Overshirts??!!

[James Hunt]

ahhh yes...., must be another Wesleyan Methodist.  

But that is interesting, a biblical reference - now who will argue with that for source material!!!! Good work.

[Hangtown Frye]

James;

I believe you are mistaken when you state that overshirts were for the protection of undergarments.  A SMOCK certainly is for the protection of the coat and vest when worn by a factory worker of farm worker, and smocks can be made from a variety of materials.  Heavy linen was probably the most common.  Though it is indeed related to an overshirt, and I am sure that what with the lack of suitable dictionaries in use at the time the terms were occasionally used interchangeably, by modern definition they are somewhat different in function, if not in construction.

You take issue with Mr. Coles use of the metaphor of a modern undershirt and a dress shirt, but that is in fact exactly the case in which a shirt and over garments were used prior to, say, 1920 or so.  For many, many centuries linen shirts and camisoles have been used as undergarments to protect the woolens used as outergarments.  For this, see Janet Arnold's "Patterns of Fashion 4: The Cut and Construction of Linen Shirts, Smocks, Neckwear, Headwear and Accessories for Men and Women C. 1540-1660", London, Macmillan, November 2008, ISBN 978033357-821  For more modern examples, please see "Workwoman's Guide: A Guide to 19th Century Decorative Arts, Fashion and Practical Crafts (by A Lady) London, Simkin, Marshall 1840, ISBN 0971760543.  In it there is a great deal of information concerning the construction and care of "linens", which was the catch-all phrase for undergarments be they of cotton, linen or silk.  It is made plain that they, along with such items as "anti-cacassars" for protecting chairs from macassar-oiled hair, were made specifically for the protection of the woolen outerwear from the sweat and oils of the wearer. This is why it was permitted, indeed expected that one's shirt cuffs and collar would show, proving that indeed you were not a shiftless (i.e. "shirtless") fellow, and able to protect one's garments from one's body oils with a clean shirt. (One of the reasons for the popularity of "paper" collars and cuffs: you could change them daily, without having to change your shirt as well. Handy for those not blessed with the ability to afford seven shirts!)

It really doesn't matter that much as to the relative costs of linen vs. wool.  What really matters is the ability to launder such garments.  In the period (any period prior to post-WWI, really) woolen garments were cleaned by brushing, as modern dry-cleaning was unknown.  It was the ease of laundering in hot soapy water that gave the linen (and cotton) undergarments their usefulness. Thus in any period prior to our own, being seen in public in one's shirtsleeves was repellent to anyone of taste.  At absolute minimum, a waistcoat (or overshirt) would be worn over these undergarments to protect the delicate of mind.  On the frontier, no one really cared that much, but strong social mores tend to be kept up even in unsociable climes, sometimes even more so.

I also disagree that overshirts were generally worn tucked in.  Sometimes they were, sometimes not.  The overshirt is in many ways the legitimate descendant of the hunting frock, and could be worn outside the trousers and belted around the waist.  There are several first person accounts of this in the Fur Trade literature, such as Gerrard's "Wah To Yah and the Taos Trail" and Ruxton's "Life in the Far West" (both from the 1840's, so as to be a bit nearer the period under discussion).  Further, there are indeed photographs showing both methods of wear extant in collections. (BTW, at this point in time, sailors were still wearing their own frocks tucked in to their trousers, but the Marines were wearing woolen frocks outside of their trousers for fatigue duty.)

In closing, I would strongly disagree with your notion that overshirts were to protect the undershirts from the elements.  A smock may do that, but the overrshirts, are clearly shown are worn as garnets along side coats, not as something put on for a moment while doing chores. Thus they constitute an overgarment on their own, rather than simply a protective garment for the moment.

Cheers!

Gordon

(PS: There was a heated discussion some years ago on the Republic of Texas forum concerning the definition of smocks, frocks and overshirts.  Bowie knives and Paterson's flashing.  Most amusing how we can get into a heated discussion concerning  clothes of our ancestors and not care one whit about what we wear today... )

[panhead pete]

Gentlemen,

What a lively discourse, indeed!!!   I will check Linsey Woolsey as well.  Thanks, Feathers.  I will try to come up with something suitable before I start cutting fabric.  Thanks, Gents,

From PhP, who is anti slave but pro secession!

