1880 stetson hat...

[Irish Dave]

Skip:

Thanks for the clarification.
Guess I just jumped to the conclusion that old habits die hard.

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Howdy Dave and all,
I think Wrangler's point for the post (Wrangler, correct me if I'm wrong) was to point out the fact that hats were available from the factory in creasing such as those in the photo he posted. Open flat hats were common at the local dry goods store, that's what common folks bought and shaped themselves either on purpose or by chance. Factory ordered hats were available in whatever shape/crease, one desired/could pay for. Read my previous post. Hats shaped like the photo Wrangler posted were available from the factory at least as early as 1878, I suspect earlier, but can't document. There is no disputing that fact. Many ordered and wore them. More than most uninformed would like to admit. Take care.

Terry,
I am not doubting what you are saying, but how do we know that this hat came from the factory already creased, and that it wasn't done after it was given to his family, or even after the turn of the century. Look, We have saddle makers that can document period saddles, we have leather makers that can document period holsters, belts etc; Why, if a hat maker or merchant is going sell a hat, can't he or she, provide documentation for the hat(s) they sell to show that it was in fact made when they say it was.

I've done business with three that would...the rest I've talked to would say something like; "Yeah, they wore em like this but I can't prove it, or, I don't have time to look for it (the documentation) right now". Needless to say, I looked else where for a hat.

I donno pards, I think it shows that there's nuthin new under the sun and that hat creases are and always have been as individual as the charactors that wore them!

Me? I'm printing the artical and the pictures, along with the pics of Wild Bill and keeping them with my shootin stuff! Anyone remarks on my cattlemans crease, theys gonna get a look at them! 

Cuts,
How does this proove that the cattlemen's crease is correct when we don't know for sure when the crease was put in this hat. I don't think you can use this as a primary source or even a secondary source as positive proof until someone can come up with a written document, or sales reciept to show when and where the hat was creased.

JMHO

Bill

[Cuts Crooked]

Because the hat is a museum piece............AND..........pictures exist of Wild Bil wearing a hat with the same crease........AND......there is mention of another hat up above that is a museum piece with the same crease......AND....I don't hear anyone denying that the campaign hat shown as creased above is authentic.

And to be frank, if we are going to start questioning museum pieces authenticity, based on the POSSIBILITY that something about it was altered, then we are left without ANY possibility of being able to claim that ANYTHING is authentic!

.....of course, maybe the campaign hat is a fake, after all how can we prove otherwise! And those pics of Wild Bill may be fakes too, just because they are in books that claim to be showing the real thing, doesn't mean that they really are!!!! To be truthful even existing catalogues showing all kinds of stuff might be fakes!!!!

NOTHING IS AUTHENTIC! IT'S ALL FAKED! IT"S PHONEY FROM THE OUTSET! THERE IS NO POINT!!!!!!! 

The pics exist and the sources exist, and claiming that something MIGHT have been altered and therefore is without merits is........well.............without merit!

We need to quit with the peeing contests about hats! There is no way to win either side of the argument! They are individual as were the men who wore them!

Rant mode off! 

[Terry Lane]

Bill and all,
I do have copies of the order/specifications of the hat Cody ordered in 1878. It is very similar to the hat Wrangler posted the picture of, except for the color, Cody's was natural beaver. If cody and the other scouts/showmen of the time ordered and wore them, others most likely did. As to the reshaping of the hat in the photo, I have several hats from my grandfathers on both sides of the family. Would I even consider reshaping them? No, professional rebuilding by Rand Custom Hats, probably, reshaping, no. Most families with a treasure like that would not. I think that most likely the hat is as it was when they came into possession.

[Books OToole]

I don't have a horse in this race, but;

You can't always trust what you see in museums.  I have seen many mis-indentified items in museums. (Some were quite laughable.) Museum curators are not infallible. (Though most think that they are).  

Because of this, it is always wise to use multiple references. (Like Cuts has done with the photos of Wm. Cody.)  For good quality documentation two sources is considered the minimum.

