Jump to content

A.E.F. Service Coats


world war I nerd
 Share

Recommended Posts

world war I nerd

Photo No. 26: Beginning in 1907, between that year and 1919 the U.S. Army utilized three basic styles of contract labels.

 

  • The 1907 Contract Label (left), used until 1912, was to show the contractor, contract date and have a space for the inspector’s stamp.
  • The 1912 Contract label (right), used throughout the WW I era, called for the contractor, contract date, contract number, specification number of the garment, and have a space for the inspector’s stamp.
  • The Inspector’s Label (center), used from 1907 into the WW I era and beyond, that was sewn into clothing manufactured by the Army at the Quartermaster clothing depots did not require either a contract date or a specification number. They did however require the name of the depot where the garment was made, as well as a space for the inspector’s stamp.

 

There is also a growing consensus among collectors that the contract labels bearing specification numbers did not always match that of the specifications to which the garment was made.

 

In other words, contractors had contract labels made for each contract awarded. If the contract’s specifications changed, were canceled or otherwise altered, it is thought that the contractor continued to use those labels even when the specification number did not match that of the garment until they were exhausted.

 

There is no actual proof substantiating this theory, but it is worth bearing in mind when a contract label’s specification number does not exactly match the garment to which it is affixed.

post-5143-0-42434200-1456997954.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about service coats and even I learned a few things. Thanks for working on this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicely done.

 

There are M1917 variations with vegetable ivory (i.e. plastic) buttons, both with loops molded into the back and with holes through the front for sewing, and with black cotton linings. I suspect some of these were used by a limited number of contractors -- perhaps if we were to survey collectors, we might come to some conclusions.

 

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a December 1917 contract m1911 coat with vegetable ivory buttons, I'll have to get a picture of the tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Victory Museum
[...]

 

There is also a growing consensus among collectors that the contract labels bearing specification numbers did not always match that of the specifications to which the garment was made.

 

In other words, contractors had contract labels made for each contract awarded. If the contract’s specifications changed, were canceled or otherwise altered, it is thought that the contractor continued to use those labels even when the specification number did not match that of the garment until they were exhausted.

 

There is no actual proof substantiating this theory, but it is worth bearing in mind when a contract label’s specification number does not exactly match the garment to which it is affixed.

 

I have found numerous articles of clothing bearing incorrect specification tags. I have seen service coats bearing tags

from overcoats.

 

I even recently found this coat bearing a specification number that existed long before 1917 and wasn't even for a coat.

 

post-1529-0-33762600-1457208314.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Wow! That's really interesting Mike ... thanks for adding it to the thread.

 

I've been told that the U.S. Army stopped using the "Specification" number system long before those numbers ever reached the 1500 range. If that's true, it would seem that a specification number as high as 1669 would not have existed.

 

Therefore, could the specification number on your coat be 1009, not 1669?

 

By the way, according to the list that I have, Specification No. 1009 was for the blue denim working or "fatigue" hat that was adopted on January 21, 1909 to go with the blue denim "fatigue" jumper and trousers that had been adopted in August of 1908, exclusively for the men serving in the Coast Artillery Corps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you world war I nerd for putting this post together.

I just wanted to add further regarding contractors utilizing on hand supplies of coat tags. By pure luck from searching google I found the following:

Photo #1 an example of a rough cut coat with a tag used in the production of great coats.

Photo #2 the actual coat from which the tag was used for.

Both tags from the "Henry Sonneborn & Co Inc". Does anyone happen to know if the same type/weight of wool is used in the making of both coats?

post-153366-0-43583600-1457417015.jpg

post-153366-0-83588900-1457417020.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

The specifications for the 1917 pattern Overcoat that was adopted on August 27, 1917 (Specification No. 1267), called for 30 ounce to the yard olive drab melton wool.

 

It has yet to be determined what type or weight of woolen material the Rough Cut coats were officially made from. However, I recently came across the contract label on a Rough Cut coat that instead of a specification number used the title "30 Oz. O.D. Blouse". I posted photos of that coat on the 1917 Rough Cut Service Coat post mentioned at the top of this thread.

 

But here's a photo of that coat's contract label ...

post-5143-0-66551800-1457424147.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully this will shed some light on the last couple of posted tags.

 

The Wanamaker & Brown contract tag shows "Spec # 1669". That is really the contract number. Contract 1669 was for 150,000 wool coats at $247,350.

 

The Henry Sonneborne contract number 847 was for 350,000 Wool Coats, Overcoats and Breeches. Total price $928,385

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This 2nd Division Headquarters "Rough Cut" tunic was sold by Advance Guard Militaria in 2008.

It has a Henry Sonneborn contract 1183 tag inside.

