byank1863 Posted September 12, 2007 Share #1 Posted September 12, 2007 I saw this auction on Ebay and it is purportedly an original MSJ from the Cinncinatti Depot. Looks very much a clean example that could possibly have been unissued and instead retained in a warehouse until sent into private hands. The seller stated that there is no provenance on the item and that it had been reported as an "original" when purchased off of a dealer. The sky blue kersey lining is something that I have never seen in a jacket of this type before, but then again anything could potentially be possible due to the limited amount of surviving examples. Just want to see what everyone thinks about it. http://cgi.ebay.com/C-W-Cavalry-Shel...QQcmdZViewItem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayg Posted September 13, 2007 Share #2 Posted September 13, 2007 The link doesn't work or the item is no longer on eBay, Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byank1863 Posted September 13, 2007 Author Share #3 Posted September 13, 2007 I can't get the link to work but this is the item number: 330164580079 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonomachi Posted September 13, 2007 Share #4 Posted September 13, 2007 Here are photos from the eBay site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonomachi Posted September 13, 2007 Share #5 Posted September 13, 2007 More Photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayg Posted September 14, 2007 Share #6 Posted September 14, 2007 Looks to be a nice minty one, Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byank1863 Posted September 14, 2007 Author Share #7 Posted September 14, 2007 I however observe several red flags and wanted to confirm or bounce them off of other people who are more knowledgeable on the subject than I. It may be late war but the Quartermaster description of the item was described as follows:"All enlisted men of the cavalry and light artillery, shall wear a uniform jacket of dark blue cloth, with one row of twelve small buttons on the breast placed at equal distances; stand-up collar, to rise no higher than to permit the chin to turn freely over it, to hook in front at the bottom, and to slope the same as the coat collar; on the collar, on each side, two blind button-holes of worsted lace, 3/8 of an inch wide; one small button on the button-hole; lower button-hole extending back four inches, upper button-hole three and a-half inches; top button and front ends of collar bound with worsted lace 3/8 of an inch wide, and a strip of the same extending down the front and around the whole lower edge of the jacket; the back seam laced with the same, and on the cuff a point of the same shape as that on the coat but formed of the worsted lace; jacket to extend to the waist and be lined with white or grey domet flannel, with an inner pocket in left breast made of same material; 2 small buttons at the underseam of the cuff, as on the coat cuff; one hook and eye at the bottom of the collar, color of lace (worsted), yellow for cavalry, and scarlet for light artillery;..." Excerpted from the 1865 U.S. Army Quartermaster Manual. Further, The devil is in the details, I have looked at many MSJ's and have not seen one with a blue flannel lining. The vast majority have a domet or jean lining. F.H. Shafer did inspect garments for the Cincinatti arsenal from June `63 to July `65. The belt pillows are the proper shape and most other contruction details seem to be along the lines of those commonly seem in original garments, however the photos do not show enough detail to say anymore.Just a few humble observations on the subject MSJ. The jacket may well be original but there are a number of details that cause me concern. 1.The cuff trim lacks the arc and depth seen on most originals. This one reminds me of the shallow geometry seen on early C&D Jarnigan production from the 70's. 2. The piecing on the undercollar does not look convincing to me. It looks contrived and like it was done after the fact. 3. The sewing at the top of the sleeve lining is more coarse than I'm used to seeing on originals. 4. The body lining has already been mentioned & really doesn't do much to instill confidence. 5. The buttonholes are corded, but without seeing the backside I can't tell with certainty whether hand-sewn or not. 6. The flannel body lining is not quilted nor padded. 7. As was mentioned the piecework on the interior of the collar was done after the lining was set. The button holes look very inconsistant from one to the next, it looks as if the top of the collar is folded over and to the inside and whip stitched down. Lastly the stitching where the sleeve lining joins the body lining is very rough, uneven and too far apart. I get the sense that this may be a repro that has been "enhanced". I have a few other concerns, but in all fairness a closer inspection would probably tell the story here. I'm just looking to see what anyone who has handled or studied original items of this type thinks of this item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJM Posted October 16, 2007 Share #8 Posted October 16, 2007 I however observe several red flags and wanted to confirm or bounce them off of other people who are more knowledgeable on the subject than I. It may be late war but the Quartermaster description of the item was described as follows:"All enlisted men of the cavalry and light artillery, shall wear a uniform jacket of dark blue cloth, with one row of twelve small buttons on the breast placed at equal distances; stand-up collar, to rise no higher than to permit the chin to turn freely over it, to hook in front at the bottom, and to slope the same as the coat collar; on the collar, on each side, two blind button-holes of worsted lace, 3/8 of an inch wide; one small button on the button-hole; lower button-hole extending back four inches, upper button-hole three and a-half inches; top button and front ends of collar bound with worsted lace 3/8 of an inch wide, and a strip of the same extending down the front and around the whole lower edge of the jacket; the back seam laced with the same, and on the cuff a point of the same shape as that on the coat but formed of the worsted lace; jacket to extend to the waist and be lined with white or grey domet flannel, with an inner pocket in left breast made of same material; 2 small buttons at the underseam of the cuff, as on the coat cuff; one hook and eye at the bottom of the collar, color of lace (worsted), yellow for cavalry, and scarlet for light artillery;..." Excerpted from the 1865 U.S. Army Quartermaster Manual. Further, The devil is in the details, I have looked at many MSJ's and have not seen one with a blue flannel lining. The vast majority have a domet or jean lining. F.H. Shafer did inspect garments for the Cincinatti arsenal from June `63 to July `65. The belt pillows are the proper shape and most other contruction details seem to be along the lines of those commonly seem in original garments, however the photos do not show enough detail to say anymore.Just a few humble observations on the subject MSJ. The jacket may well be original but there are a number of details that cause me concern. 1.The cuff trim lacks the arc and depth seen on most originals. This one reminds me of the shallow geometry seen on early C&D Jarnigan production from the 70's. 2. The piecing on the undercollar does not look convincing to me. It looks contrived and like it was done after the fact. 3. The sewing at the top of the sleeve lining is more coarse than I'm used to seeing on originals. 4. The body lining has already been mentioned & really doesn't do much to instill confidence. 5. The buttonholes are corded, but without seeing the backside I can't tell with certainty whether hand-sewn or not. 6. The flannel body lining is not quilted nor padded. 7. As was mentioned the piecework on the interior of the collar was done after the lining was set. The button holes look very inconsistant from one to the next, it looks as if the top of the collar is folded over and to the inside and whip stitched down. Lastly the stitching where the sleeve lining joins the body lining is very rough, uneven and too far apart. I get the sense that this may be a repro that has been "enhanced". I have a few other concerns, but in all fairness a closer inspection would probably tell the story here. I'm just looking to see what anyone who has handled or studied original items of this type thinks of this item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottiques Posted November 7, 2013 Share #9 Posted November 7, 2013 There were other liners used-- the Schuylkill Arsenal plaid pattern is one that comes to mind. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriot Posted November 7, 2013 Share #10 Posted November 7, 2013 It's a good jacket. I had one like this, except mine was artillery, not cavalry. This depot pattern is pretty scarce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJM Posted November 12, 2013 Share #11 Posted November 12, 2013 I have a total of three Civil War shell jackets, two Artillery and one Cavalry. I have owned all of them since the mid-1970s (when they were still fairly common),. They are totally original. Both the Artillery jackets are insainlly small (size 2) Cinncinatti Depot, I don't recall the maker of the Cavalry one. Point is the Cavalry and one Artillery jacket have a mixed gray wool linning the other a medium dark blue linning, much like yours, only a darker blue. I think they used whatever material was available. TJM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now