Sometimes the best motivation to get someone to do research, is to tell him/her that there favorite hat, gun, chair, or fill in the blank, is not period correct.  They really want to prove the know-it-all wrong.

I try to opperate on a don't ask, don't tell policy.  I won't tell you that your _________ is wrong, unless you ask me. (Don't ask if you really don't want to hear the answer.)  And I don't mind being proved wrong.(Too much.)  That means I learned something.

Books

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Because the hat is a museum piece............AND..........pictures exist of Wild Bil wearing a hat with the same crease........AND......there is mention of another hat up above that is a museum piece with the same crease......AND....I don't hear anyone denying that the campaign hat shown as creased above is authentic.

And to be frank, if we are going to start questioning museum pieces authenticity, based on the POSSIBILITY that something about it was altered, then we are left without ANY possibility of being able to claim that ANYTHING is authentic!

.....of course, maybe the campaign hat is a fake, after all how can we prove otherwise! And those pics of Wild Bill may be fakes too, just because they are in books that claim to be showing the real thing, doesn't mean that they really are!!!! To be truthful even existing catalogues showing all kinds of stuff might be fakes!!!!

NOTHING IS AUTHENTIC! IT'S ALL FAKED! IT"S PHONEY FROM THE OUTSET! THERE IS NO POINT!!!!!!! 

The pics exist and the sources exist, and claiming that something MIGHT have been altered and therefore is without merits is........well.............without merit!

We need to quit with the peeing contests about hats! There is no way to win either side of the argument! They are individual as were the men who wore them!

Rant mode off! 

Cuts,
I didn't say the hat was a fake....Frankly, I hope it is genuine. What I did say is that we have something to back it up other then being in a museum before we make this the Holy Grail of Hat Creases. .... I don't know why that would be so dificult?? We've got the pics...but what are the sources, a museum? There is no need to get pi&*ed off because someone questions the validity of an object, whether it be a hat, firearm or any other item. There have been hundreds of items in museums that were mis-labled, mis-identified, and quite frankly faked. 

I have several hats from my grandfathers on both sides of the family. Would I even consider reshaping them? No, professional rebuilding by Rand Custom Hats, probably, reshaping, no. Most families with a treasure like that would not. I think that most likely the hat is as it was when they came into possession.

Terry,
I'm just asking a question and pointing out a possibility since we don't have the complete history of the hat, just a blurb connected with the display. I applaude you for your integrity. Again, I'm only pointing out a possiblity and asking questions. ....I'd hate to go to the local rodeo and see these being worn if it's not genuine...

Bill

[Pappy Hayes]

I believe the problem is that pictures were not taken as much as they are today. Plus those that were have been lost or the quality just not that good. Pictures I have seen, it is hard to tell much about the hat because mostly what you see is the underside of the brim. Since I have joined NCOWS, I have been trying to find good reference on hats so I can have mine reshapped to be more period correct. This is just my two cents worth and I am far from being any expert on the subject. Lets just keep it friendly discussion.

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

This is just my two cents worth and I am far from being any expert on the subject. Lets just keep it friendly discussion.

Pappy,
Neither am I, and I think it's been a fairly low key discussion so far...I hope we can agree to disagree, and still be friends on this forum..

Bill

[Cuts Crooked]

What I did say is that we have something to back it up other then being in a museum before we make this the Holy Grail of Hat Creases. ....

But we did have! We have an old and fairly well known photo of Cody wearing such a hat! And we also have this:

It looks at lot like the hat that Herb from Great Plains Hat Company wears which is a exact copy of a hat in the University of Nebraska Historical collections dating to the late 1860's...

Irresprective: Does anyone disagree that hats were probably as individual in appearence as the men who wore them?

[Kayleen]

I find this thread interesting. If men canbe this concerned about the hat crease, perhaps it's time for the women to start wearing hats or a head covering of some sort on a regular basis. Have any of you noticed how infrequently the women of NCOWS wear hats? Correct ones!!!
Kayleen

[Terry Lane]

Howdy all,
it occurs to me that the easiest way around this problem is to have everyone just call me or Delmonico before you purchase or manufacturer any accessories of any kind. Thanks and take care.

