1880 stetson hat...

[Quick Fire]

And as far as common goes, how in the H do we really know what was common in hat styles as a very small percentage of people actually had their pictures taken especially early in our time period.

[Delmonico]

That is the Million dollar question.  Since most folks that did crease their hats did what they thought looked good on them, most likely any creased hat would not be common. 

Next question, someone define common, been trying to get that answer for years.

[Wymore Wrangler]

I once looked at the history of Stetson book at the Fort while shopping, one thing that shocked me was that the total production run of the Boss of the Plains was only around 11,000 hats, if I remember right.  If you figure 34 years from it's introduction to 1899 and it was probably produced into the 1900's (which would even further lower the average number), that would mean only 323 hats a year, that would place this hat in the not commonly worn catagory.  How many other hat makers copied this hat would be interesting to find out...

[Black River Smith]

You guys missed the word fun in my posting.

But I would say I do look at group photos rather than individuals.  Mainly because individual photos can be biased or out of the norm.

Fun, all in Fun.

[Quick Fire]

Josh, I never said anything about there not being a lot of photos. What I said was that only a small percentage of people were photographed.For example I'll bet for every cowboy or sheriff that had their picture taken, there were probally 10 or more that did not. As for the Time Life Books I have them and they are good, but even a lot of those photos are "staged " or set up for the photographer.

[St. George]

Given the fact that it takes a tintype about three minutes to 'process' the image - just how many extant  'impromptu' photos would you say that there might be - since for a photo to be taken during the time frame  meant that the subject had to sit/stand for three minutes without moving.

That - to me - qualifies as 'staged'.

Look at any backgrounds to see if a painted canvas is used - and look to anything in the background that's 'not' posing - bet you'll see that it's pretty well blurred.

That being said - hats - like individuals - take on their own 'look' after time.

For a modern example - look at the wide variety of troopers in Vietnam wearing their bush hats.

That hat was an issued item - as plain as plain could be and with no variations - yet soldiers found all manner of ways to wear them to express some individuality.

And 'those' photos are representative of the inroads made in photography - taken with high-speed film, instantaneously capturing the shot - far unlike photography of the Victorian Era.

Have we finally found a 'better' herd of Expired Equines that need to be Beaten?

This has gone on for six pages - and in a public forum, at that...

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Joss said;

As for Quick Fire's comment that there just aren't that many photo's available, I'd have to disagree. The Victorian era was the most photographed and documented time in history. I have virtually thousands of photographs in numerous books of men and women of the 1800's. For a simple compilation, the Time Life Old West series is the most visually defined testament for our time period.

Joss,
I was getting ready to reply conerning the crowd photos, plus in that series of books there are photos not obviously staged such as SOME of the teamsters, wagon masters and stage driversin the volume, The Expressmen. It's pretty convincing that some of them only had one change of clothing (this is only conjecture on my part) because they are so dirty and well used. In the back of all the time life books is a reference library that credits the photographs, and for those so inclined it is very simple to follow up on those references to obtain more information about the photos. 
Del Said;

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.

Del,
I've had the hat that I wear now for three years now, never had it cleaned, dusted off, even took the hat band and liner out of it so it would look too big for my head (if that is possible )...It's getting honest wear from horse back riding, mucking out stalls, being stepped on by horses....., and starting to age nicely. But, in truth, our hats today, no matter how you beat them up will not show the wear & abuse that a hat in the Old West would have suffered unless you artificially age them, or, by wearing them everyday of your waking hours if your job permits. The first hat I had lasted me 15 or 16 years....

On the hat in question, if, I had been Wymore( ), before I posted the photo of it, I would have tried to contact the exhibit and get permission to contact the original owner's family to get some kind of verification of the hat and see if they by chance had more details they could share. I've had pretty good success in the past when approaching a museum or exhibit for such information when you explain what you want it for, and that there will probably be a discussion on it...Most are more than willing to aid you in your research. Wymore could probably do that now if he wanted to??, just to shed more light on this fine old hat??

