A Modest Proposal (Authenticity Issues)

[Frenchie]

A Modest Proposal:
Some Thoughts On The Authenticity Controversy

by Alan Gutchess

I am continually amazed by the fervor that arises every time the word "authenticity" is used, either in print or conversation by reenactors. As more events and individuals tighten their authenticity standards, there are many who are wielding this word like a club and a few who use it as a shield, while most rest somewhere in between. What is it about this word that provokes fear, anger, and self-righteous indignation simultaneously? I believe that the number one cause among 18th century reenactors, both individuals and units, is the endless variety of interpretations of both the word and the larger concepts that it represents. With this premise in mind, let's examine authenticity and maybe find some definitions and interpretations we can all live with. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the root word, authentic, means, "Conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief". Now on the surface this seems pretty simple to grasp, to be authentic is to be factual, and thus trustworthy, reliable, or believable. With this in mind, maybe the real question should be, "Why does it matter?". Why should we strive to fulfill this definition?

I believe the best answer to this question lies in personal integrity and believing in the importance of the truth. Usually when we think about the truth, we think of the written or spoken word, but there is also visual truth. When we put on our "historic" garb and present ourselves to our peers and the public, are we telling the visual truth? If not, then we are indeed telling a lie. Often this visual lie is followed by a verbal one, as we try to assure both ourselves and those around us of the validity of our appearance. Most of us are attracted to this hobby out of a love for history and a fascination with the lives of those who have gone on before us. Don't we owe those very same people the minimum respect of not lying about them, visually or verbally? And what of lying to our peers, the public, and ourselves? No one is served by a misrepresentation of the past. History itself is fixed and immutable, but the perception of it is always changing. Reenactors have the power to influence this perception, for the better or for the worse. When we play with history in a disrespectful manner, we defile both our collective ancestors and ourselves. If I claim to be dressed for example, as an 18th century Indian warrior, but actually come closer to, as my friend George Irvin has sometimes expressed, "...an odd cross between Captain Caveman and Bozo the Clown", then have I not done a great disservice to both those of the past and of the present? How does one go about portraying the past in an authentic way? There may be many possible answers to this. The following proposed "rules" and accompanying thoughts, while certainly not entirely of my own creation, I leave here for the consideration of the reader.

Rule #1: Get the documentation first, buy, commission, or make last.
The first item to discuss is patience. Rushing in to anything is the best way to do it poorly. The impulse to charge ahead and buy or make things for a historical impression leaves many, when confronted about authenticity, scrambling to somehow justify the form of an object or even its existence. If the time is taken first for documentation, then buying or making, there is no future clubbing in store, and authenticity can become a shield.

Rule #2: Acceptable documentation should be derived solely from primary sources.
This word, "documentation", is also a confusing one for many, especially as it relates to authentic historic recreations. Among some reenactors, sutlers and craftsmen, it is thrown around with complete recklessness. Most definitions of this word revolve around proof and evidence. It is easier to think of this concept of documenting something if you imagine yourself much like the prosecutor in a court case. It is your duty to convince an impartial jury of the validity of your claim for an object, based on the weight of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. Acceptable documentation can be derived from period accounts, period illustrations, surviving period objects, and or from archeological evidence. By period I mean not just to the 18th century, but the more specific era within this you are representing, ideally no more than a 10 year time span, though under some circumstances this can be expanded. The first stop should be a library. A search there will reveal a myriad of books either on hand or available through inter-library loan on your subject. For this example we'll use the Eastern long hunter, though the technique is the same regardless of the topic. Don't bother with "historic novels", even those listed as historic non-fiction, except to use their bibliographies for leads. You want first hand accounts, such as diaries, journals, official reports, and alike. The people you need to access are the traders, missionaries, soldiers, Indian captives, travelers, and others who personally may have encountered and described frontiersmen during the 18th century, not their reinterpreted words through a 20th century writer. It will take time to assemble, but find as many descriptions as possible. Then a search through more generalized publications on the Eastern American frontier, looking for paintings, engravings, and drawings done during the 18th century, ideally from life. Then onto such things as museum exhibit catalogs and publications, (maybe even the museum itself), books for collectors, and auction catalogs, which will show surviving objects. Finally, a search of archeological reports, detailing excavations of fortifications, trading posts, cabins, etc., occupied during the time period by your subject. A notebook of all the relevant documentation must then be compiled by topic, either with notes or photocopies. It should include author, title, page numbers, and source for each reference.