[Lone Gunman]

Here's the Pawnee Bill photo from around 1880:

[Delmonico]

Me thinks the photo was steamed and bent at a later time.

As I've said on the lost TFS, the only hat shape I consider modern is the "press and shape" crown that is so popular today.  And only because that is the only one I've never seen in an old picture.

NCOWS folks and even to a point SASS folks are such a small part of the hat market, least round these parts, that if you want something different than what the major hat companies make you'll have to either go custom or have to learn to shape your own.

I am hopin' to get a "Boss of the Plains" in the near future, but for me it has to be a 100% Beaver felt one, anything less is not a "Boss of the Plains."  That's why it is not that common outside of studio photo's, it was not an inexpensive hat, the cost was about that of a Colt Model P.

BTW the Kansas hat looks almost exactly like one I shaped from a photo I had seen.  Just don't remember where right now, not that it matters.  Hats were indevidual back then, folks order them or shaped them how they wanted, not how folks a 125 years or more later would have thought that they shaped them, if they cared what we thought they would have documented it

[Cuts Crooked]

Here's the Pawnee Bill photo from around 1880:

Oh oh!! THAT looks kinda like the dreaded Gus Crease!  It's definately not a straight crease! Examine the pic, keeping in mind that the hat is canted back on the subjects head......Yup! Pinched crease at the front and sloping up towards the rear!

And all of this reminds me of the old vest controversy! Wasn't that long ago that a pard wearing a notch front vest and/or one with no lapels would get a lot of sideways looks at a match. Now... he's the height of fashion!

[Delmonico]

No lapels!  Don't tell Abe Lincoln.

[Books OToole]

Generally speaking a man would wear a vest and coat with the same style of lapel.  In the photo of Pawnee Bill, he is wearing a notched lapel coat with a shawl/rounded lapel vest.  The vest is contrasting which would imply that the coat is a frock style as one usally wore a matching vest with a sack coat.  Great picture.  Thanks L.G.

Books

[Irish Dave]

Thanks for the photo, LG.

Vel-l-l-y interesting.

[Black River Smith]

I'll through a fly in the ointment for fun.

But where they common?

These men were show men, for the east, they wore the most uncommon garments.  The likes of which most westerners would not or could not afford.

There are some very good photos of the showmen in the Peacemaker book page 287 on to 310.  The outfits and clothing were for the show not real life.  Page 290 shows a picture of Cody and his hat has feathers/plumes on it.   Any takers for wearing one like that?

The Gunfighters by Rosa page 111 shows Hickok in with a big group of men.  He is wearing a big sombero hat but most of the other actually none of the others don't have a hat near the likes of his.

So were they common?  and    Readily available to all?

[Delmonico]

Unless one is wearing fancy clothes in a studio picture most hats looked like they had been rode hard and put up wet.  Sweat stains and dirt show on most of them.  Few besides me are willing to show up anywhere with a hat like that. 

Most folks look more like a studio picture than anyone accually working, nothing wrong with that if that is what you choose, but it was not common everyday wear.

As for availibe anyone sending to Stetson for a dress hat could have the same.

[Will Ketchum]

When it comes to clothing the "common" test isn't as important.  If they were available they could be worn.  After all we aren't trying to portray just one profession or type.  After the coming of the railroads visitors from back East could and did travel to the West.  They could have and did wear what ever took their fancy.

As far as that goes the only time I saw the "common" test prior to various Internet forums was for the NCOWS buffalo shoot where only those rifles that were commonly found on the hunting grounds were permitted.  This was mostly for competitive reasons.  This makes sense since casual traveleers weren't as likely to take part in a serious buffalo hunt, although such "hunts' did occur when the train would stop and some sports would shoot from the train.  This of course isn't what the buffalo hunt matches are trying to recapture.

If one could purchase an item from Sears or Montgomery Wards it could have been worn in the Old West.

Will Ketchum