Folding Cavalry Hat

[Dr. Bob]

Howdy,

I checked the GAF Website and did not see any information on this piece of equipment.  I have heard the name, bu it escapes right now.  Can some one please shed some light on this item? 

I am talking about the "campaign" hat that folds flat and looks like a crescent.  Thanks!!

[Old Top]

Dr. Bob,

I beleive that is the 1872 issue hat, mostly despised by the troops as it was not very well made.  I remember seeing something on it recently but cannot remember where.

Old Top

[St. George]

You're referring to the Model 1872 Campaign or Fatigue Hat.

A ridiculous thing - it was roundly despised by one and all - due to it's shoddy workmanship and unsuitability of purpose.

This comment from Edmund Schriver - Inspector General of the Army - made after a trip through the West:

"Ridiculous in design and faulty in manufacture...better suited to a wet nurse than a soldier in the ranks...I state this without fear of contradiction"

(This letter is in AG, LR, RG, 94 NA (National Archives) , filed with papers relating to the Army Equipment Board which met from 16 December, 1878 through 31 March, 1879 - COL Nelson Miles, Chairman)

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Dr. Bob]

Thanks for the information.

I found a hat today that is made in the same style - that is it folds in the same manner - but is of a very good quality felt and seems to be brown.  The brim is 4 inches wide and the crown is about the same height.  The sweat band has a rectangular box with rounded corner with the letters O and M with an  tiny diamond in between.  Anyone have an idea of what I have??

[St. George]

The issued hat has two hooks and eyelets to hold the brim to the crown.

Two of the manufacturers were Warnock & Co. - of New York, and P. Herst & Son - of Philadelphia.

Neither used that particular logo on their wares - so it's difficult to say.

Perhaps soneoone with a failed 'new idea' made it - and you found it in your searching.

'Real' ones are pretty rare - and thusly, pretty valuable - because of the fact that they didn't last.

Had they made it with a better quality of material - in the Tan or Drab color the Army in the Field actually requested, perhaps its service life would've been greater - but they made it in heat-retaining Black and of poorer-quality materials as a cost-saving measure - and that never works once it reaches the harsh reality of active Service.

Here are the specifications:

The Brim, when down, is elliptical rather than round - measuring 5" on the sides, 3 3/4" at the hooks and 4 1/2" directly front and rear.

The Crown is 5 1/2" top to bottom, w/o crease - and is edged w/ 2 rows of Black stitching, 1/4" from the edge and equidistant.

The Hat Band is of 1" Black ribbed silk with a bow on one side.

The Sweatband is of 2" wide Tan leather - featuring the maker's label and the date of the Contract.

The hat worn by Captain Frederick Benteen is the Officer's model - conforming to the above specifications - but differing in overall quality and featuring a Black silk bound edge.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Pitspitr]

here are a couple of pix of a repro




The original M-1872 was a copy of the earlier "Andrews" hat but were black instead of the Andrews' pearl-grey. The Andrews' hat was named for Col. Timothy Andrews who's Voltigeur Regiment wore them during the Mexican war.
Occassionaly photos will be seen where soldiers cut down the brim, which would explain the narrower brim sans hook & eyes but the hat was so notorious for being poorly made that few survived as St George has already said.
Other than that I don't think I can add anything to what St. George has posted

['Monterrey' Jack Brass]

Dr B,

Not sure what kind of hat you found but it sounds interesting. Perhaps, though brown today, at one time it may have been black(?). I have only one recipe for hatmakers' black dye and that is from 1821. This recipe was composed of mixing logwood, gum (rubber), verdigis (cupric acetate), and green vitriol (aka copperas/heptahydrate of ferrous sulfate) together. I have other black dye recipies for wool, though not specifically for hatters' use, from 1840 and 1884 - all contain logwood. I know logwood can fade quickly and turn brown with time based on repo piece-dyed gray jeans cloth and thread I have personally that have already done so. The idea of your hat being originally black that has faded is purely conjecture but perhaps might be useful info in your case at some level. At any rate, the hat sounds like it's good for your collection if nothing else.

I'm posting the following to add to the info already posted on the 1872 folding hat as it closes the chapter on these hats and where the remaining stocks ended up. From everything I have found this hat was quite an unpopular item with the troops and their officers as already posted to this thread.

The U.S. Army in the West, 1870-1880: Uniforms, Weapons and Equipment by Douglas McChristian (1995) pg 166 "...Meigs postponed their issue [the new 1876 campaign hat, initial supplier of that hat being John T. Waring & Co.] until April 1877 in order to use up some of the remaining stock of the folding campaign hat. Burdened with a large stock of the 1872 hats that few soldiers could be induced to draw, Meigs eventually found a way to salvage part of the investment. He negotiated a contract to have the brims cut down and the crowns reblocked to simulate the 1876 campaign hat. This cosmetic surgery was accomplished at a cost of fifteen cents per hat. The soldiers who drew these hats quickly discovered the ruse because the material was, of course, of the same poor quality that had led to the demise of the folding hat in the first place. In a final, desperate act to rid the army of the folding hats, Meigs generously offered to sell these counterfeits to the officers at the current price of the regulation model. Finding few officers so gullible, he capitulated and ordered the remaining hats, both altered and unaltered, to be issued to the inmates at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison."

YMH&OS,

Monterrey J. B.