MUZZLELOADER Magazine    The Campfire: Main Forum List  Hop To Forum Categories  The Campfire Discussion Forums  Hop To Forums  Period Clothing    Split front or pullover hunting frock
Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Split front or pullover hunting frock
 Login/Join
 
Greenhorn
posted
Which is the more correct for a longhunter impression- the pullover or split front hunting frock? Any recommendations on where I can get one?

Thanks

slik


Deo Vindice!
 
Posts: 37 | Location: Eastern NC | Registered: 28 August 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
I use both. The pullover I consider a rileman's shirt. I also have a split one that I consider to be the frock. Both are correct for the colonial periord depending on your time frame. Both shirt and frock are made from linen. The frock is a heavier fabric than the shirt.

BC


"Better fare hard with good men than feast it with bad."
Thomas Paine
 
Posts: 649 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 27 June 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Free Trapper
Picture of Montour
posted Hide Post
Smocks were pullover, and were basicly a large shirt that covered up your good clothing.

Hunting Shirts were caped, fringed, open before "Split", but in reality more often than not purpose made with selvages down the front and seams at the shoulders, and had pleated sleeves. Late in the 18th century the pleated sleeves go away and It is not till the first quarter of the 19th century that you see the blending of the two garments and you end up with a pullover garment with a cape and fringe.

Neither farmers smock nor hunting shirt can be documented to having been worn by Longhunters, if you buy off on the definition of a longhunter having to

1. Be of English Extraction
2. be from Southwestern VA or North Western North Carolina.
3. Enter the hunting grounds via the Cumberland Gap

Folks that were market hunters out of the Illinois country, or guys like Simon Kenton or Logan or even IIRC Harrod who came to the Caintuck via Fort Pitt are NOT longhunters, acording to certain folks who hold the keys to the definition, and those that subscribe to their defintion.

Now some of those market hunters in the late 1760's did purchase "Hunting Frocks" and these garments cost more than a normal shirt, but less than a coat, so we kinda sorta perhaps can document them to these guys, but not "Real" longhunters.

Now the earliest refrence to a Hunting Shirt is from a guy who died in 1759 in Augusta County VA,and his probate inventory was filed in 1760 who had a Hunting shirt and leggings as part of what he owned when he died. But Augusta is not SW Virginia.........

So the safest bet if you want to be a longhunter is to get yourself a indigo blue sleeved waistcoat and not get involved in arguements over hunting shirts Big Grin
 
Posts: 150 | Location: Right where Im standing | Registered: 07 September 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
Montour is correct on the shirt as it is harder to document. Doddridge says on page 113 of his book that "The hunting shirt was universally worn - This was a kind of loose frock, reaching half way down the thighs, with large sleeves, open before, and so wide as to lap over a food or more when belted. The cape was large, and sometims hansomely fringed with a ravelled piece of cloth of a different colour from that of the hunting shirt itself. The bosom of ths dress served as a wallet to hold a chunk of bread , cakes, jirk, tow for wiping the barrel of a rifle, or any other necessary for the hunter or warrior."

Of course "universally" has to be overstating it a bit.

BC


"Better fare hard with good men than feast it with bad."
Thomas Paine
 
Posts: 649 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 27 June 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Free Trapper
Picture of Montour
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BCR:
Montour is correct on the shirt as it is harder to document. Doddridge says on page 113 of his book that "The hunting shirt was universally worn - This was a kind of loose frock, reaching half way down the thighs, with large sleeves, open before, and so wide as to lap over a food or more when belted. The cape was large, and sometims hansomely fringed with a ravelled piece of cloth of a different colour from that of the hunting shirt itself. The bosom of ths dress served as a wallet to hold a chunk of bread , cakes, jirk, tow for wiping the barrel of a rifle, or any other necessary for the hunter or warrior."

Of course "universally" has to be overstating it a bit.

BC


I would suggest that folks actually read Dodderidge, as that quote that you posted, its quite popular on the net, having been posted hither an yon all over the place. But I dont think its the complete quote.

IIRC "Universalness" relates to hunting and war, not howing corn or other activities.

Context is everything......
 
Posts: 150 | Location: Right where Im standing | Registered: 07 September 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Factor
posted Hide Post
quote:
Of course "universally" has to be overstating it a bit.


No not really, for Doddridge was referring to his community and memory, not the entire English speaking population of the North American Colonies. Big Grin

As to open or pull over..., there's one of those historic archaeology problems that has valid arguments either way, oh, and one would not need to be an official "longhunter" entering the Can-Tuc-Kee lands between 1760-1770 to still be some form of hunter and wear a hunting shirt...

