"Hats - what colour were they?" Topic

Just your average big flopy hat – could be a high crown, could be a low one – worn by the ordinary rank-and-file in the ECW and TYW.

I ask, because some years ago on an AWI forum (no, no – bear with me), someone produced a stock-take from a New England hat maker c.1770 that showed they were virtually all black; the subsequent discussion verified that this was the standard colour for them by that period.

Yet every ECW/TYW army I see has many individuals – if not entire regiments – in grey or brown hats. Now I realise 100 years is a long time in the world of hat-making, and that rich folk could have any colour they wanted, but how and why did the colour of the 'umble titfer* change/standardise?

Any of you still awake at this point – it's for some FoG:R armies I'm painting up.

(* cockney rhyming slang: titfer – tit-for-tat = hat )

There was no "standard" colour for a hat in the 17th century. A colonel of a regiment might stipulate a particular colour of hat for his unit but it was entirely hs personal choice, as was indeed the rest of the uniform.

The one colour that might be considered "standard" was that the Puritans wore black.

From what I've read the ordinary soldier's hat was made of felt and although it may have been a dark greyish black when new I expect it pretty much weathered to a washed out greyish brown pretty quickly.

I have near black, dark grey and brown hats in my ECW ranks but I also have lots in Monmouth caps as well.

Interesting question actually.

Un-dyed clothe was common for uniform coats in the ECW, which usually came out off-white to grey. So if felt hats were not dyed, would they be the same colour?

And as a slight deviation, what is the Sydney rhyming slang for hat?
An ex-colleague turned up from Steak 'n' kidney a couple of weeks ago, and we had coffee. He referred to my (relatively) new suit, as a "fruit" – "bowl of fruit". I always refer to a suit as a "whistle" – "whistle and flute".
So I wonder what Sydney-siders call a hat?

I'd not thought of it that way but you're right. Any of the those greyish white to browny grey colours would be appropriate. I wonder if they did actually bother dye the felt. I can picture troops with greyish streaks of water running down their faces as the dye leeched out of their headgear in the rain.

Un-dyed clothe was common for uniform coats in the ECW, which usually came out off-white to grey.

Really? I believe the only regiment in the ECW recorded as having white (grey) coats was Newcastle's Whitecoats. So, no, I don't think it was common at all.

The art of dyeing fabric and felt was known for centuries. Dyeing hats would simply add to the cost and the time to manufacture. A wealthy colonel would be keen to make his regiment distinctive.

This must depend on whether the hats were private purchase or issue. If the former, there would be as much variation as in any other item of clothing and the influence of fashion to a certain extent; if issue, not so much.

The propensity to black in 1770 New England might reflect some local and/or religious preference for the plain – which might equally have been the case in some communities in England at the earlier period.

What do contemporary pictures show?

This must depend on whether the hats were private purchase or issue.

There was no such thing as "issue" in the ECW at least until the creation of the NMA. I'm not even sure there was any then either.

The propensity to black in 1770 New England might reflect some local and/or religious preference for the plain – which might equally have been the case in some communities in England at the earlier period.

Yup, that would be the Puritan influence.

Well I assume we are not counting the Covenanters up north whose government did issue the ubiquitous Hodden grey clothing (and blue bonnets) that certainly had a uniform look. I think Hodden was produced by weaving un-bleached wool and black wool in different proportions (but could be wrong).

Agree with Major B about the technology for dyeing material being ancient and I think most clothing was dyed. These were, by-in-large, vegetable dyes, mordanted or colour-fixed in various ways. Figure all this faded out on campaign – so lots of pinks, oranges, and aquas, but I haven't been brave enough to paint that way. Black, as I recall, was expensive to achieve.

As to hats – I paint them in many shades of grey and brown mostly ranging from very light to very dark.

Most red vegetable dyes fade to brown – often quite dark too. Cheap black dyes usually went grey-brown. Yellow dyes were generally poor in keeping their colour and greens tended to get bluer and duller quite quickly. Blues would loose their brightness but stay blue – or at least bluish grey.

