Clothing

[Ozark Tracker]

Will, what was it  again that caused you to see the revolver.

[Irish Dave]

Robert Culp carried a short barreled S&W New Model 3.

Probably not for long.

[Frenchie]

This sort of thing comes up in Civil War reenacting/living history all the time. I don't mean to sound like a hard*** here, but it comes down to reading the guidelines and rules, doing the research and the work to make sure you're right, getting answers to your questions and acting accordingly, then wearing what you want and being prepared to show documentation to prove it's all good. By the way, by documentation I don't mean hearsay; what someone told you or you read somewhere on a discussion forum is not documentation. Scholarly, known, accepted work and original sources are documentation. Get to know the nice people behind the Reference desk at your local library, they live to help people find information.

If you don't want to do the work and prefer to just rely on people to tell you what is allowed and what is not, do not even think of complaining about it. Letting other people do the work for you means doing what they tell you to do.

And as delightful as that outfit Raquel is not quite wearing is, I'm afraid it is just a tad too far over the "hazardous distraction" line. For a "best dressed" ("least dressed"?) contest, no problem, but on the firing line she ought to wear something else. How about that outfit she had in Bandolero?  

[River City John]

With minimal clothing like that it's hard not to mistake that holster is hanging on a slot.

[Sod Buster]

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

Ony you Trinity would come up with this......

[Lone Gunman]

How about that outfit she had in Bandolero? 

This one ? 

[Sod Buster]

Of course there were other females wearing pants.  Here are two from the 1880's.  The second one looks posed:

[Dr. Bob]

Frenchie,

There is one more option for research!

Books O'Toole, who owns a book store and has his Masters Degree in History will be happy to do it for anyone  The fee is $100 per hour and the product will be properly foot noted.  He does good work, but he is out of my price range!!

[Chantilly]

Camille,

You ask some great questions.  I've been spending a great deal of time researching women wearing pants for the past few months (and women's lives in the west for much longer) for the same reason you posted your questions.  I was told NCOWS women couldn't wear pants (or anything other than long sleeves, high collar dresses as well - but that's for another time).  Yes, women in the westward movement, most definitely did wear pants more often than is commonly thought.  As already mentioned, some women when engaged in many outdoor chores, slipped on a pair of their husband's (or other male relative's) pants.  I would challenge the statement that this was done while engaged in "men's work".  Women's role in the west (and rural areas in the "States") was definitely broadened based on need.  So much depended upon where women lived (rural vs. urban) and under what circumstances (rich vs. not).  Women that did engage in outdoor work still confined the majority of that work to tasks related to the traditional idea of "women", that of "caretaking".  Planting, milking, feeding animals and similar outdoor work activity was more acceptable when viewed as caring for the animals and nurturing the plants that feed the family.  A lot more can be said about women's "working" role but you get the general idea.  

I digress - back to the pants.  Women's diaries, though carefully worded for fear of who might read them, mention wearing pants.  Sometimes (actually not very common from what I have learned so far) this was to pass as a man to obtain work that paid substantially more than women's paid work like laundress or milliner.   Sometimes to pass as a man to be "amongst the men" which some have said of Calamity Jane.  Ms. Calamity Jane did dress in military uniform to intentionally elude the officer's scrutiny to be with a lover, or as noted by other historians, to make a living.  

Not ALL women that wore "pants" wore men's pants.  Some women wore an altered bloomer pattern (or long bloomers) under shortened skirts.  "Shortened" is a relative term.  When I can find reference to length, the "shortened" skirt was about mid-calf.  This was not uncommon on the trail as women (everyone really) had to walk alongside the wagon for various reasons at one time or another.  Skirts would get caught in the long grass and brush or a wagon wheel or blown about in the winds making walking quite difficult and tear up the hems of the skirts as well, not to mention the possibility of serious injury.  The solution was to shorten the skirt and forego the petticoat(s).  Men's pants or bloomers or modified bloomers were worn under the shortened skirts to protect the ankles and for modesty's sake.

This practice was really not all that uncommon on the westward trails.  The "idea" wasn't novel though.  Women's gymnastics suits in the east and Victorian bathing suits were a very similar style.  The "Bloomer Costume" was more widely known because of good old publicity but it wasn't really that novel for the same reasons.  Mormons and other religious groups, health reformers and even women's suffragettes adopted a similar type of women's costume in the 1850's.  Similar costumes were worn by women Vivandieres and Dr. Mary Walker during the Civil War.

Following the Civil War, the publicity died down and so did the more public displays but the style didn't exactly go away.  Once women experienced wearing pants and shortened skirts, rather fearfully the first time, they didn't just forget the greater freedom of movement and practicality of the clothing.  There are accounts of women in pants (without the skirts) as well.  Many women continued the practice in their outdoor work and recreation and would wear the more "acceptable" women's clothing when in the company of friends and family and when dressing for town or socializing.  

By the 1890's, women's "hunting and recreation" outfits were slightly modified costumes - the pants or bloomers and shortened skirts.  Many bicycle costumes (costumes is the more commonly applied term in pre-1900 writing) were exaggerated bloomers and lengthened bodices.  No "shortened" skirt and these costumes were worn in public and widely ridiculed in the press just as they were in the 1850's.  Women's rights were more rapidly expanding by this time though and women weren't as likely to buckle under the pressure.  Finding photographs of women in the 1890's in "pants" is really not that difficult.  Prior to 1890 isn't impossible just not as easy.  Reference to women wearing pants in diaries exists.  There are even a few references in newpaper of women seen, and even arrested, for wearing pants.  

