The importance of "homely"

[Oregon Bill]

I'd like to bring up a theme that runs through the historical artifacts and images we have from the 1840-65 period, and I can best describe it with the word homely.
Many, many of the faces we see captured by the early view cameras are unremarkable, awkward and dour. Of course, part of this has to do with long exposure times which made holding a smile difficult. Nonetheless, I think the faces that have been photographically preserved for us also reflect a hardness of life we can only imagine, from poor nutrition, to cold and drafty rooms to hard floors to disease risks -- not to mention two- and four-legged varmints eager to make life even more miserable.
So the faces, framed in severe women's hairstyles parted tightly down the middle and men's ungainly, greasy mops on top of the head sweeping to bushy curls out behind the ears, echo the conditions of the times, especially on the frontier: rude, cramped cabins of logs and sod, sturdy but rough and simple furniture, water where you could find and haul it from.
Bathing was infrequent, hygiene very sketchy, dental health a disaster.
Clothing of the period is, let's just say, different, real different. Ours is the period of the standup collar and assymeterically tied black cravat for the menfolk, with a shawl-collared vest under an ungainly looking coat with ridiculously wide lapels and a cut about the shoulders that makes every male appear stoop-shouldered. Hats tend either to be misshapen blobs of felt, no two alike, or stovepipe tophats, with the occasional military wheel cap or homely Hardee style mixed in. There are NO hats resembling cowboy hats. None. Zero, sorry. Even the foundational Stetson Boss of the Plains does not arrive until the late 1860s.
The firearms of the period also might be termed homely. I have examined a number of original plains rifles that came west on the Oregon Trail, and they are a polyglot of forms, both half and heavily full-stocked, many with barrels 1 1/2 inches across the flats or even larger, with a mix of locks, back action locks and "percussioned" flint locks. Inletting can be very sloppy or represent a kitchen-table fix, and many stocks show abuse and repair. Not one of the many current repros I have seen out there -- even from master smiths -- come close to some of the specimens seen in Oregon museums. That's because they are so homely that the modern re-enactor or resembler (another favorite term of mine) wouldn't think of spending $1,000 to $2,000 to have one re-created.
I bring up these points for a reason, and I am partly preaching to myself. For the American Plainsmen Society to accurately represent the era, those of us who love this period of American history must dare to be homely.
Let your clothes be ill-fitting, wrinkled, stained and unromantic. Wear a knotted cravat, and a coat with lapels wide enough to serve lunch on. Let your hair be unruly, like when you just get out of bed, and wear it under anything but a cowboy-era hat. Have a Colt revolver? Let it get some wear on it. Even consider bobbing the barrel, or making one into a snubby belly gun; I've seen many originals. Let your leatherwork look like it came out of Packing Iron for your period. Most of the Dragoons and Walkers in that book are held in flat-throated, flap-closure holsters that a CAS-oriented shooter wouldn't dream of owning. Having a plains rifle built? Forget the Hawken brothers. Order an ungainly full stocked back-action rifle with a 1 1/2-inch barrel in .43 caliber, and give me a wrist repair. What's that, it weighs 13 pounds? Is that an issue?
Things to think about. This period has been so obviously overlooked that I think it's distinctively ungraceful, homely feel is a part of the reason. And we owe to our ancestors to honor them as they were, not as we wish they were.
All comments most welcome!

[The Elderly Kid]

Although it comes from much later than our period, the famous photo of Billy the Kid (William Bonney, whatever) could serve as a model. Remember, a prime function of your hat was to water your horse out of it. That's what the Kid's hat looks like it was doing just before it adorned his uncombed scalp. And most of those awful portraits show what the sitter(s) looked like at their best!

[River City John]

Although it comes from much later than our period, the famous photo of Billy the Kid (William Bonney, whatever) could serve as a model. Remember,a prime function of your hat was to water your horse out of it. That's what the Kid's hat looks like it was doing just before it adorned his uncombed scalp. And most of those awful portraits show what the sitter(s) looked like at their best!

