"Buff Belts on British Regiments with Buff Facings" Topic

A repeated topic but I'd be interested to know what the latest thinking is particularly after the excellent work done by Dibble.

Evidence for Buff Belts

1802 Regulations specify them and only revoked in 1822.
Some portraits show them
Where they are shown, they are a cream colour or ivory, definitely not the light brown of some reenactor groups.

Evidence against

Most of the portraits found by Dibble have white or very light colours. I have the impression (possibly wrong) that the buff belts are found on the more heroic, studio portraits.

I am very influenced by :

The sketches by Loftie in the Bibliotheque National. They show officers with buff breeches but white belts. Here is an example.

link

The drawings by Hewgill which are from the 1790s.

Hamilton Smith's sketch of the 52nd which has white belts with buff facings. What I find interesting is that the sketch in the same series of the Royal Horse Guards has buff belts.

link

link

I'm inclined towards white belts particularly in the field. What do you think?

Not sure if the term 'buff' always refers to colour.

In earlier times it meant a tough leather (from buffalo, I suppose) and a buff belt may simply mean it is made of leather.

I am not sure white belts in the field necessarily follows, if the idea is to achieve a field "simplification". Belts had to be whitened anyway, and if you had buff belts, you added a pinch of ochre, instead of copper sulphate, to your pipeclay, to make the belts buff instead of blue-white. They certainly weren't ECW buff-coat buff. They were as you say cream / ivory.

The RHG did indeed wear buff belts. They look soooo sharp.

"Buff" is a method of making leather as well as a colour.
Buff leather is oil oxidized, rather than harness leather that is "tanned" using ground up oak and hemlock bark. You will see inspection reports from the 1770's and 80's of light infantry coy accoutrements being made of buff leather instead of tan. It was a while before I figured out that they were referring to how the leather was made rather than the colour. Buff leather can be left natural, whitened, or blackened. Early ACW bayonet frogs were supposed to have the loop for the belt made of black buff leather. Buff leather is also rough on both sides as opposed to "tanned" leather that has a flesh (rough) side and a smooth or grain (hair) side.

A point worth noting in relation to the Hewgill prints, published in March 1792, is that most of the figures appear to have been drawn from notes rather than life, since many of the regiments featured in the series were abroad. Only the Foot Guards and two other regiments of foot depicted, were stationed in England at the time Dayes' original paintings were being done. Interestingly, the 3rd Buffs was one (the 29th was the other).

Moreover, the soldiers portrayed were depicted using selection of stereotypical figures; for instance those representing the 3rd and the 6th are more or less identical. That was before the engravers and their colourists got to work

So the documentary value of of the Dayes-Hewgill series is limited. The white cross belts as shown worn by the Buffs could simply be an error- either in Dayes' notes or at the printers.

Thinking about the Loftie paintings- which are unequivocal in their depiction of white belts for buff faced regts- might it be relevant that those are all officers' sword belts rather than soldier cross belts?

As far as conditions in the field are concerned- during periods of prolonged marching and fighting, I imagine pipe-clayed belts may well have reverted more to their natural colour until it was possible to treat them.

The thing is! (for Buff coloured regiments) How many contemporary pictures depict anything other than 'white buff'? and if a light ochre buff was used, was it used only in the field, only in garrison, or both? Was 'White buff' only used in garrison, in the field or both?

What is printed about British uniform regulations of the era and actual practices, is not clear at all!

Me personally! I'd paint the belts white.

Thanks to all of you for your comments. I don't doubt that soldiers on campaign had better things to do than put pipeclay on belts so the belts wouldn't have been white for very long. However, gamers want their units on the table to look smart so will tend towards the regulation uniform. If they didn't, they would do WWII. The only figures you see in something else are French infantry in greatcoats. Re-enactors firing muskets usually have a large black powder patch on their left shoulder belt but I've never seen that painted.

Most things for this period will be a matter of judgement and preference but it is good to get close to reality so, with all these reservations, I'll stick with white belts.

42flanker- Although from an earlier period, this is an interesting picture from the field with the grenadier with white belts and the officer with ?. The Wikipedia site for the 62nd has the commanding officer with buff belts but is a studio portrait.

PDF link

A correction to the above comment. I hadn't read the whole article linked above but on page 14 there is more on the use of whitened belts. They were contrary to regulations but apparently not uncommon in buff faced regiments. It also seems that the portrait of the colonel has whitened belts on closer examination.

Certainly, there is more than enough margin in the assembled reference material to justify white belts for buff faced regiments without exciting too much scandal.

In this period Colonels chose to interpret regulations fairly loosely, as inspection reports of the time record. See Alan Strachan, 'British Military Uniforms, 1768–1796'(1975)

1800-02 saw a determined attempt by the AG dept to assert centralised control over uniform distinctions, but there was a war on and the records show they were still working on the project in the 1820s. The situation wasn't helped by Royalty and Horse Guards acknowledging occasional deviations and granting exemptions as if on a whim- happily for students of military tradition but of course playing havoc with discipline.

For many years I just didn't register this issue at all.. I don't think my earliest uniform books showed a difference, and my brain didn't pick up on later illustrations showing a very definite buff shade for belts..

I'm guessing that in this context buff means colour rather than method of manufacure, otherwise why connect it with regiments with buff facings?

We are never going to know unless a hitherto unknown memoir appears that mentions this specifically, not holding my breath as those who participated had other priorities than leaving snippets about belts and Belgic shakos for future modellers.

I would incline to fudge the issue by choosing a very light, almost white, buff shade.

Haven't found the elusive memoir but did find an article from the Journal for the Society for Army Historical Research Number 88 pages 155 to 156. In 1942, a jacket of an officer (Captain Parsons) of the 27th Foot was found in an old house along with a white shoulder sword belt. The 27th (Inniskillings) had buff coloured facings. In this case they are described as cream and almost white. They were lent to the Regimental Museum and may still be there.

I posted extant British uniforms on the defunct Armchair General site. I'll post them all again on here too if anyone's interested. Some items have been published elsewhere by me and others but all the same, I'll post what I have on Wednesday.

I'd strongly suspect for reasons of aesthetics and tidiness that buff belts were exactly as buff as the facings, however buff those were; or lighter.

I have a colour picture of the coat worn by Parsons. I also have ones from other regular regiments and Militia too.

in case the leather was white, due to its porcessing, it is not that difficult to pipeclay it, in French buffle, or in German sämisches Leder, it is white and not of natural leather colour.
Also the white leather is more robust to withstand the rigours of campaign than natural or blackened leather.

Here's those uniforms I promised. Starting with two coatees from the 27th.

‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

I appear to have posted the 83rd jacket twice…

I found this forum yesterday which reaches similar conclusions I.e. that white not buff belts were worn but with some more portraits and evidence. I was particularly interested in the comment from an officer of the 71st mentioning white belts and the note that the requirement for officers to wear buff belts had been struck out in pencil in the 1802 summary of dress regulations. The one for men had not.

link

There is also this picture made in Paris at the time of the occupation which shows a private of the 71st with their distinctive cap with buff facings and white belts. Certainly, some of these drawings are problematic but this one may be correct. You need to page down a bit to see it.

link

Trockledockle

As you may have noticed, I posted on that site too…(I'm Patchbox) With my information that leads to the dropping of the Buff belt in general (though perhaps not for all buff-faced regiments).

Dibble,

I hadn't realised that you were Patchbox. Thanks for the information.

Trockledockle, i just used Vallejo grey brown on my figures to get some contrast with the white lace on the cuffs…works a treat. Great photos, there, by the way..

Wait, what? Now you tell me…

Seriously, thanks…(sigh)