Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/22/2005 7:50:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 8:01:56 AM EDT by DienBienPhu54]


re-enactor dressed as a Mountain man 1839 - 1840's Sutter's Fort, Sacramento



one of the cannons used to defend the fort


re-enactor showing how they would make their own lead musket balls
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 8:00:15 AM EDT
That's OK. his jacket, leggings and mocs are all wrong for the period as well! At least he is CONSISTANT!
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 8:30:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BigButch301:
That's OK. his jacket, leggings and mocs are all wrong for the period as well! At least he is CONSISTANT!




Yeah that dude would prolly be beat up and laughed at if he stepped back to 1839 LOL.

Link Posted: 9/22/2005 9:12:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ineedhelp:

Originally Posted By BigButch301:
That's OK. his jacket, leggings and mocs are all wrong for the period as well! At least he is CONSISTANT!




Yeah that dude would prolly be beat up and laughed at if he stepped back to 1839 LOL.




O.K. I give up... What should he look like?

Kent
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 9:33:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ineedhelp:

Originally Posted By BigButch301:
That's OK. his jacket, leggings and mocs are all wrong for the period as well! At least he is CONSISTANT!




Yeah that dude would prolly be beat up and laughed at if he stepped back to 1839 LOL.




really? Both James Bowie and David Crockett are known to have frequently wore bucskin and they died shortly before 1839. Would they have been laughed at as well?

Curious as to where you get the idea that people didn't wear stuff like that? Or is it something I'm not seeing in the style of the clothing, as opposed to the material?



Link Posted: 9/22/2005 9:41:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 9:49:13 AM EDT by Ineedhelp]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By Ineedhelp:

Originally Posted By BigButch301:
That's OK. his jacket, leggings and mocs are all wrong for the period as well! At least he is CONSISTANT!




Yeah that dude would prolly be beat up and laughed at if he stepped back to 1839 LOL.




really? Both James Bowie and David Crockett are known to have frequently wore buckskin and they died shortly before 1839. Would they have been laughed at as well?

Curious as to where you get the idea that people didn't wear stuff like that? Or is it something I'm not seeing in the style of the clothing, as opposed to the material?







Well ya see, the problem is with the tassles. A "mountain man" would not be caught dead wearing something with that many LONG tassles. (Think how fun running through the brush would be with that outfit on.)

Now the guy in the bottom pic making bullets is dressed properly for the era with the exception that his shirt should be tucked in as it doubled as his underwear.

Yes folks, the extra long shirt was used as underwear back in the day. The seperate garment that we wear in modern times did not exist back then.


ETA: Just because you see paintings with Daniel Boone wearing a coonskin cap doesn't mean that it should be taken as gospel. In reality, DB HATED coonskin caps. The buckskin clothing he wore was also very different than those that where "painted" on him.

Ain't history fun?
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 9:48:12 AM EDT
Yeah like the guys NYLON looking bandana headrag in the first pic.

ok, maybe its really silk


Essayons
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 10:02:40 AM EDT
OK here is what he should look like.

The caot is too loose at the sleaves, they were almost all fitted tightly at the cuff, the fringe is actually correct as it acted as a camo by breaking up the lines of the body. It was not however worn in the manner shown. Coats of this period do exisit and the fringe is finer and not placed halfway down the breast.

The leggings are too baggy at the bottom and should be much more figure hugging. All of the paintings of the period show this style is correct in the west. '

His mocs should be either center seem or gathered toe patterns not this welt style common to the post 1870 period.

There are original garments to be used for research and many paintings that show the items clearly. The indians were the main sources for the style and photos of indian costume from the 1840's are clear in showing the details. It just takes some looking.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 10:05:34 AM EDT
FARB
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 10:09:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FloridaConfederate:
FARB




PLUS 1!
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 10:30:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 10:31:50 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By Ineedhelp:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By Ineedhelp:

Originally Posted By BigButch301:
That's OK. his jacket, leggings and mocs are all wrong for the period as well! At least he is CONSISTANT!




