I need some old timer advice here, what length of fringe on a buckskin coat and pants is best for practicallity sake in the wilderness? I'm about to make a coat and pants to trek and hunt in but I don't want to get tangled up in my own decorations.

can't tell you for sure...but I have gone to no fringe at all, my own trekking and 'vous events. I just plain don't find it very practical.

Spme say it helps camoflauge, some say it also helps lead rain water away..I suspect both notions are phoney, since I have noticed neither..Long fringe doesn't do a thing with rain that I can tell, and I can't think of anything more likely to spook a deer than a foot of fringe flapping the breeze.

My own experiences are more in line with the Colonial period, and I am defintely not saying that the mountain men didn't wear fringe, I just don't see any point to it at all.

Maybe a good rule of thumb would be what you are comfortable with. What gets in one mans way may not get in yours. Also to add to what Mac said...I saw a leather shirt said to be Kit Carson's, at Sutter's Fort in Sacramento, CA....It had no fringe or anything at all on it. For all the world, it looked like a grey sweat shirt! Very plain. Only a hole for the arms and head!

P.

I s'pose I should start with it fairly long and test it out and if it doesn't work then I'll cut it shorter. Thanks

I think it all depends on what you want. I know some of the folks wore fringe, but I think it was mainly for show. It isn't very practical, and I don't buy the idea of it wicking away water. Buckskins get wet, fringe just makes it heavier.

I'm not a big fringe fan either, but I wouldn't go any longer than 4" on it. Try keeping it shorter like you see on a frock coat and it will lay closer to the garment.
My 2 cents worth,
Toni

fringe any longer then the width of yer hand just ends up getting in the way. Been doing this crazy hobby for near 20 some years n have tried it all one way or another. I have a leather coat I wear in civilian life with fairly long fringe but its more because I like the look then anything else. Out on the trail anything that used to be fringed has been cut short(especially around the end of yer sleeve)or completely cut off. Fringe is great for looks to get folks to OOO n AHHH but definate pain in actual use. YMHS Birdman

I sewed up a pair of 'skin trousers many a year ago, using a military narrow-fall breeches pattern, and sewed in fringe on the outside leg seam. Kept it to about an inch and a half. Still have 'em and wear 'em on occasion. Later sewed up an elk hide coat, and welted all the seams. That gets more attention than fringe. You might consider it.

All of the period descriptions and artwork of Mountain men shows fringe, I know that it is for decroative purposes and truthfully I like the way it looks. I think I'll cut it long and trim it down after testing it out.

I like fringe.
Yes it's impractical but looks cool and the ladies like to run their fingers through it.
As was pointed out cut the fringe short at the sleeve for sanitary reasons. I have fringe on my leggings and long pants and like it.
IF, if thar's a man (except Mike Nesbitt) et this campfire thet'll stand toe to toe with me and tell me to get rid of the fringe I want to meet'em. I might be 65 but I still got 20 of
my own sharp teeth left. DON"T TREAD ON MY FRINGE

Don't be scared of ole Mike, he's a big old teddy bear...aint he?

Spitfire..very,very few period descriptions mention fringe before 1840. About the only ones are Alfred Jacob Miller, and Stewart. Earlier than that i think there probably was some very short (one inch-one and half inch) fringe on leather hunting frock, modeled, of course, on thier cloth counterparts. You hear about hair fringe on indian garments and occasionaly some long fringe on cermonial indian garments. As people who have worn it mention over and over again, it is exremely unweildy, irritating, get's in the way, and serves no purpose. You can wear what appeals to you, certainly. But if you are looking for pc i'd stay clear away from it. Post 1840...that's another story, by then you get mail order mountian men who think they aren't really mountain men unless they got fringe. Gotta show of for all the immigrants, ya know.

Go with 7" fringe. It's pc for mountain men. If you can't stand it, you can always cut it shorter.

I had some leggings with long frings and beaded dangles hanging and the same on a cotton frock and man it looked cool then I went deer hunting in the brushy thistle choked, cockelburr infested briar patches of the lowands
and promptly got the scizzors out when I got home

Every fool knows that the male of the species
wear the bright feathers, biggest horn racks,
huge size, musk, crazy during rut.

Now I'm at rendezvous, if I want and afford
some fancy skins with fringe and quill work
to attract the pretty maidens I will do that.

As I leave rendezvous I will go to where I
stashed my greasy, black, smelly, work leathers
and go back to work.

Some times we lose sight of the fact that we rendezvous. Time to go nuts, yell, drink, eat,
laugh, pass out, make fools of ourselves.
All necessary to get the our heads back in it's
cage. If I see a man wearing new skins, all
fringed and beaded with two maidens on his arm,
I say Bravo.
I await my verbal tongue lashings.

Oracle

THe ox plows slowly but the Earth is patient.

this long fringed leather thing on white men, came mostly from Hollywood. its not practical and was mostly only found on the indians for ceremonial garb pre 1840.

