Jump to content

AEF Service Coat (Rough Cut). 27th Div.


CHASEUSA11B
 Share

Recommended Posts

Agreed, the Army & the government was certainly capable of getting things done quickly when their back was to the wall. In January of 1918, it took just two weeks from the time that a sample overseas cap was received from the AEF for the entire production run of caps to be completed.

Do you mean EVERY OS cap???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

No, not all of them ... That was a reference to the very first order ... presumably more would follow as the first style overseas cap, which was universally hated, was replaced by an improved design about a month later.

 

That tidbit of information came from "America's Munitions" It didn't state how many overseas caps were called for in the first shipment. However, the book did say that 100 cap manufacturers devoted their entire factory to making nothing but overseas cap until that first order had been completed in just two weeks time.

 

However by the end of 1917, the total strength of the AEF was just barely over 100,000 men, so I would estimate that the first order was comprised a minimum of 100,000 overseas cap, but the actual amount was probably much greater than that as new men were arriving almost daily and not one of them would be issued an overseas cap at a port of debarkation before leaving the U.S.A. until around August of 1918.

 

According to "America's Munitions", a grand total of 4,972,000 overseas caps were shipped overseas to the AEF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing. I guess I don't know the difference between first pattern and later caps. I'll have to check that out.

 

Just read your OS cap thread... Interesting. Why'd did they hate the first pattern so much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Mrwocco, thanks for posting the additional images of the rough cut coat and its contract labels.

 

Unfortunately, the only label I was able to read was the first one.

 

If possible can you repost or better yet, type the contractor, contract date and specification number (if present) from the remaining six labels?

 

That information might help us get a better timeline on this unusual woolen service coat ... Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrwocco, thanks for posting the additional images of the rough cut coat and its contract labels.

 

Unfortunately, the only label I was able to read was the first one.

 

If possible can you repost or better yet, type the contractor, contract date and specification number (if present) from the remaining six labels?

 

That information might help us get a better timeline on this unusual woolen service coat ... Thanks

 

world war I nerd, I seem to have some issues posting larger pictures. From what I could read from the photos i'lI list in order of the photos I have post.

 

FRANKEL BROS.

CONTRACT JULY 10, 1917

Specification No. 1176

NEW YORK DEPOT Q.M.C.

 

HENRY SONNEBORN & CO., Inc

BALTIMORE, MD

CONTRACT ?47 SEPT ? 19??

PHILADELPHIA DEPOT

 

?-Washington

New York

Contract no. 23?3 Feb.9 1918

New York Q.M.C

 

SIGMUND ?

RED BANKS NJ

?

 

Hopefully more information will surface from others who actually have these tunics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post-153366-0-22014000-1456727904.jpg

post-153366-0-86273400-1456727916.jpg

post-153366-0-56142600-1456728306.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Thank you for the label details. The Henry Sonneborn label was likely dated September 1917, and the last contractor's name was Sigmund Eisner in Red Bank, New Jersey.

 

I've done some more digging and came up with a little more information, which I will post as soon as I get it organized.

 

So far, I have no proof, but I have a feeling that the rough cut service coats were made from the summer of 1917 until the spring or summer of 1918. That was the period when both the stateside Army and the AEF were scraping the bottom of the barrel, so to speak, for woolen clothing of any type.

 

By July and August it appears as if most of America's clothing manufacturers' had finally tooled up properly for the war effort and were producing garments at full capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as my coat without a contract tag in it goes, maybe it is a Philadelphia QM made coat. Any info thought needed would have been on the collar tag, as shown in post #30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if that period of the wool shortage was part of the inspiration of Woodrow Wilson's decision to raise sheep on the White House lawn. Many years ago, I remember seeing a glass bubble, filled with wool from the White House, framed in wood with a silver label identifying it as such for a Liberty Bond fundraiser. It was in the Brimfield flea market, and I always wished I had gotten it! It really would go with this thread!

