Trousers, pre-1875

[Oregon Bill]

Tweet

Just wondering if anyone can comment on trouser characteristics circa 1865-75. I know the usual description is two slash front pockets, one right rear, button fly front, no belt loops but suspender butons and perhaps a buckle in the high back. But I often read that wool was more common than cotton. How much more common, i.e., was cotton rather unusual to encounter? Also wondering about colors -- more with cotton than wool, as I suspect the wool tended to be darker colors of gray, brown, black with a lot of plaid. Just trying to sort out whether a standard pair of tan, brown or black Wah style trousers is really close to the mark or not, as I hate to wear wool.

[St. George]

Well now...

You'd most certainly have cotton.

'Nankee' trousers - a yellow-brown type of cotton cloth - would be common and about the time of the California Gold Rush - Levi Strauss was making stout trousers from tent cloth.

They'd eventually become known as 'Levi's pants' by the miners - later to be known as 'Levi's'.
He adopted the Indigo Blue as a hallmark to identify his product.
The copper rivets, Orange thread, oilcloth identifying ticket and leather label were in use and patented or copyrighted up until about 1908.

Anyone cowboying would've sought out the toughest pants he could find for the work ahead - and Levi's filled the bill - as did the various tailor-made stuff.

Wool and wool-blends were as common as cotton - plain and in varying patterns - both dark and light - and I've seen the wildest plaids you can imagine in period photographs and daguerreotypes.

Must not've been many available mirrors...

Remember - over time - aging and fading happens in photographs - and that doesn't  properly show 'true' colors.

WAH does a fine representation of available trousers - as does COWS and I'm sure - others.

One other thing - at the time - pretty much all clothing was made-to-measure - and though the 'style' was similar - fit varied.
There was no crease in the trouser leg - a crease indicating that you bought your goods over the counter and the 'proof' was the folded crease line.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Oregon Bill]

Thanks St. George. Something else comes to mind on the subject of trousers -- suspenders. Sometimes they're kind of fun to wear, but looking back through period photos (my best resources here at the house are Volumes I and II of "Firearms of the American West"), I am quite surprised at how few sets of suspenders I see in the photos. I can't help but wonder if it was mostly the huskier gents that felt a need to wear them with work clothes. And I also can't help but notice how very few "spare tires" there are in the old views.

[Delmonico]

One must remember that in posed photos, many may have removed the suspenders before having the picture taken.

[St. George]

Suspenders were more than common - but not all men wore them.

The small 'Ivy League' adjustment belt at the back of the high-waisted trousers was often snugged-up tight - and preferred by those who didn't like suspenders.

'Showing' a pair of suspenders was akin to going in public with your undershirt on and without a shirt - it wasn't approved of and indicated a lack of manners.

Some would wear a sash - but that was generally a Southwestern affectation - drawing from the more colorful styles of the Mexican Vaqueros.

Remember - we're talking the Victorian Era, here - and folks were 'far' more 'proper' than today.

Chances are - those men have on a pair of galluses under their vests.

As to 'spare tires' - at the time - 'that' was something to aspire to - seriously.

It indicated success and wealth and general prosperity.

Now - as far as 'on Campaign' - a diet of Hardtack, Beans and Bacon isn't exactly conducive to adding any girth whatsoever - despite some of those who portray that element.

Same for the Cowboy - he ate meat for every meal - and a helluva lot of it.

A precursor to the Atkins Diet, no doubt...

He also burned calories at a furious rate - as did a soldier.

A more 'sedentary' lifestyle 'in town' generally fattened up a man - and so did 'home cookin' - if he was lucky enough to wed.
His chances of 'that' were far higher in town than on the Trail.

Photography of the time is great for identifying the odds and ends - but thanks to the longer time needed to produce that photo - you really don't get the chance to see a 'candid' shot of day-to-day Frontier Life.
Photos were a 'big deal' for the average guy and folks'd generally wear their best - such as it may be - and maybe even shave.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

If you get a copy of "The West, An Illustrated History," you can see many casual photos of frontier people of all types, colors, nationalities, etc.  It has gold miners, cowboys, Native Americans, buffallo soldiers and so on.  Many of the photos were taken in the field.  Most are tintypes and ambrotypes, so they were cheaper to produce, making them available to average folk.

Jefferson

[Delmonico]

They for the most part are still posed pictures, yes photgraphers traveled around looking for customers, but most folks still put on their best before having a picture taken.  Close study of these photos will show lots of cowboys wearing neckties, just for the photographer.  There are many more clues to the fact that these are delibertly posed photos.

[Ozark Tracker]

St. George, in your post, you use the word galluses,  where did this word come from,  my grandfather( 1890-1964) wore suppenders all his life and from the time I was real small I can remember him asking me to throw his galluses up over his shoulder.

[St. George]

The common word 'galluses' - meaning 'braces to hold up the trousers', seems to have originated near Scotland - and was carried over to parts of the US as well.

They were also referred to as 'gallowses' - and given the way someone would 'hang' - the term seems apt.

I've heard bib overalls referred to as such - but that's a misnomer.

