What jacket?

[yankee hoorah]

I know it's pretty farby, but does this jacket resemble any specific depots. I was given it & am very happy.
I thought it closely resembles a Richmond type III

 

[101combatvet]

Yup. Type III jacket and it isn't farby at all.

 

[yankee hoorah]

Are there others with 7 buttons'

 

[101combatvet]

Type II with seven.

 

[Nathanb1]

Yankee? What bothers you about it?

 

[yankee hoorah]

Just how the jacket points out at the bottom unlike the usual roundabout.
It centers into a point.
Does that make sense?
The buttons sorta annoy me too.
Plus the jacket was only $50. It haunts me a bit.

 

[yankee hoorah]

The Richmond Depot "Type II" shell jacket is characterized by a six piece body and two piece sleeves, with shoulder straps and belt loops, and a nine button front.In terms off construction, the only real difference between a Type II and Type III jacket is that Type III jackets did not have shoulder straps or belt loops.In terms of fabric – all surviving Type III jackets are made out of Blue/Grey Kersey imported from England (this material is also referred to as "cadet grey wool kersey" – however, the modern cadet grey bears no resemblance to period English Blue/Grey Kersey).There is a general opinion held by some historians today that Type III jackets produced by the Richmond Depot were exclusively made with English Blue/Grey Kersey. (See Echos of Glory pp. 136-137, 139). At a minimum, 100% grey wool Tpe III jackets were extremely rare and usually only worn by officers.


http://thepalmetto.wordpress.com/category/richmond-depot-shell-jackets/

Almost forgot
about the color.

 

[yankee hoorah]

http://thepalmetto.wordpress.com/category/richmond-depot-shell-jackets/

They have great info
on the type 3
Jackets.

 

[Grayrock Volunteer]

The extra stitching a couple of inches in from the sides is incorrect. Just guessing, but it probably holds down an extra long facing on the botton of the coat right? Second lines of topstitching are pretty uncommon on CS jackets, with the exclusion of Tait type import jackets. I can't think of an original RDIII with 7 buttons off the top of my head, but as others have said it is known on Type II's.
Your buttons look like E.M. Lewis types, which are correct for Richmond Clothing Bureau jackets. The cloth looks like suttler row CS gray stuff. All surviving RDIII's I am familiar with are constructed from imported Blue-Gray Kersey. Your jacket is also unlined, which is incorrect. And the collar doesn't match with any RD jackets. Generally they have shorter collars with more slope to the top edge.
I'd stick with calling it a commutation jacket, or private purchase since it has so many features that don't congeal with known RD product features.

Cheers,
Garrett Glover

 

[101combatvet]

Well, I believe the old Gettysburg National Museum had an original mint Type III made from a taupe color jean-wool. It was in the basement of the museum the last time I saw it. I recall it had wooden buttons.

 

[kholland]

Yankee? What bothers you about it?

Wrong color?

 

[Nathanb1]

I was wondering what he saw.

 

[yankee hoorah]

The extra stitching a couple of inches in from the sides is incorrect. Just guessing, but it probably holds down an extra long facing on the botton of the coat right? Second lines of topstitching are pretty uncommon on CS jackets, with the exclusion of Tait type import jackets. I can't think of an original RDIII with 7 buttons off the top of my head, but as others have said it is known on Type II's.
Your buttons look like E.M. Lewis types, which are correct for Richmond Clothing Bureau jackets. The cloth looks like suttler row CS gray stuff. All surviving RDIII's I am familiar with are constructed from imported Blue-Gray Kersey. Your jacket is also unlined, which is incorrect. And the collar doesn't match with any RD jackets. Generally they have shorter collars with more slope to the top edge.
I'd stick with calling it a commutation jacket, or private purchase since it has so many features that don't congeal with known RD product features.

Cheers,
Garrett Glover

Cool, so I've got a sutlers row
Commutation jacket.
How can I defarb it?

 

[Grayrock Volunteer]

Defarbing an existing jacket is probably more difficult that making one from scratch. Handsewing your button holes and reshaping the sleeves would be my first priorities, then recutting the collar. Adding a lining would be a pain, and probably not worth the effort. Retopstitching the facings 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch and then trimming the extra off at the base of the jacket about another 1/4 inch up would make the perimeter look better. You could also seam rip the extra line of topstitching off then.