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

world war I nerd, I seem to have some issues posting larger pictures. From what I could read from the photos i'lI list in order of the photos I have post.

 

FRANKEL BROS.

CONTRACT JULY 10, 1917

Specification No. 1176

NEW YORK DEPOT Q.M.C.

 

HENRY SONNEBORN & CO., Inc

BALTIMORE, MD

CONTRACT ?47 SEPT ? 19??

PHILADELPHIA DEPOT

 

?-Washington

New York

Contract no. 23?3 Feb.9 1918

New York Q.M.C

 

SIGMUND ?

RED BANKS NJ

?

 

Hopefully more information will surface from others who actually have these tunics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Henry Sonneborn tag is actually one of my photos I believe. The contract number for it is 847 and the date is Sept. 8, 1917.

 

-Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

For what it’s worth, I started a new thread devoted to AEF woolen service coats of all specifications, in which a small amount of additional information can be found on the 1917 Rough Cut Service Coat at the end of this link:

 

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/261656-thoughts-on-this-heavy-thick-wool-ww1-uniform-27th-infantry-division/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

What we know so far about the 1917 Rough Cut Service coat, like the example depicted here, is that no Quartermaster specifications have so far been located. Surviving examples and period photographs inform us that the Rough Cut coat did indeed exist and that it was issued and worn by American Doughboys overseas in France.

 

Photos courtesy of the Mitter2k1 collection

post-5143-0-89475700-1457066436.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

The contract labels which are either pictured in this photo or that have been transcribed in other posts on this forum are as follows:

 

  • Frankel Bros., Contract July 10, 1917, Specification No. 1160, New York Depot Q.M.C.
  • Frankel Bros., Contract July 10, 1917, Specification No. 1176, New York Depot Q.M.C.
  • Phila. Depot Q.M.C.U.S.A., Contract August 24, 1917, No. 630
  • Henry Sonneborn & Co. Inc., Baltimore MD, Contract 847, Sept. 8, 1917, Philadelphia Depot
  • Jacob Reed’s Sons Inc., Contract Oct. 22, 1917, Specification No. 1523, Philadelphia Depot
  • John Hall, Contract Jan. 16, 1918, Contract No. 6243, Chicago Depot Q.M.C.
  • Nathan A, Fischer Co, Chicago, Contract February 8, 1918, Chicago Depot Q.M.C.
  • Illegible-Washington, New York, Contract date not visible, Contract No, 3353(?), New York Q.M.C.

There is also a mostly illegible contract tag whose only readable information was: Sigmund Eisner and a partial date of 1918.

 

Right hand photo courtesy of the John Adam-Graf collection

post-5143-0-54218400-1457066505.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Based on the above contract labels, all of which were said to have been found inside the Rough Cut coats, the earliest known contract was dated July 10, 1917 (Frankel Bros.) and the latest was dated February 9, 1918 (maker unknown). Those dates give us an approximate time frame in which the Rough Cut coat was likely fabricated … give or take a month or two.

Three of the above contract labels also included specification numbers which correspond to the following garments:

 

  • Specification No. 1160 - for the second pattern 1911 Service Coat
  • Specification No. 1176 - for the 1913 pattern enlisted men’s Overcoat
  • Specification No. 1523 - which was apparently a transcription error as the Army specification numbering system was abolished before the numbers ever reached that high.

A shot of the unlined interior of the above Rough Cut service coat and its contract label.

 

Photos courtesy of the Mitter2k1 collection

post-5143-0-33367000-1457066685.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

One possible explanation for the variety of specification numbers is that rather than waiting for new contract labels to be printed, existing contract labels from the contracts that had been interrupted, in order to produce the Rough Cut coats were used instead of waiting for new labels to be printed.

 

So far, no documentation has been found as to how or why the Rough Cut coat was developed. Based on a number of factors, I speculate that the 1917 Rough Cut Service Coat may have been the result of an undocumented emergency measure that was enacted sometime during the summer of 1917, when there was an acute shortage of military clothing of all types.