Rule #3: Document for commonality.
As you assemble this information keep in mind the three part nature of the documentation process. The first is finding that initial description, illustration, or surviving example. But this first step only documents the existence of the subject. What must be documented next is its commonality. The goal is to document it several times from a variety of sources, and ideally from different types of evidence. In other words, you cannot convict on a single shred of evidence. What we want to document is a "pattern" of use, not the unique exception. Without the commonality factor, it is possible to have all the individual pieces of an impression be "documented", in the sense that they all existed at their own time and place, yet still have the overall effect be false or misleading. When we think of military reenactors, we know there are uniforms, gear, and weapons that are all nearly identical from person to person in each given unit. For non-military personnel, from missionaries to camp followers and everything in between, there may be no uniform, but still a certain uniformity exists. Now of course there were individualists then, whose personal appearance stepped outside the norm, but just as today, they would have been the exception in the population, not the average. Most people, regardless of time period, are captives of their culture, and subject to the pressures of fashion, tradition, and conformity. If we all decide to create the extreme edges of 18th century fashion or individuality, we give a false impression of everyday life. In 200 years, if we are being reenacted, which would be a better source of documentation for the appearance and personal adornment of the average American, home videos of families from around the country, or clips of metal bands from MTV? There is still plenty of room for individual expression within commonality, but when you can, dare to be average!

Rule #4: Document for appropriateness.
The final stage is documenting for appropriateness. This essentially means asking yourself, "Is this object something my character would reasonably have had access to physically or financially?". At this point, remember that although almost anything is possible, what you want to represent is what is probable. An example for the test of appropriateness would be a Damascus bladed knife carried by an 18th century reenactor. It could pass the first two tests as blades of this material can be documented to both exist and to arguably have even been common, but where? After consulting period documents, archeological reports, and several leading collectors of American and European knives and swords, all were in agreement, there was no evidence of any in use in America before the first quarter of the 19th century. Even if we could prove a few were in colonial America, would your persona have the financial wherewithal and the inherent status to afford an object that only the rich were likely to possess? You may want to remind yourself that the goal is truth, not wishful thinking.

Rule #5: Avoid all "phantom" documentation.
This may be a good time to equally clarify what is not acceptable documentation. Usually it goes something like this, "I saw a person at the last reenactment wearing one just like this", "Somebody who knows a lot about this stuff told me this was correct", "The guy I bought it from told me this was right", "It said in the catalog it was authentic", "I saw a picture of one just like this in a book one time, but I can't find it now", "I read a description of this in a book one time but I can't remember where", "Of course I have documentation for this, but I can't show it to you because... , "Trust me, I've been doing this a long time", "Why, it's common knowledge they had ...", etc., etc., etc. All of this falls into the category of "phantom" documentation. Documentation that cannot be produced is hearsay. If our job is to document beyond a reasonable doubt, hearsay, regardless of the source, is not generally admissible as evidence.

Rule #6: Trust no one born after 1800.
The ultimate responsibility for the issue of documentation lies solely on you. Don't ask the harried sutlers assistant whether that string of beads is appropriate for the F&I war. Don't ask the gunsmith with a mortgage payment due at the end of the month whether that $2,000 rifle you have in your hands is correct for your impression. Don't believe that 20th century author who says, "Frontiersmen always wore...". Don't believe the veteran reenactor who tells you "All moccasins were made like this". Don't believe them, unless of course, they can produce the documentation to back up what they are saying. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying any of these people is going to consciously lie to you. But often their documentation may also be of the "phantom" variety. Somebody told them that the string of beads, or that rifle, or that statement, or that technique, was correct, and they pass it along in good faith, but it still may not be the truth, in spite of a trail of good intentions. It may take a little more time, but if you can educate yourself even a little about the topic first, and expect, especially on more expensive purchases, the sutler or craftsman to be able to produce real documentation, or at least steer you to where it can be found. If they can't, educate yourself a lot more, so you know before you purchase whether it is documented, or find someone to buy from that can. With tongue partially in cheek...

Rule #7: Avoid speculation if you can, and where you must, minimize the effect.
Before going further, there are admittedly some items that will escape being fully documented, but still may be acceptable. There is room for speculation, but it needs to be done with logic and tact. Speculation can be used where documentation is insufficient to give a clear picture. If you choose this path, try to minimize both the speculation and its repercussions. An example can be found in the appearance of 18th century Native American women. There is currently no documentation for what kind of bags or pouches they may have carried personal items in. For Native American men, illustrations and written descriptions give great detail in the style of bags, size, and even contents, but for women, nothing. If you portray a Native American woman, and you want or need a bag, unless more documentation becomes available, you have two options, make do without, or speculate. If you choose the latter, reasonable speculation might be to pick a style of men's pouch that is documentable to your time and place, ideally as small as can be practicable, and leave the replica undecorated. It should then be carried in the least obtrusive and visible manner possible. Most important, as with all objects of this type, if questioned about it, make it clear that it is indeed speculative! Don't be responsible for the next "phantom". Speculation is a last resort, where there is an acceptable substitute, try to use it instead.