Felt made from raw wool would probably be a mid to darkish grey but shoddy (recycled yarn) mixed in may have made it even darker.

Pale colours, strangely enough, were often used on the best material and would come and go with fashions.

Very bright colours were often only seen as a scarf, kerchief, hat band or garter and even the poorer sorts could usually manage a small bit of bright colour. In the ECW the 'field signs' were often bits of coloured cloth – worn around the upper arm or neck.

The great military painters of the TYW period such as Vrancx and Snayers certainly shows a fair bit of diversity as far as the colour of the hats are concerned.

@ Phillius

Australians call brimmed hats "akubras".

I think that's the name of an early manufacturer.

@Major B
"Really? I believe the only regiment in the ECW recorded as having white (grey) coats was Newcastle's Whitecoats. So, no, I don't think it was common at all."

"A wealthy colonel would be keen to make his regiment distinctive."

We actually know relatively few of the regimental coat colours so it's very likely that there were plenty of other white coated units since the coats didn't have to be dyed at all. It's thought that Newcastle's entire army were clothed in white/off-white grey coats as were the Northern regiments some of which came south in 1644 with the Queen. Bard and Pinchbecks spring to mind. Then there are the Royalist regiments in the Oxford army in 1642 in white, Dyve's was one and I think Dutton's was another.

A wealthy colonel may have chosen a marital colour like red for his regiment – just like lots of others! I'd say the more I read the less uniform and the more 'we'll go with what we've got' seems to apply to the ECW. There were very wealth men like the Earl of Manchester who had a double sized regiment but in that formation there were at least two different coat colours, possibly three or even more.

And yes there were 'issues' of clothing before the NMA, lots of records of issues to armies of both sides remain. Possibly the most uniform troops of the whole civil war were a couple of thousand of the Royalist Oxford army who received an 'issue' of whole suits in either red or blue. These suits included breeches and matching montero caps.

It's also quite likely that not all the NMA were in red by the time of Naseby.

I'd say the more I read the less uniform and the more 'we'll go with what we've got' seems to apply to the ECW.

Exactly.

And yes there were 'issues' of clothing before the NMA,

Issued by whom?

I suggest you read Old Robin's Foot – it's stuffed full of details of issues of clothing and weapons.

There was no such thing as "issue" in the ECW at least until the creation of the NMA. I'm not even sure there was any then either.

As usual MajorB, patronizing and wrong.

For example, in 1642:

'… so the magazine for cloth for soldiers' apparel and coats was in the Music School, and in the Astronomy school adjoining to it. That day also were a great many tailors, as well foreigners as townsmen, set on work to cut out these coats, to the number 4000 or 5000 (as I was told), which presently afterwards put forth to the tailors here inhabitants, and to strangers within ten miles who were called into Oxford, to be made up & finished …'

and

Mr. Bushell made his proposition thus that he would procure for the King's soldiers cassocks, breeches, stockings and caps at reasonable rates to be delivered at Oxford, and at the delivery to receive ready money, or a bill of exchange to be paid at London, the choice to be left to them who provided the clothes. And when one load of clothes is brought, or in bringing, to go on with providing of a second load, and so from time to time till the King's Army be all provided for, and paid for in such manner as before'

June 1643:

'your clothing our life guard and three regiments more, with suites, stockings, shoes, and monteroes which we were ready in the field…'

And a Parliamentarian spy reported in July 1643, again of the King's Oxford Army:

'That they have clothed all their foote soldiers in redd and blew having all of them monteroes, coates and briches.'

Please note the references to "monteroes" and "caps". Each of these instances pre-date the creation of the NMA.

I am also aware of the puritan influence, though not in the King's Oxford Army, thank you.

@Gildasfacit
Interesting information, thanks!

As usual MajorB, patronizing and wrong.

Thank you for correcting me.

However, none of your quotes are specifically about the issue of clothing from army or government stocks.

Where did the cloth in the magazine come from? Who paid for it?