['Monterrey' Jack Brass]

PHP - I sent to your personal e-mail references for fireman's shirts, lace-up 'sports shirts', and 'other' (call them battleshirts if you will), comes out to about 14 images and some 1886 catalog reference verbiage on the fireman's shirts. It is possible I might be able to get ahold some FHW jeans of a proper weave, will have to check. Shoot me an e-mail and we'll see what we can do and what options there might be.

Hangtown Frye - great info and thanks much for the chapter/verse approach (page number/sources and supporting your thoughts in general), this is the way to do it.

Tucked vs untucked is interesting as I've seen both as well. Might be tough to use ACW references for post-war non-military applications though I can see points on both sides of the issue. Good show, good discussion.

Here is a decidedly military version of an overshirt based on the William B. Ott shirt, 4th Virginia Infantry early ACW era. Not really old west but still germane to the discussion here as a point of reference if nothing else. I made it using the Chas Childs/County Cloth 'Holliday shirt' pattern (with a lot of extra seam allowance to make it large enough to go over a regular shirt). It is made from Family Heirloom Weavers jeans wool and is trimmed out with black wool tape from Wooded Hamlet/Needle & Thread. The buttons are plain brass domed.


Brass

[James Hunt]

Hangtown Frye:

Thank you for that well thought out and referenced information. It took me some time to digest that. As I do not have immediate access to the Workwoman's Guide: A Guide to 19th Century Decorative Arts, Fashion and Practical...,  but it looks great and I shall have to get my hands on it. Now let's see...

1/ Per Brown and others the overshirt evolved from a garment (smock or earlier frock) intended to protect the clothing beneath, as an example the well known wagoners frock from the mid 18th century. We would agree on that.

2/ The use of the shirt prior to and during the much of the 19th century functioned as an "under-garment or shirt" with the wearer using a weskit or vest and formal coat of some sort over it. The shirt had portions of it displayed for the public. We are agreed on that.

3/ I still differ with you on accepting the 20th century concept of an "undershirt" which had a singular purpose and was never intended to be shown, and applying it equally to the mid 19th century. Again we don't wear crevats on our undershirts. Further, I reject any attempt to equate the use of the 19th century overshirt as a garment equal to more formal outer garments, but rather an informal garment evolving from those used to protect clothing. While the frock eventually evolved to something very formal, I do not believe the overshirt ranks in that category. I do note the comment of shirts protecting wool from sweat and oils of the body, good reference. However, overshirts, having been made from a variety of materials wool not-withstanding, could as easily have been laundered as the garment worn beneath.

4/ I submit that the cost of fabric did matter and fully concede that the ability to launder that fabric equally mattered. But we know that overshirts were made of a variety of materials, again a linen overshirt could be cheaply and easily fabricated from flax outside the cabin door to the finished product all in the homestead with nothing but labor, cheap during our period; however, a fine shirt not so easy or cheaply. Further, the linen overshirt could be laundered with less care than the fine shirt. I acknowledge that I have no information suggesting any common fabric for overshirts and that may weigh heavily on our discussion.

5/ In making the point of overshirts being worn tucked in the pants I should have made clear that I refer to their use following the CW. Looking at images I have seen from the late 1860's thru the 1870's at shirts that were distinctive overshirts seems to find them in fact tucked in - note Cody and the Texan above - this is during our time period. During that period I have seen shirts outside the pants but they seem to hang very long, I am assuming them to be smocks as they are not associated with frontier types such as rangers, scouts, etc. After 1880, I have trouble discerning a distinctive overshirt. Would we agree on that?

6/ You bring up overshirts descending from the Hunter's Shirt of the 18th century and I had to laugh. You seem to know your stuff well and I bet you are well aware of how on colonial boards we argue the evolution of the hunting shirt and in fact what one even is with references flying back and forth. It reminded me of our discussion, amusing isn't it? I do think it would be easier to describe the overshirt as evolving from the 18th century frock or smock. I agree that the smock and hunting shirt of colonial times served a similar protective function for the clothing beneath, but the style differences were very distinctive. Now if you have a reference for the overshirt evolving directly from the distinctive hunter's shirt  instead of the smock or frock of colonial times that would be interesting.