Rule #8: Know the limitations of your own skills and abilities.
After you have established a base of acceptable documentation, the next step is to finally acquire the various elements of your appearance. The next mistake often occurs here. There is a common misconception about reenacting that usually is stated something like this: "What a great hobby, I can make everything myself!". This notion is fostered and even promoted in some groups of reenactors. Its source seems to lie in the false notion that our individual forbearers equally made "everything" themselves. The premise is that if they needed shoes, a gun, clothes, a powder horn, or any other necessity, they just made them. This is simply not true for the vast majority of colonial Americans, White, Red, or Black. Trades in the period were highly specialized affairs. If a person was not apprenticed or specifically trained in a particular trade attempted to make his own axe, shirt, hunting pouch, or any other object, it would have been the rare exception, not the rule. It is fine that many of us have taken time to be skilled in a particular area of historic replication, but too often an individual becomes the proverbial "jack of all trades and master of none". Don't lessen the validity of an otherwise good impression with poor accessories of your own making.

Rule #9: Whenever possible, obtain objects produced with period techniques and materials.
For most of us it is best to find a skilled craftsman and have them produce a documented object, or purchase a documented object from a sutler. Whenever possible, try to buy items that have been made with period techniques and materials. If this is not physically or financially possible, choose a substitute that comes as close as possible, or go without until one is attainable.

Rule #10: Be willing to periodically reevaluate your appearance and make corrections accordingly.
If you are already fully decked from head to toe, maybe it's time to sit down and reevaluate your appearance, Can you document it, or are you just fooling yourself? This procedure of reevaluation should be an ongoing one for all of us, and really should neither frighten or intimidate. There is no shame in admitting errors and correcting them, but I personally think there should be some in living with them in denial. New documentation comes to light continuously, and as living historians we should always be in search of it. Some of the saddest looking reenactors today are the ones who ten years ago were on the cutting edge, but they stopped searching and learning, and today stand firmly behind research that has now been proven obsolete.

Rule #11: Don't hoard documentation, make it available to others.
If you take time to acquire real documentation and then put it to use in your own appearance, what next? Make it available to others! Publish it, sell it, or give it away, do anything but play "I've Got A Secret". We all benefit as the standards of the hobby rise.

Rule #12: Have some serious fun!
Isn't the pursuit of truth and honoring those from the past that we are trying to emulate reasons enough to both strive for authenticity and to use all of the physical and financial resources at hand to come as close as possible to grasping it? The quest for authenticity can lead us to a more complete understanding and respect for both their lives, and our own.

References:
American Heritage Electronic Dictionary
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1992

[Cyrille]

I'm confused, throughout your dessertation you refer to documentation of diffrent aspects for portraying a person of the 18th century. Yet your portrait shows you dressed as a 19th century American Civil war solider. The 18th century, to the best of my knowledge, is about the colonization of the eastern seaboard, the Revolution and the very beginning of the push westward into Kentucky and places west of the Allegheny Mountains. and is anachronistic to the late 19th century that Cowboy action shooting SASS & NCOWS is attempting to portray. Which is not to say that such clothing, guns and mannerisms etc. were not known or practiced or worn at least in part i.e. hats, stockings and knee britches; shoot, I've hunted with "muzzleloading arms" but they would not be my weapon of choice in a life and death situation but they were not the norm at least not in the late 19th century. Heck, when I was a youngster I remember wearing "Knickers" to school, but they were part of a  school uniform and not really in fastion in the forties and fifties of the last century.

[Guage Rod]

Frenchie, Great Post, expecialy considering the growth of the Originals Catagory.  Might I also add that if you are so inclinded I would recomment you submit your string to the Shootist magazine.  I believe it would bring a lot of insight to those trying to put a PC persona together.  I must say that I reluctantly have to agree with almost everything you have to say.

In a portrayal of a bygone erea there is little room for conjecture.  I might take to task some of the comments about making it your self since in NCOWS are portraying a period where most guns, and knives were factory made but a lot of the shirts, coats, and other camp items were possibly not.

