From: owner-hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com (hist_text-digest) To: hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: hist_text-digest V1 #766 Reply-To: hist_text Sender: owner-hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk hist_text-digest Wednesday, March 14 2001 Volume 01 : Number 766 In this issue: -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Re: MtMan-List: Pedersoli Pennsylvania Rifle -       Re: MtMan-List: Pemmican -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       MtMan-List: Welcome Back -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Fw: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       MtMan-List: =?UTF-8?Q?Clay=20pipes...?= -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear -       Re: MtMan-List: Clay pipes... -       Fw: MtMan-List: Clay pipes... -       MtMan-List: =?UTF-8?Q?long=20johns?= -       Re: Fw: MtMan-List: Clay pipes... -       Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:04:58 EST From: SWzypher@aol.com Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear In a message dated 3/12/1 09:04:20 PM, amm1585@hyperusa.com writes: <> Perhaps some of you are familiar with Alfred Jacob Miller's painting titled: "The Trapper's Bride". Actually, he painted this same scene several times almost identical but - not quite. In one of ther versions the trapper is extending his arm towards the shy bride and you can see a split in the seam of his tunic(? for want of a better description) and throught he opening is what appears to be red underware. Now it may be he has a red shirt as an undergarment, but Miller painted no one else with a red shirt. You may look at several versions of the painting before you seen the one with the "split seam". Curious. Richard James - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:18:39 -0600 From: "Lanney Ratcliff" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C0AB4A.C5416220 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Roadkill I don't know if long johns are period or not.....I doubt it......but I = don't wear them. What I failed to include in my post is a description = of my own drawers.(....the first person who comments about their size = might wind up on my bad side.) They are essentially draw-string, knee = length muslin pants with no fly at all...and one identical pair of = Canton Flannel.....light canvas on one side of the fabric and cotton = flannel on the other. Don't have any wool, but would in a heartbeat if = I camped in really cold weather. YMOS Lanney - ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C0AB4A.C5416220 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Roadkill
I don't know if long johns are period or not.....I = doubt=20 it......but I don't wear them.  What I failed to include in my post = is a=20 description of my own drawers.(....the first person who comments about = their=20 size might wind up on my bad side.)  They are essentially = draw-string, knee=20 length muslin pants with no fly at all...and one identical pair of = Canton=20 Flannel.....light canvas on one side of the fabric and cotton flannel on = the=20 other.  Don't have any wool, but would in a heartbeat if I camped = in really=20 cold weather.
YMOS
Lanney
- ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C0AB4A.C5416220-- - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:26:54 -0700 From: Charlie Webb Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Pedersoli Pennsylvania Rifle > Wondering if any of you folks have any first-hand knowledge of > Predersoli's work. Hi, The early Pedersoli guns had some lock problems and were a bit dificult to get parts for. The guns shot very well and were fairly well finished. (Metal to wood.) The locks they are producing today have the tumbler connected to the mainspring via a stirup which is very quick. Is one of the best sparking locks available off the rack. I have not seen a newer Pedersoli fail at the range, nor do they require the maintainence that the older ones required. Respectfully, C Webb - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:46:48 -0700 From: Angela Gottfred Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Pemmican >"Walt Foster" wrote: > > From the reference it reads like it is the pemmican of the Canadian fur >trade that you are referring to. Commercial pemmician and family pemmican >were apparently 2 different things. There were two grades of pemmican, because the HBC's George Simpson requested "fine soft berry pemmican" for his personal use when he was at Ft. Wedderburne in the early 1820's. However, this was the exception rather than the rule. In the Canadian fur trade before 1821, there were two main ways to get pemmican: trade for pemmican or its ingredients (tallow, dried meat, beat meat, berries) from the Natives, or have the fur post's country wives make pemmican, which was one of their many responsibilities. I think most posts had some of each--traded & home-made. As for the gunk mentioned in Victoria's quote, I think it's quite likely that most of the pemmican used was like that. Today, pemmican is made by people who have entrenched habits of cleanliness and hygiene that didn't really exist anywhere in the fur trade, and yet many fur traders were shocked & disgusted by the filthy conditions of Native kitchens & cookery. No doubt some of this was stereotyping, i.e. judging everyone in a group by the worst example you can find (e.g. the cook who dropped her meat on the ground and then just threw it into the cooking pot without even trying to clean off the dirt). Nevertheless, we should remember that pemmican was prepared outdoors from start to finish, and even the most careful supervision isn't going to keep the pemmican completely pure-- broken bits of pounding-stones, blades