A little over a year ago, I posted concerning the enlisted plates and the photo models at the Smithsonian https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/398278-the-hitherto-unidentified-1886-us-navy-enlisted-uniform-photographs-at-the-smithsonian/

. At the time I wasn’t able to locate the officer photos. Recently when poking around the Smithsonian collection for an unrelated matter I thought to search under “Photographic Laboratory” which was part of the creator credit for the enlisted photos and used the filter for Topic: Military which found the officer photos. Good thing too, as these are from the Archives not from the American History Museum like the great majority of uniform items. As a shortcut, the photos run sequentially from https://www.si.edu/object/buttons-and-hooks:siris_arc_388866 to https://www.si.edu/object/buttons-and-hooks:siris_arc_388894 (just change the URL number manually) as well as https://www.si.edu/object/unidentified-man-models-military-uniform:siris_arc_388862 which is out of sequence. As previously, we’ll post the parallels in Plate order with commentary on each one. Some of the photos didn’t make it into illustrated plates, but at least one of these is of great importance for the history of naval officer uniforms which I’ll discuss after the plates.

Plate I

Only minor changes in the Special Full Dress, changing rank to a flag officer and highlighting the proper dress sword belt. I think the stripe on the trousers is wider to go along with the change in rank from the photo to finished artwork. The tails on what is sometimes called the “body coat” in the regulations isn’t terribly obvious in the illustration or photo.

 

Plate II

Rolling collar with tails but epaulets, so this is Full Dress (as opposed to “Social Full Dress”). Parallel with civilian attire, we have the black bow tie (though called a “cravat” in the regulations) and rolling collar. 

 

Plate III

Rolling collar with tails but no other accoutrements and plain blue pants (note the difference from the photo) makes this “Social Full Dress.”
 

Plate IV

Here’s the frock coat with epaulets so “Dress.” The coat is changed from the body coat or special full dress as presented in the photo. While the cap was allowed to naval cadets & warrants in dress, it wasn’t allowed for commissioned officers, but oddly the helmet was (the summer cork one).

 

Plate V

Frock coat with shoulder straps (see more at Plate XVII) so this is undress but with rank changed from photo. At this level and below in formality, commissioned officers wore the cap (or helmet!). Note the actual curve in most swords of this era. That’s not obvious from many of the photos and illustrations.

 

Plate VI

Service dress as it would be until just after WW1. The coat had actually been adopted January 16, 1877 according to this source, https://uniform-reference.net/insignia/usn/usn_sleeve_rank_chron.html and Tily pg 204 notes an effective date of July 1, 1878 for commissioned officers and midshipmen. As always, it would be nice if the Navy Department got around to digitizing their special collections before some sort of disaster destroys them forever. As far as I’m aware this coat wasn’t illustrated until 1883 officially. This is the first illustration of it on an actual person.

 

Plate VII

Summer service. It had been adopted in 1883. Since the text says it’s the same pattern as the usual service coat but in white, they didn’t have to have a separate uniform made up, as the artist could just change it, but the sun helmet was useful for the artist. See comments on Plate XIII.

 

Plate VIII

This overcoat design was a departure from the previous models as it featured non-metallic buttons, and would continue to until just after WW1. More on these buttons after the plates. Different from the M1897 overcoat and all other models, it has a full belt. In 1897 it was modified to a half belt in back which remains until the present day. The number of buttons is a return to Civil War era designs. The immediately previous model had 5 metal buttons (which would be revived in 1919 until the present day, though most don’t realize it as two buttons are hidden under the lapels and are only actually used in bad weather). As documented on my previous post on unillustrated overcoats, https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/390900-unillustrated-usn-officer-overcoats-1841-1883/#comment-3046947 , the original button regime before 1864 corresponded to the number of buttons on the undress coat which varied by officer rank and type, in 1864 it was somewhat standardized to 7 (actually corresponding to the frock), and in 1866 until 1886 it was fully standardized to 5 (pairs), but all equally spaced unlike the modern overcoat sometimes called a bridge coat. The modern coat has the lower 4 equally spaced, but not the top button. The optional hood is attached in the illustration and photo. More on that below.

