Jump to content

NON-SPEC Overcoat w/ Shawl 'Mackinaw' Collar


world war I nerd
 Share

Recommended Posts

world war I nerd

In regard to this WW I enlisted men's overcoat, which differs significantly from both the 1917 and 1918 pattern overcoats, does anyone know:

 

1. What the official name of this style of overcoat was?

2. What the Specification No. of this style of overcoat was?

3. When was this style of overcoat adopted by the Army?

4. Why was this style of overcoat developed?

5. Who was this style of overcoat issued to?

 

Thanks for looking ...

post-5143-0-52924900-1454118131.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Perhaps anyone who owns an overcoat of this style could check the contract label for a specification number?

 

It would also be good to know what the contract dates on the labels were. This would help narrow down the date on which production began for this style of overcoat.

 

Thanks again for looking ... and I hope, helping ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have handled about five of these shawl-collared overcoats. None have had labels. At least three (I don't recall on the other two) were unlined. The only markings I found in any of them is a "42" stamped in this one sold by AGM in 2008.

 

 

post-949-0-72864100-1454285201.jpg

post-949-0-59335600-1454285211.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the buttons normal Army overcoat buttons? Is there a maker's mark on the back of the buttons? If British made, perhaps that would be reflected by the markings on the back of the buttons.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Thanks John, RC and themick,

 

For what it's worthy, the buttons used on this style of coat were medium sized or the same size as those used on the woolen and cotton service coats.

 

Hmmm ... British Made? That's certainly a possibility. I've always suspected that the hip length, belted mackinaws (also with service coat sized buttons) were made in Great Britain, but it never crossed my mind that this style of overcoat was also made there. Isn't that what they call 'tunnel vision'?

 

I've only ever owned one of these overcoats and it did not have a British broad arrow stamp inside, or any other stamps or markings for that matter. I never bothered to look at the back of the buttons though. I've also seen at least a dozen of these offered for sale on various militaria websites and not one of the sellers ever mentioned that it had tea stains (or British stamps).

 

I know the one I owned did not have a contract label, and unfortunately, I don't recall if the ones that were for sale did or did not have labels.

 

There were certainly plenty of these coats around in the AEF as they show up in numerous photographs, but not with the same frequency as the 1917 and 1918 pattern enlisted men's overcoats.

 

Here's another photo in which three out of the four Doughboys are wearing the overcoat with patch pockets and a roll collar.

post-5143-0-44677700-1454298372.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his Encyclopedia of US Military Uniforms and Insignia, researcher WK Emerson states, ""Short coats, or mackinaws, became standard for many ground troops. Officers were allowed a short double-breasted sheepskin coat for field wear, while enlisted men were issued mackinaws."

His reference for this assertion was:

War Department (WD) Special Regulation 41, 15 Aug 1917, par 103 (d); WD Changes 1, 29 Dec. 1917, Special Regulations 41, par. 103(e).

 

 

I don't know if there is any relation to the shawl-collared overcoats with belts and patch pockets from earlier specifications. AGM sold this overcoat in 2012 that it described as an "earlier 1907 specification mackinaw-style overcoat."

 

post-949-0-85522900-1454335885.jpg

post-949-0-03534000-1454335898.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

John, thanks for posting the image of what I believe to be an early WW I era mackinaw. Based on period photos there seems to have been three patterns, styles or variations of the mackinaw produced during the World War. The example you posted is a very close match to one of them.

 

This trio of images shows what may be the 1907 Mackinaw at left, the mackinaw you posted in the center with horn or composite buttons and an identical mackinaw with open patch pockets and a loop on the collar to its right. The only difference between the center and right hand mackinaw is that one has bronze eagle buttons. Based on photographic evidence enlisted men's mackinaws made during WW I appear to have been made using both bronze and composite buttons. By the way, the right hand image is one of your photos.

 

Although I've never seen a 1907 Mackinaw, my understanding is that the original 1907 Mackinaw and matching Mackinaw Trousers were either made of blue wool or lined with blue wool (I'm not 100% sure on this point). Both garments were allegedly devised for the troops that were posted to the Department of Alaska.