of grass, and, yes, even dog hairs and hairs from the cook were bound to creep in! (My own hair is quite long; I wear it braided or ponytailed most of the time, but the darn stuff still sometimes finds its way into my cooking! Yech! And most of my cooking is in a kitchen, not outdoors over an open fire with dogs running loose.) A good pemmican-maker would keep the gunk to a minimum, but I doubt it was ever entirely absent. Your humble & obedient servant, Angela Gottfred - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 22:32:01 -0500 (EST) From: Buck Conner Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear Roadkill I spent about 15 minutes at Google.com (searching for "long johns") and found several bits if information: Lanney Ratcliff Check this for more information than you might want to read: http://www.vintageskivvies.com/pages/archives.html Check this site for one man's supposedly educated opinion: http://www.word-detective.com/101800.html Noah Webster's 1828 make this reference: Drawers 5. Drawers, in the plural, a close under garment worn on the lower limbs. Dean Rudy wrote this in 1996: I've found a number of references to "woolen drawers" being sold there in the 1834-37 period. One of the buyers was our old friend Osborne Russell! My interpretation of this is that they were in fact available in the mountains and were actually used by ordinary trappers. I would guess the style is that of breeches reaching just below the knee. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have read that the "Union Suit" as we know it today wasn't available until the western movement and very popular 10 years after the fur trade later years. The bloomers, drawers or breeches where from the early F&I period (or earlier) through the fur trade as stated; saw a sketch in an early Phila. Gazzett advertisement (late 1700's) showing breeches with a long tailed shirt that was split up the sides (about to mid thigh) to allow it to be pulled through the crouch to make an air tight arrangement like the later union suit in keeping out drafts. The ad was talking about a new flannel fabric just arriving from the finest mills in England. Hope this helps Roadkill. Thanks for your time, take care. Buck Conner ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ AMM ~ LENAPE ~ NRA ~ HRD ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://pages.about.com/conner1/ http://pages.about.com/buckconner/ "Rival the best - Surpass the rest". ___________ Aux Aliments de Pays! _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ----------------------------------------------- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 22:39:29 -0500 (EST) From: Buck Conner Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear Roadkill I don't know if long johns are period or not.....I doubt it......but I don't wear them. What I failed to include in my post is a description of my own drawers.(....the first person who comments about their size might wind up on my bad side.) They are essentially draw-string, knee length muslin pants with no fly at all...and one identical pair of Canton Flannel.....light canvas on one side of the fabric and cotton flannel on the other. Don't have any wool, but would in a heartbeat if I camped in really cold weather. YMOS Lanney ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For those that don't know what Lanney means about size, lets just say he makes Rosey Greer look average, that's real close, if you don't know who Rosey is try the WWF star "Big Show". That was being nice Lanney, but just how much material did that take ! Thanks for your time, take care. Buck Conner ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ AMM ~ LENAPE ~ NRA ~ HRD ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://pages.about.com/conner1/ http://pages.about.com/buckconner/ "Rival the best - Surpass the rest". ___________ Aux Aliments de Pays! _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ----------------------------------------------- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:36:49 -0700 From: "Clay J. Landry" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear Both wool and cotton drawers were available and used in the mountains-"Canton Flannel" which was cotton, as well as wool and green "floor cloth" were all purchased and used by the trappers of Fort Hall in the 1830's. The AMFC records show the famous brigade leader Andrew Dripps purchasing "2 pairs white flannel Drawers" in 1833. For more detailed information on this topic I would refer you to page 29 of the Book of Buckskinning VII. Just about all of the trade ledgers, Rendezvous inventory lists and fur trade posts records indicate that "Red flannel" shirts were very popular among the mountaineers. In 1834 Fort union had 200 in inventory. Clay Landry XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 10:04 PM Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear > > In a message dated 3/12/1 09:04:20 PM, amm1585@hyperusa.com writes: > > < > being sold there in the 1834-37 period. One of the buyers was our old > > friend Osborne Russell! My interpretation of this is that they were in > > fact available in the mountains and were actually used by ordinary > > trappers. >> > > Perhaps some of you are familiar with Alfred Jacob Miller's painting titled: > "The Trapper's Bride". Actually, he painted this same scene several times > almost identical but - not quite. In one of ther versions the trapper is > extending his arm towards the shy bride and you can see a split in the seam > of his tunic(? for want of a better description) and throught he opening is > what appears to be red underware. Now it may be he has a red shirt as an > undergarment, but Miller painted no one else with a red shirt. You may look > at several versions