 

Plate IX

Back view of the overcoat. Note the attached optional hood, which was also an original feature of this design and was continued in the M1897, but was discontinued with the metal button model. It probably wasn’t extensively used even in the Spanish-American War era through WW1 as there are no surviving photos of it actually in use, even where it would be expected in photos of officers in snowy climes. The only example I know of is from 1897 right before the change in uniform regulations outside of these plates. I know of only two examples of the hood detached from the overcoat extant, one on our forums and the other at the Smithsonian. Both are to the M1897 as there are no surviving M1886 overcoats even at the Smithsonian that have a digital footprint. Note that the illustration appears to have a lined hood whereas the photo doesn’t. The photo is actually more useful for study than the illustration as it shows detail of construction and drape in the hood.

 

Plate X

The remainder of the officer plates show details.

Both of these are the famous “double vellum” pattern that had a lot of staying power from British usage to American, unlike the French who used many types of patterns, most famously non-ridged gold lace, though never exclusively.

 

Plate XI

Nearly identical.

 

Plate XII

Here the illustration is nearly useless, unlike the photo which shows quite a bit of detail and also why such accents as these are called “braid.”

 

Plate XIV

This plate is anomalous since it’s not actually referred to in the uniform regulations. I believe that to be an editorial error as these white colored details are actually referred to. The hint is “linen” in the regulations and the texture in the photos. I believe these to be the detail illustrations for the summer service uniform for officers. “In warm weather, a similar coat made of white linen duck (Plate VII) trimmed with white linen braid, but without collar devices, shall be worn.” As the same section concerning the service coat referred to Plate XII for the blue coat, I think it’s a safe inference.

 

Plate XIV

Purely artistic. No photo needed.

 

Plate XV

Original illustration rotated.

The rank on the right epaulet has been changed from the photo, otherwise nearly photo accurate.

Plate XVI

Again the plain epaulet has its rank altered.

 

Plate XVII

Shoulder knots were taken up in the Army more than the Navy. Among officer ranks, only midshipmen/naval cadets had them. Epaulets were maintained for commissioned officers. ”Shoulder strap” is what the other one is called in USN uniform regulations. In 1886, these were limited to undress for commissioned officers and dress for warrants. @Justin B. said in my earlier post that shoulder straps were added to the overcoat of commissioned officers from June 12, 1897 (before the effective date of the 1897 uniform regulations!) through the 1897 uniform regulations to the May 8, 1999 changes to the uniform regulations. Then the new shoulder “marks” were required for commissioned officers on overcoats & white service coats. These were the predecessors to the hard shoulder boards of today but not quite as stiff when they started out.

^detail of USS Helena 1903-1904. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-00001/NH-132.html

 

See the rest of Justin’s comments about various other grades of officers who received shoulder marks in and around the uniform regulations of 1905 which were definitely harder shoulder boards. https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/390900-unillustrated-usn-officer-overcoats-1841-1883/#comment-3046947

 

 

Plate XVIII

Identical.

 

Plate XIX

 

No equivalent photo is included in the collection. That might just be an accident of history as the art is quite detailed.

 

Plate XX

Warrant insignia. The only difference between silver & gold was length of service. Silver was 20 years or more. Art & photos are the same.

 

Plate XXIII

More warrant insignia. Except for the change in position, it’s identical.

 

Plate XXII

These are 2 separate photos. I had to break it into 3 panels due to the limits of the free compositing software. I think it probable that proposed schema was modified after the photography as otherwise the the higher grades of admiral would have been at the top. Where did the 3 star and 4 star insignia come from? These were the same used from the 1866 regulations until that time. 

I’m not sure if the reversing of the direction of the anchors was deliberate or a mistake. Dewey certainly thought it was deliberate.

^Detail of https://www.history.navy.mil/bin/imageDownload?image=/content/dam/nhhc/our-collections/photography/images/NH 50000/NH 50568&rendition=original

 

Plate XXIII

Again two different photos, part of one of the above and the others on one. The poor ensign didn’t even get his current butter bar. The gold anchor was for the midshipman as already seen.

Plate XXIV

Original plate rotated

The rosettes are made a bit shinier than real life and the black edging, otherwise the same.

