Would someone be able to give me some information about the GAR uniform and accessories this man is wearing? This is my Great(3) Grandfather. He was most likely from NJ, possibly PA.

Thanks

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 12884842,

Sorry, apparently posting the picture didn't work. Here is a link to the picture.
I was also wondering about the bulge in his topcoat. Would the way he has the sidearm in his belt indicate that he was left-handed? Or is it possible the photo is reversed?

Thanks

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11052231@N03/2203493991/

quote:

Login/JoinWelcome, [Logout]

12884842
Basic Training
Posted Sat 19 January 2008 09:44 AM

The photo is reversed as you will notice the buttons being on the wrong side for men.
The coat he is wearing is the frock coat that was standard issue for officers of the eastern volunteer units and standard issue for federal troops until mid war years when they were issued the 4 button sack coat.There is a pocket there where most troops carried a pocket testament close to thier heart or a flask of some medicianal libation ( he has somting in the pocket).Something that was vogue (in style ) was the Napolean pose with a hand in the jacket He may have thought about it as well. Before the sack coat was issued while on campaign the men with the frock coat would get tired of the material getting around the legs and would take a pocket knife and cut the excess material away about the hip level. pistol looks to be the colt police model 1858 or 1860. The hat is what looks like the 1858 forage (bummer) cap. The buckel is typical of the ones worn by cav troops and officers depending on the rank would depend as to if the buckel was brass however staff officer the wreath would be silver and the eagle and wreath was silver for generals.I believe by what apears to be shoulder boards of a junior office I cant tell as the boards and buttons have been painted over. This was something that
was a popular thing in the Victorian time period. GAR ( Grand Army of the Republic) is the veteran organization for union troops after the war. Hope this helps you out on your search.
Bangfxr

Thanks for all of valuable information, it helps a bunch.
With respect to the shoulder boards; are you saying they are painted over? Why would that be?

Thanks again.

We've found some additional information about our ancestor that creates a bunch of confusion. The relative we thought was in the picture was actually discharged as a private and was never commissioned. He would also have been much older than the person in the photo.

So, now our family is trying to determine which relative this might be. Is there anyway to determine by his uniform, which regiment he belonged? Thanks to anyone that can assist.

The only way to determine that is if there is a journal or letters or maybe a pocket testament with a name and reg't inscribed that still exist to determine what unit he's in. As to why the painting of the buttons and shoulder boards is a victorian thing that was done alot back in the late 1880's to early 1900's I dont know why
they would do that.
Another source of information would be your state historical society.

quote:

Originally posted by OLDAO:

quote:

Originally posted by 12884842:
Sorry, apparently posting the picture didn't work. Here is a link to the picture.
I was also wondering about the bulge in his topcoat. Would the way he has the sidearm in his belt indicate that he was left-handed? Or is it possible the photo is reversed?

Thanks The daguerreotype or tintype is reversed. As for the handgun. I want say it's an 1849 colt pocket model, then again it could be any one of several makes, COLT, MANHATTEN or LONDON. I noticed the round barrel so i have to rule out the "49" . Beats me. Great picture.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11052231@N03/2203493991/

Just out of curiousity, I don't seem to find a trigger in the trigger guard. Is it possible that there was no trigger and the pistol was fired by thumbing or fanning the hammer? Also, another curious question, why do you not mention Smith & Wesson? Were they not around during the American Civil War?

I've just got done studying the picture. The hat is the McClellan version of the forage cap, not the bummer. Its too flat, as was the that McClellan style. Also the brim is straight which designates an officer's cover.
The frock coat, single breasted, was the original regulation coat and yes the men did cut them off to make the sack type coat. The sack coat 4 button, was issued to regular US units to be used for general fatigue duties. During the war officers would be issued sack coats but their's would be a five button and about an 1 1/2 inch longer in length.
As for the revolver it coud be one of three other than a Colt pocket 1849. The barrel looks to be octagon, all though its hard to really tell. There looks to be a line in the middle of the trigger guard, but very faint. Hard cocking, as fanning was called then, was not recommended for Colt revolvers as it destoyed the hammer spring.
Its too bulky to be a Smith and Wesson. The hand grip and the trigger guard are different. The muzzle end is also not like the S/W at the time. The early S/Ws were a sleeker somewhat slimmer design than the Colt types.
He doesn't look to be very big a man as the buttons on the coat look really big in comparison. Later in the war starting in late 1864, officers in the field were given the choice of wearing shoulder straps or the new collar devices. Its possible he wore the collar devices and never had the shoulder straps.
The average soldier was 5'7" 143 pounds and 24 years old. Not too large a man.
Hope that helps.

It's been a while since any one has posted on this so I spent some time looking at the picture. Could the uniform have been a militia or state guard uniform ? That might explain the shoulder boards. The "coller device" appears to be ,BRASS BUTTENS. The pistol, now there is a quandry. Could it be a prop weapon ? one that was used by the studio for dramatic effect. It appears to be a Griswold & Gunnison, Except they had a 7 1/2 BBL. The bulge in the breast area appears to be caused by two or more button's being unbuttoned. This was done so that the subject could place his RIGHT hand in the opening, ALA Napoleon style. I Also noticed that there isint a cut out in the recoil shield of the pistol to allow the percussion cap to be extracted. Befor any one questions this ,Remember the photo is reversed. You are looking at the right side of the frame.I cannot find a trigger on the weapon. Witch brought me to the PROP GUN question. I hate to see a good question dropped.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ordmate,

That's interesting Chuck, because it has always been in the back of my mind that this whole picture was staged. Everything about it just doesn't seem as it should. You and I both know there's alot of fakery and trickery when it comes to stuff like this.

One more thing to think about. Could this be a Military school uniform ? Could the shoulder boards have been drawn in after the photo was taken. I have a photo of myself in uniform. I had a bad case of acne and it was running rampent the day the picure was taken. I look like the poster boy for clearasil in the picture. I'm with you on this one Darryl. Some thing's just don't add up.

About the shoulder boards, that's possible. I've tangled with people in CW re-enacting on the positioning of the shoulder boards on the uniform coats. A bunch of them seem to think the boards go one inch from the jacket or coat shoulder seam. I've seen many like that, but the regulations state that "the outboard side of the strap shall be against the seam connecting the sleeve to the shoulder of the coat, centered on top of the shoulder."
Its possible somebody sneaked those in to make the subject look more important.