As to your statement,I'm curious,- if you were close enough to scoop water up in your hat and offer it to the animal, why the horse didn't just lower it's neck and head to the water source and drink?

[The Elderly Kid]

I suppose you might have to dip it up out of a source lower than the horse can reach, like a sinkhole or a steep arroyo. In any case, a famous Stetson advertising poster shows a cowboy watering his horse in this fashion, with the motto: "The Last Drop From His Stetson." Would an advertiser lie?

[Oregon Bill]

By the way, John Stetson set up shop in 1865, and brought out the Boss of the Plains in 1866, the year after our period closes.

[Jake MacReedy]

Very well stated, Bill!  I couldn't agree with you more.  Excellent thread!

Jake

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

In the lead post, Oregon Bill said;

"That's because they are so homely that the modern re-enactor or resembler (another favorite term of mine) wouldn't think of spending $1,000 to $2,000 to have one re-created."

I like that term!  

It is hard to get it right nowadays as we generally don't travel, work, and live rough under the conditions of "the day".   And not all of us live in our dress-up duds the way Delmonico does.

[The Elderly Kid]

It wasn't just people who "lived rough" on the frontier whose clothes looked awful. Look at the full-length protrait photos of Abraham Lincoln, with his rumpled coat and horridly wrinkled trousers. My wife wouldn't let me go out in public looking like that and this was the president of the US! BTW, I've heard that pants showing a pressed-looking seam back then were looked upon as poor man's clothing, because they looked like they were bought from a stack in a drygoods store instead of handmade at home or tailormade, which was how respectable people got their clothing. Cavalrymen back then could look spiffy because their uniforms were tailored to fit skintight, with no slack for wrinkles.

[St. George]

Enlisted uniforms weren't tailored at all - Cavalrymen only looked diferent because of the shell jacket.

Officer's uniforms came more to fitting, since they were required to purchase their own.

Later in the Civil War - Officers bought their uniforms from the Quartermaster, since those were on-hand, and they were busy campaigning.

Do not attempt to ascribe our standard of dress to those over 100 years ago - their clothing was functional and our forebears didn't fill closets with outfits as their ancestors would.

Both the 'NCOWS Forum' and the 'Historical Society' forum addressed this a few years ago - with suggestions on how to make your modern-made clothing and equipment look more historically-accutate to your Impression.

The period is overlooked simply because there's little glamor attached to it - the Trail Drives would follow after the end of the Civil War, as would the Indian Wars, and therin lies far, far more excitement and sense of building our nation than anything.

Replicating the 'Westward Expansion' at the end of the Fur Trapper/Mexican War period features a lot of folks walking beside oxen and crouched over streams with a gold pan in their hands - 'not' the more exciting period that would follow post-war - the period that affected more people and was better-chronicled - the period most Americans have some greater knowledge of and what come to be identified 'cowboy' in our lexicon.

The weapons and clothing as seen in museums was hard-used - and remember - much of the early stuff that makes its way into museums is only there because the museum door was closer than the dump, and the owner felt bad about throwing it away - but the weaponry seen in private hands isn't as time-worn or poorly-maintained, and much of the clothing is still in good repair.

Folks back then also looked pretty much like folks from Europe - we hadn't had the opportunity to stir the gene pool yet, and wouldn't, until greater travel would become common, and nutrition today eclipses anything pondered by our forebears - producing larger, healthier, 'prettier'  specimens than ever before, but during the era - 'pretty' wasn't a deciding factor in effectiveness or leadership as we see today.

