Clothing

[Camille Eonich]

I understand that most of what people would usually wear to an NCOWS match has already been proven to have been a clothing type of the era.  It has also always been my understanding that if you wanted to wear something out of the ordinary that you had to document its existence at the time.

I have also been told ny NCOWS member that women can't wear pants to an NCOWS match because they didn't wear them back then.  When I pointed out Calamity Jane I was told that I would have to document that my character would have been the type to wear pants by some type of picture of something.

So was I told wrong?

[Delmonico]

I'm going to add something here, any pants should be men's pants since the "Women's Frontier Pants" as made by Wah and COWS did not exist.   One of the problems is logic says they wore pants, even trail diaries confirm it caust they got tired of cathing them long dress on fire when cooking.  Of course would one wade the drifts to help tend stock after a prairie blizzard in a dress, I think not folks wern't stupid. 

The real problem with the lack of photo's is they were expensive and posed, folks did not wear everyday clothing for this, few do even to day when having a family portrait taken. 

[Will Ketchum]

I understand that most of what people would usually wear to an NCOWS match has already been proven to have been a clothing type of the era.  It has also always been my understanding that if you wanted to wear something out of the ordinary that you had to document its existence at the time.

I have also been told ny NCOWS member that women can't wear pants to an NCOWS match because they didn't wear them back then.  When I pointed out Calamity Jane I was told that I would have to document that my character would have been the type to wear pants by some type of picture of something.

So was I told wrong?

If you were to wear something that was very obviously different (I can't think of an example off hand ) you would want to document it but if you didn't know one is going to runn you off or even mention it to you.  We are mostly self governing.  People tend to want to comply with the rules and most make every effort to.

As for the pants thing.  If you dressed in men's clothing such as Calamity did, as did others there would be know problem. The issue is when someone wears pants such as those worn by Sharon Stone in "The Quick & The Dead"  which were skin tight and would never have been worn by a Victorian, either a man or a woman.

So of your persona is that of a woman trying to pass as a man you are fine.  If you are trying to look 20th century sexy your not.

BTW, I read you post on the Open Range thread regarding buttoned collars and rolled up sleeves.  I agree with you and Del.  I am much cooler in a wool vest than I am without it.  And as far as wearing just a camisole, no woman, not even a soiled dove, would have appeared in public dressed only in a camisole on top.

Will Ketchum

[Trap]

  Camille,
 I will also try to answer your question. In the 19th century, very few ladies would have been seen in public in mens clothing. And there is the rub, it was mens clothing, and did not fit the way most of the pants that shooting ladies wear today. I have no problem with women wearing pants, if they fit like the ones you see in period photos. However, if they are wearing mens clothing they are probably doing a mans job and therefore should shoot in the mens class. Which would not handicap most women shooters I know! It does not say in the bylaws of NCOWS that women can't wear pants, only that you should be prepared to show documentation, which would also include not only that women wore pants, but also the type of pants worn.


                                                                                     jt

[Irish Dave]

Hi Camille:

So was I told wrong?

Well, yes and no.

Clothing for NCOWS events are to be correct for the period we represent (1865-1899), but folks are not expected to carry or provide documentation for their outfits etc. Again, modern or post-1899 items are not permitted. If a shooter wants to use some "out of the ordinary" item, its being unusual does not necessarily require proof of existance. It would be needed, however, if the item was, or generally appeared to be, a modern or post-1899 article or if questions arose about its authenticity. In either case, no one's going to make a big deal about it at the time. Folks may be asked to provide some documentation in the future if they wish to continue using a questioned item.

Newcomers to NCOWS are always given ample time to get their outfits and gear in line with our guidelines and our posses are known for being some of the most helpful folks in the sport when it comes to assisting the "greenhorns" who wish to join up.

It is generally accepted in NCOWS that "pants" for women are not permitted unless they are portraying one of the many women of the Old West who typically wore men's clothes -- either because they were appropriate for their occupations or were actually trying to pass themselves off as men. I can recall no instances of gals being asked to prove that some women dressed as men (such as Calamity Jane, rustler Little Britches, etc). But the modern "cowgirl" image outfits are not correct for our period and therefore are not permitted.
 
In these cases, the gals' outfits would be completely of men's type clothing. The intent here is that we not have women with correct tops and modern style hats/pants or mixed gender outfits which are not accepted by NCOWS as common to the period. 