Mr Bushell appears to be a private contractor and so he was paid for his services. By whom?

The "June 1643" quote has no context and just says that some regiments were provided with clothing. Again, no indication of by whom or who was paid for what.

The Parliamentarian spy was simply noting that most of the soldiers wore red or blue, but no indication of how the clothing was sourced.

I should also point out that it is customary (and polite) when quoting sources to provide suitable citations so that readers can follow up the references if they wish.

MajorB

Your point about references is well taken – I omitted these in responding to you intemperately. I should also have acknowledged the author of the internet piece I took the quotes from after a very simple Google search – "King's Oxford Army Issue" – as I am away from my own sources. This gentleman is Julian Tilbury and the title of the article is, somewhat tellingly, "Oxford Army Clothing Issue 1643." Fill your boots : link

Each reference is to the issue of clothing from Army stores and paid for, apparently, from central funds – Bushell was indeed a private contractor to the King and the quote refers specifically to ready cash or a bill or exchange in exchange for regular supplies of clothing including caps.

It really does not matter who paid for the cloth – much of it was looted or paid for with "tickets" anyway. What matters is that items to a standard pattern were distributed by the King to troops from central stores before 1645. This would appear to, at least, contradict your unsupported assertion that no such thing occurred.

Ochoin – Akubra is indeed an Aussie hat manufacturer. Still going strong, I have three. And I have often been heard to say "the only thing made there that is worth buying". But that is just a bit of Trans-Tasman banter really.

Sydney rhyming slang is not the same as Cockney, but is equally as interesting.

My ECW fellows are dressed in a mixture of grey and brown hats.

Agree with 'issue' from very early on ie Essex's Edgehill army, though likely not the case for some of the regional forces. As far as I can recall though there was no record of issue of 'floppy hats', in contrast to definitely monteros and probably Monmouth caps. I get the impression that classic 'cavalier' floppy hats were more likely worn by horse and officers.

By the way Bushell was still trying to claim back what he was owed for clothing the oxford army and many bristol-based units tthe best part of 20 years later after the Restoration.

It really does not matter who paid for the cloth – much of it was looted or paid for with "tickets" anyway. What matters is that items to a standard pattern were distributed by the King to troops from central stores before 1645.

It really does matter who paid for it. If this clothing was distributed from central stores free and gratis to the troops then that would count as "issue". If the colonel of the regiment (whose responsibility it was to raise, clothe and train them) paid for it then it was a private transaction between him and the supplier and thus not "issue".

So you think the NMA was uniform in it's 'issue' appearance having been centrally supplied but by exactly the same contractors and sub-contractors who had been clothing Parliamentarian armies before 1644?

If you read the specifications you'll find that they suggest that the breeches be a 'sad' colour whatever that might be. And every contractor would interpret that differently.

So you think the NMA was uniform in it's 'issue' appearance having been centrally supplied but by exactly the same contractors and sub-contractors who had been clothing Parliamentarian armies before 1644?

No. if you look back at my previous comment:
"There was no such thing as "issue" in the ECW at least until the creation of the NMA. I'm not even sure there was any then either."

I did not say anything about the quality or uniformity of the NMA clothing.

It really does matter who paid for it. If this clothing was distributed from central stores free and gratis to the troops then that would count as "issue". If the colonel of the regiment (whose responsibility it was to raise, clothe and train them) paid for it then it was a private transaction between him and the supplier and thus not "issue".

We seem to be arguing about what "issue" actually means and conflating the notion of "issue" generally with "government issue" more specifically. Surely, "issue" means only that items were "issued" from stores (one might include standard pattern or design but this is not so important and neither is the precise way the items were stored). Even as late as the 19th century the apparently generous bonus paid to soldiers when enlisting was notoriously reduced by deductions for such items as uniform. Is this clothing not still "issue".

Even if provided by the regiment's colonel from a private purchase by him the items would still be "issued" from regimental stores. This would also, were the colonel so inclined, ensure a degree of uniformity in his regiment although entirely different items may have been "issued" at different times which would explain, for example, different styles and colours of coats worn by the same regiment at the same time.