 

It's entirely possible that at a later date olive drab wool was substituted for blue wool? I just don't know. I do however, believe that the early mackinaw was the inspiration for the WW I era mackinaws.

post-5143-0-41700200-1454342873.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

The short, double breasted, sheepskin coat that Mr. Emmerson referred to was likely similar to either of the two mackinaw type coats worn by this pair of AEF officers.

 

My personal theory on the enlisted men's overcoat with patch pockets and a roll collar was that it was conceived to bridge the gap between the shorter mackinaw and the longer conventional enlisted man's overcoat.

post-5143-0-20943900-1454343347.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

I forgot to mention the illustration of the possible 1907 Mackinaw appeared in the background of an Ogden print depicting 1907 pattern enlisted men's overcoats and cold weather clothing.

post-5143-0-47598100-1454343789.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Victory Museum

This discussion is becoming convoluted with overcoats being compared to mackinaws.

 

The shawl-collared overcoat does not conform to any of the olive drab overcoat specifications.

 

The fact that most are unlined would suggest that these are foreign made and purchased

by the USQMD for expedience. Remember, the US entered the Great War in a state of

woeful unpreparedness.

 

This is not a transitional mackinaw, as there were two specifications for mackinaws issued

during the war: the 1907 pattern, and the 1918.

 

Jagjetta is correct, the photo he posted (re-posted below) is the 1907 Spec 863 pattern.

post-1529-0-45826500-1454349252.jpg

 

The late war issued mackinaw is the Spec 1343 issued in Sept 1918 (photo)

post-1529-0-73222900-1454349270.jpg

 

As to the artist rendition coat you are looking at, I would suggest that it is likely one

of the following:

 

Spec 629 1903-05-18 Overcoat
Spec 701 1904-09-26 Overcoat
Spec 762 1905-07-14 Overcoat

 

Coats specified before these are blue wool.

 

Msn

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Victory Museum

Brian:

 

I believe that the coat in the artist drawing is this canvas fatigue coat. As this one has the darkened rimless buttons the earliest

specification it may be is the Spec 612 1903-04-22 Canvas Fatigue Coat. If you imagine the top buttons fastened in this photo

you will see that the collar will look like the one in the drawing.

 

 

post-1529-0-29809900-1454350827.jpg

 

PS.

This sell price was just above my high bid. I wish I had bid a little higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Mike thanks for adding your expertise to this discussion.

 

I too agree that the shawl collar overcoat does not match any of the known overcoat specifications. That however, does not mean that a specification for the shawl collar overcoat does not exist. Prior to WW I the Quartermaster Department / Corps created a new specification number for even the most minor changes made to a regulation garment, such as changing the weight of the thread used. Based on their obsession with documenting how each garment was to be made and what it was to look like, it's doubtful that a whole new overcoat could sneak into existence without any form of documentation.

 

However, if that overcoat was designed and contracted out to European clothing manufacturere by the AEF, then it's possible that a specification number for that coat may not exist. The ultimate goal of this post is to hopefully find out one way or the other.

 

I also agree with your brilliant conclusion that the mackinaw style coat in the background of the Ogden illustration is the cotton canvas work coat ... something I didn't know existed until now. Thank you very much for adding that information!

 

In respect to this thread wandering into mackinaw territory, I'm okay with it because I've always believed that the two garments were somehow related.

 

That being said here is some more grist for the mackinaw mill ...

 

Here are the three variations of WW I era mackinaws that I've observed. At left is apparently the 1907 style mackinaw (Specification No. 863) with a button loop on the lapel and no pocket flaps. In the middle is a wartime variation of the 1907 Mackinaw made with pocket flaps, but without a button loop on the lapel. Is this just a manufacturers' variation or could this type of mackinaw have an as yet undiscovered specification number of its own? The mackinaw on the right appears to be the 1918 Mackinaw (Specification No. 1343) introduced late in the war. Thanks to Mike for the specification numbers.

 

Left hand photo courtesy of the Chuck Thomas collection

Center photo courtesy of the John Adam-Graf collection

Right hand photo courtesy of the National World War I Museum

post-5143-0-18007900-1454373243.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Here are three physical specimens of the above mentioned WW I era mackinaws ... 1907 Mackinaw, possible variation of the 1907 Mackinaw, and the 1918 Mackinaw.

