Almost a minuteman

[IndyGunworks]

still have to add a few things, but got the biggest chunk of the kit.  enjoy and critique.

[AuntieBellum]

VERY nice!  I can't say that I've researched and that you're authentic, but it looks good to me!  So, you working on your history now?   

[techres]

Sweet!  Did you make it or find a manufacturer?

[Earl]

Don't think the mustache works, but the rest looks fine to me. Great job!

[IndyGunworks]

a fireman was my first muster, so i dont think its going anywhere period correct or not.

[SPQR]

From an historians point of view I have to agree with the sage Earl.  Early Americans were not heavily bearded.  Several issues were at hand.  Functionally it risked fire from the flashpan of the musket.  OUCH!  In addition, we can make assumptions about preferred physical appearance by examining paintings and statuary.  for whatever reason, early America was not prone to the idea of facial hair like, say, Civil War America.  Theories abound and the academic work at this point that I have seen has been somewhat nascent.  I CAN say that there is an historian at IU that noticed the depiction of facial hair on coins and started investigating trends from that point of view with some interesting results.

Reasons for the lack of facial hair in early America may run the gamut.  For my own assumptions I would offer this.  The nonfunctional elements of facial hair may indicate the culture's desire to reflect trends its holds closest.  We as modern Americans look to the Founding generation as an example but where did these men look?  They looked to Republican Rome and Greece.  for the most part, the Roman male (and the Roman female while we are at it) were diligent in their removal of hair.  The Roman male shaved as often as possible to have a clean shaven face and received haircuts regularly.  The style of being cleanshaven with short cut hair was in vogue in Rome for centuries.  It was, among other things for them, a line of demarcation that indicated the advancement of their society and superiority of their culture to the barbarous fringe.  Their society was more enlightened from their point of view.  When early Americans began developing their own culture, and concepts of self government burgeoned forth, it was not the Hanoverian roots of their monarch but the ideological roots of the ancient world they identified with.  If we are to follow (what initially appears to be the very interesting concept of making cultural assumptions about the pictography of money and art and facial hair [at least to this historian/geek]) this line of thinking we can look at the roman Consuls and early emperors and see perhaps seven hundred years of men who used facial hair as an indication of social rank and cultural superiority.  For Americans, we can simply look at our Presidents and notice through portraiture that each one is clean shaven throughout the Revolutionary period and the following generation.  By the by, andrew jackson was the last President born and English citizen and the me in his cabinet said he rattled when he walked because so many pieces of musket balls were stuck in his guts and lungs.  have a little trivia whydontcha.

 great outfit!      

[azmule]

I'm not an expert, but I can't help but notice that if paintings and statuary of prominent citizens were all they had to go by, future historians might very well come to the same conclusions about present day America.  Counting my personal acquaintances, I know more men with facial hair than without, but a quick review of politicians, prominent businessmen, or other "leaders" (i.e. the men rich or powerful enough to either commission or inspire their likeness to be recorded for history - assuming there were no such thing as cheap photography available to the masses), shows that facial hair of any type is almost nonexistent throughout that class.  And given that even very popular fashion trends today tend to not be universal, I'm genuinely curious if this was truly population wide, or a preference just shared mostly by those prominent enough to be painted or sculpted.

[SPQR]

i believe we can safely say that in the Roman sense it was culture wide.  There are other elements of observation that can be made that allude to it but it is history, of course, and no one can claim absolute certainty on the issue.  I also think we can make that same allusion to early Americans in that artistic representations reflect an "everyman" or cultural norms.  One example for the purposes closely related to our interests would be something like Washington's Crossing the Delaware.  This painting has no intention of being historically accurate, rather, it seeks to embody a greater representation of society at large. 

Indeed, our recent politicians have no facial hair while society at large experiments widely.  I, for one, am an historian that often argues that people change very little in their baser elements.  Still, though, we must consider the cosmetic element of our current government.  It is one that is built to be viewed through the camera.  That was not the case in days past.  It was a government of men who held in a larger part to stricter social norms.  They were not built to be viewed so to speak, only captured in canvas for posterity.  In this they are captured for the greater part how they wish to represent themselves.  Even artwork beyond the political class is widely without facial hair.

i do not know more men with facial hair.  Though i am wearing a beard right now, most of the men of my acquaintance are clean shaven despite many of them being of the variety of fellow who must shave every day (myself included).  Don't forget, though, that we are using the only visual and cultural evidence available to us to make these assumptions.  While taking small groups of men into account for evidence like your buddies the sample size is small and finite.  how does one create such ideas about they and then?  Its tough.  there are no absolute.  there could have been 11000 guys with mustaches on the hills above Boston on the 20th.  i don't think there were, though.     

[yellowhousejake]

They never smiled for portraits because they had bad teeth. Ponder that for a minute, bad teeth.
.
.
.
.
.

OK, April 19th 1775 was a Wednesday. I would think they did not shave everyday, but certainly did for Sunday services. Now if I was a fella plowing fields and working from dawn to dusk, tending animals, trying to build a life, shaving would not be my first thought in morning.

Sailors loved facial hair and Boston was one of the busiest seaports in the world then. While I can see the average church going man with a family shaving every Saturday night, the common drinking songs of the era lead me to believe not every man fell into that category.

While a mustache may not have been common then, I do not think it out of place. Rather the style of mustache would be more important than the mustache itself.

Just my ramblings because I never shave on AS weekends. I bought another loaner rifle today, I'll never get that Garand if I keep doing that.

YHJ

[Chilidog]

I got to say you look good to me. Since 90% of Americans today have almost no knowledge of April 19 who will ever know the differance? Besides that, people often remember things better visualy than just the story alone and since no one else is telling the story in period dress, but you, how can anyone say anything but go get em! Mustache and all. If you more effectively reach just one more, that's one more American off the couch. Just look at me and my range. This is becase of TBE reaching out to one guy at a hotdog stand. Efectively reaching 60 more people, and counting, with the message "GET OFF THE COUCH AND DO SOMTHING TO IMPROVE YOU COUNTRY"! Go Nick go! Go Nick go! Come back to BC with your mustache intact and you will impress the sock off our shooters any day.

But I didn't buy another rifle today so what do I know.

[SPQR]

That is a good point.  i shouldn't have expected anything less.  A step forward, indeed.  It is a fine outfit, and the blue is excellent.