Early Model artillery uniform

[Sailorjerry45]

Good evening gentlemen,

 

I picked this up recently and have had a hard time identifying it, I am assuming it was tailored sometime in between 1898 and 1907 as it has some of the qualities of that era of uniforms but non that match approved patterns. It seems to have the scalloped upper pockets, plain lower pockets and rimless buttons of the later style M1902 uniform but a stand up collar which seems to have always been designed to be a stand up one, as opposed to a lay down collar that was later modified. It is also made out of corduroy as are the pants that came with it, the pants have a button fly, a synch in the rear and heavily reinforced thighs implying perhaps horse artillery? Due to the M1902 style chevrons on the sleeves. Any help would be appreciated.

 

Many Thanks 

Will

 

 

A close up of the holes in the collar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CAC1901]

1902 dress blue uniform chevrons on an odd khaki field uniform suggests its some sort of prop or theater piece, or done by someone who didn't know.  The material does not look like anything regular US Army to me. 

[ludwigh1980]

What you have is a theater made Philippine tailored uniform for a member of the U.S. Army during the Philippine Insurrection. I am not sure there is an exact specification as they were private purchased and vary quite a bit. Circa 1900. Has the box pleat running down the back, canted pockets with pleats and scalloped flaps which are typical characteristics of this Philippine made uniforms. This one is a nicer example in that it is made of Bedford Cord type material which was thought to be more durable and defused the tropical heat over a lighter twill type uniform. The collar can be found straight as in this example or can be the rise and fall type. The straight collars can be found closed with either hooks or less commonly with two buttons. These types of uniforms are un-common as they tend to have been replaced by US made issue uniform over the course of the conflict. I have a similar example that was worn by a member of the U.S. 33rd Volunteer Infantry which would seem to indicate that these privately tailored custom uniforms were more accepted by volunteer troops versus regular army personnel that were engaged in the insurrection.  The Army regulars, I am guessing for the ideal of uniformity, sourced their uniforms in mass from British sources in Hong Kong until a suitable U.S. produced contract piece was available.  

[Sailorjerry45]

18 minutes ago, ludwigh1980 said:

What you have is a theater made Philippine tailored uniform for a member of the U.S. Army during the Philippine Insurrection. I am not sure there is an exact specification as they were private purchased and vary quite a bit. Circa 1900. Has the box pleat running down the back, canted pockets with pleats and scalloped flaps which are typical characteristics of this Philippine made uniforms. This one is a nicer example in that it is made of Bedford Cord type material which was thought to be more durable and defused the tropical heat over a lighter twill type uniform. The collar can be found straight as in this example or can be the rise and fall type. The straight collars can be found closed with either hooks or less commonly with two buttons. These types of uniforms are un-common as they tend to have been replaced by US made issue uniform over the course of the conflict. I have a similar example that was worn by a member of the U.S. 33rd Volunteer Infantry which would seem to indicate that these privately tailored custom uniforms were more accepted by volunteer troops versus regular army personnel that were engaged in the insurrection.  The Army regulars, I am guessing for the ideal of uniformity, sourced their uniforms in mass from British sources in Hong Kong until a suitable U.S. produced contract piece was available.  

I had assumed it would be custom tailored in that era but would probably never have figured out that it was specifically made in the Phillipines, thank you for that information! I had tried scouring the forum but couldn't find much outside of standard issue/ pattern examples. From what ive been able to find it looks like the main volunteer artillery outfit in the Phillipines was the Utah volunteer artillery.

[ludwigh1980]

Yes, the Utah Artillery was active in the Philippines during the Spanish American War. Hard to say wither this one dates from 1899 or 1900. After the Spanish American War ended, the Philippine insurrection flared up and lasted until 1902. Many state volunteer troops that wanted to stay and fight and not return to the states were later organized into federalized units and officially designated U.S. Volunteer Infantry Regiments, not to be confused with units like the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, the 1st Colorado Volunteer Infantry, the Utah Light Artillery, the 20th Kansas Volunteer Infantry, etc. These particular units were deployed to fight in the Spanish American War.  Hostilities became more and more widespread and intense, requiring more and more combat personnel. More federal cavalry regiments were formed specifically to fight in the Philippines and more Infantry, and artillery regiments were rotated there. Some were pulled from service during the Boxer Rebellion in China, including U.S. Marines who experienced horrendous conditions in battling insurrectionists and the jungle particularly on the Island of Samar.  If I recall the Army lost over 2000 personnel in the islands from 1899-1902, loses they had not experienced since the American Civil War and surpassed the numbers they had lost during the entire Indian Wars. Of all the conflicts of the American Experience, the Philippine Insurrection is one of the least publicized and least understood by the American public. 