The problem is terminology and description. Doddrdige wrote "open before" which from other references using that term, means an opening from top to bottom. So he was nice enough to explain how the "hunting shirt" of his memory appeared.

This is not normally the case. For example, in 1776 Maryland chose to record its official uniforms for land forces and Marines (Yes Maryland had "state marines") and the uniform was "hunting shirts".

In 1776 several men broke jail in Frederick, Maryland, and out of the group was noted:
"..., had on a coarse hunting shirt and leather breeches,... a hunting shirt, a brown shalloon jackett, leather breeches, and a pair of trousers, stockings, shoes and a large hat..." So the first reference doesn't note that the fellow had any other type of torso clothing, so was it omitted or did he only wear the hunting shirt? The second man has enough clothing for two outfits; he has trousers and breeches, so wasn't wearing both (we suppose) when he fled, so did he wear his hunting shirt over his jackett, or might vary what he wore, sometimes a jacket and sometimes the hunting-shirt???

By 1780 Maryland was still referring to the garment in official records as a "hunting shirt"..., That the Commissary of Stores deliver to John Baker a Discharged soldier one shirt, 1 Hat one pair Overalls and one hunting shirt. They still used the term in 1811 when specifying that rifle companies were to be clad in green frock coats or "green hunting shirts". They don't use the term "hunting frock" ever in Maryland's records, and of course, nobody every says how the "hunting shirts" are constructed or if they changed over time from pull-over to "open before"...,

Then there are references to military units of the Continental Army having hunting shirts with the word "Liberty" across the chest..., so was it pullover or was it "open before"? Sounds like pull-over to make sure the word "Liberty" could be clearly read...

The Virginia Gazette isn't much help either..., In 1768 it lists a runaway servant, Had on when he went away, a new felt hat, hunting shirt and callico waistcoat, with old buckskin breeches, blue leggings, and old shoes. No idea if pullover, open in front, cape or no cape.

There is also this from 1775, ...He was clad in a hunting shirt filled with wool,... so OK what the heck does "filled" mean? Was it "lined" with wool (there are other references to clothing "lined" with different cloth), or did somebody use carded but unspun wool, and quilted the hunting shirt, filled with the wool, kinda sorta like a modern down coat??

The Virginia Gazette online doesn't have a reference to anything called a "hunting frock".

Meshach Browning who penned in the 1800's, Forty-Four Years of The Life of A Hunter, mentions that early on ...I could sell deer-skins..., for in those days many men, and almost all boys, wore buckskin pants and hunting-shirts...(p.111) He mentions his thin linsey hunting shirt, (p.263), so he did wear cloth hunting shirts, his wife made him a fancy hunting shirt for his trip to Annapolis, and he never uses the term "frock". The illustration of Browning in his book (published in 1859) clearly shows him in a double caped, fringed, open in the front, hunting shirt. There is an illustration of George Morgan, the VA officer of the AWI and commander of the riflemen in several engagements in a caped, open front, hunting shirt..., which I think (iirc) was done late in the war.

So again, for a "hunter" you could wear a large shirt as your outer garment, and you could slit it up the middle, as I have found a shirt that is slit, wrapped, and belted, the outer shirt is more utilitarian than a pullover as an outer garment when hunting, ...or you could opt for not slit..., as for "knowing" which is "correct"..., well that's a guesstimate.

LD


It's not what you know, it's what you can prove
 
Posts: 3843 | Location: People's Republic of Maryland | Registered: 10 November 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
Picture of andy*
posted Hide Post
As far a wearing preference I like the "split" or fully opened ones...I get very hot matter what time of year. Plus it is easier for me to take off if I get hot say hunting or at a event.
That being said I like the looks of the pull over better .
I have sold or traded most of my "pretty, but not quite right stuff" off these past few years and the two I've kept are pull overs...
Andy


Follow me I am the Infantry
 
Posts: 668 | Location: Everson, Washington | Registered: 27 June 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
Very interestng post Dave. Montour the quote is directly from the book that was sitting in front of me. Perhaps I'm not one who needs to read it. Just saying...

BC


"Better fare hard with good men than feast it with bad."
Thomas Paine
 
Posts: 649 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 27 June 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Greenhorn
posted Hide Post
Maybe "Longhunter" was not the right description for my question- I'm looking at a generic militiaman during revolutionary war times, and i see a lot of reenactors with the hunting frock/shirts and I'm wondering which was the more common, and too if they were used in plain color or dyed.

slik


Deo Vindice!
 
