Jump to content

The WW1 "Rough Cut" Service Coat


 Share

Recommended Posts

If you want to have fun try reading govt specs looking for tiny little details that change from pattern to pattern. I have been doing this on WW1 Service coats, and Curiously, in the QMC uniform file, nor as a spec, does anywhere mention the approval of unfinihed seams such as these. Every single spec from 1912 to 1919 for service coats specifies finished seams.

 

There is probably one piece of paper that I missed explaining it, but if anyone known any specific information on these please let me know.

 

If you have any knowing any spec numbers, manufacturers or dates would be REALLY helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Romantic
If you want to have fun try reading govt specs looking for tiny little details that change from pattern to pattern. I have been doing this on WW1 Service coats, and Curiously, in the QMC uniform file, nor as a spec, does anywhere mention the approval of unfinihed seams such as these. Every single spec from 1912 to 1919 for service coats specifies finished seams.

 

There is probably one piece of paper that I missed explaining it, but if anyone known any specific information on these please let me know.

 

If you have any knowing any spec numbers, manufacturers or dates would be REALLY helpful.

 

Jon, I looked at my coat, made by the Nathan A. Fischer Co. of Chicago, dated Feb 8, 1918.

 

In my opinion, I've always regarded the "rough cut" coats as a manufacturer variation, rather than a specification determined by the QMC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon, I suspect if you look at the wool itself on the rough cut coat, you will find it is heavier and coarser than the others. For this reason, I think the material was too heavy to turn under to finish as the earlier spec coats. I believe that the wool itself was made under different contracts and supplied to the coat makers, as were buttons, etc. I suspect there may have been some sort of waiver, perhaps informal, for these coats to be made this way. Certainly the inspectors allowed them to pass. You may, in fact, be looking for instructions to the inspectors.

 

Good luck.

 

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Well, more news- the QMC Museum tells me there is nothing in their files at all about it.

 

I showed one to a textile expert who thought that it had been thinner wool, that had been through the felting process which thickens and meshes the weave together. With this kind of felting you generally do not have to turn the seam under. She did not think it was related to the use of let over scraps after uniform cutting, as they could have more easily just been used to make the proper thickness cloth.

 

As the one tag says feb 1918 this would make me think it was more for getting them out during the winter woool clothing shortage, rather than during the the fall period when they just needed "uniforms" for guys.

 

There is one ref that Pershing says the service coat is too thin. I wonder if maybe this was a way they tried to make it thicker? And the worst thing is I KNOW there is a small piece of paper sitting in the archives answering all questions, I just do not have time to go fishing for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
citizensoldier

Greetings,

 

I've seen three rough cut service coats that have a contract date of July 10, 1917.

 

Has any more material surfaced on this topic since the post was initiated?

 

Darrek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

citizensoldier

Greetings,

 

One tag for a July 10, 1917 rough cut coat states:

 

Frankel Bros.

Contract July 10, 1917

Specification No. 1160

New York Depot

 

Darrek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings,

 

One tag for a July 10, 1917 rough cut coat states:

 

Frankel Bros.

Contract July 10, 1917

Specification No. 1160

New York Depot

 

Darrek

 

 

spec 1160- I will go look that up and see if I have it. Top of my head I will bet it is the generic spec number for the standard coat and they just used the same labels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spec 1160 is for Service Coats dated 26 July 1912. replaced by 1268 on 26 August 1917.

 

So barring the very improbable possibility of someone sewing in a label afterwards, this would indicate that they were using up old company labels. Which makes the hunt for info ALL THE MORE FUN!

 

However, while looking for this I stumbled over 1356, which is a very curious coat spec, dated aug 28, 1918- which is in non-standard format, and called OD Woolen Service Coat, (and then hand written in "NEW MODEL"

 

I have no idea why I never noticed this one before, as ina quick read this may be it. Made of 20 Ounce wool, where as the 1917 model was 16 ounce.

 

and the date looks pretty good, although much later than I would have guessed.

 

Needs more study.

 

Oh anyone with such a coat, is there a seam in the center back of the collar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon,

I have a minty rough cut tunic in my collection and it's marked as follows:

 

PHILA. DEPOT

Q.M.C. U.S.A.

SIDNEY A. ALOE

PHILA.

 

CONTRACT AUG. 24, 1917

NO. 630

 

solid collar with no seam in back and tunic is VERY thick

 

Kration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

citizensoldier

Greetings,

 

This is a great thread!

 

The limited amount of rough cut blouses that I've seen have a one piece outer wool collar.

 

I was able to take a look at the second rough cut blouse that is marked July 10, 1917 and it too was manufactured by Frankel Bros. in New York. I need to talk to the owner of the third I know of and verify the manufacturer.

 

I have a lined finished seam blouse made of standard service coat wool and marked Frankel Uniform Company of New York (possibly associated with Frankel Bros. of the same city?)

The coat has a size tag in the collar like the Frankel Bros. sevice coats but is marked as follows:

 

Frankel Uniform Co.

New York

Contract July 18, 1918

Specification No. 1285 (or possibly 1265 as the third digit is difficult to read)

New York Depot

 

If this is the same manufacturer, it may be a sign of service coat evolution either via specs or contractor variation.

 

Also I had a chance to look at photos of another rough cut blouse that was online and it is marked:

 

Jacob Reed's Sons Inc

Contract Oct. 22, 1917

Specification No. 1523

Philadelphia Depot

 

As Jon pointed out, these could be earlier tags on hand that were being sewn into blouses by manufactures.

 

What I find interesting is the different contractors and locations.

 

Darrek

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...