Bill

[Bristow Kid]

OCB,

I took new pictures of my Stetson.  I hope they turn out good cause I beleive it might just look like something a cowboy would have owned.  I have had the hat for 12 years.  Its been laid on by bulls stomped by them,  its got sweat stains wear makes from where I take it off all the time.  Heck it barely resembles the hat it was when it was new.  I just hope its in bad enough shape to pass for an old hat.  Especially if that hat posted previously in the post can be documented.  I'll post pictures soon as I can.

[Frog69]

Well said Will,
   I as far as NCOWS goes will readily admit that i like the diversity that we are allowed to demonstrate  while having fun with NCOWS clothing, Firearms, accessories and the like. it appears that the word common at least it in this thread has gained some emphasis and i hope that is not the intent when looking at NCOWS ,for most will be sorrily disappointed when you try to use a standard in the definition of common  because we would need to look at production, availability, practicably, and then Probability Just a quick and easy way to illustrate this would be to look at the all mighty Firearm issue  for a start Colt P army aprox 150,000 (First Generation) produced so it can easily be said they would be common so for a down and dirty bench mark it can easily be said that any model of a  firearm that was not produced in at least a quantify  of 75,000 would NOT BE COMMON and also in NCOWS we are looking at things in general terms not to a specific year but to an era we represent so it may be very amazing if we apply emphasis to the word common that a lot of items and some we use routinely  in NCOWS wont hold up. I would much rather look at NCOWS as a group on inclusive like minded individuals than a group of exclusive like minded individuals its real fun to debate things as long as it stays civil (which i believe for the most part we get that done) My NCOWS goal is to encourage people to do there research. value others options, agree to disagree but realize there, in some cases when dealing with history there is no absolute yes and no and frankly I am OK with that
oopps just fell of a box , keep up all your good work

[Wild Ben Raymond]

Hats! Hats! Hats! This argument could go on & on, whether historically accurate or not and if so was it in common use? This is a common paradox we run into in this NCOWS organization. If one was to read the rules or by-laws its seems that if you can prove an item exists it should be approved. Such is not necessarily true; now it seems, it must be have been in common use. Example of this would be; the colt single action revolver with the bird-heads grip. (Source: The Shootist July/August 1998) Some here on this thread are indicating that the type of crease in this hat was not common & should not be allowed based on that. Here's where we run into problems, the way I see it the model 97' shotgun is allowed but not the 1896 Broom Handled Mauser, based on what reason? Neither was common until after the turn of the century and I have never seen a verified pre-1900 dated photo of a person with a 97' but I have seen a dated photo of someone with a Mauser. Why one and not the other? Another question I would like to ask is; has anyone seen a photo of a woman in a dress wearing holster & pistol? I have seen a few women wearing pants having holstered pistols. (Examples; Pearl Hart &Clamity Jane) Again, if you did have a picture of a woman in a dress with holstered pistol would it be considered common? Now lets talk about gun carts, the only person I've ever heard of having a gun cart in the old west was Annie Oakley, used during the wild west shows. Yet many NCOWS shooters use them & they are currently allowed. Why so, if they were not common? The point of all this is NCOWS was never started as a historically accurate western action shooting venue. From what I've heard NCOWS was started because when SASS never answered a letter on how to start a club, the folks/founders just started their own organization with their own set of rules. (Many borrowed from SASS) The way I have always thought of NCOWS is that, it is a more authentically based organization but not an organization based on total authenticity. The main difference's being, we do not allow modern western shirts, no modern unaltered blue jeans, no modern cowboy boots, no Hollywood drop-loop gun belts rigs or no modern straw western hats, we have a ten-second-miss rule and we allow period correct double action revolvers. That is enough to make us different from SASS in my opinion. Nowhere in our title "National Congress of Old West Shootist" does it even suggest historical accuracy re-enactment shooting. So I think this organization needs to take a closer look at where it's headed. To me it's moving to far to the right, towards becoming more of a re-enactment group than a shooting organization, which I think, will cost NCOWS members now & in the future. Even SASS has admitted that it was probably wrong to allow the 97' shotgun but to go back & change it after all these years would be even more wrong. That's the way I think it should be with NCOWS, we have allowed the Bisley Vaquero's, the shotgun slides & other recently banned items for this long, that it would be wrong to correct it now. These are just my views as I see it. Wild Ben Raymond
P.S. Moderators, I guess it's time to remove/move this thread!       