 

Right & left hand photos courtesy of Advance Guard Militaria.com

Center photo courtesy of Bay State Militaria.com

post-5143-0-50574600-1454373709.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

At left and center are a pair of unusual mackinaws bearing buckled belts. The left hand mackinaw is not unlike the 1907 Mackinaw in shape. However, its belt is secured by a buckle, it has bronze eagle buttons and the lapels are 'notched'! The center mackinaw looks as if its a shortened overcoat with a belt added? The right hand image shows a better view of the button loop located on the lapel of the 1907 style mackinaw.

post-5143-0-78124000-1454374182.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

I forgot to mention that the wartime 1907 style mackinaw, shown in the center of posts 13 & 14, differed from its predecessor by also having buttoned cuff tabs, a pointed belt end, and a buttonhole instead of the button loop on the collar.

 

I should also mention that I have seen period photographs of this style of mackinaw with pointed pocket flaps as well as bronze eagle buttons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Victory Museum

Re: Some of the photos you've posted.

 

The pilot was most likely an officer, as the number of enlisted aviators during WWI is minuscule. Remember, officers were

required to purchase their own articles of uniform & clothing. Impecunious junior officers likely purchased enlisted uniforms

from stocks and had tailors attach buttons and braids. However, nothing prevented them from purchasing civilian stock.

 

Canadians had a style of mackinaw, as did the British. Nothing prevented an enlisted man from purchasing an article so long

as it conformed in appearance to issued clothing in color or style. In any event, pouring over dozens of photographs is meaningless

unless you can show a spec tag or contract label. Many of those photos are likely post war occupation troops in 1919.

 

I am going to reassert, until you find an article of clothing on the internet with a photographed specification tag, it likely isn't Government

issued. The burden of proof is on the researcher. Don't assume into evidence additional specifications based on photographs

that show minor variations of what is likely civilian clothing, or post-war (1919) clothing.

 

My specifications list (Mr. Prostak's) more-or-less ends with a winter cap specification issued in June of 1919.

 

Msn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Mike I think you are misunderstanding the point of what I’m trying to do.

 

In the first paragraph of your last post (No. 17), I agree 100% with everything that you wrote.

 

In your second paragraph, I agree with everything that you wrote with the following exception: “pouring over dozens of photographs is meaningless”

 

On this particular point I couldn’t disagree more. Despite the fact that a contract label bearing a specification number is not visible, if you want to know what American soldiers of any era wore in the field, there is no better place to begin than by examining period photographs. It seems absolutely ridiculous to ignore the visual evidence that a period photograph provides.

 

When you’ve looked at enough period photographs from any period, you can’t help but notice certain patterns in regard to what the men wear or carry. The next logical step is to categorize each garment in question based on its characteristics. If it’s a “one off” then it can be ignored. However, when you have identified 5, 12, or 109 garments that all look identical or nearly identical that is a pattern that cannot be ignored. In this case it happens to be one style of overcoat and three distinctly different types of mackinaws worn by the men of the AEF.

 

In the absence of period documentation, one does not have to be a member of MENSA to theorize that when multiple soldiers depicted in a number of unrelated photographs all taken in either the theater of operations or perhaps in occupied Germany between the years of 1917 and 1919, they are very likely wearing an article of clothing that was issued by the U.S. Army and paid for by the U.S. Government.

 

Because a photograph cannot speak, it can’t tell you the name of the garment it depicts or if it had a specification number, or whether a specification number was ever assigned to it. What it does tell you is that the garment did exist. That the garment was very likely issued, and that the garment was worn in the field. Seeing it multiple times reinforces the fact that the article in question was used with some degree of regularity.

 

In the absence of actual information, as in the case – research must begin somewhere. Hence this post seeking actual information or informed guesses, which over time, as more information surfaces will eventually be proven either accurate or inaccurate … the result of which is that we can all learn something.