The term applies to the device attached to the trousers - and not to the clothing itself.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

Yes, but there's a distinction between portraits and posing.  From the start of photography people posed, meaning they stood still and looked at the camera.  Another type of posing would be a portrait, or a shot that was contrived in some way such as the famous one of Wild Bill in buckskin costume (from his entertaining days, not his gambling life).  The book I mentioned has a lot of documentary photos of the west.  Here are a few examples in which people posed for the camera in real life situations.  There are many, many more shots like these:

http://www.dorseyfoto.com/1shiftchange1880s.jpg  (this is one of the earliest flash photos, taken in the 1880's.)

http://www.dorseyfoto.com/2comstockmine.jpg   (comstock mine--the top is the first photo of the interior of a mine, again accomplished with flash powder)

http://www.dorseyfoto.com/3woundedknee.jpg   (taken soon after the Wounded Knee massacre.  These folks didn't go home to put on their finery)

They for the most part are still posed pictures, yes photgraphers traveled around looking for customers, but most folks still put on their best before having a picture taken.  Close study of these photos will show lots of cowboys wearing neckties, just for the photographer.  There are many more clues to the fact that these are delibertly posed photos.

[Delmonico]

None of those photo's are tintypes or ambrotypes.  The mine photo is the improved glass plate type, the chance of the guard is also and the Wounded Knee one is a dry plate.

The older tin types and ambrotypes are all studio pictures or at least any I've ever seen are.  It took the improved glass plate type and the dry plate type to even get any depth needed in an outdoor photo.  This faster method is also what made the flash photo possible.

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

I understand, but I didn't identify these as examples of ambro/tintypes.  These were posted as examples of late nineteenth century photographs depicting people who are posing but not posed.  My earlier comment about the ambro/tin's may be inaccurate, though "The West" does have photographs of real-life that appear to be on that medium.  As I'm sure you know, those cheaper methods supplanted the more expensive daguerreotype. 

At any rate, this conversation started about trousers.  I've seen some pretty good recreations of mid-19th century pants in civil war suttler sites.  Also, Levi Strauss has historical info on their coveralls (bluejeans) at their corporate site.  The internet is an amazing boon to research....

[Delmonico]

Ok, I misunderstood, many times I see the later pictures called tin-types.  Yes each picture needs a lot of study to understand the context of why and how it was taken.

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

Since I read so many conflicting accounts about life back then, I depend a lot on studying photos.  Photos lie, but probably not as much as people. **smile**

I enjoy reading your contributions here.  You have a lot of knowledge to share.

Thanks,
JD

[Will Ketchum]

I have often read about the crease in trousers being frowned upon.  The famous picture of the Wild Bunch which turned out to part of their down fall  shows them in their finest.  Everyone of them has a crease in their trousers.  (Well at least the 3 seated in front, you can't see the other's trousers.)

Will Ketchum

[Black River Smith]

Creases!!!  This was one of my embarassments when wearing my dressy look.  The front crease in a worsted wool pants.  But,  I have found several pictures claiming to be from the 70's with creases. Yess, they were of Easterns but OH well. So now I don't worry about it.

Rear pocket.  I am not arguing but only questioning.  The comment about 70's pants with a 'right rear pocket'.  I have seen pictures dated '85 where the gentleman is slightly sideways and the pocket is clearly visible.  But I don't or can not find documentation for a rear pocket for the 70's.  Can you provide me with the reference source or refer me to the pictures?

Materials???  Can anyone please provide the modern name/type of material to buy or where do you buy your material from?  And what general colors do you look for?  (levis - canvan - cotton)  What other cotton cloth is acceptable?  (worsted wool - very original - I just found a bolt in black at the Jackmans store)  But what else is correct to use??

Stripes and check patterns where seen.  Can't say common but have seen pictures of what appears to be a brown with white lines forming a check/square pattern.

Black River Smith

[St. George]

Remember - most folks had their clothes made for them.

I'd imagine that if you were left-handed - you could have a rear pocket on that side - but 'convention' says that most stuff was made up for right-handed folks.

I'd also imagine that many pants had no rear pockets at all.

The wallet as we know it wasn't in use - rather a fold-over leather case that's similar in look to a modern checkbook cover - but larger - was the popular method of carrying papers and such.
They were generally inside the vest or coat.

I remember naturally left-handed kids being forced to learn to write right-handed in school - but hell - Nuns would do the oddest things...

You really never see period-original left-side holsters to speak of.

As to modern fabrics - that's going to be something Delmonico can speak knowledgeably about.

Were I actually curious - I'd go to Hancock Fabrics or the local Community Playhouse Costume Department or something similar and look for someone who seems to have some idea of history and ask her what I could buy in order to replicate whatever my project might be.

In truth - I'd just buy the things from WAH or COWS - remove whatever visible logo there might be and wear them as though I'd just walked into the Dry Goods or Sutler's and bought them.
But - that's easy for me as my Impression is in the late '90's and earlier Impressions may require more in-depth study.

And that's a 'good thing'...

As to the photography question - the time it took for the camera of the day to 'fix' the image didn't really allow for a truly 'candid' shot.

Period photos are wonderful for verifying 'what' was in use and 'how' it was worn - but there's a 'staged' aspect to them - due in large part to their 'need' to pose the subjects.