7/ I agree that overshirts are shown with coats over them, I am not sure what that means. I recall seeing a reference on--line of a coat being worn over a colonial wagoner's frock, - go figure that. If seen in our period you may be right in suggesting that the overshirt had reached a point were it was a distinctive shirt needing an undergarment to protect it, however - I am not there with you on that point yet.

I still remain unconvinced that the garment beneath was used primarily to protect a snappy looking overshirt - rather that the overshirt was an informal article of clothing worn at the end of its period, our period, for function and possibly fashion.

As you suggest, this is all moot in the context of the problems we face in our world, its argument inconsequential, but it is interesting.

Glad to have met you on-line and I look forward to further referenced information from you.

Very best regards, Jim

[Hangtown Frye]

Jim;

Thanks for your well thought-out reply.  I guess the main thing we are in disagreement about here is the use of the shirt as an undergarment, since we both agree that the overshirt has many possible/probably ancestors as well as uses.  As the overshirt can be seen as an overgarment (the photo of Buffalo Bill Cody above) or as an undergarment (the photo of Billy the Kid elsewhere on this forum, where his fireman's shirt can be seen distinctly under his vest and sweater), we'll have to say that it was a very versatile garment which could be worn as needed, for warmth or other protection from the elements, tucked or untucked as the taste/condition of the wearer dictated.

So... I believe that the point of contention here is that the shirt, be it linen, cotton or other, was or was not worn as an undergarment much like the modern T-shirt. 

Your illustration that we don't put ties on undershirts is I believe missing the point entirely. The cravat/tie is of course descended from the habit of Prince Rupert of the Rhine, during the English Civil War, of wearing his handkerchief tied around his throat.  Since you are obviously a student of Colonial fashions, you can see where the fashion of the neck-cloth went from there during the later half of the 17th Century, through the 18th and into the 19th Century cravat. But those shirts were even then worn as the undergarment next to the skin, and the collar and cuffs were to receive the starch necessary to "catch" the dirt, something we don't really need to do today due to modern laundering techniques. They HAD collars and cuffs for that duty, and poked out to further protect the wool of their over garments from soiling from the skin.

The point is that the modern undershirt did not exist until quite late in the game, nor frankly did modern concepts of underwear/boxers.  True that there were underwear existed, and were even issued during the Civil War by the Union Army, but for the most part civilians still followed age-old tradition and simply tucked their shirts deep into their trousers to perform the same function.  Which is why it was so disgusting to see someone in their shirt sleeves.  They were part of your UNDER-WEAR, and considering the level of hygiene practiced by many, I'm sure that they were in fact quite disgusting to modern sensibilities. 

(There is an interesting note in the appendix of "Chasing Villa" by Col. Frank Thompson on his expedition commanding the 13th Cavalry in the pursuit of Pancho Villa in 1916 where he states that the issue wool shirt [they were issuing cotton T-shirts by then] should be made with long skirts in order that they "may be used as a suspensory" if needed. I found that rather interesting...!)

The reason that they were able to be worn as such was the material. Linen was historically a cheaper fabric to produce than woolen goods (though of course there were fine linens that were far more expensive than cheap woolens, but fine woolens were VERY expensive indeed). But once again, it was not the expense of the material in question, but it's qualities.  The soft cotton or linen shirting was quite easily (by comparison) cleaned via boiling water and soap, where as the woolens were not. There were many recipe's for cleaning wool of it's stains and smudges without laundering because of the care that needed to be taken with it.  We all know the danger of washing woolens and ending up with a garment several times smaller than the one we started with!    The shirt was, therefore, the "underwear" of the day.  It could be washed once a week or so without too much harm, which the woolens could not be.

The use of a cotton or linen shirt (properly called a "coat-shirt" what with the buttons coming all the way down, and it opening all the way down in front) as an outergarment in it's own right is really a 20th Century phenomenon.  The army wouldn't allow it's soldiers to wear just a cotton shirt until the 1930's, in fact. (Documentation on that is out in my barn's apartment, can't get to it at the moment).  Woo shirtl? Sure.  Cotton shirt? Nope, it's underwear.

Anyway, as noted it's a tempest in a teapot, but always fun to haggle over things, and eventually with sufficient give and take we manage to figure out what the "reality" is. Or, like in science, wait for the other guy to die and then claim victory! 

Cheers!