 

[101combatvet]

Cool, so I've got a sutlers row
Commutation jacket.
How can I defarb it?

It already is defarbed. Confederates were wearing such a variety of manufactured clothing/uniforms that you can't be wrong. Pritchard has published a book on hundreds of Confederate images and no two seem to be alike, your jacket is in there somewhere I'm sure.

 

[101combatvet]

 

[yankee hoorah]

Whoa... Cool 101.

Just that all of those are Jean Wool.
Mine is just cheap grey wool.

Whoa that one seriously matches mine. Good work...

 

[101combatvet]

Whoa... Cool 101.

Just that all of those are Jean Wool.
Mine is just cheap grey wool.

Whoa that one seriously matches mine. Good work...

They used grey wool material as well.

 

[D.H. Hill]

Gentlemen,

While there were many varieties (I once saw a period photograph of a Texan wearing Jaguar-skin britches) the prevailing trend is to portray the average run-of-the-mill soldier. If we all portrayed exceptions and one-of-a-kind soldiers the result would not look very realistic.

Now, sewing machines were a new thing back then, and most original jackets were hand-sewn. The others have mentioned other details that far eclipse my small knowledge.

In my humble opinion it's a decent looking jacket, i.e. mainstream, but not "farby". Were it "farby" it would be pink and have all manner of gewgaws, masonic and scottish emblems hanging off it. Yet everyone defines that hated word differently.

If you are interested in making it more authentic I'd follow the advise offered by Grayrock Volunteer. As a commutation jacket, it's feasible that it COULD have been machine-sewn (I don't know of any specimens that were but its out of my area). Cut also varied on those jackets. As someone who likes to go the extra yard I'd encourage you to make it look as common as possible, but that's up to you. Probably the best thing you could do would be to study as many originals as possible, if only from photographs, so you can see for yourself trends and details.

D.H.

EDIT- forgot to mention about the material- even late in the war kersey was common (in the ANV). The commutation system was an early-war deal, so material is fine in my opinion.

EDIT 2- the jacket photo 101 Combat Vet. showed serves to remind us is another example of some period oddments. The sleeves are "incorrectly" two pieced!

 

[101combatvet]

Gentlemen,

While there were many varieties (I once saw a period photograph of a Texan wearing Jaguar-skin britches) the prevailing trend is to portray the average run-of-the-mill soldier. If we all portrayed exceptions and one-of-a-kind soldiers the result would not look very realistic.

Now, sewing machines were a new thing back then, and most original jackets were hand-sewn. The others have mentioned other details that far eclipse my small knowledge.

In my humble opinion it's a decent looking jacket, i.e. mainstream, but not "farby". Were it "farby" it would be pink and have all manner of gewgaws, masonic and scottish emblems hanging off it. Yet everyone defines that hated word differently.

If you are interested in making it more authentic I'd follow the advise offered by Grayrock Volunteer. As a commutation jacket, it's feasible that it COULD have been machine-sewn (I don't know of any specimens that were but its out of my area). Cut also varied on those jackets. As someone who likes to go the extra yard I'd encourage you to make it look as common as possible, but that's up to you. Probably the best thing you could do would be to study as many originals as possible, if only from photographs, so you can see for yourself trends and details.

D.H.

EDIT- forgot to mention about the material- even late in the war kersey was common (in the ANV). The commutation system was an early-war deal, so material is fine in my opinion.

EDIT 2- the jacket photo 101 Combat Vet. showed serves to remind us is another example of some period oddments. The sleeves are "incorrectly" two pieced!

The point being and asked by the OP was... did a seven button Type III jacket exist, there it is. Hand-sewn can look machine-sewn, and few can tell the difference if it is done well. The jacket that I posted is not at all unusual as I have seen a few that have survived. The "oddment" of the sleeves is probably the result of a shortage of material, not uncommon near the late war period. I have also seen images of Confederates wearing similar jackets.

Note: Sewing machine was invented in 1755.