Jump to content

Identifying the AEF Service Coats


GIl Sanow
 Share

Recommended Posts

(The basis for this contribution to U.S. Militaria Forum first appeared in an article in the December, 1983 issue of A.A.M.U.C. FOOTLOCKER. Since then I have found no reason to radically change what I wrote, though I have discovered the existence of a second style of British contract coat worn by doughboys. Only minor changes and corrections have been made since the original publication.)

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most collectors tend to define the various Army enlisted men's service coat as being limited to about three types in wool and one type in cotton. A close study of examples in my collection and those of several others, plus the actual Quartermaster Department specifications reveal several more. First of all, it must be stated that virtually all types of service coats dating back to about 1909-10 probably saw service, especially among the National Guard units called up. For a full description of these types see FOOTLOCKER Vol. VI, No. 3, 1 Sept. '82.

 

post_528_1182299852_1_.jpg

 

Pre-War Types

Most of these pre-war types encountered will be those of the 1911 type. These were made according to Specification 1125 in wool and 1126 in olive drab cotton. The 1911 pattern coat (see figure 1) was a simplified design from those used earlier. The collar was straight standing and was grommeted on each side for a single disc insignia. The pockets were flat patch type and rectangular with rounded corners and lacked the side bellows as were made from 1904. The pointed cuff pattern was eliminated and a double row of stitching is found ¼” apart and three inches from the end.

The earlier wool coats were made of olive drab worsted wool, but Spec. No. 1160 issued in 1912 called for the use of cheaper wool melton. Those made in1911 and early 1912 will probably have the old 1902 rimless bronze eagle button, but the later ones should have the newer rimmed pattern. Specification 1160 was superseded shortly after the U.S. declared war in 1917. Logically one would assume that coats made from shortly after its adoption would conform to the new pattern. However, I know of one coat in the early pattern with a 1918 contract date, so it is quite possible that not all contractors changed over to the later specification.

I do have an example also of what I believe to be a transitional coat. It still retains pointed cuffs and the pre-1911 rimless buttons. Curiously, it once had WW1 overseas stripes on it!

 

The illustrations below are of the details described above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the Spec 1125 wool coat as adopted in 1911. This one has the earlier rimless buttons, though #2 is a replacement and is rimmed. Note the double line of stitching on the cuff.

 

135_3573__2_.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a Spec 1126 drab cotton service coat, as adopted in 1911. Note it also has rimless buttons. The collar closeup shows the inside of the material is "thread-dyed" -- in other words, the threads were dyed (green and brown) before weaving, rather than being "piece dyed." "Thread-dyed" material typically has a grayish cast on the outside.

 

135_3575__2_.JPG

135_3576__2_.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1912 the Army adopted Spec 1160 for EM's service coats, replacing Spec 1125. The onlly signicant difference between the specs is that 1160 uses melton wool -- heavier and softer.

 

135_3578__2_.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an oddball 1160. It has rimless buttons and pointed cuffs like pre-1911 coats. Given the signs that this one once had overseas chevrons, it is pretty clear that it saw WW1 service. It is believed that it is transitional. Interestingly, one of the small buttons appears to be a Pennsylvania NG button.

 

135_3572__2_.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, finally, is a shot of a typical pre-war QM tag as found in the lining, just to the right of the front opening.

 

135_3579__2_.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Romantic

Great Topic Gil, it's good to see it's finally up!

 

Here are a few of my pre war coats.

 

First is a cotton coat, olive green shade and 1902 pattern buttons. The contract tag is washed out and unreadable.

post-599-1182299677.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Romantic

This coat is the same 'transitional' pattern as the coat in post 11. The cuffs are pointed and the buttons are the 1902 pattern. No date is on the contract tag.

post-599-1182299812.jpg

post-599-1182299831.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gil,

 

I want to personally thank you for not perpetuating the infamous Hayes Otopalik M191X designations.

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I do not know of the Army ever giving uniforms model designations. Specifications are issued for uniforms; model numbers for equipment (including individual protective equipment).

 

I know, not a big deal, but it has always irked me a tiny bit.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I had a history professor once who stated that the only purpose in using dates in history was to keep things in order. When I taught I only rarely asked students to memorize dates -- just the really important ones like 1492 and 1776.

I like using dates to maintain order here, but prefer to use both.

 

Interestingly, most of Hayes' date citations were based on article Mike Bruun and I wrote for MC&H some years back.

 

I get irked though when collectors call coats "tunics". GRRRRRRR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Romantic

It seems that the use of the M19'' designation for service coats has become the norm in the collecting world. Personally, I find the use of dates to be a convenient way of tracking and IDing coat variations. It is especially useful for novice collectors to recognize the changes to the coats without getting confused over spec numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

craig_pickrall

Gil, I cleaned this up some and moved your drawing to, what I hope, is the right spot. If you need other changes / editing let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE 1917 WOOL COAT

 

On August 26, 1917 a new specification for wool coats, Spec. No. 1268, was adopted. This called again for an olive drab wool melton coat almost identical to Spec. No. 1160. The only observable difference between the two will be the fact that the new specification called for a single line of stitching at the cuff, one inch above the end. (See figure 2). In December, 1917, Spec. No. 1285 was adopted. The wording of the two specifications, 1268 and 1285 is virtually identical except that 1285 calls for mercerized cotton sewing thread instead of machine silk. For all practical purposes the 1268 and 1285 coats are indistinguishable from each other.

 

WW1_EM_2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Significant variations do exist and should be noted, however. The differences seem to stem from the multitude of contractors involved, plus probably from shortages of the specified wool, buttons and linings. As examples, the following must be cited:

1. A Spec. No. 1268/1285 coat in my collection with an early war contract date but tagged Spec. No. 1160. One must assume that old tags were used after the pattern changed.