[Sailorjerry45]

1 minute ago, ludwigh1980 said:

Yes, the Utah Artillery was active in the Philippines during the Spanish American War. Hard to say wither this one dates from 1899 or 1900. After the Spanish American War ended, the Philippine insurrection flared up and lasted until 1902. Many state volunteer troops that wanted to stay and fight and not return to the states were later organized into federalized units and officially designated U.S. Volunteer Infantry Regiments, not to be confused with units like the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, the 1st Colorado Volunteer Infantry, the Utah Light Artillery, the 20th Kansas Volunteer Infantry, etc. These particular units were deployed to fight in the Spanish American War.  Hostilities became more and more widespread and intense, requiring more and more combat personnel. More federal cavalry regiments were formed specifically to fight in the Philippines and more Infantry, and artillery regiments were rotated there. Some were pulled from service during the Boxer Rebellion in China, including U.S. Marines who experienced horrendous conditions in battling insurrectionists and the jungle particularly on the Island of Samar.  If I recall the Army lost over 2000 personnel in the islands from 1899-1902, loses they had not experienced since the American Civil War and surpassed the numbers they had lost during the entire Indian Wars. Of all the conflicts of the American Experience, the Philippine Insurrection is one of the least publicized and least understood by the American public. 

On a whim I decided to look at the sellers page and I believe these are the original collar devices from the uniform. I havent seen this style before, does this happen to shed any light on a potential unit?

 

[Sailorjerry45]

I was able to find some reference to this style of device, unfortunately not unit specific but an interesting set non the less.

[CAC1901]

A couple more thoughts on your set now that I had my coffee.  The uniform itself, the basic pattern with standing collar and khaki (not branch color) epaulets roughly 'fits' that worn and commonly seen in the Philippines in mid-1899 - early 1900. The corduroy material however says two things: a) it is privately made or ordered and b)  more likely for an officer and less likely an enlisted man. With the caveat that some soldiers i.e. NCOs of the staff, band, or HQ units sometimes had custom tailored uniforms made, however these in my experience are typically drill or duck material like QM issue tunics.  I have had or examined a few corduroy khakis of the era which were officers examples, privately purchased or made, did not use army specified material, and had the officer colored epaulets. I have seen khaki epaulets with period offiicers insignia so some were apparently worn that way. The period of 1898-1900 saw a lot of rapid uniform changes and there is a lot of complexity as a result. Variances or deviations exist, and occasionally oddities like this one crop up. 

 

The buttons on this are the std. US enlisted bronzed 1902 patterns and almost certainly added 'later.' The chevrons as noted are for the 1902 enlisted dress blue uniform and almost certainly added post-service. Meaning a costume shop or theater, a veteran for later wear in a parade, a band etc. Your tunic reminds me of the ones I'd find back in the 1970's-80's in costume shops; original but with various replacement stuff: buttons, insignias from later periods, added color cloth trim or flashing etc. It'd be interesting to know if the attaching thread is old or later mercerized. 

 

One brief primer on Volunteer units. When US troops arrived in the PI in 1898 they were heavily weighted with state guard units (mostly from the western US states). These troops received the Hong Kong khakis (khaki cotton, khaki epaulets, two breast pockets) shortly before being mustered out and returned to the US in August 1899. To replace the state volunteers, the US Army raised Federal volunteer units which for all practical purposes were regular army and equipped as such. These units were raised in the states. Some state vol soldiers still in the PI and subject to mustering out and return chose to enlist in the new US volunter units. The federal vol units by and large received the new 1899 pattern uniforms with rollover collars and detachable color-of-the-arm epaulets.  Your uniform, to the extent it is what it appears to be, is more likely aligned with the early period not the later federal volunteer period late 1899-1901.  

