The Adventurer's Gear Thread

[tonypaj]

Here's my brush with Out of Africa...

I moved to Kenya in 1993, stayed there for 2 years. When I arrived and was looking for a house, a real estate agent took me to Karen (a part of town in Nairobi), and showed me a beautiful place, and old house, run down swimming pool, huge garden, and according to her "250 acres where you can ride your horses", owned by the Kenyatta family. It was pretty much perfect, but I had two worries, 45 minutes from my office, out in the bush, and I was about to live alone there (of course with the servants and stuff, but alone). I told her politely no, a bit far from where I want to be. Then she went on to say that "by the way, did you know that they shot a lot of Out of Africa on this farm, Karen Blixen's real house (not that far from there) was not available, and this was as close to the real thing as possible".

It could have been just a story, of course, but somehow I think not...

 

[Story]

Thanks for those links, Story.
We're well acquainted with the Johnsons.

Who is 'we'?
Did I miss mention of it in this thread??? If so, link me.

Good narrative on the K.A.R.
http://www.chakoten.dk/cgi-bin/fm.cgi?n=855

 

[Mark G]

Here's my brush with Out of Africa...

I moved to Kenya in 1993, stayed there for 2 years. When I arrived and was looking for a house, a real estate agent took me to Karen (a part of town in Nairobi), and showed me a beautiful place, and old house, run down swimming pool, huge garden, and according to her "250 acres where you can ride your horses", owned by the Kenyatta family. It was pretty much perfect, but I had two worries, 45 minutes from my office, out in the bush, and I was about to live alone there (of course with the servants and stuff, but alone). I told her politely no, a bit far from where I want to be. Then she went on to say that "by the way, did you know that they shot a lot of Out of Africa on this farm, Karen Blixen's real house (not that far from there) was not available, and this was as close to the real thing as possible".

It could have been just a story, of course, but somehow I think not...

I've been to Kenya several times and I always get a kick out of "Out of Africa". Everybody has a story that connects to the movie. They either knew someone from the film or had a vehicle in it , shot on their property etc. Every other curio shop use the name and they even have "Out of Africa" nuts and coffee. To think, they gave them a hard time for filming there. Sidney Pollack RIP.

Belly Tank, I think your picture is Bror and Karen. Here's a picture taken by Hugh Stutchbury when he was with Finch Hatton (on the left) in a unit called the Somali Horse in WW1. Gotta love the turban.

 

[BellyTank]

Who is 'we'?
Did I miss mention of it in this thread??? If so, link me.

Good narrative on the K.A.R.
http://www.chakoten.dk/cgi-bin/fm.cgi?n=855

"We" is us.
You must have missed it.
It's been mentioned and linked to quite a lot, by at least MojaveJack and me... since way back in this thread.
Actually, I mentioned it a few posts back- top of the page, to be exact.

Chakoten is good, spent a lot of time there- Luckily, I can read Danish.


B
T

 

[Story]

Belly Tank, I think your picture is Bror and Karen. Here's a picture taken by Hugh Stutchbury when he was with Finch Hatton (on the left) in a unit called the Somali Horse in WW1. Gotta love the turban.

Interesting. Armed with Long Lee Enfields and bandoliers that hold individual cartridges (instead of pockets for five round strippers).

 

[carebear]

Interesting. Armed with Long Lee Enfields and bandoliers that hold individual cartridges (instead of pockets for five round strippers).

Load one, shoot one? Like modern shotgun technique?

 

[David Conwill]

Load one, shoot one? Like modern shotgun technique?

Sounds like the technique I've seen used with Lebels in a lot of French Foreign Legion films - treat the thing like it's a single-shot rifle until you don't have time to reload anymore, then open up the magazine cutout and start pumping rounds up from there.

-Dave

 

[Mark G]

It might also have to do with the white Africans getting the "good stuff". Who knows how well they supplied these guys and how far into the war this picture was taken. Maybe stripper clips were hard to come by in any quantity?

Here's another picture from the same photographer. I'm getting these from "Old Africa" magazine. This is a great mag for anyone interested in colonial Kenya.

 

[tonypaj]

I've been to Kenya several times and I always get a kick out of "Out of Africa". Everybody has a story that connects to the movie. They either knew someone from the film or had a vehicle in it , shot on their property etc. Every other curio shop use the name and they even have "Out of Africa" nuts and coffee. To think, they gave them a hard time for filming there. Sidney Pollack RIP.

Yep, there are lots of people there with a proposition and of course "a story goes with it". However, Nairobi is really a small town with millions of people, and you get to meet people with real stories if you just keep your eyes and ears open. It takes time to figure out stories from "stories", but having seen and gone through a few things there, all I can say is that things that may seem more than somewhat far fetched really do happen in this world...

Anyway, the house I saw was really owned by the Kenyattas, and it was not that far from Blixen's house, and it did have the right to access the 250 acres. And it even looked like the house in the movie. Now, given all that, it really beggars the "story goes with it" part. Who knows, I don't like horses anyway and got myself a place in Thigiri, to hell with Ngong Hills and stuff...