Posts: 37 | Location: Eastern NC | Registered: 28 August 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
My shirt is a darker green and my frock was white but I dyed it with black walnut hulls so it is now a muted brown. Personally it makes sense to me to blend into woods rather than standout.

BC


"Better fare hard with good men than feast it with bad."
Thomas Paine
 
Posts: 649 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 27 June 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Free Trapper
Picture of Montour
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BCR:
Very interestng post Dave. Montour the quote is directly from the book that was sitting in front of me. Perhaps I'm not one who needs to read it. Just saying...

BC


Well, MR BCR, I'm referring to the sentence that comes just prior to the start of the quote you posted, the sentence that places the rest of the quote in context, that no one ever seems to quote.

"On the frontiers, and particularly amongst those who were much in the habit of hunting, and going on scouts and campaigns, the dress of the men was partly Indian and partly that of civilized nations. The hunting shirt was universally worn. This was a kind of loose frock, reaching half way down the thighs, with large sleeves, open before, and so wide as to lap over a foot or more when belted. The cape was large, and sometimes handsomely fringed with a ravelled piece of cloth of a different color from that of the hunting shirt itself."

That changes the "Universalness" of the quote does it not?

Now that SlickRickABN has further defined what his impression is, I stand by my suggestion of a Indigo blue jacket as the best option....
 
Posts: 150 | Location: Right where Im standing | Registered: 07 September 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
Gents - This particular subject is a veritable mine field in the hobby, so watch out! In addition to this forum I frequent FrontierFolk and there you will find perhaps the greatest aggregation of stitch counting, perfectionist reenactors you could meet. Thus subject has come up often and in some heated discussions.

That is, however, a great forum you may find interesting to check out'

www.frontierfolk.net

Out of that I can report there are very, very few documented examples of period shirts available for study - I think there are only four from the pre 1800 period. The difference I see is that there are two general varieties - one is of light weight material, with no cape, and the other is of heavier material with one or more capes. My take is that the latter is an OUTER garment, while the former can be either.
However, the gang I hang out with (who are pretty avid longhunter types) seem to wear a first layer shirt that is a pull over - some tuck it into their britches, some do not. Then over that they wear an open front shirt, with or without a cape. This follows the notion that the open front shirt worn outside the other garments is to protect them from dirt and grime.

At times I see them with the open front shirt alone and hanging out...which is the way I dress when "going into a fight"...just to keep the clothing to a minimum.

The question cannot, I suspect, be answered with total certainty - few wrote of it, and the terms they use are not the same as we might use today.
Recall also that Dodderidge, for all his detail, is writing many, many years after the events took place and his sweeping statements (always, universally, etc) are covering only what he saw and remembered from his growing up days in a very small community.

I cannot say about the blue jacket notion, but it sounds a bit "formal" for a fella out in Kanta-ke in 1775 helping Dan build his fort on the Kentucky river.

Just sayin'

Col Boone
 
Posts: 728 | Location: Volcano, Hawaii | Registered: 22 September 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Free Trapper
Picture of Montour
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Col. Boone:
I cannot say about the blue jacket notion, but it sounds a bit "formal" for a fella out in Kanta-ke in 1775 helping Dan build his fort on the Kentucky river.

Just sayin'

Col Boone


I think that if you take all the refrences to jackets from all the runaway servants and such, blue and brown are neck and neck, but blue ends up winning the numbers game, and well, blue is not brown, and that is a good thing.......

You can not get much more average American than haveing domesticly produced cloth, dyed with domesticly raised dye stuffs. Remember we are no longer talking longhunters here, but NC Militia......
 
Posts: 150 | Location: Right where Im standing | Registered: 07 September 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Factor
posted Hide Post
quote:
I'm looking at a generic militiaman during revolutionary war times, and I see a lot of reenactors with the hunting frock/shirts and I'm wondering which was the more common, and too if they were used in plain color or dyed.


1776
"..., each of them [soldiers] be yearly found and allowed, at the expense of this province, a new hat, short coat, waistcoat, pair of breeches, and hunting shirt; out of their pay there may be reasonable stoppages for necessary shirts, shoes, and stockings..... the uniform of the land forces and marines be hunting shrits; the hunting shirts of the marines to be blue, and those of the land forces to be other colors."

Baltimore, May 1776
Thomas Ewing to Annapolis
"..., I am getting hunting shirts made for my Company of home made linnen which I bought and paid Mr Edward Parker for ..."

So for Maryland you could have lots of different colors or plain, natural linnen, for often when folks mustered out of the state forces, they kept their clothing. In fact one Maryland company was noted to have purple hunting shirts with red collars and cuffs.