 

post-949-0-91853600-1457534453.jpg post-949-0-57333100-1457534478.jpg

post-949-0-37193800-1457534486.jpg post-949-0-59672600-1457534493.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RustyCanteen

I've seriously wondered if the reason the overcoat spec is showing up is because the government amended a contract from overcoats to service coats when they realized they did not have near enough on hand. Speculation, but it is something to consider at this point. They had the wool, so they used it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was skimming through some transcripts of the Congressional Record relating to Supplies for the US Army. These hearings were held from December 12th to the 31st of 1917. When asked by a congressman on the Committee on Military Affairs, US Senate, about the US Army's light weight 16oz wool coats as compared to the heavier French and British wool coats, General Sharpe replied "I can say that we have requested Gen. Pershing to advise us of any changes desired. He said that everything with certain exceptions was satisfactory."

 

Also in the records are plenty of tables of Quartermaster clothing items contracted and delivered. No where in any of this can I find a separate listing for heavier weight wool coats. I'm not saying that this is any kind of final conclusion, but this might lead me to believe that the blanket wool coats were made after January 1918.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
world war I nerd

Something that I meant to include in this post, but forgot, was the schedule of issued sizes in which all of the 1911 and 1917 pattern service coats were available. In all there were eighteen sizes as follows (all of the measurements that follow the size are for the chest):

 

1-regular; 33 inch, 2-regular, 34 inch; 3-regular, 33 inch; 3 ½ -long, 33 inch; 4-regular, 36 inch; 4 ¼–stout, 36 inches; 4 ½-long, 36 inches; 5-regular, 37 inches; 5 ¼-stout, 37 inches, 5 ½-long, 37 inches; 6-regular, 38 inches, 6¼-stout, 38 inches; 6 ½-long, 38 inches; 7-regular, 40 inches; 7¼- stout, 40 inches; 7 ½-long, 40 inches; 8-regular, 42 inches, 9-regular, 44 inches

 

*The waist and collar sizes were larger on the stouts and the overall coat and sleeve lengths were longer on the longs.

 

The size schedule for the 1918 pattern service coats was the same as above except that size “1-regular, 33 inch” had been abolished and a new size, 10-regular, 45 inch, was added, which once again made a total of eighteen regulation sizes.

 

Service coats for men who required either smaller or larger sizes than what were available from the Quartermaster had to be special ordered from one of the Army’s clothing depots.

 

Photo No. 27: Based on the apparel worn by the men of the 26th Division’s 103rd Field Artillery Regiment’s band, to which these two men belong, I would estimate that this photo was taken shortly after their arrival to France in September of 1917. Note that the left hand musician is wearing an obsolete 1909 pattern service coat whose standing and rolling collar has been pierced for two collar discs, while the bandsman next to him wears the current issue 1911 pattern service coat with a stand collar.

 

Upper photo courtesy of the John Adam-Graf collection

post-5143-0-70862100-1458377444.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Thank you so very much for sharing this. It inspired me to bring out, and take a closer look at my coats, answered several questions about the "strange" modifications I have found on my coats, especially the early ones. We all benefit from your vast knowledge. Keep up the good work!

 

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

James, It was my pleasure to post what little I know about AEF service coats. I'm glad that the post helped you in some small way.

 

I received the following photos of a 1913 dated 1911 Service Coat from one of the forum's European members. There's no way for us to know how a coat with such an early contract date made its way to Belgium where the collector found it. Logic suggests that it once belonged to a member of the AEF and that it was left behind in France or Belgium.

 

Two views of the front of the coat bearing US & Quartermaster Corps collard discs, rimmed rather than rimless bronze buttons and a contract label dated January 30, 1913.

 

Photos courtesy of the Aurlien Goubet collection

 

post-5143-0-38633300-1477888291_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Back of the 1913 dated service coat found in Belgium and close ups of the contract label and the rows of stitching that were common to all 1911 Service Coats.

 

Photos courtesy of the Aurlien Goubet collection

post-5143-0-22868000-1477888497_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, It was my pleasure to post what little I know about AEF service coats. I'm glad that the post helped you in some small way.

 

I received the following photos of a 1913 dated 1911 Service Coat from one of the forum's European members. There's no way for us to know how a coat with such an early contract date made its way to Belgium where the collector found it. Logic suggests that it once belonged to a member of the AEF and that it was left behind in France or Belgium.

 

Two views of the front of the coat bearing US & Quartermaster Corps collard discs, rimmed rather than rimless bronze buttons and a contract label dated January 30, 1913.

 

Photos courtesy of the Aurlien Goubet collection

 

 

In 1915, and again in 1918-1919, both Great Britain and the United States supplied woolen uniforms to the Belgian Army. The 1915 deliveries tend to be heavy on British, the 1918 deliveries, heavy on US material. Attached is a Belgian, ca. 1921, wearing a US tunic. Earlier versions will have attached shoulder straps, later use will have detachable shoulder straps as seen in this photo.

post-949-0-43524700-1477930015.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two more Belgians wearing American-made, reissued tunics. Evidence of the reinforced grommet for the collar disc is visible. These tunics retain the sewn-in shoulder straps as manufactured for US issue.

 

post-949-0-00030400-1477930869.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Well that explains a lot! Thanks John, for clearing up how US service coats ended up in Belgium. I wonder if we were selling them all of our obsolete service coats ... hence the 1913 dated contract tag?

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...