Best USMC Uniform Reference Book?

[Brig]

Looking for the best reference book on early USMC uniforms (pre-WWII). The majority I have found are WWII-dominant, or for a very narrow period. Recommendations?

[Clohesey]

U.S. Marine Uniforms 1912-1940 - Jim Moran

[teufelhunde.ret]

U.S. Marine Uniforms 1912-1940 - Jim Moran

Ditto, uniform regs are hands too.

[BEAST]

Brig,

 

If your looking for pre-WWI, heres a link that I started that has some info: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/270204-best-reference-for-pre-wwi-usmc-uniforms/?fromsearch=1

[ON PATROL]

For USMC Uniform and equipment reference, talk to the USMC Historical Company. They are the resident EXPERTS on the subject. Bar None.

[Brig]

Are you talking about the Historical Division?

 

Really depends who you talk to...museum curators and conservationists are good, researchers are more event/personality educated. The desire is a book to flip open and reference and see

[Dirk]

Brig I am thinking he is talking about Gunny Wiilams Group

[b_hinch]

I would love to find a good pre-WWII USMC uniform reference. I'm sure you have heard of "Equipping the Corps" by Alec, but it's mostly field and headgear.

[themick]

Brig, Moran's book is the best here, though certainly not without errors. Without going back to look at it, there is no mention of Enlisted caps changing the width of the chin strap on barracks covers from narrow to wide in 1937. The pictures he shows when he addresses the headgear all show the wide chinstraps. There are also other slips. Still, it's a book worth getting.

 

Steve

[ON PATROL]

Brig and Dirk,

Yes, I am referring to Gunny Williams people. He told me that they have a catalog / Reference listing that is very well researched and is what they use. Maybe you can get a copy of that document. I don't think that you'd find a better reference than from the Corps it self.

[Brig]

I don't think that you'd find a better reference than from the Corps it self.

Ehh...one has to be very careful when trusting the 'Corps itself'.

 

While much of it is very trustworthy, it must also be kept in mind that the institution isn't quick to acknowledge things that go against popularly held beliefs... an example being that recruits are still taught that 'Devil Dog' comes from the Germans in WWI, despite that fact being indisputably proven incorrect. We still teach the leather neck was to protect from sword strikes rather than to maintain posture. We are so obsessed with "firsts" that we just have to have them for everything (First aviator, first female, first Marine to lead an X-Y-Z sized force, first this, first that) that I am fairly certain we can't prove all out "firsts" on paper, especially the oldest ones. The institution is still fighting the claim that Doc Bradley wasn't involved in the second flag raising.

 

always verify what the institution itself tells me is fact, which is easy enough since their archives are open.

[ON PATROL]

Thanks, Good to know. I guess it's like the Navy in that way too, I've been debating with other service members on quite a number of things, simply because "it's what they were told" and they took it as gospel. A prime example is the ship designation "FF" as in FF-1087, USS Kirk. People have been told that FF meant "Fast Frigate", when it just means "Frigate".