[Delmonico]

Fanning campfires and much rain and snow when hunting  has aged the one I often use to the point it looks like some of those in the pictures.  Of course the butter and lard it has ended up with in it while fanning a fire often added to it.

Of course the fact that it started life a a good hat and not something made of sheep hair has kept it together for the 12 or so years I have used it.

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

slp said;

Nowhere in our title "National Congress of Old West Shootist" does it even suggest historical accuracy re-enactment shooting. So I think this organization needs to take a closer look at where it's headed.

From the NCOWS web site.....
The National Congress of Old West Shootists was established to promote the sport of Western Action Shooting and to preserve the heritage of the Old West, 1865-1899. To this end, our organizational goals are:

To conduct and/or sponsor family-oriented Western Action Shoots and other activities appropriate to the Old West on national, regional, and local levels.

To encourage a high level of historical authenticity in weapons, clothing, and accouterments while participating in NCOWS-sponsored activities.

To engage in historical investigation to enhance our overall level of authenticity and increase our knowledge of the Old West.

To actively promote a positive public image of Western Action Shooting in particular, and of the safe and responsible use of firearms in general.

To establish a membership of like-minded individuals and Charter Clubs (Posses) to help the sport of Western Action Shooting grow and prosper. (Return to Top of Page)
slp said;

From what I've heard NCOWS was started because when SASS never answered a letter on how to start a club, the folks/founders just started their own organization with their own set of rules. (Many borrowed from SASS)

Again, from the NCOWS web page....
The National Congress of Old West Shootists was founded in Iowa in 1994 by a group of dedicated western action shooters who had a background in muzzleloading, buckskinning, historical reenacting, and many other of the modern shooting sports. To this end we determined that our new organization would be different from existing organizations in a number of ways: we would insist on historical authenticity in all of our activities, we would not require that our members assume an "alias" (although they may if they wish), and we would be a democratically-structured organization, run by the entire membership.

All this information is on the NCOWS web page for those that are interested and want to see why NCOWS was formed....

Bill

[Irish Dave]

Wild Ben (slp):

To say that NCOWS hasn't had some inconsistences would be to deny reality. You're right, there are/have been some items that present some consistency problems for us, but in the last year or two, NCOWS has been moving seriously to eliminate or at least reduce those items that send mixed messages to members/prospective members. NCOWS isn't perfect, but we're working on it.

The Bisley Vaquero, shotshell slide, short-stroked rifles and etc. are gone. They are not coming back. They are not correct for the period we represent -- and never were. The Congress has spoken clearly and with substantial majorities to end the use of these items. These things were never approved in the past, they were simply allowed to "creep in" without anyone stepping up to enforce the bylaws by asking for documentation before allowing a questionable item to be used.

It is unfortunate, but it may come as news to some folks that NCOWS is not just a "practice" session for SASS matches or simply somewhere to go when there's no SASS shoot that weekend. NCOWS is a fine organization with a fine history and an admirable philosophy. This history and philosophy are differences that the majority of our members are happy to embrace.

NCOWS has always been and, I believe, will continue to be, an organization for shooters, historians, reenactors  and all others who love the Old West -- but with distinct differences from other groups when it comes to historical accuracy.

That's who we are and, I believe, who we were always intended to be. I think the vast majority of our members will join me in saying that we're proud of that-- not ashamed of it. 

[Black River Smith]

I have stated this before on a hat posting and Del you will remember, I am sure.

This hat existed before out time period and well past it and has not changed from it beginning.

A mans amish hat.

Not saying this is the only one out there, nor is for everyone.

I don't have a problem with an officers campaign crease (even front to back).  I look to older pre-period photos for ideas also.  If you had it or did it in the Civil War, then you may/could/would do the same thing in later years.