Now as for Virginia...,

Deserter descriptions:

April 20, 1776..., a dark coloured new hunting shirt, ..., a dark coloured hunting shirt, ...., a striped Virginia cloth hunting shirt which he dyed almost black...,

"May 24th, 1776..., an old hunting shirt dyed black...,"

Two soldiers who deserted together wore:
"July 5th, 1776...., and old hunting shirt trimmed with red..., "

September 5th, 1776..., had a blue hunting shirt...,

"September 6th, 1776..., a brown hunting shirt fringed..., " So was any fringe different, or was this a rather obviously fringe and something extra to the majority of hunting shirts?

"September 20th, 1776..., he wore away a dyed hunting shirt faced with red, a check shirt, and a pair of trousers."

"September 21st, 1776 ..., a died hunting shirt faced with red, a checked cotton shirt, ...., "

NOTE the last two are the first description, and the updated one the following day..., the soldier wore a "checked" shirt (in case folks think you must have a plain linen shirt), AND the update notes the checked shirt was cotton, so not all the shirts were linen. Also, "dyed" what color???

LD


It's not what you know, it's what you can prove
 
Posts: 3843 | Location: People's Republic of Maryland | Registered: 10 November 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
If the term "longhunter" is so narrowly defined, what do you call the men who performed the exact same function who were from other areas and other states of the Colonies?

Would you have been able to sort them 100% based on where, or would it be by dress?

Rich
 
Posts: 363 | Registered: 25 July 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
Good post again Dave and good questions Idaho. Mr. Montour it is clear what your what you beliveve "I stand by my suggestion of a Indigo blue jacket as the best option" but perhaps there are other Interpretations. Just saying...

BC


"Better fare hard with good men than feast it with bad."
Thomas Paine
 
Posts: 649 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 27 June 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Factor
posted Hide Post
Well folks have limited the term "longhunter" to folks who went hunting for deer hides (and other hides) for leather for the purpose of selling at a profit, and went from 6 months to (iirc) the longest was two years..., maybe it was 18 months? It's also noted that the vast majority of these folks went through the Cumberland Gap from VA into the wilderness..., it may simply be that we don't have enough information from other parts of the colonies yet, and so only this area is well documented.

Note that Hawkeye in the modern version of the movie Last of The Mohicans is absolutely a hunter, but mentions he is going to go trapping, also just ended a trapping excursion, and is also in New York, so would not be a "longhunter".

Many folks think the term applies to any "hunter", while there were lots of variations on that occupation. Some "longhunters" are documented on going on one expedition, made enough to form a foundation for another trade, and never went hunting for profit (as far as can be determined from the records) again. Some folks like Daniel Boone were mostly subsistence hunters, sold some surplus hides from time to time, and also participated in a long-hunt or two. I don't think Simon Kenton actually went on a "longhunt", as he didn't leave home until 1771, but was a renowned hunter and scout. Meshach Browning didn't go on a long hunt, in fact he didn't leave Maryland, but he is another renowned hunter.

So here are some variations on "hunting" prior to the Civil War....,

Subsistence Hunter: a person who hunts for meat and hides for personal use, and might trade some hides for supplies. This includes many of the Indian nations, but also many Whites as well. Even when hunting hides for sale, the subsistence hunter will hunt until enough hides are harvested to meet a desired goal, while the longhunters normally went for a set time based on a calendar, and what they made they made..., sometimes losing their product to raids or weather or animals.

Market Hunter: a person who hunts to sell the animal, as shot or prepared in some way, to folks who don't hunt..., "product" could also be traded. So you hunt geese, ducks, passenger pigeons, deer, etc. and sell them whole or in "fresh" pieces at the market, or you turn deer, elk, or bison hams into cured and smoked meat for sale.

Meat hunter: a person who has enough crops and/or resources to feed themselves and their family, but hunts to add variety to their diet. Often one hears of farm boys who pot rabbits or birds for this purpose.

Sport Hunter: Yes there were folks in the above time frame that hunted for the fun of it, and enjoyed the meat. Upper economic status to be sure, but they did exist, and in fact the technological advancement toward caplocks was a result of sport hunting.

Garrison/Trade Post hunter..., a person who works for a military garrison to supply meat, and perhaps hides, or works for a trading post for the same. Either the meat is eaten fresh, or salted and stored for winter use. The difference between this and a Market Hunter is the hunter is paid a wage by garrison or trader, while the market hunter sells the animals to the butcher or directly to the consumer and gets no money if no sales are made. George Morgan in Kaskaskia in the 1760's is an example of a trader who hired hunters.