 

Plate XXV

Original plate rotated

See my post on Officer caps for more details on that, especially part 2 https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/397600-blue-cloth-cap-part-2-dimensions-details-1852-1922/#comment-3084679. The gold accent to the mohair is greatly exaggerated, though there are precious few extant to compare with. https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_459142 (Captain Charles Gridley)

 

No USN versions of the sun helmet appear to have survived. From photos I’ve seen of these helmets in the field, it employed a chin strap on the *outside* of the helmet, not inside like every other country and indeed the US after the pressed helmets were employed. In the cork helmet era, the Navy used the same type as the one pictured here:

^https://www.ima-usa.com/products/original-u-s-m1881-white-infantry-spiked-pith-helmet-with-excelsior-brigade-front-plate-size-6-7-8?variant=32052208107589 (A state militia helmet, probably 71st NY Volunteer Infantry Regiment (called the 2nd Excelsior during the CW) which had been active since mustering out according to the NY State Military Museum https://museum.dmna.ny.gov/unit-history/conflict/spanish-american-war-1898/71st-regiment-infantry ). According to this source, the US Army adopted one in 1880 https://www.militarysunhelmets.com/2013/the-american-summer-sun-helmet, but far more common are the M1887, then M1889.  As you can see from the militia helmet, there’s a band of fabric at the bottom that extends all the way around on the covering fabric. The strap is a separate piece.

^1883 illustration

 

Even in the 1886 regs, the illustration isn’t as clear as the photo that the strap is separate but it’s there if you look closely. It’s possible an overcoat button just runs through the cloth, but given how flat it is, I suspect it goes through the holes of the helmet to affix inside.

Plate XXVI

 

No equivalent photo in the collection, though it wouldn’t take too much imagination from the other plates except for the commissioned officer cap insignia.

 

Plate XXVII 

 

 

Nearly identical. This is awfully straight for an actual pre-1900 sword. The leather belt indicates this is the undress version.

 

Plate XXVIII

Lines indicate the fabric of the dress sword belt. Nearly identical.

 

Plate XXIX

Sword buckle and various hooks and fasteners. These will be essentially repeated in other regulations. It’s about as photo realistic as can be achieved artistically for mass reproduction.

 

Plates XXX & XXXI

No photo equivalent in the collection, but the patterns for the dress sword belts don’t take a lot of imagination this time either.

 

Now there are some photos that weren’t used at all the first of which is quite important

^https://www.si.edu/object/buttons-and-hooks:siris_arc_388874 . 
 

The gilded buttons in the middle are well known and no further comment is necessary. It’s the plain buttons on the top that are of great interest, and that is because these are the most common officer overcoat buttons, particularly the 7 (pairs) pictured above, but also the small buttons that are used to attach the throat latch, seal the back flap when necessary, and probably also attach the hood. How do I know this? First and foremost by the photo model for plate VIII for the large buttons, but also because I acquired a pre-WWI overcoat recently and could see them.

 

Remember that the M1897 converted from a full belt with large buttons to a half belt. What size did they use? 

^at far right. https://www.loc.gov/item/2013650591/
That’s the small. After they convert to the smaller metal buttons, they make them all the same size.

Lastly, there’s the photo evidence. I’m going to write a separate post about officer overcoat buttons and I’ll discuss that evidence in more detail there. Regardless, this overcoat button is entirely unknown to the major sources, including Albert & Tice probably because it’s so plain and has no obvious naval symbols. The backmarks on mine are interesting but suffice to say until the more detailed post that it’s hard rubber at least on this coat and most certainly in 1886 as there was little alternative. I also think it possible that the experience rescuing the doomed Greely expedition and the use of non-metallic buttons for officer coats (rubber buttons had only been used on enlisted overcoats before that expedition) influenced the adoption of rubber buttons in 1886 for officers. As officers forgot that experience, it was inevitable that metal buttons would return. It was only a matter of time, or so I speculate and let’s be clear that it’s speculation. No documentary evidence survives.

So, why didn’t the navy make the overcoat buttons of a mandatory pattern? It’s true that the overwhelming majority stuck to the semi-official button in the surviving photos. Again I will speculate that it was about acquiring such obscure buttons while abroad, or even from one’s local tailor if one was in a time crunch. The metal buttons had been around since 1852 so there would be no trouble picking one  up in ship’s stores or even carrying spares since they were used on more than one uniform. The overcoat buttons in the final text only had to be flat and plain, so occasionally one sees officers wearing any appropriate button of this type that a gentleman might wear. More on that in the upcoming post.

 

I’m not exactly sure what the plain shanked buttons (or so I presume since they have no holes to sew through)  are for but perhaps the service coat? I would think flat sew-through buttons would be more useful for that.

 

The other two photos:

 

"You may fire when ready Gridley"

 

Great contribution to the knowledge base of the 19th Century Navy.  Thank you for this painstaking research.

 

Question: What do we know from the prevailing regs about the wear of gloves in the period -- both by officers and ratings, and in dress vs. service?

