"British infantry facing colours" Topic

I have been looking at the Napoleon Guide pages on this
link

and out of interest I have done a quick tally of the unique colours and how many regiments used each. This looks as follows:

Facing colour / number of regiments
Yellow 19
Blue 16
Buff 15
Blue-Green 12
Pale-Yellow 8
White 7
Black 6
Pale Yellow 5
Red 4
Yellow-Green 2
Green 2
Gosling Green 1
Pale-Buff 1
Orange 1
Yellowish-Green 1
Pea Green 1
Purple 1

I would have said that green was the second commonest colour after blue, but this source puts yellow first and breaks 'green' down into 6 different variants with 'blue-green' as much the commonest.

This was surprising – does anyone know how reliable that list and its information are? I have been happily painting units like the 54th and the 79th with the same green facings since the year dot, but per this guide the former should be yellow-green and the latter blue-green, with only the 87th and 94th in green-green.

Thoughts anyone?

The colours would be based on the ease of obtaining the dye – hence more earthy colours – yellow and blue – the odd one really is the purple – quite rare and thus expensive to make.

Go at it from a natural dyers point of view.

I was quite surprised myself when I started painting British infantry and found so many variations. It's not quite as varied as the Austrians but close. You need to double check each regiment as you deal with it.

@Artileryman- and then there's the variation in lace; bastion- ended, square ended, single strands, double strands etc. Thank goodness I am doing my British in 6 and 10mm, so only hint at lace
Some of the colours given are quite difficult to interpret accurately; there has already been much discussion on TMP about "Gosling Green". Consensus seems to be that it's a slightly dirty greeny yellow (apparently a bit like goose droppings!). "Blue- green" is given in some earlier records (late 17th century) as " sea- green".
Incidentally, does anyone have an accurate idea of Napoleonic Austrian jager uniform, described as "pike grey". Is it the same as Austrian WW1 uniforms?

Re original question about how accurate list is, there are certsinly other versions out there e,g , in Balagans painting guide to British Infantry in the Peninsular War

link

And then there's this:

link

@steamingdave47

When painting my Austrian Jägers I tried to follow Ottenfeld for uniforn colour. Grey with a hint of blue.

In answer to your question about the Austrian color of "Pike Grey", it was a color that changed over time. Many think it is a reference to the iron/steel colored metal tip on a pike weapon, but it is actually a reference to the pike fish, that being a stronger blueish grey than an iron gray. In fact during the French revolutionary wars to was a a very strong blue with only a hint of grey – but not a darkish looking blue. After time it evolved more toward the grey tone and perhaps by the latter part of the Napoleonic wars might be the gray shade many think of when painting Austrian jagers.

These two Knotel plates are a good idea of how pike grey would look during the revolution and early Napoleonic years

[URL=http://s257.photobucket.com/user/terry37photos/media/DBN/knoe12_26_zpsxei8sv9k.jpg.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s257.photobucket.com/user/terry37photos/media/DBN/knoe05_41_zpslwl6u13a.jpg.html]

[/URL]

The larger error with most Austrian armies is the uniform for the 4th and 8th Hussars. Parrot green is too often depicted as a bright grass green color while during the revolution and Napoleonic wars it was a really yucky looking strongly yellowish green, with maybe a wee touch of light grey.

This information is the result of over a years research and regular correspondence with David Hollins, so I feel comfortable in sharing it.

Terry

It's the same "problem" in the AWI.
Basically, each regiment had its own traditions and traditional chemist where they purchased the dye to make the facings. And coat.
In effect each regiment had a different shade of dye for its facings. So while it is convenient to lump regiments into "buff" or "yellow" facing it's not all that accurate. Which is why you will see "Pale Buff" and "Dark Buff". Etc.
Now, I have never seen variations in descriptions of "blue", that doesn't mean that they didn't have different shades. I'm simply guessing that they were the same. And I am not willing to die on that hill.

Published BOOKS with color PLATES show the differences.

I would never tell anybody that the shade of green is "incorrect". That would be caddish. but I try to get it right for what I paint. And if I get it wrong, I move on.

Let's not forget that the official dyes were not color fast and faded in the weather anyway.
Or that there was no real "orange" dye, but the facings of the 35th were probably a dirty brown.

I am tempted to paint up some British in all of the out-there colours just for the variety!

Regarding the original post, the observations in it generally agree with Hamilton Smith's illustrations and schematic charts. He was, of course, a serving officer from that era, and I have a modern reprint of his work on the uniforms of the British Army. I will add that at least one regiment (the 41st) had red facings--or none if you prefer to think of it that way.