So there are lots of hunter "types", but none were set-in-stone, and nothing required them to wear any sort of specific clothing while hunting. Each probably had particular ideas of what they liked to wear, just as hunters of today do. Also, a person could move from one type of hunter to another throughout their lives..., and we haven't even mention hunters who served as military scouts or commercial guides...

Now it is documented that hunters and military scouts sometimes had to change into "acceptable" clothing when returning to their communities or reporting back to the commander..., but that's another topic for another day.

LD

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Loyalist Dave,


It's not what you know, it's what you can prove
 
Posts: 3843 | Location: People's Republic of Maryland | Registered: 10 November 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Free Trapper
Picture of Montour
posted Hide Post
I dont agree with the ethnocentric definition of "Longhunters", dont want anyone to think Im pushing that definition, but it needs to be out there so folks can understand what they are reading in articles and such.

And speaking of reading, I think that it would be worthwhile to read Alan Gutchess's article "More than Brown" from Sept/Oct 97.

One real dis-connect that we have in the hobby is in our clothing and how that effects our portrayal. If your persona is that of a farmer that is great, but how many public events do you spend the weekend hoeing corn or slopping hogs? How many farmers in the period would after hoeing corn and slopping pigs still wear their dirty protective garments to town for a militia muster? Same could be said for a "Longhunter" portrayal. How many events are you hunting deer with the crowd watching?

So a basic sleeved waistcoat/jacket is a wonderful addition to your clothing, it can be worn over a body shirt for F&I events, and slip a 1770's waistcoat underneath for Rev events.

The blue color is ultra common, especially in the southern colonies where Indigo was being cultivated, and there are so many instances in backcountry store ledgers of folks buying indigo. This tells me there was cloth production going on, and it was being dyed in something other than walnuts.....
 
Posts: 150 | Location: Right where Im standing | Registered: 07 September 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
Gents - I got to agree with Montour on the "something other than walnuts" comment re dye colors. Sure, many did use only that, but largely (from my reading)for clothing prepared in a frontier outpost (such as Boonesborough, Harrodsburg or such), where no other dye material was available. Many wrote of wanting "color that blended into the forest", which, again, suggests a range of browns.

D Boone is described as "wearing a hunting shirt dyed black"...but, "black" could well mean with walnut that was boiled in an iron kettle, which definitely (from personal experiment) shifts the tone from brown to a deep, blackish gray.

So, it might be rational to think of ready-made cloth, as we see on so many trade invoices, as being available in a range of colors, while cloth produced (most of linen) on the frontier would not have been in a very wide range of color outside of browns.

The whole matter of the definition of "longhunter" is a slippery slope indeed. There were many reasons to hunt, but the "long hunt" seems, from the records, to relate directly those who sought hides to trade or sell for hard goods or cash. This is why D Boone, S Boone and the others headed into Kanta-ke the first time...and stayed, because the hunting was so good. Of course, they lost most of that to an Indian raid, and another batch was snagged from Squire as he tried to get the load home and refit to return with supplies. Clearly, it was a pretty sketchy deal, at best.

Now, "what to wear when"? Big question,the answer to which we shall never know for sure, I suggest. Sure, living at a settlement one would not dress as one did for hunting, scout or spy service, or for a long exploration trip. But, I also suggest that there were those who stayed dressed in "walking dress" much of the time because they spent little time in the settlements.

Montour's suggestion that one might want a weskit is a good one, but we have to remember that perhaps this is not the "formal" version we often see when folk are "dressed up" - rather it might be an old one, worn for added warmth, the pockets it provided, or other practical reason outside of fashion.

I think that the old suggestion of beginning by defining "who you are and where you are, when" is at the root of any clothing decision. Get that firmly in mind, research closely along that path and you can get closer to a viable depiction of your chosen persona.

Just sayin'

Col Boone
 
Posts: 728 | Location: Volcano, Hawaii | Registered: 22 September 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
I think the "where" part of the equation is what is missed by many. My father was a farmer his entire life, but he never wore his khakis to the country club. Although our area has quite a few duck hunters, I've never seen waders worn at the mall. Wearing of the hunting shirt, which probably had quite the odor, was probably restricted to the less civilized areas.

As to the correctness of "when and where", I'm still trying to figure out how the pirate I saw at an event got marooned in middle Tennessee 100 years later than the age of piracy ??????
 
Posts: 332 | Location: South Coast (MS) | Registered: 16 September 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

MUZZLELOADER Magazine    The Campfire: Main Forum List  Hop To Forum Categories  The Campfire Discussion Forums  Hop To Forums  Period Clothing    Split front or pullover hunting frock

2014 Historical Enterprises, LLC