Are you suggesting that a colonel buying four hundred coats, cassocks, caps, hats, breeches or stocking and handing them out to his regiment is not an "issue" of clothing and that the clothing was not then "issue"?

As 22nd Foot writes – exactly that.

Are you suggesting that a colonel buying four hundred coats, cassocks, caps, hats, breeches or stocking and handing them out to his regiment is not an "issue" of clothing and that the clothing was not then "issue"?

It would not be a government (or royal) issue since it was effectively a private transaction between the colonel and his supplier.

Of course it was an "issue" – the "issue" comes when the item is issued to the soldier.

Whether the King or the colonel paid the supplier for items subsequently issued is irrelevant to refuting the inaccurate statement that "There was no such thing as "issue" in the ECW at least until the creation of the NMA. I'm not even sure there was any then either."

Had you said, "there was no single contractor providing items of uniform and equipment at government expense to what would be recognized today as a consistent standard of colour, quality and design after the creation of the NMA" you might have been accurate. You didn't and repeatedly claiming that items bought by a colonel from a contractor (of which there were a limited number anyway) and provided to his troops is not an "issue" of those items will not make your original statement correct.

I draw the distinction between "issue" in the general sense and "Parliament or Royal issue" in the specific sense of Parliament or the King having paid for it.

You clearly do not.

End of discussion.

Well it's not really as you are still wrong in your assumption, even taking your definition of 'issue', just as you were wrong in your assumption about which units wore the so called whitecoats. Parliament paid for and issued various military supplies before the NMA era.

To go slightly further forward than the OPs original time frame, to about 1685-1695, Oxford's Horse are described in Sapherson's book "The British Army of William III" as having "grey hats" (presumably after they stopped wearing pot helmets) and the Dutch Horse Guards of King William had a "buff coloured hat" according to the same author's "The Dutch Army of William III". He makes no mention of hat colours of other cavalry regiments or infantry regiments, beyond mentioning that some were edged with white lace. I tend to do my LoA regiments with black hats, but my ECW have a bit of a mixture, with browns, dirty greys and the odd black; I might give an officer a fancy colour like green or blue. Might not be authentic, but they are my army and I kit them how I like!

just as you were wrong in your assumption about which units wore the so called whitecoats.

I think I said:
"I believe the only regiment in the ECW recorded as having white (grey) coats was Newcastle's Whitecoats."

The key words I think are "I believe". That belief has been called into question. Fair enough. I didn't say it was true.

However your retort:

so it's very likely that there were plenty of other white coated units since the coats didn't have to be dyed at all.

is only a suggestion of likelihood not an assertion of an established fact. Can you show any other units where the records show they wore white coats?

Parliament paid for and issued various military supplies before the NMA era.

What evidence can you offer to support that statement? If you can demonstrate that this actually happened then I am prepared to accept that my previous statement was incorrect at least as far as Parliament forces are concerned.

+1 Timmo uk.

'What evidence can you offer to support that statement? If you can demonstrate that this actually happened then I am prepared to accept that my previous statement was incorrect at least as far as Parliament forces are concerned.'

Bit of an open goal this one. Who is going to tap the ball into the net, Timmo or 22nd Foot?

Pete, Pete, on the left, 1-2…

Major B
May I refer you once again to the book Old Robin's Foot. In it you will find much of interest. It quotes the following as its sources that together prove beyond reasonable doubt that in this matter you are wrong.

Lords Journal
Commons journal
Callender[sic] of state papers domestic
Callender[sic] of state papers Venitian
Letter of Nehemiah Warton (ed. S. Ede Borret)
Bibliotheca Gloustriensis-Washbourne
Thomson Tract reference number – University of Ann Arbour Michigan
Tanner Manuscripts_Bodleian Library Oxford
State papers- Public records office – Chancery Lane London
War office papers – Public records office Kew London
Oxford English Dictionary – unabridged edition
Carte Manuscripts – Bodleian Library Oxford

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get in there, you beauty!

