Soldiers and Hardtack

Nobody has commented about the fellow on the left wearing highly shined boots. Doesn't this seem "odd"?
Not realy they appear to retain some luster where they would be covered by his pants leg if he were not sitting. The face and bottoms are fairly dusty though. The combat boots i wear to work on a daily bases come out the same.
 
Some more photos of the 23rd N.Y.
 

Attachments

  • 23rd N.Y. 2.jpg
    23rd N.Y. 2.jpg
    57.9 KB · Views: 346
Nice, my reenacting unit in Arizona portrayed the 23rd NY but I'd never come across images of the regiment. NY shell jackets and .69 smoothbores and as with anything there are no absolutes when we get into the nitty gritty of soldiering back then.

Interestingly in the man laying on the ground he's either wearing the cartridge box on the wrong side or just happens to be laying on the strap with his other gear.

They Met at Shiloh my novel. Phillip M. Bryant my blog, news and views plus short stories.
 
Wow take a look at the Corporal in the second picture above polishing his rifle, is that full or half cock? Its pointed right at his Pards head.
 
My favorite hardtack picture is Picnic party at Antietam Bridge. One of the ladies has a piece of hard tack in a daintly lace-gloved hand. There is a man-sized bite taken out of the cracker.
 
I think you have a point there about why so few and why the stack. The photographer wanted a certain look and had these men stage themselves somewhat. If they were on fatigue duty more than likely their rifle stack would not have been so haphazardly arranged or close to where they happened to be lounging. We're also missing where their other equipment is if they have been on the march and having a brief meal. My vote is this is staged with the rifle stack moved for appearances.

They Met at Shiloh my novel. Phillip M. Bryant my blog, news and views plus short stories.

I agree, it seems a particularly strange picture. Photographers of that era couldn't take "candid" shots due to the long exposure times, so this photo was probably staged, with a few props thrown in. What's peculiar about it to me is that you see very few soldiers photo's withough their uniform jackets - a photograph was a special event, and few would want their picture taken showing them in a "slovenly" manner of dress, no matter what the occassion. (note the picture posted above by RMNCSA). As for the oversized trousers, I would guess that's a reflection of two factors: (a) the fact that uniforms were distributed to enlisted men without regard for size, and (b) they probably lost quite a bit of weight while in service, due to rations and an awful lot of physical exercise. All in all, most would probably say they preferred oversized pants to ones to small, as long as they had suspenders to hold them up.
 
The picture in question came out of an auction house about 1-2 years ago. I was bidding over the phone for it but stopped at 3k. It was an interesting picture to say the least
 
I've been told that, in polite company, a shirt was considered underwear. In an all-male group, which armies almost always are, shedding the coat would not have been unusual.

By the way, in the original photo, the fellow on the left has a haversack slung on his knee.

Meanwhile, interesting analyses by everyone.

That the print is reversed indicates, to me, a glass negative.
 
The picture in question came out of an auction house about 1-2 years ago. I was bidding over the phone for it but stopped at 3k. It was an interesting picture to say the least

Can you tell us anything about the provenance of the picture?
 
Roy I sure can't. I remember everyone at the time was trying to figure out if they were Rebs or not. No one could come to a conclusive decision. I wish I could have got it though
 
Not realy they appear to retain some luster where they would be covered by his pants leg if he were not sitting. The face and bottoms are fairly dusty though. The combat boots i wear to work on a daily bases come out the same.

But wouldn't infantry wear brogans rather than boots?
 
You will notice the 8 soldiers in the photo are with their 8 rifles, unlike the original. lots other haversacks, etc as well.

Yes but you will also notice that in the four photos of various elements of the 23rd not all of their rifles and traps are present, they also are in a camp setting. My thoughts are these fellows are on some sort of detail or march and the rest of their equipment is out of view; only showing what the photographer wanted in the picture to give it a martial aspect.
 
Yes but you will also notice that in the four photos of various elements of the 23rd not all of their rifles and traps are present, they also are in a camp setting. My thoughts are these fellows are on some sort of detail or march and the rest of their equipment is out of view; only showing what the photographer wanted in the picture to give it a martial aspect.

Ok, whatever, The photo is a FAKE. trying to sell such a photo without provenance is called fraud. Paying thousands for a photo without provenance ot ownership of negative and future positives is called 'deserving what you get".
 
Ok, whatever, The photo is a FAKE. trying to sell such a photo without provenance is called fraud. Paying thousands for a photo without provenance ot ownership of negative and future positives is called 'deserving what you get".

I believe you are confussed as to who was selling it and when. The picture was offered for sell by Old South Antiuques a few years ago, checking their company they seem to have all the proper credentials and provide proof of authenticity. I did not buy it nor did anyone I know personaly. It was said to have sold for a large sum of money and i hope whoever got this uniuque photo is happy with it. I posted the phot so that the equiepment etc. could be discussed. If you believe so strongly that it is a fake then that is your perogitive. Bassed of of the admitidly limited information I myself have about it and comparison of the soldiers in question to other period photos with known provanance, I see nothing that would cause me to believe it to be fake. I apploude your passion however if possible I would like to get this thred back to its original intent; studying the equipment and method of wear by the soldiers in all the pictures posted on it.

Your Pard
 
Civil War equipment & clothing was not cookie cutter. A favorite CDV I have seen shows a Union Sgt wearing a sack coat, pantaloons, boots and a Hardee hat. It is attributed to the Vicksburg area in mid/late 63 after the fall of the town. That combo of gear wasn't the norm by any means.
 
I believe you are confussed as to who was selling it and when. The picture was offered for sell by Old South Antiuques a few years ago, checking their company they seem to have all the proper credentials and provide proof of authenticity. I did not buy it nor did anyone I know personaly. It was said to have sold for a large sum of money and i hope whoever got this uniuque photo is happy with it. I posted the phot so that the equiepment etc. could be discussed. If you believe so strongly that it is a fake then that is your perogitive. Bassed of of the admitidly limited information I myself have about it and comparison of the soldiers in question to other period photos with known provanance, I see nothing that would cause me to believe it to be fake. I apploude your passion however if possible I would like to get this thred back to its original intent; studying the equipment and method of wear by the soldiers in all the pictures posted on it.

Your Pard
I hope, at least, the sale was for the glass negative. One poster said he bid on the photo without clear information as to provenance.
 
I hope, at least, the sale was for the glass negative. One poster said he bid on the photo without clear information as to provenance.

Unless the photographer screwed up and printed the negative backwards, I don't think this is a paper print that had a glass negative--and wouldn't it be very rare to find both a period paper print with its glass negative together in a sale anyway? Almost all period prints sell without their negative.

I expect this was an ambrotype or tintype, in which case there would be no glass negative.
 
Back
Top