Possibly the dumbest question asked here but here goes. Would a single common soldier, farmer or hunter use a thin piece of buckskin to patch his shirt(I was thinking of chamois cloth) I patched the holes from the inside but need to patch the outside as well, my tailoring skills are sorely lacking so need to keep this simple but historically correct. I'm sure clothing was patched numerous times and with whatever was available, but would appreciate some opinions on this.
It's not impossible by any means, but...,
Where did the soldier or farmer get the buckskin? Deer were pretty scarce East of the Appalachians in colonial times a decade or so prior to the AWI, which is why the hunters would pass over the mountains into the Kan-tuc-kee hunting grounds. Also, chamois is not buckskin, and a lot of folks might notice that.
Unless you're doing Valley Forge in Winter or Pensacola during the Spanish Invasion, patching is good, and you probably should find another piece of cloth. It doesn't need to be pretty; it just needs to work.
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove
Just use material to patch with. I portray at times a veteran infantryman on the march and my trousers are patched with 4 differant types and color of material (butternut, grey wool, red and white cotton) which shows the rough use clothing went through in those days.
Families sleep peaceably in their beds at night as there are rough men about who will do violence in their behalf.
I agree with the other posts. Brain tanned buckskin would have been harder for a soldier in the field to get.
Thanks guy's, I found some matching fabric and lightly died it in a tea bath, patched both shoulders inside and out. Doesn't look too awful bad, it won't be seen under a weskit anyhow. Guess I'll just have to stop flexing in period clothes.
I think you done good!
I patch my clothes with pieces from a pair of my knee britches that are beyond repair . Color doesnt match but thats ok by me.
|Powered by Social Strata|