Yeah that dude would prolly be beat up and laughed at if he stepped back to 1839 LOL.




really? Both James Bowie and David Crockett are known to have frequently wore buckskin and they died shortly before 1839. Would they have been laughed at as well?

Curious as to where you get the idea that people didn't wear stuff like that? Or is it something I'm not seeing in the style of the clothing, as opposed to the material?







Well ya see, the problem is with the tassles. A "mountain man" would not be caught dead wearing something with that many LONG tassles. (Think how fun running through the brush would be with that outfit on.)

Now the guy in the bottom pic making bullets is dressed properly for the era with the exception that his shirt should be tucked in as it doubled as his underwear.

Yes folks, the extra long shirt was used as underwear back in the day. The seperate garment that we wear in modern times did not exist back then.


ETA: Just because you see paintings with Daniel Boone wearing a coonskin cap doesn't mean that it should be taken as gospel. In reality, DB HATED coonskin caps. The buckskin clothing he wore was also very different than those that where "painted" on him.

Ain't history fun?



Most scholars of the period believe the fringe and beadwork were for "sunday best" clothing and came out for important events like marriage, feasts, and paintings. If you look at prom photos you won't get an accurate idea of what we wear on a daily basis.

From the paintings you can sometimes determine the Indian tribe that did the beadwork. Its hard to believe an artist could do that by accident. I'm sure not all pictures are 100% correct on beadwork and fringe, you have to allow for artistic license. I'm equally sure that not every artist decided to put beadwork and fringe as a way to spice up the painting.

history is fun
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 10:40:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FloridaConfederate:
FARB



truth.

150th NY Huzzah!
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 10:49:48 AM EDT
All I know is that I spend way too much time at rendezvous


GM
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 10:51:50 AM EDT
The shirt on the outside is acceptable when wereing a breechcloth and leggings instead of pants. Cotton and wool were more commonly worn than buckskins due to practicality, nothing colder and more uncomfortable than buckskins in the winter.
The Sunday Best features intricate beadwork on the buckskins and the finer cut on the fringe the fancier it was considered.
Fringe also served the purpose of directing water off the coat in addition to breaking up the outline of the person wearing the garment.
Tassles also were from the French influence and were more prevelant in the areas trapped by the Canadian Fur Companies.
The rag on the head was more than likely silk rather than nylon, again a form of Sunday Best.
Used to go and set a trade blanket at the big "Ronny -voos". Peddled beads, buffalo skulls, horns, meat, robes and other gear.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 11:30:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 11:31:27 AM EDT by DienBienPhu54]


the pantry, these young pioneer girls with fresh loaves of bread baked in an adobe oven, they also have fresh churned butter that they made themselves.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 2:40:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 2:42:52 PM EDT by DienBienPhu54]

typical mountain man



Captain John Sutter the way he looked around 1839 - 1840
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 2:43:16 PM EDT
I like the nylon 'do'-rag..
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 3:02:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 3:07:59 PM EDT
I always thought the fringe was used for two reasons.

First it repelled rainwater and the strands were cut off and used to repair tears in their clothes.

I can't remember where I heard that.......but it came from somewhere

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 8:19:20 AM EDT
You are right krpind.
Also circa 1840 mountain men did not have facial hair, full blown beards.
The indian tribes that they dealt with and often lived with looked down upon anyone that had facial hair, they considered them sub-human and went so far as to call them dog faces.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 9:03:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CbtEngr1:
Yeah like the guys NYLON looking bandana headrag in the first pic.

ok, maybe its really silk


Essayons



Could be polished cotton, which was commonly used for coat linings in expensive suits for that era. But probably NOT.

Y'all missed the modern 'chukka' shoes....

FARB!!! (The reenactors' equivalent accusation of NERD!)

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 1:28:59 PM EDT
The mocs look like the kind made by Carl Dyer and sold to "Buckskinners" he has a shop I believe in Ohio. They are really stout more like wearing shoes than Mocs. But they are Jim Bridger approved and considered authenic.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 1:41:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 1:50:31 PM EDT by TacticalMan]
I think they all look far too clean to be authentic.
Top Top