Women of other nationalities did traditionally wear pants as part of their everyday attire including Native Americans, as in the photographs posted by Sod Buster, and many eastern cultures.  The dress of the Native American tribes not only influenced the "Mountain Men" but also the women of the west, particularly in early settlements when dress goods were the most limited.  Naturally, the dress of the many tribal women and men were more suited to the climate and conditions of a particular region.  As noted by many people on this forum, there were many cultures in the States and in the Territories.    

In my opinion, women wearing pants, was easier for each generation of women because they actually did see women (mothers and grandmothers) in pants and shortened skirts and pants with no skirts in limited circumstances when growing up.  With each generation, the idea of this radical clothing became more and more acceptable until it finally burst itself upon the public.  Fashion reform occurs along similar lines throughout history.  I certainly recall some clothing I wore in my teen years that shocked my parents and grandparents.  

I canl post some photos of women in pants at another time (when it's earlier!).  

Best regards to all,

Chantilly

[Trap]

  Right!  We don't allow Buscadero holsters.  ( On the subject of Raquel)

[Camille Eonich]

Wow Chantilly!  Thanks for all of the info.  It sounds as though you have really put a lot of time into your research.

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

In due respect to Sod Buster, the photos of the two native american women were obviously posed, and the younger girl in the photo is more then likely wearing a pair of adult leggings. The bottom photo is in a studio, and the subject is probably wearing a pair of men's pants furnished by the photographer, why I don't know?

You are going to have to do a lot of long research to find a native american woman in pants, why would she want to? Most native american children as they grew older adapted clothing given to them by the adult....as they were taught to make their own.

I'm not saying there aren't any, but in fifty years of research I have never seen a genuine photo of a native american woman in a pair of men's pants, in particular those in their own climate and remained with their tribe during their life span.

There are accounts of women taken captive in the east during the 18th century that wore leggings and breech clouts whil in captivity but not much of anything else once their original garments had worn out. Something to consider
Bill

[Books OToole]

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

At least she's not wearing pants.

Books

[Pawnee Bill]

Of course there were other females wearing pants.  Here are two from the 1880's.  The second one looks posed:

The first one looks like a young boy to me.
Cheers
Pawnee Bill

[Camille Eonich]

Well, so much for thinking that I had this straightened out.  Even if a photo is documented as original and from the time period it doesn't count unless it was a casual photo?  Posed ones don't count?  There weren't many casual photos taken back then.

I'm wondering if any of the originals use posed photos for their documentation and what the rules are there.

Then again documentation isn't required unless you are an original, unless you're doing something unusual so posed photos don't make a hill of beans to the average member or shooter.   


Seems as though it would just be easier to require everyone to document rather than to try to explain who and what requires documentation and who and what doesn't.  Then who would have time to load ammo and shoot?   

[Sod Buster]

The first one looks like a young boy to me.
Cheers
Pawnee Bill

The Library of Congress site stated it was a young girl.  OCB could be correct in that they could be leggins instead of pants.  There were other pictures as well of Native American women & girls wearing "pants".  These were  not the only two I found.  The LOC site stated "pants" but I defer to his years of research.  Perhaps the person doing the cataloging didn't know the difference.

[Books OToole]

Camille;

I was just surfing through your web site.  (Nice pictures by the way.)  Not all of the photos are labled, but from what I can tell your "man's" outfit is not too far off.  I think it would be a fun documentation/research project.  And not that difficult.

It is a crazy world and everybody has their own druthers.  I'd rather research than reload. [After all, my moniker is Books not Bullets.] I get an amazing amount of research done for twenty minutes every morning.  If I could just get the reloading press into the "reading room."

It is easier to find a photo of a character that you like and then acquire the clothes to make yourself look like the photo.  Rather than try to find 19th century pictures that look like photos of you.

My "Originals" documentation is a little of both.

Next time you go to the "reading room" take along the Time-Life, Old West, The Women.  You might be surprised at what you discover.

Books

[Pawnee Bill]

The Library of Congress site stated it was a young girl.  OCB could be correct in that they could be leggins instead of pants.  There were other pictures as well of Native American women & girls wearing "pants".  These were  not the only two I found.  The LOC site stated "pants" but I defer to his years of research.  Perhaps the person doing the cataloging didn't know the difference.

Those are pretty standard south plains side flap leggings no way are they pants.
Cheers
Pawnee Bill

[Camille Eonich]

Thanks Books.  Still on the topic of clothes, where are most of you getting your clothes from?  I've been having mine custom made because I don't like selections available off the shelf.  The cost is about the same as Wah but maybe a little higher than COWS.  I like the drop front pants the best and I almost always wear a vest although with the heat the past couple of matches I have dropped the vest and added a sash.

When I first started this I thought that I would go with a scout/frontiersman look.  I wanted the buckskin clothes and fringes and all that but man that stuff is HIGH!  And no, I'm not going to make it myself.  I don't like to sew.

[Irish Dave]

NCOWS Senator Jim Boeke at River Junction Trade Co. is a very good source for period correct clothing and accessories. Prices vary, but they are generally reasonable plus there are often sales or specials that help, too.

www.riverjunction.com

Also Delmonico at The Fort Old West Shop will steer you correctly.
Prices vary there also, but they, too, are generally reasonable plus sales or specials.

www.the-fort.com