of the painting before you seen the one with the "split > seam". Curious. > > Richard James > > ---------------------- > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html > - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:41:04 -0700 From: Todd Glover Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear Great Jehosophat! Is that ole Clay Laundry back in these parts? Good to hear from you hoss! "Teton" Todd D. Glover http://homestead.juno.com/tetontodd/index.html - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:51:32 -0700 From: Allen Hall Subject: MtMan-List: Welcome Back At 09:41 PM 03/13/2001 -0700, you wrote: >Great Jehosophat! Is that ole Clay Laundry back in these parts? Good to >hear from you hoss! > >"Teton" Todd D. Glover Hey Clay!, I second Todd's welcome back! Hope you're wintering well up there on the Yellowstone! YMOS from Fort Hall, Allen - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:11:50 -0600 From: "Lanney Ratcliff" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear Clay Landry wrote: Both wool and cotton drawers were available and used in the mountains-"Canton Flannel" which was cotton, Canton flannel is available from Gohn Brothers in Middlebury, Indiana. They have an 800 number which I don't have handy. Call information at1 800 555 1212 and ask. Be sure to request their catalog......Gohn Bros specializes in the Amish trade and have a treasurehouse of goods, including all manner of hard to find fabrics and ready to wear clothes that haven't changed their style for generations. Lanney Ratcliff ps: Welcome back Clay. We all just got smarter with you around. - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:12:10 -0800 From: "larry pendleton" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear Clay Landry wrote: Both wool and cotton drawers were available and used in the mountains-"Canton Flannel" which was cotton, Lanney Ratcliff ps: Welcome back Clay. We all just got smarter with you around. Same here Clay ! Great to have you back with us ! Pendleton - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:09:50 EST From: GHickman@aol.com Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear landry@mcn.net writes: << "Red flannel" shirts were very popular among the mountaineers. >> Clay, I understand that Canton Flannel was cotton. However, I thought that flannel usually referred to wool in earlier times. At what time period would the wool flannel have been replaced by the cotton and when did Canton Flannel start to become more commonly available in the West? I'm never sure when I read "flannel" in period documents, whether it is cotton or wool. Consequently, I have been reluctant to use cotton flannel. Thanks. YMOS Ghosting Wolf AKA Gene Hickman - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:19:38 EST From: MarkLoader@aol.com Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear - --part1_3c.8ca3391.27e172aa_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Lanney I tried to contact Gohn Brothers thru information and could not get it. Must be something wrong or changed with ether Gohn Brothers or Middlebury, Indiana. Any one know how to contact them? Thanks Roadkill - --part1_3c.8ca3391.27e172aa_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Lanney
I tried to contact Gohn Brothers thru information and could not get it.
Must be something wrong or changed with ether Gohn Brothers or Middlebury,
Indiana.  Any one know how to contact them?       
Thanks Roadkill - --part1_3c.8ca3391.27e172aa_boundary-- - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:45:08 -0500 (EST) From: Buck Conner Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear Both wool and cotton drawers were available and used in the mountains-"Canton Flannel" which was cotton, as well as wool and green "floor cloth" were all purchased and used by the trappers of Fort Hall in the 1830's. The AMFC records show the famous brigade leader Andrew Dripps purchasing "2 pairs white flannel Drawers" in 1833. For more detailed information on this topic I would refer you to page 29 of the Book of Buckskinning VII. Just about all of the trade ledgers, Rendezvous inventory lists and fur trade posts records indicate that "Red flannel" shirts were very popular among the mountaineers. In 1834 Fort union had 200 in inventory. Clay Landry ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hey Clay, How have you wintered, you have been missed, thank you for adding to this subject, nice to hear from you. - ----------------------------------------------- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:11:44 -0600 From: "Lanney Ratcliff" Subject: Fw: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0ACC2.FDA425C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Roadkill, Got it!!! Gohn Bros. 105 South Main Box 1110 Middlebury, Indiana 46540-1110 219-825-2400 800-595-0031=20 If you have a particular item in mind contact me and I will send you a = scanned image of the appropriate page. That way you can call with an = order and make sense doing it. Nowhere in their catalog do they mention = accepting credit cards. Lanney - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: MarkLoader@aol.com=20 To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com ; KSMITH@hach.com=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 7:19 PM Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear Thanks Lanney=20 I tried to contact Gohn Brothers thru information and could not get it.=20 Must be something wrong or changed with ether Gohn Brothers or = Middlebury,=20 Indiana. Any one know how to contact them? =20 Thanks Roadkill=20 - ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0ACC2.FDA425C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Roadkill,
Got it!!!
Gohn Bros.