Having said that, there are problems with determining correct facing colors in more than one respect.

1. The facings of some regiments were changed during the course of the Napoleonic Wars, but even lists from apparently "official" sources do not always agree.

2. Then, as now, any two people may describe (and, indeed, perceive) the same color in different ways.

3. Illustrations from the period cannot be relied on absolutely either.
a. There was no method of printing in color then, so
colored illustrations had to be tinted with
watercolors by hand; therefore inconsistencies
may occur between different copies (which may
themselves fade with time).
b. Some artists were better observers or more
conscientious than others.

4. As observed by others above, the processes of making dye
stuffs and actually dying the textiles were not then
by any means exact. Most of the dyes came from natural
plant sources which could vary in strength. Some were
not stable when exposed to light. Others, such as
indigo, tended to run out of the fabric when wet.
Therefore, the appearance of facings in the field might
be considerably different from some standard pattern
sample.

Consider "purple" to be a shade of red when painting musicians and flags. It would follow those rules in the Warrant.
It could also be just normal red dye with a touch of blue. It was probably not a shade we would consider "purple" today but a muddier red.

While orange was considered a shade of red on the Hessian army on the AWI, it was its own color in the British army. And it wasn't really what we would call "Orange" today either. It was a muddy brown.
"By Jove Colonel, what do you call that Colour on your regiment's coat cuffs?"
"Orange, my Lord?"
"Orange? Well, if you say so. You're the Colonel!"

Attached is a link to a very good natural dye website (I don't have any commercial interest in it) – it gives some really good examples of the type of colours and tints that can be achieved – also with what ingredients, which should inform if the colour was available for your particular force!!

If interested I could do a separate post/topic on dyes and colours!
wildcolours.co.uk/index.html

I reckon this thread gives me permission to interpret facing colours as it suits me. I really like the idea of green facings being a sort of Triumph mallard blue.

Here is something to be going on with.

link

You should also consult contemporary miniature portraits and paintings.

I'll see what I have on this subject and post them as soon as I can

Philip de Bosset 1803 chart.

Charles Hamilton Smith 1812 charts

Paul :)

@ dibble

wow, never seen those before. Remarkably modern way of visualising that information.

The trouble of course is, we don't know to what extent those colours still look as first printed, to what extent the printed colours resembles H-S's ink and to what extent the ink matched the facings….so it's still looking like "anything goes"!

I know of the problems with those charts (especially the 71st who's 'cartouche' in the H-Smith 1812 list still had them in tartan which I amended along with those colours dirtied and faded, which wasn't many). There were also some cartouches which had the facing colour either dirtied or faded due to age and that the hues used may well have varied from print to print. But then I doubt that the colours varied much and dyes used on the actual uniforms may well have been as varied as those used on those tables above through similar reasons, so I would use those colours above if I were a wargamer

Paul :)

Dibble. That is awesome

As For Gosling green.

Here is a contemporary miniature which may be about as good an idea of how it looked.

Paul:)

Excellent. So that's Vallejo Russian Uniform Green then :-)

A propos – can anyone confirm that the 91st wore line infantry uniform throughout? – i.e. no kilt or other Highland distinctions, despite being a Highland regiment?

Franklin has the 91st kilted from 1804 to 1809 (Government sett)where upon they lost their highland status. The only distinction of them being a Scottish regiment after 1809 was that the officers breast-plate had the Garter, star and saltire motif surmounted by a crown and a large '91' in the centre.

Other ranks belt-plate had Argyllshire Regt (smaller 't') around the bottom part of the plate, large '91'in the centre, surmounted with a crown. Buttons had this same motif for officers and other ranks.

Paul :)

Works for me. In my fantasy Highland brigade they never gave up the tartan…

On those Hamilton-Smith charts, what does each panel mean? The top bar is the facing colour and the tabs to the right are the shape and grouping of lace, but what are the triangles?

Some do carry a guide at the foot of the chart……… easiest read on "British Cavalry 1812" with an annotated diagram

Ah, tahnk you, that is easier to follow. But…have those colours degraded or are we to take it that the 14th wore buff breeches as well as facings?? And that the Royal Scots and the 11th Foot wore coats of a different red??!

The charts should only be used as a guide, they are not 100% accurate and as can be seen, there is a wide variety of scarlets in Charles Hamilton Smith's version. Whether all copies were the same is anyone's guess. He had copied Philip de Bosset's chart thus repeating the mistakes too; but at least deBosset's scarlet is more 'uniform'

Paul :)

Thanks – very informative.

Did a bit of posting on another site.

link

Should be of some use.

Paul :)

wow – what a great work, very very usefull