I guess I figure I can afford to have a lot of things I make that are not too bad looking as opposed to having a lot less and pay full "Factory Price. That way I can save my money for the fancy shooting Irons that way.  It also sooths out bumps of spending the budget.  I can not travel to as may shoots if I buy everything.   

[St. George]

Thanks, Joss,

You beat me to it.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Frog69]

Howdy,
  first i would like to say that what you have brought up in your post ( Modest)  is some very good points. I do want to chime in on it a little if i may ,i would like to state i am not posting as to try stirring the pot. To start i am a lover of history and love the concept  of NCOWS .I be leave this group has gotten off on the wrong foot a long time ago in the fact that NCOWS has moved to a form of competition as such it seem that every thing associated with it becomes just that competitive . That seems sometimes to be where every one is heading with this term Historical.I be leave out side the military impression this would be very tough given that there is when dealing with a civilian there are way to many variables as a basic example  lets look a the population make up of civilian persona versa  the structure of the military persona . in the military there can only be so many generals, officers ,  staff sargents etc.and i be leave this is regulated during times of reenacting . I at Gettysburg have never seen a battle between to units of generals this rightfully so is to keep a proper perspective on what the public sees. In 1800s civilian persona it is easily documented  that there would be as a probably  10 towns people to every 1 cowboy, gun fighter, sheriff, but, thats most generally not what you see when your at a NCOWS event. again what sort of impression does that leave the viewing public or some one new to the NCOWS thing. History and the word competition are very hard to put in the same sentence for me . Unlike a race that everybody runs the same course and there is unarguably
i winner and a loser. The use of historical impressions in a way to make it a competition i am a little Leary of what some of the problems might be and how that might deter us form moving forward. I  view Historical Impression as not a winner or a loser type of thing but the joy of sharing history in all its diversity learning  from each other as we grow as a group.As always i will not hesitate  to be involved with NCOWS and what ever rules as a group are decided on and implemented I will comply for i do want to play in this sand box.
Your Humble Servant To The Public
thank you
   frog
Jerry Gull

[Books OToole]

I like to make a couple of observations.

First is a Boy Scout compariason.  Lord Badon-Powell had a concept of rewarding achievement.  If a scout mastered a certain skill he was recognized for doing so.  This often gets perverted into:  If I jump through this hoop, I get a prize.

We need to recognize people who do it right. 

Second is the challenge for interpreting something other than a "gunslinger."  All but two of the NCOWS shooting classes are set up to require more guns than any two townsmen would wear/carry.  The members that aspire to a level beyond the minimums, and do not want to protray gunfighters, will gravitate toward these two classes.  And there is nothing wrong with the super competitors meeting minimum authenticity requirement and shooting in what ever class floats their boat.

The challenge for us is to encourage research and authenticity without making it another competition.

Books

[Frenchie]

Cyrille and Gauge:

I didn't write it. As Joss pointed out, another, more careful, reading will show you it was written by one Alan Gutchess (and a look at my sig will show you my name is Guy LaFrance; Joss says it might be confusing, but I don't see how...). Anyway, I merely posted it to show another (better than I can do it) way of explaining the mindset of authentic historical reenacting and living history. I hope you'll get a lot of good information from it and use it to do things, and enjoy our hobby, better.

The specific period it discusses isn't important to the message it conveys about that proper mindset, which applies to any period of history. Most of the time if you read something that confuses you, read it again, more slowly, and think of how it might be less a problem of the writer's (or in this case, poster's) inconsistency, and more a problem of your own preconceptions and groundless assumptions. I'm not trying to beat you up here, we all make mistakes - God knows I've made my share of them; I'm just suggesting you take more time to make sure the problem is on the page (or screen) and not in your mind. I used to do that for a living, writing and editing technical publications so that the largest possible range of people would be able to understand the information and instructions.

I can't submit it to the Shootist for obvious reasons, but if George Warnick wants to contact Mr. Gutchess for permission to reprint it, I don't see why he'd say no.

[Cyrille]

Yes, Mr. Joss cleared the air, it was then that I realized that yourself and Mr.Gutchess were two diffrent people; Mr. Gutchess being an 18th century re-enactor and you an 19th re-enactor.

[Frenchie]

Frog69 (love that nick!):

Jerry, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that you're afraid that the historical aspect of NCOWS is a competition, a "more historically correct than thou" thing. Well, that's a new one on me. Seriously. The shooting is competetive, but to me, at least, my only competition is myself. I'm no threat to anyone's ranking unless it's someone who gets wheeled up to the firing line while strapped into a traction bed and able to use only one hand - or maybe just one foot.  