Gordon

[Hangtown Frye]

Oh, for a copy of Workwoman's Guide on line, here's a link:

http://www.archive.org/details/workwomansguide00workgoog

Cheers!

Gordon

[James Hunt]

Gordon: Another great post, you are good at this stuff. Yours are the type of posts that CasCity needs! Source material is everything! So...

You said: "So... I believe that the point of contention here is that the shirt, be it linen, cotton or other, was or was not worn as an undergarment much like the modern T-shirt."

I agree the shirt was an undergarment, I am having trouble wrapping my mind around its equality with the modern t-shrit. By our period it had decorative functions and style of its own. But I agree (or if I have been to strident - concede) to your description of its evolution and the 19th century and earlier concept of it. Again we are referring to late 1860's thru 1880 for the purpose of this discussion.

regards, Jim

[panhead pete]

Hangtown,

Thanks for posting the link to the Workwomen's guide.  I started to thumb through it.  Outstanding reference!! 

Cheers,

Panhead

[Hangtown Frye]

By our period it had decorative functions and style of its own. But I agree (or if I have been to strident - concede) to your description of its evolution and the 19th century and earlier concept of it. Again we are referring to late 1860's thru 1880 for the purpose of this discussion.
regards, Jim

Jim;

Thanks for the kind words! You are correct in that fashion was in a state of flux during the later decades of the 19th Century.  Certainly before that, you would NEVER have seen the amounts of shirt breast shown by many of the high-fashion waistcoats of the period, and the fancy buttons and whatnot that were becoming popular.  So yes, I think we can probably come to a middle ground here.  But I would suggest that one of the reasons that shirts were becoming more in evidence (by the lower-cut waistcoats) is that it was "pushing the envelope" like our modern fashionistas do, to be daring and suggestive. 

From what I can tell, it is in the late-19th and early-20th Centuries that true "undershirts" came into use. You can see them appearing in Army manuals of clothing (I don't recall if Doug McChristian's book details underwear or not.  Perhaps you can supply this info, Roscoe? I have a "Clothing and Equipment" manual from the '80's which shows them, but can't find the darned book at the moment!) in the mid-19th Century, and of course there are a couple of Remington paintings from the 1890's showing such garments as well.

Anyway, being crazy we're portraying a time of major social change and flux (Talk about terrorists!  Socialists, Anarchists, Union organizers, you name it tossing bombs and rioting all over the place!) so clothing that had been standard for years was changing in fairly dramatic ways.  The old tailored "tail coat" and "frock coat" being replaced by the sack-coat suit and relegated to formal wear, etc. So there's no doubt that we're at sea when it comes to such odd details as what constituted underwear! All we can do is dig and then argue about what it means, and hopefully we'll come up with paydirt eventually.

Panhead, glad you're enjoying the link!  Tons of great info in there.  Though most of the shirts by the 1880's were "French Cut" rather than square, anyone over 40 probably would have still preferred the older styles... which is most of us!

Cheers!

Gordon

[Roscoe Coles]

Here is a little period information on laundry from "Hard Tack and Coffee" written by Charles Reed, published in 1888.  Writing about how soldiers in the Civil War did laundry:

"Some of the men were jut as particular about changing their underclothing at least once a week as they would be at home; while others would do so only under the severest pressure... How was the washing done?  Well if the troops were camping near a brook, that simplified the matter somewhat; but even then the clothes must be boiled "(italics in the original) (page 83).


Although this refers to military life it does point a few things out.  1, it was the custom of people in civilian life  to change their underclothes at least once a week.  2, when laundry was done the clothes were boiled.  Boiling wool (which is what their uniforms and many forms of outer clothing were made from) is not a good idea if you ever want to wear the garment again, so when they talked about doing their laundry, they were specifically talking about washing their underclothes, including their shirts.  Later on he even refers to white shirts as "boiled shirts."   This is another thing in support of the claim that undershirts protected the outer layer of clothing from sweat an body oils during the 19th century.

[Skeeter Lewis]

Very interesting, Roscoe.

Boiled shirts were dress shirts that were boiled in starch to give a smooth, formal look, particularly to the section visible above the waistcoat, which was often of double thickness. But I doubt he's referring to that. I guess he's using the term loosely to mean any white shirt.

[Roscoe Coles]

That would be my assumption.  He says they were rare and flannel cotton shirts were the norm.