Damned shame they can't be digitized to reveal 'more' depth and design - but...

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

St. George,

You mentioned that left-side holsters weren't used (or photographed, anyway).  How would a shootist carry two pistols?  I've seen some pictures of extra SAA's stuck in a gunbelt.  Did they really use shoulder holsters or is that another Hollywood invention?

(I don't have a copy of packing iron but I will after the next payday)
Thanks, 
JD

[St. George]

Buying a copy of 'Packing Iron' will be the best thing you've done for yourself this year...

The Hollywood version of the Old West bears no resemblance to the 'real' Old West beyond the use of horses and hats.

The ubiquitous 'Two-Gun Man' in C&WAS is a SASS-inspired bit of BS - drawn from TV Land and Hollywood 'B' Westerns and the Buscadero rig sort of 'enables' that 'look'.

The 'John Ford Reference Library' notwithstanding - most men didn't carry two revolvers at all and many carried none.

Bluntly - the cowboy of the time really didn't have the money to waste on spare ordnance, since he was a bit busy with cattle and chores - too busy, in fact to head to town loaded for bear - unless something 'caused' him to.

That said - 'should' a man really 'need' a second gun - and actually owned one - he'd get it from his saddlebag, load it and stick it in his belt - but mostly - he'd head to the saddle scabbard and pull out his Winchester - since a saddle gun was probably the most ubiquitous bit of weaponry of the times - plus it had the added advantage that he could probably hit something with it - as opposed to his Colt -  since he wasn't a great revolver shot.

A professional  'gunman' may use a pair - with one stuck in a belt,  carried in a shoulder holster - or otherwise hidden.
But that described both Lawman and Badman and didn't describe the average man of the time - who worked in a far different field.

Shoulder holsters became more popular as the West settled and as towns invoked the 'Deadline' idea of 'No Guns Beyond This Point'.

Men (and not a few women) wanted protection and given the voluminous styles of clothing - a shoulder holster worked nicely - as did a vest pocket or leather-lined trouser pocket.
That became the heyday of the Pocket Pistol.

The real difference between the shoulder holster of 'then' - as opposed to 'now' is that once 'on' - the gun was hidden almost straight up-and-down, and an easy draw wasn't going to happen - but a slow, quiet, sneaky one'd work.

Now - should events transpire to where you and your pards are actually fighting - you could wrap another gunbelt around your waist and push the holster to the 'off' side...
But that'd be for a fight - and not for daily wear.

Look at the various Soldada's and 'Dorados' from the Mexican Revolution for good examples of that. .

Try loading up two cartridge belts, and two revolvers and maybe a Bowie and walking around for the day.
Then - do it the next day and see how comfortable they are, now that your hipbones are bruised...

You'll enjoy 'Packing Iron' and many of the holster makers today will make your rig - based upon what you see there.

Good Luck.

Scouts Out!

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

Thank you for the excellent answer!  I laughed out loud at the first 3 lines or so.  Your last line made the most sense of all--who would want to carry 2 full rigs around all the time?  I'll definitely get Packing Iron, so I don't have to ask stupid questions or repeat them for the 1000th time.

I've seen lots of old photographs in life situations in which no one had a six gun, but everyone had a rifle of some sort.  I read somewhere that Bill Hickock never carried a pistol in Deadwood.  I guess I need to start saving for the 1873 lever-action .44/40....

[St. George]

Ask all the questions you want - and I'll try my best to help.

Remember - the question you ask is also helping someone who was sitting there and wondering the same thing but was afraid to ask.

As you build your Impression - go through the various back pages as 'archives' and some of your questions may already've been answered.

Good Luck,

Scouts Out!

[Delmonico]

I have a little example I do often at work concering pistol carry, I often have a 58 Reington in a cross draw Slim Jim that is a good examble of what "Packing Iron" calls "Bunk House" rigs.  Folks are surprised to see a cross draw and ask about it.  I explain how when one is right handed and doing real work it is the only practical way to carry on.  I then tell them this is most likely the second most common way to carry on.  When they ask the most common, I take it off, roll up the belt and say, "Like this in either the chuckwagon or saddle bags.

Back on the studio photos of cowboys and side arms, look at how often you see cowboys in photos with the same background carrying the same rig.  Photographers used probs back then also.

As St. George said, don't be afraid to ask, research is what we love to do.

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

Thanks for the question encouragement.  The thing that draws me into the sport is the research and re-creation of actual history.  I promise, though, I try to do my own research first before asking.

Do you have a photo of your cross-draw setup?  Would it be on the left side, straight up, butt backward (facing the front)?  In other words, just pulling the rig around your body could accomplish it.  I have seen photos in which the bullet holders on belts are in front, which makes a lot more sense to me.

[Delmonico]

We have a new digatal camera and when my wife gives it up from taking Granddaughter pictures I'll learn how to use it.  But yes it it just a right hand straight draw pushed over.  The slanted crossdraws like you see in Cas Shooting are I believe a new invention.

[DArchangel]

Also remember, colts biggest seller, in this time frame, was it .32 cal. 1849 pocket and its conversions.