[CAC1901]

1 hour ago, Sailorjerry45 said:

 

 

1902 Officer collar devices - Field Artillery. These of course would never be worn with corporal chevrons. 

[Sailorjerry45]

25 minutes ago, CAC1901 said:

A couple more thoughts on your set now that I had my coffee.  The uniform itself, the basic pattern with standing collar and khaki (not branch color) epaulets roughly 'fits' that worn and commonly seen in the Philippines in mid-1899 - early 1900. The corduroy material however says two things: a) it is privately made or ordered and b)  more likely for an officer and less likely an enlisted man. With the caveat that some soldiers i.e. NCOs of the staff, band, or HQ units sometimes had custom tailored uniforms made, however these in my experience are typically drill or duck material like QM issue tunics.  I have had or examined a few corduroy khakis of the era which were officers examples, privately purchased or made, did not use army specified material, and had the officer colored epaulets. I have seen khaki epaulets with period offiicers insignia so some were apparently worn that way. The period of 1898-1900 saw a lot of rapid uniform changes and there is a lot of complexity as a result. Variances or deviations exist, and occasionally oddities like this one crop up. 

 

The buttons on this are the std. US enlisted bronzed 1902 patterns and almost certainly added 'later.' The chevrons as noted are for the 1902 enlisted dress blue uniform and almost certainly added post-service. Meaning a costume shop or theater, a veteran for later wear in a parade, a band etc. Your tunic reminds me of the ones I'd find back in the 1970's-80's in costume shops; original but with various replacement stuff: buttons, insignias from later periods, added color cloth trim or flashing etc. It'd be interesting to know if the attaching thread is old or later mercerized. 

 

One brief primer on Volunteer units. When US troops arrived in the PI in 1898 they were heavily weighted with state guard units (mostly from the western US states). These troops received the Hong Kong khakis (khaki cotton, khaki epaulets, two breast pockets) shortly before being mustered out and returned to the US in August 1899. To replace the state volunteers, the US Army raised Federal volunteer units which for all practical purposes were regular army and equipped as such. These units were raised in the states. Some state vol soldiers still in the PI and subject to mustering out and return chose to enlist in the new US volunter units. The federal vol units by and large received the new 1899 pattern uniforms with rollover collars and detachable color-of-the-arm epaulets.  Your uniform, to the extent it is what it appears to be, is more likely aligned with the early period not the later federal volunteer period late 1899-1901.  

I will see if I can dig up my black light and take some better photos of the threads of the stripes.

[Sailorjerry45]

I got some old photos from the seller, those collar badges were the ones originally on the uniform.

 

 

[CAC1901]

Enlisted 1902 US collar insignia, bronzed buttons, and dress coat chevrons.  Officers 1902 Field Artillery collar devices. Original bits - just never originally worn together.  These sorts of 'put togethers' - by a costumer. theater, or previous dealer / collector - are often why they survive. 

It occurred to me I may have, or had, a picture of an officer in the PI wearing one these corduroys. I'll see if I can dig it up. 

 

 

 

 

[Sailorjerry45]

8 minutes ago, CAC1901 said:

Enlisted 1902 US collar insignia, bronzed buttons, and dress coat chevrons.  Officers 1902 Field Artillery collar devices. Original bits - just never originally worn together.  These sorts of 'put togethers' - by a costumer. theater, or previous dealer / collector - are often why they survive. 

It occurred to me I may have, or had, a picture of an officer in the PI wearing one these corduroys. I'll see if I can dig it up. 

 

 

 

 

That would be great! I still have to dig up a black light but will post photos of the chevrons soon

[ludwigh1980]

Might have been how the Vet wore his uniform in parades. I have a 1902 Cavalry Dress coat that has a mix of period insignia. Both officer and enlisted collar devices, 2nd Lt Rank on the shoulders. Cavalry Cord. Mexican Punitive Expedition Medal and state medal. I purchased it from the family via Ebay. Luckily it had a name in it. Upon research, all of it added up. The Vet served with Cavalry regiment into Mexico in 1916 and in WW1 became a 2nd Lt. in an infantry regiment. He placed all of his insignia on his enlisted dress blues and placed it in the closet. I think the "mix master" quality of it hurt the sale price as I got it very reasonable. Medals were even numbered. One of my more treasured 1902 uniforms.  Stuff happens, especially after the vet leaves the service. 