 

All I am doing is providing forum members with a visual image of the three most common mackinaws that I had observed numerous times in period photographs. Yes, I did label them with what I thought they MIGHT have been. However, you will note that in most instances I merely suggested what they might be. Therefore as far as “assuming into evidence additional specifications based on photographs that show minor variations,” I’ve done nothing of the sort, as I stated nothing as an actual fact.

 

I think that we can all agree that there is no way for any member here on the forum to know with any degree of certainty whether a “list” of official specification numbers is, or is not 100% complete. It is also foolish to rule something out just because it did not appear on that list. It is equally as foolish to insist that it should be on that list without having any physical proof or evidence. Either way, we must allow for the possibility that the list may contain errors or have a gap or two.

 

In other words, until the fat lady sings not one of us knows anything for certain. Nevertheless, we should be allowed to discuss all possibilities, no matter how farfetched they may, if for nothing else but to have them ruled out … otherwise we will learn nothing.

 

My apologies to all for this long winded discourse … World War I Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian,

 

I must say that I am very pleased to see this post. As you know, being a collector of WWI AEF, I am a fan of the overcoat, having several pre war and wartime enlisted and officer examples in my collection. It is very interesting for me to see these shawl-collared variations. Just another article to be on the watch for.

 

And moreover, I would love to add a proper period mackinaw to the collection as well. I was completely unaware that there was a mackinaw that superseded the 1907. I would think finding an original 1907 or 1918 will be tough going. This post may be the closest many of us will ever come to seeing a real one.

 

Anxious to see what else this post drums up.

 

Thanks for it,

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Glen, thanks for sticking your oar into these turbulent waters! I'm glad that my diatribe didn't scare everybody off.

 

Whist rereading this thread, it occurred to me that the size stamp inside the shawl collar overcoat posted by Jagjetta in post No. 3 looked vaguely familiar.

 

Just so everybody knows this is pure speculation ... but I think that the stamp originated France due to the round serif and the curvy bottom of the numeral '2'. That style of font seems to have been commonly used on the ink stamps that were used to mark the size of clothing that was made in France for the AEF. That style of font was also frequently unofficially worn on AEF overseas caps in the form of French made, stamped brass numerals to indicate the wearer's regiment or company.

 

I've seen similar, if not identical fonts used on the size stamps found inside other U.S. Army pattern clothing that was manufactured in France during the war. The numerals used to make the size stamps that were made in both America and Great Britain tended to be rather plain or 'sans serif'.

 

From left to right: Possible French size stamp found on the inside of the above mentioned overcoat - an authenticated French size stamp found on the inside of a French contract U.S. pattern overseas cap - and the sans serif font style of an authenticated British size stamp found on the inside of a British contract U.S. pattern overseas cap. Note the similarity of the numeral styles between the first two size stamps.

 

Could this indicate that the shawl collar overcoats with patch pockets were of French manufacture, rather than British or American?

post-5143-0-57249700-1454466105.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Here is another tidbit of information regarding the 1907 Mackinaw. It came from Emmerson's encyclopedia on U.S. Army uniforms and insignia, page 474:

 

As if marking an end to the western frontier, in 1907 the Quartermaster Corps issued dark blue woolen, short, double-breasted mackinaw coats and matching "mackinaw trousers" for troops stationed on the last frontier, Alaska.

 

There were no photos, illustrations of the mysterious dark blue1907 Mackinaw.

 

If the original 1907 Mackinaw (Specification No. 863) was made from dark blue wool, and the above olive drab mackinaw, posted by Jagetta is in fact a later version of the 1907 mackinaw pattern, but now made from olive drab wool, would there not be a new specification number noting that change?

 

Regardless of the specification number, has anybody ever come across a photo of this illusive garment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I have been taking some photos of the coat shown in posts #7, #8 and #11. I just thought I would include one here for reference of the inside of the coat.

Kurt.

 

post-693-0-82015500-1462723417.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Kurt,

 

Nice example. Thanks for the view of the inside. Does yours have the button loop or the button hole on the lapel?

 

Any chance of posting a close up of the contract label?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, sorry I should have mentioned this is the actual coat also shown in post #7, #8 and #11. A shame as I would like to see another contract label.

Kurt.

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...