 

[Mojave Jack]

I've been to Kenya several times and I always get a kick out of "Out of Africa". Everybody has a story that connects to the movie. They either knew someone from the film or had a vehicle in it , shot on their property etc. Every other curio shop use the name and they even have "Out of Africa" nuts and coffee. To think, they gave them a hard time for filming there. Sidney Pollack RIP.

Belly Tank, I think your picture is Bror and Karen. Here's a picture taken by Hugh Stutchbury when he was with Finch Hatton (on the left) in a unit called the Somali Horse in WW1. Gotta love the turban.

It looks like the fellow on the far right has the .303 bandoleer that was essentially identical to the Martini-Henry bandoleer, and the fellows to the left have the 1903 pattern bandoleer.

So the fellows in Belly Tank's earlier photo have the 1903 bandoleer worn as a belt, with braces added, and single pouches stitched to the braces?

Hmm, those single pouches might make an excellent compass pouch, then. Anyone know of a source?

 

[BellyTank]

So the fellows in Belly Tank's earlier photo have the 1903 bandoleer worn as a belt, with braces added, and single pouches stitched to the braces?

Hmm, those single pouches might make an excellent compass pouch, then. Anyone know of a source?

Well, Jack...
your old friends in Auistralia sell them (10 rd pouch)individually, @$AU15 a pop...

...of course, they have a leather loop on the back, so you can fit them to your belt.
They also have the 15 rd pouch- more rectangular.

Last time I was in Auckland, NZ, I picked up a the shoulder bandoleer in a surplus shop- an oldie.
You've seen it in my ensemble pictures.


B
T

 

[nobodyspecial]

Forestry Suppliers sells leather compass cases, I bought one to fit my Silva Ranger. The case has a snap closure, not the button style as pictured above.

 

[Woodfluter]

For backpacking, your only choices for tent material aren't canvas or nylon. Even in Horace Kephart's day (see his excellent "Camping and Woodcraft" of around 1912) canvas was considered standard for horse packing and canoeing, but lightweight Egyptian cotton and even silk were used if you had to carry it on your back.

However, this brings us around to other questions...
How different is nylon from silk in appearance?
Wouldn't folks in earlier days have jumped on nylon if it was available?
Were they driven by aesthetics of materials or by practical concerns?
Is there nostalgia for a need-driven style of a previous time?
Will a future generation find nylon to be romantic?

I do like some canvas daypacks. Have several by Duluth Tent and Awning. They have some advantages.

- Bill

 

[Creeping Past]

Is there nostalgia for a need-driven style of a previous time?
Will a future generation find nylon to be romantic?

I was thinking along those lines the other day. It's possible to go off walking and be comfortable carrying next to no weight, including shelter. I think that's a romantic notion, if ever there were one. Given previous attempts to make ever lighter kit, I'd imagine people in the past would have been all over lightweight man-made fibres.

On a different collector-related tack, it'll be interesting to see how the 'plastic' clothing industry deals with higher oil prices. How far will this impact on nylon production. etc.? How's the futures market in outdoors gear doing? If I were a collector, I'd be acquiring Paramo and Buffalo kit, for example, right now.

The big negative for me is, where's the style? I like the look of the lightweight pullover smocks. But I dislike the 'technical' trousers with all their d-rings, zips and detachable legs.

I don't detest the shirts so much (how much can you hate a button-up shirt?). In fact, I wear a couple of Gondwanaland poly-cotton shirts I bought in Oz some years back throughout the summer. Very comfortable and they look all right, despite velcro top pockets. On the whole, I prefer my cotton UK army shirts, one of which is a size too large and serves okay as a shirt-jacket on hot days.

 

[Story]

Load one, shoot one? Like modern shotgun technique?

The magazine holds 10, but top-off one at a time. The magazine cut-off was used for volley fire, which generally entailed single-loading after every volley (the idea being to force the troops to keep their magazines full until needed for rapid-fire).

It might also have to do with the white Africans getting the "good stuff".

It really wasn't perjorative as much as a standard 'cascading' practice (which still goes on today), with the first-line units got the best and Territorial/Colonial units received what their old rifles - which in 1914, really weren't so old (the Long Lees were an 1890s weapon).

It looks like the fellow on the far right has the .303 bandoleer that was essentially identical to the Martini-Henry bandoleer, and the fellows to the left have the 1903 pattern bandoleer.

Look closer, all three at the same - they came after the Slade-Wallace (?) bandolier for the 577/450 with protective flaps. Then they made the 303 version. Checkemout - http://www.ima-usa.com/product_info.php/products_id/89

So the fellows in Belly Tank's earlier photo have the 1903 bandoleer worn as a belt, with braces added, and single pouches stitched to the braces?

The ones with only five narrow (10rd) pouches *may* be the bandolier, but those with six 'thick' (15rd) pockets have them mounted on a standard 1903 belt.

Well, Jack...
your old friends in Auistralia sell them (10 rd pouch)individually, @$AU15 a pop...

...of course, they have a leather loop on the back, so you can fit them to your belt.
They also have the 15 rd pouch- more rectangular.