[Sailorjerry45]

A close up on the chevrons, in my opinion shows that the stitching on them has at least been there long enough for the chevrons to have deteriorated away from the thread.

 

 

 

[CAC1901]

Nice. I'd say the chevrons have been on it a long time. These particular '02 pattern chevrons date to a little before or after WW1.  Without a verifiable ID or provenance on ithe uniform, the reason for the mish mash will likely never be known. But it adds up. My initial hunch was costumer or theater. But a vet re-assembling something they recalled wearing 20 years earlier could also explain the mistakes.  There were lots of parades after WW1. Sometimes older vets were in them; local GAR, USWV, etc  Its in the realm of possibility some guy who served at the turn of the century assembled this to participate in various patriotic events, parades etc. 20 years on. Maybe his WW1 son was marching too - who knows. The last surviving member of the 1st Wash. Vol's (Philippines '98-99) was in the 1969 veterans day parade in Seattle wearing khaki's. A local collector who knew the guy wasn't sure if they were the same set he wore in 1899. As a collecting nut for this period that question has bugged me for decades. 

[unclegrumpy]

I have had two of these corduroy uniforms over the years...I like this one.  

 

While I could not find photos of both of them, I did find a photo of the guy wearing one of the ones I had, and the Manila tag that was inside it.  It is hard to see the corduroy in the original photo, but you can see it in the label picture.

 

The second one I had...that I don't have any pictures of...was lightly modified to reflect the 1902 regulation changes.  It had bronze 1902 buttons and red artillery stripes on blue like this tunic.  It did not have any collar insignia.  

 

I have seen other original attributed uniforms from about 1902 to 1907 with incorrect insignia.  I think that is due to the fact that everyone didn't get the newer uniforms and insignia in 1902, and this was particularly true for soldiers serving in far away places like the Philippines.  My guess is Will's uniform was worn in about 1902 to 1904.

 

I also agree with Ludwig and several others mentioning veterans wearing odd ball combinations of insignia long after the war in parades.   That could easily account for the early field artillery collar insignia.  That insignia was not worn very long, and one could see how once obsolete, it could have been purchased by the veteran.

 

That said, we will never know when the veteran or possibly a collector added the early field artillery cross cannons.  However, while incorrect, it isn't too far off from maybe what the guy actually might have wore.  I am not saying it was, but sometimes what looks like a train wreck actually isn't.

 

Anyway, the endpoint is this is a neat rare uniform.  I don't think it is from a costume shop, but may have had the collar insignia added sometime later.

 

 

[Sailorjerry45]

I do appreciate all of the expertise! I will post some updated photos whenever the collar insignia arrives and probably just keep it the way the previous owner had it since theres no way to know its period configuration. But this doesnt look too bad either way.

[CAC1901]

I would keep it the way it is as well. Its been together a good while.  As far as its current configuration one thing that can be said with a high degree of certainty: it was not worn that way in regular army service.  The issues are too numerous, major, and incongruent. The chevrons alone; WW1 era private mfr. (not army QM made). Officer collar devices not worn by enlisted. No required unit designation either. Field artillery including staff after 1902 wore the battery number then after '07 the Regt. / Battery.) My forte (40+ years) is artillery of this period and while there can always be surprises, deviations seen in photos are usually explainable and plausible given known history including local G.O.'s or QM reports. 

Another plausible possibility beyond the later-day veterans put together comes to mind; a WW1 era home guard / militia, or quasi-military unit of some kind,  Or a military school or college.  In any event its great to see it survived. 

 

I took a shot of a photo taken in 1900 showing the non standard corduroy fabric. This guy was a Lt. of the 22nd Infantry. I added a close up where the material can be seen pretty well. 

[unclegrumpy]

The corporal in the photo I posted served in the 36th Infantry, U.S. Volunteers