Booshway

|
Sawbones, Yes, wool of some kind was used for pantaloons. If you're going for an early type (1800-1825+-) and for a middle-class or gentleman's outfit, they would be tighter, more like the Rev War military pants; looser ones were of course also used by regular guys, and later on in the fur trade era were in style. A couple of the historical pattern companies have patterns for both types, especially with the anniversary of the War of 1812 coming up. I think the wool used for pantaloons or trousers would be somewhat lighter-weight, tight-weave, maybe with a "hard" finish. Dick
"Est Deus in Nobis"
|
| |
| Posts: 1685 | Location: Helena, Montana | Registered: 10 December 2004 |    |
|
Booshway

|
Bones, pants made out of blankets would be too scratchy, too warm most of the time, and unlike anything anyone probably ever wore. Wool broadcloth of some kind, while not cheap, "coat weight" or garment weight, would be the way to go. Dick
"Est Deus in Nobis"
|
| |
| Posts: 1685 | Location: Helena, Montana | Registered: 10 December 2004 |    |
|
Pilgrim
|
Sawbones, at the time of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, wool overalls were standard winter uniform. They were blue with a white stripe for Infantry and a gold stripe for Artillery.
"I sometimes wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it?."
|
| |
| Posts: 82 | Location: The Wilds of Central Iowa | Registered: 20 January 2009 |    |
|
Booshway

|
Bones, "Overalls" is the word I was looking for; Pvt. Potts is correct. They are built like knee-breeches--tight in the leg for a "sexy" appearance, but they go all the way down to the ankle. Civilian pantaloons in the early 1800s, as I understand it, were very tight in the leg and maybe had that loop of cloth going under the instep. Trousers were the looser pants, the "relaxed fit" of the day. The terms may have been somewhat interchangeable; I'm no expert on that. When you get the chance check out historical men's styles on line or at the library, to see the difference, or look at the patterns available from some of our suppliers. Dick
"Est Deus in Nobis"
|
| |
| Posts: 1685 | Location: Helena, Montana | Registered: 10 December 2004 |    |
|
Pilgrim
|
Dick, you got it backwards! Overalls are tight fitting and have the gaiter coming down over the shoe top. Pantaloons are also tight-fitting but only reach to the ankles. By the way, both of them are so tight that, in order to have room to sit down, the have a very large and loose butt! My wife says I look like I hav a full diaper when I wear my overalls!
"I sometimes wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it?."
|
| |
| Posts: 82 | Location: The Wilds of Central Iowa | Registered: 20 January 2009 |    |
|
Booshway

|
Pvt. Potts, Yeah, we're talking about the same thing. I just couldn't think of the name for the military pants in my earlier quote. The pantaloons are like breeches, too, in respect to the baggy butt issue. Dick
"Est Deus in Nobis"
|
| |
| Posts: 1685 | Location: Helena, Montana | Registered: 10 December 2004 |    |
|
Booshway
|
It is also perhaps because of the use. Longhunters often wore a mish-mash of Indian and white clothing. In fact one journal notes that as one party returned from a long hunt they stopped at about a day's ride from the settlements, to clean themselves up and dress properly. Christopher Gist, a noted frontiersman from the F&I through the AWI, and a close friend who had once saved General Washington, was refused admittance to the General's presence until he put on a pair of breeches. He was probably wearing blanket leggings and a breech clout at the time. LD
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove
|
| |
| Posts: 1752 | Location: People's Republic of Maryland | Registered: 10 November 2004 |    |
|