Again, a first-time NCOWS shooter would be welcomed with open arms regardless of outfit and then encouraged to improve their image. Frankly, most folks who join up sincerely want to do it correctly and are almost universally self-motivated to improve their authenticity -- especially after seeing more veteran members and the way their outfits and accoutrements look. It's rare that anyone actually has to be "called aside" and told they need to improve.

Don't know if this fully answers the question, Camille, but I hope it helps.

[Books OToole]

Camille;

I'm going to echo what has already been said, with a little different tack.

Caroline "Bill" Newcomb - Mexican War Volunteer & later teamster.

Jane Canery - Teamster

Charlie Parkhurst - Stage Driver

Pearl Hart - Stage Robber.

All of the above were women who dressed as men and performed men's jobs. 
The one famous (posed) picture of Pearl Hart is one of the best photos to document a men's shirt style.  Most men wore a vest &/or a coat over their shirt, therefore it is hard to document the style.

If you want to go that route I would say the test would be;  If you can not be identified as a female from behind, you passed.

Books

[Grizzle Bear]

Books, remember that the photos of Pearl Hart were taken while she was IN PRISON, and they might not really indicate how she dressed while robbing stage coaches!



Grizzle Bear

[O.T. Buchannan]

Camille, you have received some very good replies.  I also agree that if wearing men's clothing, you should be doing some job that would ordinarily be looked upon as a man's profession.  I would also strongly suggest bringing such documentation with you.  Personally, I may do things a tad different from what most folks would expect, but if questioned on it, I have the documentation with me....

Sometimes, we all have to expand the way we think of history.  Years ago, in studying period correct hats, pretty much EVERY photograph I've seen (Derbies and Top Hats excluded) featured hats which were tilted back on the head of the wearer.  Since this is what was DOCUMENTED, this is pretty much the stance I took, even though common sense would say that in the hot sun, you would want something to shield your eyes.  I will tell you this...common sense does NOT always prevail when it comes to fashion! 

Anyway, those people who said that common sense dictated the hat should go over the eyes, and that only people being photographed (hmmm......) wore their hats tilted back, well, it made sense, even if they couldn't solidly prove it.  After all, I took plenty of photographs, some with my hat tilted back, and some with the brim forward, and it didn't make much difference........UNTIL I actually had my photograph taken with historical equipment.  That changed everything!  NOW, looking at it from a historical photographer's point of view (with historical equipment), tilting the hat back makes sense.  In other words, I had to adjust my thinking on this.

I can give you a great many examples of how we as historians make up our mind about something, and tend to 'close' it to new ideas coming in.  When it comes to a woman wearing pants, I am also of the opinion that skirts and dresses were the norm for women back then, but if a woman shows up with men's pants on, and she has her documentation to boot, then I for one am willing to hear what she has to say.

The mind is like an umbrella...it works best when it is open.......

[DArchangel]

Camille, while it was tecknicaly illegal to "wear the clothes of the opposite sex", the west was the leader in breaking convention.Divorce laws were lenient (eastern newspapers had ads for easy ones) And easterners were scandelised by women rideing astride. Victorian convention v/s necessity,you decide

[Big Hext]

Howdy,

I am confused.  Does anyone shooting NCOWS have to be ready to present documentation, or just Originals?
Women in men's clothing is not in dispute, so that would not be an issue.. or is it?

I understand (or did) that NCOWS requires period clothing and does not allow B-Western or SASS Minimum (or modern) dress.  I also understood that documentation was not required except for unusual items.  Perhaps y'all can help me see the difference.

Adios,

[Trap]

  Big Hext,
  I'll see if I can field this. IF you are going to compete in the originals class , documentation is manditory, though in any other class you would only have to have doc. if you were using something questionable as to whether it fit into the pre 1899 time period. Anything on the approved list or anything that is understood as commonly available in the latter half of the 19th C. would never be challenged.         jt

[Irish Dave]

Howdy, Hext.... Long time no see 

Does anyone shooting NCOWS have to be ready to present documentation...

The short answer is NO.
If you show up, with the understanding that no B-western or modern Post-1899 clothing is allowed, you're fine. No one's going to ask for anything. If you show up in something else, I don't know anyone who's going to say anything the first time. Should you return a second or third time with the incorrect or questionable item, someone may politely suggest that your whatever isn't correct. At that point, you would have a couple of choices if you should come back again:

1) Remove the incorrect or questioned item; or
2) If you think your item is correct, bring some documentation with you and show that you're right.