[Wymore Wrangler]

Wild Ben (slp):

To say that NCOWS hasn't had some inconsistences would be to deny reality. You're right, there are/have been some items that present some consistency problems for us, but in the last year or two, NCOWS has been moving seriously to eliminate or at least reduce those items that send mixed messages to members/prospective members. NCOWS isn't perfect, but we're working on it.

The Bisley Vaquero, shotshell slide, short-stroked rifles and etc. are gone. They are not coming back. They are not correct for the period we represent -- and never were. The Congress has spoken clearly and with substantial majorities to end the use of these items. These things were never approved in the past, they were simply allowed to "creep in" without anyone stepping up to enforce the bylaws by asking for documentation before allowing a questionable item to be used.


It is unfortunate, but it may come as news to some folks that NCOWS is not just a "practice" session for SASS matches or simply somewhere to go when there's no SASS shoot that weekend. NCOWS is a fine organization with a fine history and an admirable philosophy. This history and philosophy are differences that the majority of our members are happy to embrace.

NCOWS has always been and, I believe, will continue to be, an organization for shooters, historians, reenactors  and all others who love the Old West -- but with distinct differences from other groups when it comes to historical accuracy.

That's who we are and, I believe, who we were always intended to be. I think the vast majority of our members will join me in saying that we're proud of that-- not ashamed of it. 

I just wonder why all you eastern folks have such a problem with the distinction between NCOWS and SASS, it never seems to be a problem here in Nebraska and Iowa....

[Cuts Crooked]

With thanx to a certain member who shall remain nameless: 1880 pic from the files of the Nebraska Historical Society:

[Cuts Crooked]

...and from the 1870s, same source. Note: these are cut from the original online files because the actual files are HUGE! if you would like to see the entire photos please PM me with yer e-mule addy. They can also be seen here: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award98/nbhihtml/pshome.html Brace yer self if you go to search those files! I was STUNNED at the number of creased hats I found, in various configurations! As I have said before, it would appear that hats and thier shapes were as varied as the men who wore them!

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Howdy, y'all!

I'd like to try and make the Reader's Digest (tm) condensed version of this topic.

As I see it, there are disagreements on the type of creases and how they originated.  (So far, so good)  Also, when were the various forms of creases put in as factory available?  (OK?) 

Well, and this is my opinion, mind you.  Asking for a receipt/order form/delivery receipt/etc. to prove a style of crease from the factory is a waste of time.  I'll bet, and again - my opinion only, a bunch of the creased hats began life as plain ol' Boss of the Plains or similar types as sold by Wards, Sears, etc. but were shaped after the owner got it.  I'll bet they knew about the "hold it over the steam from the coffee pot" trick.

All I'm saying is that like gunleather, hats are a very personal thing.  Location, income, peers, effort or interest in styles  and many other variables would go into the shaping of EACH hat.  Is it commonly found or used?  How can we say, since many hat owners would probably (my emphasis) be trying to make their own hat look different from the crowd's to a certain bit?

We're all different; why not celebrate that fact and worry about things that can be proved rather than arguing (or energetically discussing  ) something that is SO individual.

Just my dos pesos worth.

Ride easy - SHB

[Cuts Crooked]

I'll bet, and again - my opinion only, a bunch of the creased hats began life as plain ol' Boss of the Plains or similar types as sold by Wards, Sears, etc. but were shaped after the owner got it.  I'll bet they knew about the "hold it over the steam from the coffee pot" trick.

All I'm saying is that like gunleather, hats are a very personal thing. 

And that's what I've been saying all along! That pic of the feller in the 1880s photo...that hat could easily have started life as a BOP style. But his styling of it is unquestionably what we now call a Cattlemans Crease style!

Methinks those who b'little a mans choices of styling when it comes to hats are cutting thier noses off to spite thier faces!

[Marshal Will Wingam]

From what everyone has contributed to this thread, it seems to me that there is NO commonly used style of blocking from the 1800's since each one was unique. In other words, the only thing all hats had in common is the fact that they're all different. I have a whole new opinion of hat blocking, now. Many thanks to those who posted here.