Army of the Potomac...

1630343589159.png

A medical review of 1,700 recruits forwarded to the Army of Potomac, 1862-63:

1630343449275.png


Their average chest size was also calculated at 35 inches.
 
Military garments were generally cut by "extra erect" patterns, as it was similar to the "position of a soldier" as given in the tactics of the time...

Might want to re-think that one:

REMARKS ON THE POSITION OF A SOLDIER.

(snip)

The upper part of the body inclining forward;

Because commonly, recruits are disposed to do the reverse, to project the belly, and to throw back the shoulders, when they wish to hold themselves erect, from which result great inconveniences in marching. The habit of inclining forward the upper part of the body is so important to contract, that the instructor must enforce it at the beginning, particularly with recruits who have naturally the opposite habit.

I've found through personal experience that DeVere's "proportionate" balance fits 80% or so of men for both military and civilian garments. The amount of "round" in the chest has nothing to do with whether the coat is "stooping" or "erect". Don't confuse length with curvature.
 
The tailor books, like Devere, Minister, etc. all reference a 36 or 38 inch chest (with vest) as near standard.

English tailoring manuals (Minister etc.) use 18 inches (half the chest measure) for sample problems because 36 is a "nice number". You can easily divide it by 2, 3, 4, 6, or 9 to get different proportions without resorting to complex fractions.

DeVere copied a French system (Compaing's) which was originally metric - and his "proportionate" size of 18-3/4 inches probably comes for 48 cm. Again, 48 was a "nice number" evenly divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24.

Tailors were well aware that men came in all shapes and sizes - which is why DeVere sold "graduated rulers" along with his books which enabled the student to scale the model patterns to any required size.
 
My takeaways from all this is that the ideal manly physique of the mid 1800s appears to be a barrel chest and a small waist and experienced tailors could stitch clothes to create that illusion if a man's actual physical build did not measure up to the ideal - like men's suit coats today are padded in the shoulders because the ideal is broad shoulders.

Correct. Every generation has it silly fashion fads. Who remembers bell-bottomed trousers from the 1970's?

I was surprised looking at the officers ' uniforms in the Gettysburg museum because they seemed so small. Now I think they looked small because they were cut narrow on the shoulders - all the better to make the chest appear larger.

The difference in the shoulders isn't so much narrowness, the old patterns are wide enough for most modern men of the same chest size. The difference is the shoulder slope. Also, the sleeves are set in a very different manner. Try raising your arms over your head in a buttoned suit coat and watch the coat ride up your body. In the 1860's armscyes were cut much smaller and the sleeve heads were gathered into the hole. This results in a much closer fit, but ironically much greater freedom of movement if the coat fits properly.
 
Back
Top