105 South Main
Box 1110
Middlebury, Indiana  46540-1110
219-825-2400
800-595-0031
 
If you have a particular item in mind contact me and = I will=20 send you a scanned image of the appropriate page. That way you can call = with an=20 order and make sense doing it.  Nowhere in their catalog do they = mention=20 accepting credit cards.
Lanney
----- Original Message -----=20
From: MarkLoader@aol.com=20
To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com ; = KSMITH@hach.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear

Thanks Lanney =
I tried=20 to contact Gohn Brothers thru information and could not get it.
Must = be=20 something wrong or changed with ether Gohn Brothers or Middlebury, =
Indiana.=20  Any one know how to contact them? =       =20
Thanks Roadkill - ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0ACC2.FDA425C0-- - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:30:47 -0700 From: "Clay J. Landry" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear It most cases the use of the word "flannel" by itself in the records and ledgers of the Fur companys' refers to a wool flannel. Canton flannel shows up in the American Fur Company ledgers in the late 1820's. The early descrptions of flannel made from wool call it "soft and spongy". Likewise a Canton flannel made from cotton is described as a "soft fabric with a long nap"-the long nap means that it was fuzzy. Most of the original records that I have studied will differentiate the kinds of flannels by using a descriptive word such as "cotton or Canton". Another problem crops up, however, when the list or inventory gives only the color such as "red flannel, yellow flannel, blue flannel etc." in these cases my "best guess" would be that they are referring to a wool flannel because I have seen lists that referred to colored Canton or cotton flannel. In the case of the popular red flannel shirts I have seen both a red cotton flannel and red flannel (wool) on fur trade inventories-so take your pick is you want to make one. Clay Landry - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 5:09 PM Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear > landry@mcn.net writes: > > << "Red flannel" shirts were very popular among the mountaineers. >> > > Clay, > > I understand that Canton Flannel was cotton. However, I thought that flannel > usually referred to wool in earlier times. At what time period would the wool > flannel have been replaced by the cotton and when did Canton Flannel start to > become more commonly available in the West? I'm never sure when I read > "flannel" in period documents, whether it is cotton or wool. Consequently, I > have been reluctant to use cotton flannel. Thanks. > > YMOS > Ghosting Wolf AKA Gene Hickman > > ---------------------- > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html > - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:42:27 EST From: SWcushing@aol.com Subject: MtMan-List: =?UTF-8?Q?Clay=20pipes...?= Speaking of Clay.... I just picked up a neat old red clay pipe inscribed "Bonnaud Marseille=20 84".....all I need is a reed stem and it's a smoker. Does anyone know who=20 Bonnaud is/was? I'm assuming the pipe was made in France, mebbe 1884....or=20 better still, 1784.... I see some boys smoking pipes much like this style= ,=20 at rendezvous. Also know where there is another in just as good=20 shape...reasonable.... Ymos, Magpie - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:27:48 -0700 From: "Clay J. Landry" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear It most cases the use of the word "flannel" by itself in the records and ledgers of the Fur companys' refers to a wool flannel. Canton flannel shows up in the American Fur Company ledgers in the late 1820's. The early descrptions of flannel made from wool call it "soft and spongy". Likewise a Canton flannel made from cotton is described as a "soft fabric with a long nap"-the long nap means that it was fuzzy. Most of the original records that I have studied will differentiate the kinds of flannels by using a descriptive word such as "cotton or Canton". Another problem crops up, however, when the list or inventory gives only the color such as "red flannel, yellow flannel, blue flannel etc." in these cases my "best guess" would be that they are referring to a wool flannel because I have seen lists that referred to colored Canton or cotton flannel. In the case of the popular red flannel shirts I have seen both a red cotton flannel and red flannel (wool) on fur trade inventories-so take your pick is you want to make one. Clay Landry - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 5:09 PM Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear > landry@mcn.net writes: > > << "Red flannel" shirts were very popular among the mountaineers. >> > > Clay, > > I understand that Canton Flannel was cotton. However, I thought that flannel > usually referred to wool in earlier times. At what time period would the wool > flannel have been replaced by the cotton and when did Canton Flannel start to > become more commonly available in the West? I'm never sure when I read > "flannel" in period documents, whether it is cotton or wool. Consequently, I > have been reluctant to use cotton flannel. Thanks. > > YMOS > Ghosting Wolf AKA Gene Hickman > > ---------------------- > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html > - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:29:47 -0700 From: "Clay J. Landry" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear It most cases the use of the word "flannel" by itself in the records and ledgers of the Fur companys' refers to a wool