As to 'The Last Drop From His Stetson' - it's a desert scene, and romatic as hell, when you're selling the 'idea' of Stetson's history - causing the buyer to want to associate himself with your product...
Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Tsalagidave]

This is a good thread. I think that it is worth mentioning that "homeliness" may be a bit of a strong word to imply since we are trying to take people from another time and expect them to look the same as us without all the benefits that come with living in our area. Our advantages include modern advancements in medicine, nutrition, plastic surgery, cosmetics and an overall healthier and higher standard of living. Their advantages were that they were generally more physically active and their bodies more accustomed to harsher living conditions. Some of the misnomers about this period however is that people were ignorant of health and hygiene. Countless publications of the period indicate that there was widespread knowledge that filth bred disease and that poor hygienic habits led to poor health and higher mortality. Toothbrushes were very common as was the use of soap and bathing whenever practical. The problem lies in the lifestyle itself. Spend the afternoon on a trail ride and you are dusty and filthy. Now extend that trail ride to cover periods of weeks or months at a time and it is easy to see how cleanliness on the trail was little more than a periodic opportunity to lessen your chances of contracting an illness.

I was looking at ferrotypes taken of my friends and I at authentic events and none of us look more flattering than our ancestors did. Although we are mostly lean and in-shape guys, we all look pretty drug out after a few days sleeping on the ground without modern facial soaps and hot showers (testimony of how spoiled we are by 21st c. conveniences). I agree with Bill and the others here that we need to spend more time and cash looking "typical" than we should at looking like the romanticized Hollywood equivalent.

For what it is worth though, I do carry a custom built unadorned plains rifle that is full stocked with a 1.5 thick barrel weighing in at 14lbs. I have 2-different holsters that I use that are straight out of packing iron (one Main & Winchester, the other is the George Washington) but the rest of my leather is replicated after original specimens of everyday hunting bags, belts etc. Although my trekking gear gets pretty heavy as the miles stack up, it is still nothing compared to the load of a modern military rucksack.

-Dave

[Oregon Bill]

Sir Charles: Are you referring to Del's nighty? 

Good posts guys. Dave, congrats on your plains rifle. Is there a photo somewhere here on the boards?
St. George, plenty of Native American excitement during this period in Comanche country!
I'll also have to admit to a great fondness for oxen. They used to have some gigantic red oxen roaming around at Bent's Fort. Dunno if they are still there.
I'm working on a thesis for my impression, blending elements of my own family history. Great-great grandfather Champion Travis Traylor was murdered in San Saba Texas in 1856, just a few month before my GGF was born in that town. He went on to marry my GGM in Buffalo Gap, up in Taylor County, and ranched in Hutchinson County just a couple of miles up the Canadian River from the Turkey Track Ranch, where the second Adobe Walls fight took place.
Another branch of the family features Virginians in Ohio, Pilgrims from Middleboro, Mass., in Wisconsin, and North Carolinians in Texas via Tennessee, so I have a lot of threads to work from and whoever my guy is, he'll be drawn off onto the Oregon Trail by a girl with "... a smile like an acre of sunflowers, and she's rides like she carries the mail."
Foundation of my gear will be a Second Model Dragoon in flap-top, flat throated holster like the ones Rip Ford has on in the Packing Iron photo. Long gun for now will be a "surplused" 1841 Mississippi "Yauger."
HAVe a pair of rough-out natural Jefferson bootees, but I'll need flap-front trousers, shawl-collar vest, stand-up collar shirt, low-crowned floppy slouch hat and a "homely" coat; my frock coat would work, but it's just too pretty ...

[Tsalagidave]

Looking good Bill. Attached is a photo of my militia pack with rifle, hunting bag, pistol and knife. I also took a shot of the contents of my pack and hunting bag.

[The Elderly Kid]

People now forget how labor-intensive bathing was  before modern plumbing. Somebody had to cut the wood, build the fire, haul the water, heat the water over the fire, fill the tub, and only then could somebody take a bath. Then the tub had to be emptied and scrubbed out.  That was enough to make an all-over bath a weekly affair if that. For most of history, communal bathhouses were the rule since they were more conserving of resources and labor. They are still used in Japan. In cowtowns and railroad towns with transient populations, baths were usually attached to barber shops. Laundrys were often attached as well, so you could get a bath and a shave while your clothes were being washed. My great-grandfather ran such an establishment in Oklahoma in the early 20th century, though he served more oilfield roughnecks than cowboys by that time.