 

2. Two coats, one in my collection and another known to me, both of which have vegetable ivory buttons with two holes through which to be sewn to the coat. "America's Munitions, 1917-1918" states that a vegetable ivory button, with a shank of metal was used to conserve brass and bronze. However, since the buttons noted were of the sew-through rather than shanked type, they may be either an attempt to conserve even more metal or a temporary stop-gap until the shanked button could be developed.

The example cited above in my collection has another interesting difference too. The lining is black cotton rather than the common olive drab. In all likelihood the contractor could not obtain olive drab and substituted black. The contractors tag is attached to the black lining, so it is not a tailor-made replacement lining.

Another AAMUC member and militaria dealer, when shown the above coat, commented that non-standard linings are not all that uncommon. He’d encountered them in other colors and with woven patterns, even stripes. Whether these still had contractor’s tags still in place, he could not be sure. Possibly these were tailor-made replacements.

 

135_3588__2_.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a detail shot of the 1268/1285 cuff stitching and a shot of both types of vegetable ivory buttons and the black lining mentioned above.

 

135_3589__2_.JPG

135_3580__2_.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Collectors will also find what appear to be examples of as yet undocumented emergency editions of the specifications. The coat fabrics are quite heavy in weight (overcoat weight?) and are unlined. Mine, at least, has the contractors tag in the coat body, so this is definitely not a case of the lining having been removed.

Every seam on these coats, except for the collar and cuffs, is not turned under, as was required in Specs.1268 and 1285. Since Specs 1268 and 1285 called for a 3/8" allowance on each side of each seam to be turned under, the elimination of this requirement would save much material in the manufacture of large lots of clothing. These coats may be readily recognized by the unfinished slightly frayed edges since they are stitched close to the cut edge rather than turned under. (It may also be that the material was so heavy that turning under the edges would have been too difficult or the results too bulky.)

 

An example appears below:

 

135_3584__2_.JPG

135_3585__2_.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be pointed out that there are great variations in shade, weight and textures of the fabrics. While all post 1917 specifications called for 20 oz. OD melton wool, however the emergency edition coat cited above seems to be about 30 oz. or perhaps even heavier.

 

"America's Munitions, 1917-1918" points out that the supply of domestic wool was insufficient since the demand exceeded production. There was plenty more wool in Australia, but there was not adequate shipping available to deliver it. When the U.S. entered the war, three years after “the guns of August (1914)” the world had already been using its supply at a prodigious rate. Three million Americans enlisted or were drafted, with half of them sent overseas. Those overseas had to be provided with three complete wool uniforms per year. This counts the one they were wearing at the time, one in reserve in a supply depot and one in transit!

 

One of the reasons for the emergency edition described above was the conservation of wool, not to mention the ease of manufacturing. This move to conserve wool was even more evident in the 1918 coats described below. The varying weights of material are also explained by the needs of production and the availability of materials.

 

The shades of olive drab encountered also vary greatly. Prewar coats are more brownish or golden brownish, but these dyes were imported, especially from Germany. Needless to say, once war broke out and especially after the U.S. declared war, German dyes were not available, and it was necessary for America to develop its own. The resulting shades are noticeably darker and may have a more greenish tinge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE 1918 WOOL COATS

Wool shortages by mid 1918 had become critical and a suggestion came from General Pershing to make the uniform better appearing and at the same time saving cloth. Pershing suggested that the wool patch pockets be replaced by pockets of cotton hung inside the coat. The underside of the pocket flaps, the epaulets and the facing inside the coat flap all used cotton, not wool. This coat was made under Spec. No. 1356, dated August 28, 1918.

 

135_3587__2_.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Note that in the photo above, the "patch" pockets have disappeared inside the coat.

 

"America's Munitions" reports that a savings of $1.68 on each coat, for a total of almost $5,000,000, using the new patterns. A second "Pershing" coat specification was published on March 25, 1919 and was unnumbered, it being designated "Emergency Edition". A close comparison of Spec. No. 1356 and the 1919 Emergency Edition specification shows no differences. However a coat of the Pershing style in my collection which has a 1919 contract date appears to be of a much heavier wool. Both specifications above call for 20 oz. OD melton, but 1356 calls for Spec.1316 cloth and the 1919 EE Spec, calls for "Type "C". This may explain the difference. (It may also be that “Type C’ was authorized for the rough-cut M1917, but that has not been determined.)

 

WW1_EM_3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BRITISH MADE U.S. COATS

 

Two patterns of olive drab wool coats were made in Britain for the A.E.F.

These were outwardly similar to both the M1917 and Ml918 coats but with several significant differences. Both are unlined except for the

collar and facings inside both sides of the front. One has outside patch pockets like the M1917 (see photos following – thanx to Frankie S.–“Morals & Decadence”) while the other has them made of cotton and set inside, like the M1918 (see figure 4). A strip of white cotton is sewn behind the top edge of the pocket flaps, and this shows from the outside too, on both versions. The pocket bottoms of the inside pocket version are tacked to the wool body and this line of stitching is visible on the outside also. The pocket flaps on the inside pocket coats are set in to the pocket opening rather than being sewn to the outside as on American made coats. The only marking in the British-made inside-pocket coat in my collection is

429/W Broad Arrow D/L which I assume to be a code for the contrac-

tor or contract. It is undated.

 

100_0850.JPG

100_0712.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that some serious research should be done into this pattern. It would be interesting to know if the British pattern is the ancestor of the Ml918 or how closely their design is related to late-war coats made for British troops. I suspect that only the collar may be different. Even so, if the British Army's late coats used the concealed pockets, it may be that General Pershing (or his staff) may not have been as creative in the design as he (they) have been credited. I suspect that British sources should be researched on this subject for best results.

 

100_0709.JPG

WW1_EM_4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...