No, see, I disagree completely with the idea that the historical emphasis is competetive. How many other kinds of competition has people willing, nay, eager, to share what they know with everyone else? Yes, there are costume/uniform/dress contests, but how serious does the "competition" get? Not very, from what I've seen. The main points of such contests are to have fun, admire the effort that goes into the "looks", and learn from each other. People who hoard knowledge (see Rule #11) are not in the spirit of the hobby and should be avoided.

And as far as reenactments at Gettysburg are concerned, believe me, the historical accuracy is pretty minimal at places like that, and I'm not just talking about polyester uniforms, officers without commands, and orderly sergeants who couldn't organize and lead a Guard Mount if their lives depended on it. Battle reenactments are the least historically accurate things in the whole hobby. Put .58 caliber Minié balls down on top of 60 grains of FFg and aim low - load the 12 pounders with solid shot and double canister - keep the ambulances out of the area and let the wounded lie on the field for two or three days - then you'll get a whole lot closer to authenticity. I gave up battles a long time ago and, outside the occasional firing demonstration, won't burn powder in my '61 Springfield any more. I do living history, demonstrating drill, talking to and answering questions from spectators, stuff like that.

I think you're also saying that to be historically correct, 'most everyone should be dressed as a townsperson or a farmer, with only a few cowboys, soldiers, Indians, etc. thrown in. This too I can't agree with - we're not reenacting a town (and which one and when, anyway?) - we're reenacting history, and that's a very big place with lots of people of all kinds in it. And if we were reenacting a fort, we'd see lots of soldiers and very few women; a mining camp, we'd see lots of rough-looking, dirty characters and even fewer women; if we were reenacting George Warnick's neighborhood, we'd see lots of... well, never mind what we'd see lots of, just take my word, it isn't anything your little old gray-haired grandmother would approve of  

Bottom line: Put your fears to rest. The history isn't competetive in NCOWS, it's a cooperative effort.

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Frenchie,
Excellent post and describes my mind set almost to a T. I don't think it matters what time period you do a impression of, this post could be used to outline what a WW2 reenactor or historian should strive for. Anyone who knows Alan Gutchess (and yes I do) knows him to be a researcher of impeccable standing among his peers and is highly respected by them.

I don't see historical research and a building of, or a need to have a real persona/impression as a competition, I see it as a sharing of what you have learned as an individual particularly when you share what ever knowledge you may possess with like minded individuals, and even with those that may not share your enthusiasm but may have a minimal interest in what you are doing.

What I see for NCOWS are individuals that have a wealth of historical research and a knoweldge that could be used by others outside of our organization, such as educational establishments, living history demos, siminars and talks outside of our own little realm of members..but it needs to be done with as much accuracy as possible.

Yea, I really liked the information Frenchie has posted here and if LG sees it maybe he can contact Alan Gutchess and ask that it be used in the Shootist.
JMHO

Bill

[Frog69]

well.... now i can rest easy i have been so bound up about this whole authenticity thing i couldn't use the out house.  all kidding aside  it really appears to me this whole  mystery  surrounding   historical correctness  may  be made a non issue  if allot of at least the basic DOs and DONTs are put in writing epically when dealing with basic dress. So people who want to participate regardless of their historical back ground or there want to do historical research have a basic excepted  blue print that if they are shopping or show up to a NCOWS function they will be on cue for the historical compliance to take part. Might be something the Authenticity ccommittee may want to tackle just some more thoughts

[Trap]

   Well .... Mr Frog,
  Seeins how your'e on it, you might check your email to get the email addresses of the other auth comm members and put out a request.         jt

[Frenchie]

it really appears to me this whole  mystery  surrounding   historical correctness  may  be made a non issue  if allot of at least the basic DOs and DONTs are put in writing epically when dealing with basic dress. So people who want to participate regardless of their historical back ground or there want to do historical research have a basic excepted  blue print that if they are shopping or show up to a NCOWS function they will be on cue for the historical compliance to take part. Might be something the Authenticity ccommittee may want to tackle just some more thoughts

Jerry, the article I posted is the Do's and Don't's; it is the blueprint, and there's no mystery to any of it. It seems to me you want something in simpler language, a more step-wise way of going about it by the numbers, or perhaps you want a list of the exact things to get and do to portray someone from the past in an accurate way.