Spitfire: I'm like Oracle been in this hobby for near 30 yar. been through it all beads,fringed skins,all that fancy stuff.if'n you want that comely winch to take to you then by all means fringe will do it.but if that comely winch has four legs stead o'two then no feringe is your safe bet

quote:

very,very few period descriptions mention fringe before 1840. About the only ones are Alfred Jacob Miller, and Stewart.

A few more to add to that list: James Townsend (1834), Philip Edwards (1834)who noted the difference between the short fringed clothing worn in the East and the 6-7" long and heavily fringed clothing worn in the West, James Clyman (1824-29), and Osborne Russell (1834-43) - all mention fringed clothes being worn by the mountaineers. So no it is NOT a Hollywood invention at all - do the research.
Albeit not directly related to the mountaineers, Sir Alexander Mackenzie in 1801 describes western Cree women's dress being decorated with fringe.
Bodmer and Catlin (both 1830's) painted quite a bit of fringe on their NDN subjects and surviving examples of NDN clothing (women's dresses, leggings, and war shirts)from that period often is fringed with leather fringe, hair locks, and in the upper Missouri area with ermine. The surviving fancy metis frock coats from the 1810-40 period are also usually decorated with fringe.

Prior to the 1830's there is in fact little description of the clothing (either mountaineer of NDN) other than very generalized descriptions in the very few first person accounts written during that period.

As Oracle noted what was worn while working and what was worn while partying at rendezvous could be different things. Various travelers in the late 1830's in fact mention the mountaineers at rendezvous being dressed and painted like NDNz, something not illustrated by Miller. Same for the NDNz - ceremonial and everyday wear were two different things.

Was it PC? - as always it depends on who, what, where, and when, but it can be documented for the 1830's in the West by more than one primary account, and that after all is the basis for what is PC is it not? What was common is a different animal altogether and IMO is a modern re-enacting concept that demonstrates only a part of history, which is made up of both the common and uncommon. Common may have it's place dependent on the venue, but not for the overall study of history.

And yes I've worn fringed PC clothing for over 40 years and like others I've come to prefer the lesser quantity for work wear, but can and have gone whole hog when it's party time! But then I'm a mixed blood and we do love our bling..

Also where you wear it is also a consideration - in the deep woods of the Pacific NW where I once lived and hunted it could be a real pain (but then leather clothing of any kind is not the best on the wet side), but here in the much more open high desert of the Southern Rockies, and especially while riding it's not as big a concern. In fact I note that those disliking fringe most are from the more brushy/wooded areas of the country. FWIW I was bred and born in Southern Mississippi, lived in Alabama, Louisiana as well as Penna and Connecticut, so I know the country pretty well. Moved to the west coast in 1965, and have strayed no farther east than Chadron, NE since 1971. Since then I've traveled from Alaska to Mexico ( alot on horseback and shank's mare)and settled
here in the SO Rockies in 1995...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: GreyWolf,

Thanks Gray Wolf on the fringe. Here's a few more docs:
Journal of a Trapper p4- "long fringe down the seams"
Ruxton: "dressed derskin ornamented with long fringes" p228.

Blevins "the fringes come in handy for repairs"- My thought, must have been long enough to use to tie something.

The mentioned Edward, it's p 116-117 ""here they are (that is in the West) six or seven inches long and hung densely on every seam"

These are some of the references that the fringe was long however almost all descriptions mention fringe of some sort.

All this brings up a point that needs addressing. What are we doing if we decide to start changing everything, for example: cut off the fringe, put hard soles on moccasins or wear boots, bake a cake for dinner, bring along all sorts of chair cots, heavy iron grates, etc. One sees all this stuff at a lot of Rendezvous events and that's ok with me since a lot of these events include entry level folks, wives, children, etc. If you get too fussy at such events you turn people off- I think the time to be hard core on the pc bit is when you are off by yourself on a trek or with a small group of like minded people. But on those type treks it ought to be as close as we can make it. Then we understand Stewart's gloom about the prospect of running over hard rocky ground before he could stuff new soles in his moccasins, etc. If we are in a leaky birch bark canoe then we understand why furs were wrapped in greased deer skins. I think trying to get it as close to reality as we can make it puts us in a similar situation where all of a sudden we discover unforseen issues and ask ourselves, how did they handle this 150 plus years ago?
Just how I see it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RedOwl,

Spitefire,

You asked what's practical with fringe length and have been told as far as praticality it's short or no fringe. Probably so... But as far as I'm concerned, my vote is for the long fringe. Practicality goes out the window with me. I go with what I like. And I like fringe, beads, brass tacks, quill work, all the fancy stuff. I also wear my hair longer than most and carry a lot of stuff afield that is not necessary in some people's minds. Doesn't matter. I like it and since I'm the one humping it, I make the decisions as to what I take or don't take.
If you want practical, fine. Go with practical. You're the one who has to be happy, go with what you like.

Fooforawlovingsnakebite