Honestly, I’m not sure! I don’t recall seeing them on anyone. Even the special winter gear of the Greely expedition was mittens, IIRC.That doesn’t mean much since I wasn’t looking for them. For the ratings, @sigsaye is the expert. Maybe he’ll opine for you. He generally doesn’t read officer posts which is why I tagged him. Justin has been less active recently, but if he sees the previous tag, he might say something or other experts.

27 minutes ago, Father V said:

Honestly, I’m not sure! I don’t recall seeing them on anyone. Even the special winter gear of the Greely expedition was mittens, IIRC.That doesn’t mean much since I wasn’t looking for them. For the ratings, @sigsaye is the expert. Maybe he’ll opine for you. He generally doesn’t read officer posts which is why I tagged him. Justin has been less active recently, but if he sees the previous tag, he might say something or other experts.

The only mention of gloves, “Prescribed” , is white cotton cloves for Band Masters and Bandsmen.   In 1893, black leather gloves are “ Authorized”, for officer and enlisted with the overcoat, (Bridge Coat/P-Coat).  There may be others I’m just not finding. Possibly white cotton gloves for officers with Full Dress/Dinner Dress.    The Navy, has had an aversion to enlisted Sailors wearing gloves for working, even into my time. It was felt that handling lines with gloves, did NOT, give you a good grip. Especially if the line was wet. Plus, it was felt that you could get a glove caught on something and loose a hand/finger. As far as gloves for warmth, there is plenty of first person accounts and artifacts that tell us, that Sailors got gloves and mittens to wear, to keep their hands warm on watch. Nothing specific, nothing “Regulation”, just what ever they could get.   As for those white cotton gloves, I don’t remember any time they were required for E-6 and below. They weren’t required for CPOs, until they were put in the officer “Choker” dress whites. Then, only for full dress. Now, if, there was some occasion where E-6 and below, had to wear the white gloves, they had to be provided to them. 

On closer inspection, it looks like white, probably wool gloves on officers and men in the photo of 1903-1904 photo of the HELENA crew in China: 1903-1904 U.S.S. Helena crew

 

Also of note is the apparent bear or some other pelt winter caps they are wearing.

 

By 1913/WW1, it appears the regs call for, when prescribed, white gloves for officers in the various full dress modes, and "iron gray" in service dress with same for ratings, if prescribed.

 

 

Good catch on the gloves on the Helena. Commanding officer probably issued some sort of order for special winter wear given the uniformity. Since the destination was likely known in advance, they could have picked the hats up before leaving. My suspicion is that this is the Army model muskrat, originally of 1876, then replaced, then essentially revived in 1902 pg 76-79 (pg 84-87 of the pdf) https://repository.si.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/44e17cae-759b-4c77-a7b9-87c768257c1b/content , our forum article below

 

The Army version shows up in the Navy from time to time:

(Greely expedition) https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-01000/NH-1608.html

Commander Coffin in the middle is wearing one. The rest are wearing a different model.

 

 

“Shoulder marks” (shoulder boards or epaulettes depending on dress) added by 1905 Uniform regs and then removed by 1913 regs and restored to rank on sleeve cuffs only, right? That would put your beautiful example of overcoat to that period of 1905-1913 given the loops on the shoulders with which to affix rank?

p.s. Do you have a photo of the sword belt slit on the left hip? My understanding is that starting with the 1905 regs, the sword, when worn with the overcoat, was worn from the hanger loop OUTSIDE the coat, whereas before 1905, it was worn INSIDE the skirt of the coat with just the hilt and above extending though the vertical (“up and down”) slot.

So I’ll analyze the coat in greater detail in the forthcoming article, but the officer in question was an assistant surgeon from about ‘08-‘10, and this coat is likely from that time period, though there’s a chance that he picked it up 2nd hand. When he came back during WWI, he was promoted to passed assistant surgeon and so would have had to modify the sleeve rank to wear it.

 

On the incredibly short-lived departure of shoulder marks on overcoats, the 1913 original order of January 25, 1913 with an effective date of July 1, 1913, Tily  (pg  234) tells us the very first change No. 1 of Jun 24, 1913 restored the shoulder marks, days before the effective date.

^https://archive.org/details/uniformsofunited00tily/page/234/mode/1up (available for free checkout with free account). It is thus incredibly likely that no overcoats are extant from the time period it was allowed.

 

The slit was pretty much required whether the sword was worn over or under, though the practice of the 1913-1917 period is definitely in question, I personally haven’t seen any photos of a sword worn over the overcoat like the regs say. Of course there is serious bias as most of these photos would be during the War when swords would have been dispensed with. Even when worn under, the hilt had to be accessible for drawing. It was just protected from precipitation by the arm most of the time.