Women in men's clothing would not be in dispute, but as has been posted, it should all be men's clothing and not the gal's -style modern cowgirl type of post-1899 clothing.

To me, "Unusual" items would be something that would not be commonly accepted as pre-1899 correct, or even something so rare as to be unfamiliar to other members, thereby causing them to question the item (not from the standpoint of being picky, but rather from their own lack of knowledge or unfamiliarity with the item.) If such a rare item is documented, then there'd be no problem and everyone would learn something from the experience.

Have I  helped at all?

[Big Hext]

Gracias amigos.. clear enough.

The other side might be an unusual presentation of a clearly period item or items.
Desert robes or lederhosen are clearly from the time period, but are not likely to be seen in the American West.

While I (and likely y'all) think that coming up with a tale to match the outfit is a big part of the fun, it's just not for everyone, and could be really intimidating... even to a bunch of lovable ol' bears like y'all.

[French Jack]

Hext, you could show up in your robes and turban, and when and if you are asked about it, tell them you are a member of the Camel Corps.

All joking aside, when the camels were imported to use in the desert, I understand that a few handlers/trainers, etc. were brought along to teach the troops the proper way to get along with camels.

[Camille Eonich]

Well, this bothered me a bit because I was pretty sure that when I was told about the documentation the first time that I followed up on it then.  So I got to poking around today to see where I got it in my head so firmly and it's right there in the bylaws.

7-1.  It is the responsibility of the individual to document the authenticity of all items of apparel, accouterments, and firearms. The remainder of this by-law shall act as a general guide, however, the Territorial Congress, in conjunction with the Authenticity Committee, shall maintain, update and publicize specific lists of both "Approved" and "Not-Approved" items of apparel, accouterments, and firearms. These lists shall be made a part of this by-law and shall take precedence over any other portion of this or any other by-laws with which they may conflict. Questionable items may be granted temporary amnesty by the Judge on an individual member basis (not a blanket proclamation) until said item is listed by the Territorial Congress.

I couldn't find an approved list anywhere on the site but I did find a list of stuff that isn't approved.

Clothing and Accouterments: A very diverse range of apparel and accouterments existed within the time period of 1865-1899. Much has been written detailing the items worn and used during this time. The individual must research all items to ensure authenticity. Period photographs used to authenticate dress should be dated in order to eliminate confusion as to whether the item is correct.

        Not allowed are the following: any modern Western-style boot with stitching on the toe; modern-style vests; snap-button shirts or modern-style Western shirts; modern jeans that have not been altered to conform to historic styling; Buscadero (slotted belt) gun rigs; modern "fast-draw" holsters; slide-on shotgun shell holders (effective as of the first Territorial Congress of 2006); modern-style cowboy hats, unless altered to an authentic style; modern Western trophy-style belt buckles. Loading strips are not allowed on the firing line but may be used at the loading area. Shotgun cartridge belts must have individual loops.

Anybody have an idea where I can get a copy of the approved list?

Oh and thanks a bunch to all of y'all for taking the time to try to explain this me.  I'm sorry if I still seem a bit confused over it all.

[Irish Dave]

Camille:

Most of the "approved" list stuff relates to firearms. It's also on the www.ncows.org website under the Bylaws section, IIRC.

As far as the clothing, I'm not really sure there is a formal "approved" list for that although there has been some discussion recently about trying to create something along that line.

I guess a general clothes rule might be:
A) If it is generally accepted as '65-'99 correct, no problem;
B) If it isn't and you can clearly document it, no problem.
C) The items on the "unapproved" list you cited above are specifically not allowed.
D) If it's not on the list, and complies with A or B, you should be OK to wear it (with the caveat we've discussed already about gals in men's clothes).

If I'm mistaken, I have faith someone will quickly correct me.

[Camille Eonich]

If I'm mistaken, I have faith someone will quickly correct me.

Thanks again Dave.

[Trinity]

Sooooo, I feel it's safe to understand that an outfit like this wouldn't be allowed. 

[Trinity]

 

[Will Ketchum]

Trinity, I think the holster and belt would be on the unapproved list but I am quite certain that the blanket would be approved and I know I approve of the woman wearing them.

If I remember correctly she carried a a very interesting revolver and her mentor, Robert Culp carried a short barreled S&W New Model 3.

Will Ketchum