[Oregon Bill]

Kid: Absolutely salient points. A bath was a big chore. A dip in the stock pond or the local stream probably had to serve more often than not.

[Tsalagidave]

I agree Kid, my grandmother (From Chelsea, OK) said the same thing. It was no easy task to haul water and heat it for the bath.  What they did instead was have a "whore spit" bath (aka. Top & Tails) bath spot washing every part of the body with the pitcher and basin 1-2 times daily. A common deodorant was bayrum which I still make and use. It holds up real well and does its job killing the odor causing bacteria in the "shady places".

-Dave

[joec]

People now forget how labor-intensive bathing was  before modern plumbing. Somebody had to cut the wood, build the fire, haul the water, heat the water over the fire, fill the tub, and only then could somebody take a bath. Then the tub had to be emptied and scrubbed out.  That was enough to make an all-over bath a weekly affair if that. For most of history, communal bathhouses were the rule since they were more conserving of resources and labor. They are still used in Japan. In cowtowns and railroad towns with transient populations, baths were usually attached to barber shops. Laundrys were often attached as well, so you could get a bath and a shave while your clothes were being washed. My great-grandfather ran such an establishment in Oklahoma in the early 20th century, though he served more oilfield roughnecks than cowboys by that time.

Just to add some more extended history to this. Europeans as a whole felt bathing was unhealthy in the early 1500, that is until they finally got to Japan about 1542 and learned since the dark ages that bathing wasn't bad for you. Bath houses have been in Japan for many centuries and probably predates even the Roman or Greek Empires who also had public bath houses.

[Caleb Hobbs]

Great thread, Bill, and a lot of good posts.

I dug out my mountain man duds a couple of months ago, and discovered that they seem to have shrunk over the years, and I never did put as much effort into my cowboy gear. So it's been fun doing the research for a whole new persona. My goal is an 1858 buffalo hunter/plainsman, set up and ready to roll by next summer.

[ChuckBurrows]

a variant this same theme....with some interestaing perspectives..........

A Modest Proposal ?:
Some Thoughts On The Authenticity
By Alan Gutchess

I am continually amazed by the fervor that arises every time the word "authenticity" is used, either in print or in 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 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. 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 #1: Get the documentation first, buy, commission, or make last.

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 American Indian, 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 Indians 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 Indian towns, 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 #2: Acceptable documentation should be derived solely from primary sources.

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 Indians to missionaries and everything in between, there may be no uniform, but still a certain uniformity exists.

Now of course there were individualists then, who's 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 mimic the extreme edges of 18th century Indian 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 #3: Document for commonality. Dare to be average!

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 #4: Document for appropriateness.

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 #5: Avoid all "phantom" documentation.

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 $3,000 rifle you have in your hands is correct for your impression. Don't believe that 20th century author who says, "Indian women 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 #6: Trust no one born after 1800.

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 c. 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 #7: Avoid speculation if you can, and where you must, minimize the effect.

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, Red, White, or Black. Trades in the period were highly specialized affairs. Even the Indians clearly had a large amount of specialization of labor. If a person was not specifically trained in a particular craft or trade, attempting to make their own axe, shirt, hunting pouch, or any other object, 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 #8: Know the limitations of your own skills and abilities.

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 #9: Whenever possible, obtain objects produced with period techniques and materials.

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 process 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 shame 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 #10: Be willing to periodically reevaluate your appearance and make corrections accordingly.

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! Have it published here or in other mediums, 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 #11: Don't hoard documentation, make it available to others.

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.
Rule #12: Have some serious fun!

The above article is copywrited by Alan Gutchess