Yup, easy to miss links in this thread.

http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showpost.php?p=581128&postcount=1648


Hahahahaaha - check this out, $10 from IMA!
http://www.ima-usa.com/product_info.php/products_id/1861

 

[Woodfluter]

/// It's possible to go off walking and be comfortable carrying next to no weight, including shelter. I think that's a romantic notion, if ever there were one.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

On a different collector-related tack, it'll be interesting to see how the 'plastic' clothing industry deals with higher oil prices. How far will this impact on nylon production. etc.?

That's a point my father (a DuPont chemical engineer) used to make, from the 1970's on. He said we shouldn't be burning petroleum so wastefully because there were better things to do with it, and some day we'd regret the inevitable shortages. Yes, feedstock prices will affect the consumer.

/// where's the style? I dislike the 'technical' trousers with all their d-rings, zips and detachable legs.

As do I. Some of this stuff is too "tricked out" and designed primarily to impress the inexperienced. But there are modern, well-made items in synthetic and natural materials that are simple but with useful pockets and fastenings, suitable to different purposes. I like cotton best for comfort in moderately warm weather, but having worked and played in extremely hot, muggy conditions, I've learned to love woven nylon pants and shorts and shirts...for those situations. It all depends. Believe me, when you are in the open with no shelter and trying to write in a notebook that is getting covered in sweat and everything you have on is literally saturated, you just don't give a hoot about style. Same story for very cold.

Then again, not caring about style, taking the best of every period and using it wisely...maybe that is a style unto itself. A very old one!

Good observations C.P.!
- Bill

 

[Mojave Jack]

I was thinking along those lines the other day. It's possible to go off walking and be comfortable carrying next to no weight, including shelter. I think that's a romantic notion, if ever there were one. Given previous attempts to make ever lighter kit, I'd imagine people in the past would have been all over lightweight man-made fibres.

...

The big negative for me is, where's the style? I like the look of the lightweight pullover smocks. But I dislike the 'technical' trousers with all their d-rings, zips and detachable legs.

...

Exactly so, CP, and well stated. I find the comments against canvas in this and other threads here at the FL amusing, and it seems those folks have forgotten that this is a forum about vintage. Who here does not realize the advantages of nylon over canvas? Who does not realize the advantage of not wearing a suit when everyone around them is wearing jeans and t-shirts? The point of this forum is that we are interested in recreating the feel of the period of interest, in most cases the Golden Age. Anyone can all easily go out and outfit themselves from head to toe in gore-tex, North Face, microfiber, ad naseum, and camp in great comfort, but why come to the FL, then? There are plenty of forums dedicated to all the latest super-duper micro-weight tents, ultra-lightweight mountain stoves, etc all over the web! This one is about vintage!

 

[David Conwill]

This thread made me realize that style versus technology isn't just a debate limited to cars. I used to frequent many automotive forums, most prominently the HAMB ("Spreading the gospel of traditional hot rodders.") and there is always someone who will look at a pure "old tech" car and say "It would be more traditional to have innovated using the latest technology." They then proceed to make fun of someone doing it the way they did in the 1940s by calling them a "restorer."

Of course people in the past would have used modern technologies given the opportunity, but presumably they would have done it with more style than is available in most "high tech" stuff today. When they start producing nylon/lycra/etc. in the same quality and style as the vintage stuff, I'd be interested. But until then, I'd rather talk about canvas, leather, and metal.

-Dave

 

[Dinerman]

And these things can co-exist. I buy hiking and camping clothes at REI, and while it may not be vintage, it's comfortable and handles the outdoors pretty well. The pants are comfortable because they're cut with wide legs and a high waist. The shirts are vented and dry quickly. I buy stuff in colors that you would have seen, khakis, greens, and browns. None of it's too out there. It's comfortable, it works.

And you know, it may be modern, but I keep my fedora, I usually keep a tie ('30s brown wool one). It may not be camping with completely vintage gear, it may not be authentic, but that's not what I'm going after. I'm going camping primarily while still keeping my style intact. I go camping to go camping, not to be seen.

 

[Creeping Past]

When they start producing nylon/lycra/etc. in the same quality and style as the vintage stuff, I'd be interested. But until then, I'd rather talk about canvas, leather, and metal.

Quite so, Dave.

And wool. Let's not forget wool!

If we're talking about modern materials used in the past, Bakelite artefacts, for instance, look like... well, stuff made from Bakelite. Technology and considered formal design combining to create artefacts that have their own quality and style.

people in the past would have used modern technologies given the opportunity, but presumably they would have done it with more style than is available in most "high tech" stuff today.

Do we necessarily accept that older=more stylish? And what do we accept as stylish? Do we accept kitsch as a style form?

From a personal perspective, I'm in uncharted territory as far as vintage outdoors style goes, because serious-minded outdoors types undoubtedly regard natural fibre-clad hillwalkers and mountain scramblers as anomalous, wrong-headed and foolish play-acting fops. For them, it's a kind of kitsch, because it involves using low-quality gear, as far as they are concerned, and being, practically, useless.

Check out some outdoors forums at random for some ripe opinions on using older gear.