flannel. Canton flannel shows up in the American Fur Company ledgers in the late 1820's. The early descrptions of flannel made from wool call it "soft and spongy". Likewise a Canton flannel made from cotton is described as a "soft fabric with a long nap"-the long nap means that it was fuzzy. Most of the original records that I have studied will differentiate the kinds of flannels by using a descriptive word such as "cotton or Canton". Another problem crops up, however, when the list or inventory gives only the color such as "red flannel, yellow flannel, blue flannel etc." in these cases my "best guess" would be that they are referring to a wool flannel because I have seen lists that referred to colored Canton or cotton flannel. In the case of the popular red flannel shirts I have seen both a red cotton flannel and red flannel (wool) on fur trade inventories-so take your pick is you want to make one. Clay Landry - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 5:09 PM Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear > landry@mcn.net writes: > > << "Red flannel" shirts were very popular among the mountaineers. >> > > Clay, > > I understand that Canton Flannel was cotton. However, I thought that flannel > usually referred to wool in earlier times. At what time period would the wool > flannel have been replaced by the cotton and when did Canton Flannel start to > become more commonly available in the West? I'm never sure when I read > "flannel" in period documents, whether it is cotton or wool. Consequently, I > have been reluctant to use cotton flannel. Thanks. > > YMOS > Ghosting Wolf AKA Gene Hickman > > ---------------------- > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html > - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:49:36 -0600 From: "Lanney Ratcliff" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Clay pipes... Magpie Check this out. Lanney http://www.africantradebeads.com/Product_Index/African_made_Beads_/AM2/AM3/A M4/AM5/Mandinka_Bride_s/African__Powder_glass/Antique_Clay_Pipe/antique_clay _pipe.html - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:52:51 -0600 From: "Lanney Ratcliff" Subject: Fw: MtMan-List: Clay pipes... There is a problem with the address I listed. Open Google.com and enter a search for "Bonnaud Marseille 84".....including the quote marks. Pretty interesting info. sorry Lanney - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lanney Ratcliff" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 8:49 PM Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Clay pipes... > Magpie > Check this out. > Lanney > http://www.africantradebeads.com/Product_Index/African_made_Beads_/AM2/AM3/A > M4/AM5/Mandinka_Bride_s/African__Powder_glass/Antique_Clay_Pipe/antique_clay > _pipe.html > > > ---------------------- > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html > - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:52:22 EST From: SWcushing@aol.com Subject: MtMan-List: =?UTF-8?Q?long=20johns?= Hallo Lanney, I've been looking for some "period correct" long johns and it sounds like=20 those folks in Indiana may have some. I'm more than a little reluctant to us= e=20 that itchy wool on my tender butt, however, cotton ain't quite as warm. Whic= h=20 way to go.....? Ymos, Magpie - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:57:19 EST From: SWcushing@aol.com Subject: Re: Fw: MtMan-List: Clay pipes... In a message dated 3/14/01 6:52:02 PM, amm1585@hyperusa.com writes: << Open Google.com and enter a search for "Bonnaud Marseille 84".....including the quote marks. Pretty interesting info. sorry >> Haaaaaa.... Item ATB398 is the pipe I got! ......hard to sell the other one for a bunch of money now.... Magpie - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:36:12 -0800 From: "Butch Wright" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Long under wear I'm not AMM, so I hope none of you are offended by the information below - especially if goes against some hardcore beliefs. According to THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD COSTUME, by Doreen Yarwood, published 1978, pages 423-425. "Prior to the 19th century underwear...consisted of a loose shirt, some type of drawers or pants (and/or) stockings...From the late 19th century it became customary to combine two garments in one...For men the undervest and long drawers or pants became one garment...By the first decade of the 20th century men's combinations (union suit in the USA) had a high, round neck, short sleeves, were buttoned down the center front and had pants reaching to the ankles. By the 2nd decade the garment could be sleeveless with a lower neckline and the legs had become shorts...many men...retain(ed) short sleeves and long pants...in combinations until the Second World War." "In the 1880's...Dr. Jaeger, Professor of Physiology at Sturrgart Univ....believed in the efficiency of wearing wool next to the skin and from 1884, woolen underwear was manufactured in Britain under the Jaeger name..." "In the early 19th century...until the 1870's...Underwear...was made from cambric, bastiste, calico and flannel ( doesn't specify if wool or cotton)." I take this to mean there weren't any "longjohns" as we think of them today. As some on the list have said, it appears "drawers" would be very appropriate, probably with a drawstring, and a red flannel shirt would sure fit. Butch > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ End of hist_text-digest V1 #766 ******************************* - To unsubscribe to hist_text-digest, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe hist_text-digest" in the body of the message.