Problem is, it's not that simple, because what you want is what you want, meaning no one can make these decisions for you (and why would you want that anyway?). You have to decide who you want to be, and that can go anywhere from, say, a generic persona that would fit into a period spanning several years, to a specific person as he was dressed at 3:30 p.m. on July 24th, 1876. It's up to you where you want to go and how specific you want to be. That's Square One, deciding who you want to be and how you want to look, and that will determine the direction you head out in. It might be the most difficult step of the whole process, and you might change your mind, and that's okay too.

Then you need to find out how to start doing the research. There are a lot of clues in the article, but perhaps you need face time, to talk in person with people who've done it. That they'll be glad to help someone with a genuine interest is a given. I don't know where you are, but you do have Internet access. Use the search engines to find and contact local libraries and museums and ask about groups that do historical research in your area. Put "historical society (your area)" in the search engine and contact them. See if there are conferences about researching the past. Go to their meetings and consider joining up if you find a group that has knowledge and resources you can use.

And always ask questions, write down the answers, ask more questions, start a collection of materials, get more answers, ask more questrions, on and on and on. If this sounds like work, then that's a problem right there - hobbies are not work, they are the opposite of work, they're something you pay (in money and effort) to do because you enjoy it. I think the luckiest people in the world are those who combine their work and their hobby, because they literally love their jobs.

Enough running at the fingers. Email me if you need any of the above bloviating explained, and most of all, have fun!

[Dr. Bob]

Ottawa Creek Bill,

WOW!  What an IDEA!  Share our special knowledge with those outside of NCOWS.  Sounds like an NCOWS Speakers Bureau to me.  Could work on both a local and national level.  A news release to local libraries, schools, chambers of commerce.  A new way to market NCOWS!  Something to think about.

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Dr. Bob,
Its not a new concept, its something my family and I have done since I can remember. It could be an additional resource for income for NCOWS (but not from public schools, unless they have a system that pays individuals and groups like our Indiana Arts council does, to go and talk at public schools & venues), but for colleges, business establishments and groups that can afford to pay. 

I see NCOWS as a way to hold historical accuracy siminars (just like shooting clinics, where we have these guys come in and teach shooting methods?) like we do at Boonesborough (where I am a honorary life member), Pricketts Fort, and School of the LongHunter. Interested individuals pay to hear people talk about things they are attuned to. It needs to be done more frequently then just once a year at the convention and advertised to the public that NCOWS has these resources available to be used by them.

In Februray 2001, I was asked to give a presentation by the Kansas Muzzle Loading Association (KMA) of which I think some of our NCOWS members in Kansas belong to. I was contacted by them to be their key note speaker at their state convention held in Great Bend. The talk was on Dwellings of the Great Lakes Indians, languages, and trekking. Something I would have thought completely foriegn to the western cultrue in Kansas, but it wasn't, there are a lot of people I found who reenact the 18th century in Kansas and Arkansas...amazing.

By the way, that was where I first heard of NCOWS, at that convention. How was I contacted by the KMA? through the editor of the NMLRA by a fella named Chris Zorich (spell) who at that time was the KMA convention coordinator. Chris had read some of my articles in Muzzle Blasts and in a couple of Native American Publications he had access to, that REALLY suprised me .

This is just food for thought and something to think about for the future.

Bill

[Frog69]

Frenchie
Thank you for your input,but i must say i am very aware of what it takes to do research on a historical subject and have  several years of book, picture and archive time under my belt as well as documenting  items fore a museum  or two. As for me i am not referring to my self. Hears my point on where i was heading. This could be something of a more detailed description  but i will hack threw this as a example......
  SOME ONE NEW TO ncows PICKS UP THE TALLY BOOK AND IT READS AS FALLOWS.......
The fallowing is a basic description of  of clothing seen commonly during the late 1800s these descriptions are excepted at all NCOWS events and to participate  you must meet the basic for historical accuracy  you are not limited to these descriptions there are many different types of clothing seen and we would recommend and encourage that you do further research  for any thing you may want to use beyond the basic description
MENS DAILY WARE....
Pants: Button Fly, No belt loops,pockets on front optional watch pocket or one  back pocket. High wasted. Color your choice
Shirt:long sleeve. shield  front or front buttoning only 1/2 way down the front.color your option solid or stripe
Vest: optional   , basic look is........... And you could go on and keep listing but this it just a rough idea As most know there are some basic similarity that are easily pointed out when dealing with period dress
I think we need to crawl before we walk ......some more Ideas and food for thought
  And Trap thank you, i beleave i shall execpt your statement and fallow up on it