Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Who says they didn't wear holsters like that?


Sedalia Dave

Recommended Posts

Ah Cummon Warden,

 

Don’t rain on a perfectly good hypothesis.  Just ‘cause you can’t ride a horse with ‘‘em that way.  Looks perfectly fine from the freeway after all :blink:

 

Just read the rest of the story.  An Artillery office could wear ‘‘em that way just fine.  Makes a fine “Speed Loader”.   :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Warden Callaway said:

I'd say they were staged for the photo.  More likely the holsters were worn butt forward on opposite side shown and much further back.

Quite possibly.  But note that the holsters are not regulation ones with a full flap, but slim jims with the finger cutouts in the tops!  The ends appear to be plugged.  Interesting also is the light color of the pistol grips.  Ivory or just an artifact of the photographic image?  Interesting, whatever the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Trailrider #896 said:

Quite possibly.  But note that the holsters are not regulation ones with a full flap, but slim jims with the finger cutouts in the tops!  The ends appear to be plugged.  Interesting also is the light color of the pistol grips.  Ivory or just an artifact of the photographic image?  Interesting, whatever the details.

 

From his bio.

Quote


....he enlisted in the Union army on February 27, 1862.

Between August 17 and November 25, 1862, Matthews recruited a company of 81 men for the 1st Kansas Colored Volunteer Infantry. Because the state of Kansas had not officially authorized the recruitment of Colored troops, they could not be mustered into service, and therefore received no pay. In January 1863, the regiment was officially reorganized and mustered into service at Fort Scott, Kansas.

 

 

I suspect the because they were initially unpaid volunteers regulation issue of equipment was not a priority of the Union Army. Those Ivory handled Colts are definitely not regulation. He owned a business and likely had more money than most, so it stands to reason he could afford those side arms.

 

Enlarge the picture and look at his face. He looks to me like a man not to be trifled with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Enlarge the picture and look at his face. He looks to me like a man not to be trifled with.

 

I wonder if the photographer said something to elicit that expression or if the fellow is just naturally angry. Or psycho. ;)

 

20211105_180634.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like as not, he has that expression, because, back in those days, you had to be still for a while, as a photograph was being taken. 

He may have come to a point that he needed to move...for a variety of reasons. 

Besides, most of us can say the pictures, on our drivers' license, looks like the worst photograph ever taken of us.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

Like as not, he has that expression, because, back in those days, you had to be still for a while, as a photograph was being taken. 

He may have come to a point that he needed to move...for a variety of reasons. 

Besides, most of us can say the pictures, on our drivers' license, looks like the worst photograph ever taken of us.

 

 

 

 

And maybe he just had to pee. Really bad. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2021 at 6:08 PM, Dantankerous said:

 

I wonder if the photographer said something to elicit that expression or if the fellow is just naturally angry. Or psycho. ;)

 

 

Given the era in which he lived, I’ll bet he had plenty to be pissed off about and had to be one tough hombre to get where he did. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.