Don't celebrate too soon. I'm pretty sure someone will be along in a moment to move the goalposts.

Just to get in on the goal celebrations….a sad colour is subdued or sombre so grey, darker or duller tones of green or blue etc.

It quotes the following as its sources that together prove beyond reasonable doubt that in this matter you are wrong.

Wrong about what? The white coats or that Parliament paid for and issued various military supplies before the NMA era.?

Both. Why don't you do some basic reading about the history being discussed? Your comment that you thought white coats were not common clearly demonstrates that you've read next to nothing. Those uniform coat colours have been well known and widely accepted for over 30 years now.

Some actual quotes would have been nice rather than just "go read the book", but I'll take your word for it for now.

Your comment that you thought white coats were not common clearly demonstrates that you've read next to nothing. Those uniform coat colours have been well known and widely accepted for over 30 years now.

As I said originally on that topic, my belief before this discussion was that they were uncommon. When I say "I believe" it means that that was my understanding. None of us are perfect and it is interesting when someone else proves that you are wrong about something, so that we can learn from each other without it becoming a point scoring match. As it is, I've found that Dutton's regiment were also in white coats, but that is still only two regiments out of how many on both sides?

Why don't you do some basic reading about the history being discussed?

I have read quite a number of books about the English Civil War. Apparently though not the books that you think are "basic reading". So what do you suggest I should read, apart from "Old Robin's Foot" (which appears to be out of print and quite difficult to obtain)?

As mentioned do some of your own research and come back when you're better informed and want to contribute to a reasonable discussion. As my father says 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.'

BTW, thank you Baccus 6mm for your cheer which has now made this page too wide to fit on my browser screen.

As mentioned do some of your own research and come back when you're better informed and want to contribute to a reasonable discussion.

Thank you for your assistance.

Are you so incapable that you need to be spoon fed? I think not. I think you'll learn a lot and enjoy doing the leg work for yourself – after all it's what lots of us here have done over the past years and decades without the internet to help us.

I'm pretty sure if you tried you'd be able to track down a copy of that book and these days there are all sorts of things on line if you bother to look. It takes minutes. Having done such research for yourself you might then appreciate the knowledge of others a bit more than your input here suggests is currently the case. I know that many of the contributors here are very deeply knowledgable about the things we've discussed and you could have learnt a lot from them but I suspect your attitude only ensures that people don't feel it's worth sharing hard won knowledge with somebody who seems to take more delight in derailing a thread than in contributing to it in a positive manner.

All the time you spent in this conversation could have been spent researching and actually learning something. Had you done so and had you read what I'd written carefully by now you might have discovered the names of very many northern regiments that may well have worn whitecoats. I'm not going to add any more to this and will refrain from discussing anything with you in the future since this thread clearly demonstrates that I have wasted a little of my time this afternoon.

I notice that on the BCW regimental "wiki" site, the origins of the New Model Army suggest that many of the Eastern Association regiments in 1645 were wearing "red or grey" coats. Would it be wrong to assume that any "grey" coats were similar to the "white" coats of Newcastle's army – and thus undyed wool?

On a general note, many thanks to all who have replied.

I am not against leg work. I have certainly done quite a bit of that in my time. However, in this day and age time is precious, so any helpful assistance such as the recommendation of a few good books (which would take a knowledgeable person a matter of a few minutes) would save an enormous amount of time and possibly false avenues of research. I presume you have plenty of time on your hands. Sadly I do not as I am still in full time employment.

It is a shame that you feel you cannot offer any practical assistance to another fellow wargamer. Just because you are knowledgeable on a subject doesn't mean that everyone else is or should be.

All the time you spent in this conversation could have been spent researching and actually learning something. Had you done so and had you read what I'd written carefully by now you might have discovered the names of very many northern regiments that may well have worn whitecoats.

As you seem to ignore, yet again you make a surmise rather than offer actual evidence. "May well have worn" is not the same as "recorded as" (which I think was my original phrase).

So, did we decide the hat colour?