Philippine War (aka Spanish-American War, the sequel)

[US Victory Museum]

Private Harry A. McKibbon, Hospital Corps.

 

Served in the Philippines during the Philippine War (aka Insurrection).

Enlisted Sept. 1900 Discharged Sept 1903.

 

The seller described it as a "2nd Type" w/ detachable green epaulets,

four pockets, no belt loops or pleats in the back. It has an inspection/

acceptance mark; however, most is illegible in normal light and I haven't

had the opportunity to use UV or IR for enhancement.

 

It came with 18 letters to various government branches, departments, and

senators trying to collect a disability, which was finally granted in Dec.

1908. It came with local historical society records, 1920 census data,

what appears to be birth certificates. The coat is in excellent condition

without any damage. There is some soiling noticeable on the bottom pockets,

but I tend to preserve textiles as is rather than risk damaging them by

cleaning.

 

This coat looks similar to the 1899 Spec No. 467 & 471 that fellow member

Mr. Sanow posted. The upper pockets are below the second button; however,

the collar differs. Is this a SAW coat, or just a variation of the 1899

spec.?

 

Pointed cuff experts, please chime in. I'm out of my league here, but I'm

ready to learn.

[US Victory Museum]

By-the-way, this uniform top makes my WWI uniforms look

big. The men of WWII were giants compared to this guy.

[US Victory Museum]

.

[US Victory Museum]

I can't read it.

[US Victory Museum]

As I mentioned in my opening statement, the uniform arrived with

a plethora of letters petitioning for a disability pension. The

earliest is post marked 1906, the final Dec. 1908 acknowledging

a payment of $6.00 (Six Dollars) per month top be paid retro-active

to January 1907 and onwards.

[US Victory Museum]

A king's ransom. ( Don't spend it all in one place.)

[US Victory Museum]

Two additional frail documents dating to the late 1800s

appear to be birth certificates; however, they're not in

English, so I'm making an assumption.

[US Victory Museum]

FINAL IMAGE

 

END OF POST

[Keith]

FINAL IMAGE

 

END OF POST

The 1898 tunic had epulets/shoulder boards that were removeable. Usually the standing collar and pocket flaps were branch colored. The 1899 tunic had the shoulder boards sewn to the coat and were not removeable. However the 1899 tunic had a falling collar. There were a lot of private purchase uniforms and many State militas so there is wide variations on features of these coats. I would say yours, if the shoulder tabs are removeable, is a variation of the 1898 coat. Both the 1898 and 1899 had pointed cuffs. 1898 Federal issue would have the cuffs in the branch color also. In 1899 the only branch color was on the shoulder tabs, as yours. Perhaps if the collar is unbuttoned it will fold over a be a 'falling collar'? Hope this helps some.

[Salvage Sailor]

For comparison & reference, here is my gr-grandfather's 1898 Khaki uniform worn during the 'Porto Rico' campaign. It has a branch colored standing collar, matching blue infantry sleeves and the blue shoulder tabs are sewn, not removable.

 

16th Pennsylvania Infantry 1898 Uniform

[US Victory Museum]

Dear Keith:

 

Thank you for the quick reply. The epaulets are indeed removable being retained by a button on one side

and two sewn on clasps at the distal portion. The collar does not appear to fold down, nor is there the

presence of a crease to indicate that it ever did; therefore, your statement would indicate this is an 1898

SAW uniform coat.

[US Victory Museum]

ADDENDUM.

 

 

Today, while looking at other collectors' uniforms on the I-Net, I was fortunate enough

to see this stamp on the inside of a S.A.W. uniform. Aside from the block surrounding

the text in my uniform, this stamp is identical since the number of characters correspond

and many of the first and last legible letters also correspond. Now I know something

else about this coat.

 

Using google, I tried to look-up data on "B. B. & Co.", "QMD N.Y.", and "J.E. Erickson."

All yielded unsatisfactory results. Do any of ya'll pointed cuff knowledgeable collectors

have any insight that you can offer?

[Salvage Sailor]

ADDENDUM.

Today, while looking at other collectors' uniforms on the I-Net, I was fortunate enough

to see this stamp on the inside of a S.A.W. uniform. Aside from the block surrounding

the text in my uniform, this stamp is identical since the number of characters correspond

and many of the first and last legible letters also correspond. Now I know something

else about this coat.

 

Using google, I tried to look-up data on "B. B. & Co.", "QMD N.Y.", and "J.E. Erickson."

All yielded unsatisfactory results. Do any of ya'll pointed cuff knowledgeable collectors

have any insight that you can offer?

 

J.E. Erickson should be the inspectors name for the Quartermasters Depot, New York. B.B. & Co. is the manufacturer, but their name escapes me at this time (Beyer & Blinder? or was it Brown?) Someone else on the site will know.

[GIl Sanow]

I think B&B would be Brown & Bigelow -- they were still making uniforms in the late teens.

 

I would agree that this is the second pattern coat -- still 19=898, but later, after the discovered that having a common coat pattern with removable shoulder loopps was more practical since the only branch-specific item they would have to handle would the the straps.

 

This MAY have been made with sewn on loops -- look carefully to see if there was somethng removed -- if there was, you should see the old stitching pattern. Given the standing collar, it has to predate the QM specs for the '99 and '01 patterns.

 

You have a nice example of a true '98 coat.

 

G

[HGButtentee]

Your absolutely right about the Birth certificates.... as a native german speaker i might translate them if you want..

 

uh, by the way... Hi, i am a new Guy ;-)

[GIl Sanow]

I think B&B would be Brown & Bigelow -- they were still making uniforms in the late teens.

 

I would agree that this is the second pattern coat -- still 19=898, but later, after the discovered that having a common coat pattern with removable shoulder loopps was more practical since the only branch-specific item they would have to handle would the the straps.

 

This MAY have been made with sewn on loops -- look carefully to see if there was somethng removed -- if there was, you should see the old stitching pattern. Given the standing collar, it has to predate the QM specs for the '99 and '01 patterns.

 

You have a nice example of a true '98 coat.

 

G

 

Disregard the Brown & Bigelow reference -- I was really thinking of Browning & King which would be B&K. Sorry 'bout that. They say the memory is the second thing to go!

 

G

[US Victory Museum]

ADDENDUM

(Blast from the Past)

 

I'm sorry to rehash such an old post; however, I was surfing the Net

and came across a picture of this old photo showing a blouse identical

to mine.

 

Even before I had acquired this blouse, I had been looking at uniforms

from the Spanish-American War and the Philippine War period and had

never seen one with the same collar button feature; therefore, I was

pleased when I located this picture. It indicates that this blouse

isn't an aberration. The question becomes: Is this a feature of a

single manufacturer, or is it a uniform pattern that was extinguished

almost as soon as it was adopted?

 

Gil, you've been collecting for years; have you seen anything like it?