 

The scant circumstantial evidence suggests to me that in the summer of 1917, the Quartermaster Corps may have authorized all or some of the contractor’s that were fabricating overcoats for the Army to temporarily produce the Rough Cut service coats instead. The reason for this decision was likely because service coats were urgently needed, and being the middle of summer overcoats were not.

Evidence to support the above supposition is as follows:

 

  • Overcoat specification 1176 called for 30 ounce to the yard olive drab melton wool. All of the Rough Cut coats were produced from a very heavy weight of woolen fabric that was at least equal to the 30 ounce material that was used for overcoats.
  • This may also explain why Specification No. 1176 appears on one of the contract labels.
  • All of the Rough Cut coats were unlined because lining was unnecessary as the thicker woolen fabric already provided sufficient warmth. This would also have sped up production and conserved wool.
  • Except for the collar and cuffs, all of the Rough Cut’s seams were not turned under by 3/8 of an inch as required by all service coat specifications. That specification was likely waived because the heavy woolen cloth prevented such a small amount on material like 3/8 of an inch from being turned under.
  • In addition, waiving the requirement to turn each seam under by 3/8 of an inch would save a great deal of woolen cloth when multiplied by the large quantities of service coats that were produced.
  • Then again, it’s also possible that the 16 ounce woolen fabric for service coats was in short supply during the summer months, but there was an abundance of heavier woolen overcoat material available at the time, and the heavier wool was used to temporarily fill the gap.

 

We have to bear in mind that by mid 1917, the Army’s demand for wool far exceeded the domestic supply that was then available in America. Therefore everybody involved in the procurement and production of Army clothing was doing everything possible to ensure that the domestic supply of wool was not wasted.

 

This montage of images shows a soldier wearing the Rough Cut coat, a detail showing the thickness of the woolen material, the unfinished edges of a pocket flap, and a closer view of the coat’s contract label.

 

Left hand photo courtesy of the John Adam-Graf collection

Rough Cut coat photos courtesy of the Mitter2k1 collection

post-5143-0-84748900-1457066838.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

For what it’s worth, here is a photo showing the Specification No. 1176, 1913 Overcoat (left) and its predecessor, the 1912 Overcoat (right) as worn by AEF engineers who were captured in November of 1917, during the battle of Cambrai. At right is an example of the 1913 pattern overcoat along with its contract label.

 

Left hand photo courtesy of the John Adam-Graf collection

post-5143-0-43497900-1457066892.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

I’ve also noticed that some of the 1917 Rough Cut Service Coats have lower pockets with an unusually round bottom. The only other WW I garment with similarly shaped pockets was the 1917 Overcoat with a shawl collar … another WW I mystery garment with no specification number or known history.

 

Left hand photo courtesy of the ChaseUSA11B collection

post-5143-0-68157800-1457066956.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too Much WW1 Militaria

Just another thing I've come across in my eon's of doing this.......... A lot of these "rough cut" tunics (not all but a lot) seemed to belong to Engineers. May just be the way they were issued, luck of the draw, etc. But over the years, I've noticed that trend a lot.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Here's another 1917 Rough Cut Service Coat that was found awhile ago in one of Advance Guard Militaria's online catalogs. It belonged to a member of the Motor Transport Corps, hence the non-regulation motorist's dust goggles.

 

Note that the contract label bears the following information:

 

Jacob Reed's Sons Inc. - 30 Oz. O.D. Blouse - Philadelphia Depot Q.M.C. and the inspector's stamp.

 

I wonder if "30 Oz. O.D. Blouse" was the official title of this pattern of service coat?

 

If nothing else, the label at least confirms that the Rough Cut style coat's were made from the same (or similar) 30 ounce to the yard woolen material as that of the 1913 pattern enlisted men's overcoat.

post-5143-0-68794400-1457272360.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...