GIl Sanow Posted June 20, 2007 Author Share #26 Posted June 20, 2007 THE WARTIME COTTON COATS The unlined olive drab cotton coat (Spec. No. 1126) adopted in 1911 was the standard summer issue coat throughout the war. (See figure 1). Pre-war coats are recognizable though by contract tags. The early use of rimless buttons and the occasional use of thread dyed fabrics (brown/green thread blended to give an olive shade). A side-by-side comparison will probably reveal that the workmanship of pre-war examples will be much higher quality. The stitching is straighter and there are no irregular or loose edges, etc. Again, wartime production of cotton coats there were severe dye problems. It is not at all unusual to encounter examples faded to the point of being khaki. Many collectors even wrongly refer to these as being khaki though they were intended to be olive drab. Web gear also faded greatly and this was accentuated by the fact that new recruits intentionally bleached their clothes (using salt water) to look more like veterans. My high school chemistry teacher related this story to my class years ago and “America's Munitions” describes the problem and its cause. The photo below shows a wartime 1126. Note the more khaki-like shade. This was taken under the exact same lighting conditions at the first shot of an 1126 shown above! Clearly it is lighter. Neither coat has had much if any laundering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIl Sanow Posted June 20, 2007 Author Share #27 Posted June 20, 2007 All in all, the term "World War I Tunic" should be more to the collector than it usually seems to be. There are many more variations that most people realize and careful observation can make collections of coats, even without insignia quite worthwhile. The author wishes to publicly acknowledge his debt to Michael C. Bruun who secured for him the specifications cited and revealed to him the method of using specifications to corroborate the written history. Dick Buehner (father of “83rddiv”) should be recognized also for making several examples in his collection available for study. Special thanks go also to Leo E Huurre who supplied the accurate drawings. “Morals and Decadence” (Frankie S.) was also kind enough to provide photos of the outside pocket British version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwnorma Posted June 21, 2007 Share #28 Posted June 21, 2007 Frankie, Maybe its because I am in the military... Maybe its just because I am an anal retentive rump... Either way, uniforms don't get model numbers. Never have. Its wrong, wrong, wrong, and I'm going to complain about it every chance I get (hang on a sec...) OK, I'm back, I had to throw pine cones at some kids on my lawn. Anyway, I like Gill's take on the matter. Call it a 1918 coat all you like, if that specification was made or started in 1918, then it is not incorrect. Call it a "model of 1918" well, that is a nomenclature. To us A.R. military types, nomenclature have meaning. You there! Drop the M, step away from the coat... Chris It seems that the use of the M19'' designation for service coats has become the norm in the collecting world. Personally, I find the use of dates to be a convenient way of tracking and IDing coat variations. It is especially useful for novice collectors to recognize the changes to the coats without getting confused over spec numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Romantic Posted June 21, 2007 Share #29 Posted June 21, 2007 Frankie, Maybe its because I am in the military... Maybe its just because I am an anal retentive rump... Either way, uniforms don't get model numbers. Never have. Its wrong, wrong, wrong, and I'm going to complain about it every chance I get (hang on a sec...) OK, I'm back, I had to throw pine cones at some kids on my lawn. Anyway, I like Gill's take on the matter. Call it a 1918 coat all you like, if that specification was made or started in 1918, then it is not incorrect. Call it a "model of 1918" well, that is a nomenclature. To us A.R. military types, nomenclature have meaning. You there! Drop the M, step away from the coat... Chris Okay Chris, I'll drop the M I have begun to call a uniform, 1912 pattern for example. As for "tunic" I haven't used that term for the past three years. Hey, maybe we should start a topic on correct WWI nomenclature. One of my peeves are collectors referring to the US gas masks as the "M1917". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_pickrall Posted June 21, 2007 Share #30 Posted June 21, 2007 The nomenclature ideas is a good one. If you guys decide to do that please make it a separate thread and don't include it with this thread. We need it to stand out so people can find it for future reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveR Posted June 22, 2007 Share #31 Posted June 22, 2007 The nomenclature ideas is a good one. If you guys decide to do that please make it a separate thread and don't include it with this thread. We need it to stand out so people can find it for future reference. Really great thread guys. I always used year model numbers just to have a way of describing the tunic in my own inventory system. Now if I could remember where I put thedamned inventory list. I have only got 7 rooms in my house, it has to be in one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now