@Slobo So, a closer look at the stereograph photo above has the flag officer with an external sword. Here’s another:

 

^https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-52000/NH-52705.html

 

Two officers! Center & right. At the USS Maine official burial ceremonies. 
 

Here’s a particularly interesting photo from the period of the 1897 regs. Here we see both practices, though since only a single officer has just the hilt protruding, it may be that he was about to go on or was just going off watch, but that’s sheer speculation.

^https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-52000/NH-52705.html

@Slobo This is probably the clearest photo yet.

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-116000/NH-116932.html

Note the iron gray gloves on the Lt. Cmndr. and the peacoats on the enlisted.  Great find.  Thanks.

On 8/19/2025 at 11:25 PM, Father V said:

A little over a year ago, I posted concerning the enlisted plates and the photo models at the Smithsonian https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/398278-the-hitherto-unidentified-1886-us-navy-enlisted-uniform-photographs-at-the-smithsonian/

. At the time I wasn’t able to locate the officer photos. Recently when poking around the Smithsonian collection for an unrelated matter I thought to search under “Photographic Laboratory” which was part of the creator credit for the enlisted photos and used the filter for Topic: Military which found the officer photos. Good thing too, as these are from the Archives not from the American History Museum like the great majority of uniform items. As a shortcut, the photos run sequentially from https://www.si.edu/object/buttons-and-hooks:siris_arc_388866 to https://www.si.edu/object/buttons-and-hooks:siris_arc_388894 (just change the URL number manually) as well as https://www.si.edu/object/unidentified-man-models-military-uniform:siris_arc_388862 which is out of sequence. As previously, we’ll post the parallels in Plate order with commentary on each one. Some of the photos didn’t make it into illustrated plates, but at least one of these is of great importance for the history of naval officer uniforms which I’ll discuss after the plates.

Wow what a tremendous find! I had long suspected that these very accurate illustrations had come from photos, and here they are!

In my copy of the 1886 regulations plate XII is the black braid trim and XIII is the white braid trim.

Thanks so much for posting these images!

I'm sorry if this has been posted already but I just noticed that Google Books uploaded the 1886 Regulations Governing the Uniform of Commissioned Officers, Warrant Officers, and Enlisted Men of the Navy of the United States back in December. Like many Google book scans, there are a few images that have been rendered in reduced color or black and white. But overall it's pretty good.

About time! 

Justin, These are awesome uniform plates. Thank you very much. 

I hope Father V won't mind me piggybacking on this thread but I though it might be interesting to see some of these uniforms in use, especially since the white helmet is mentioned above.

Here are some pictures cropped from LOC images. They were taken when Comodore Joseph Fyffe was paying an official call on a superior flag officer. I believe the rear admiral is Andrew Benham, who commanded the North Atlantic station with his flag in San Francisco cruiser #5  from May 1893 to January 1894. Fyffe was commandant of the Boston Navy Yard in that period.

Como Fyffe coming aboard. The  uniform is "Full Dress," and is worn just as per the regulations, for "[...] making the first visit in each port to officers of flag rank." The tail coat hadn't yet been limited to evening wear as it had been in the Royal Navy (as "ball dress"). In 1897 the frock coat would be specified for Full Dress. The hand salute had not been regulated yet, so Fyffe is lifting his hat. The sideboys are in working "overall" jumpers with neckerchiefs and are touching their hats.



Visiting with officers on board. I'm guessing it is the admiral, the ship's captain and executive officer and the officer of the deck. Since the official requirements are on the officer paying the call, the officers aboard don't have to dress up and they are in blue service dress with white helmets. The officer of the deck, being on duty, is wearing gloves and the sword belt without sword.

 

Fyffe departing the ship. It looks like the star of his sleeve insignia is pointing the wrong way up.

Far from objecting, I’m delighted! Missed having you around to have some reaction to my posts!!!

 

This photo in particular shows a detail not illustrated, that is the reinforcing loop at the very back of the helmet. The external chin strap is already quite different from the US Army model, not to mention the small Navy button holding it to the band (The Army & Marines used a flatter specialized button).

 

The traditional naval salute is the reason the Royal Navy saluted hands down (as opposed to the British Army). Seeing evidence of the traditional salute surviving so late in the US is always awesome. There’s this one also:

^c. 1884 https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-57000/NH-57123.html