WWI K troop, 3rd Cavalry Regt, 3rd Corps, Cavalry M1917 Rough Cut Service Coat
For your consideration is this RARE "K" Troop, 3rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Corps, Cavalry 1917 "Rough Cut" Service Coat. EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT THIS COAT IS RARE FROM THE PATCH TO THE COAT.
This coat type was supposed to have been burned in Europe before the men came home because of the Spanish Flu that killed 1% of the world's population, lice, and other communicable diseases. Also K Troop, 3rd Cavalry was the only US Cavalry unit outside of the 2nd US Cavalry to serve during WWI. They were allowed to wear the 3rd Corps, Cavalry patch and the 3rd Army patch.This coat doesn't have a 3rd Army patch. It didn't fall off it just came that way. I have taken pictures of every aspect of the coat, if you have any questions please message me. I will try to answer them.
WWI "K" Troop, 3rd Cavalry In World War I, K Troop, 3rd Cavalry Regiment was the only unit of its regiment to see combat. Detached from the 3rd Squadron and assigned to the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), the troop fought as dismounted cavalry across major Western Front campaigns, including the Aisne-Marne, Vesle, Oise-Aisne, and Meuse-Argonne Offensives. Combat History and Operations During World War I, the broader 3rd Cavalry Regiment was stationed in Tréveray, France, with a "remount" mission to manage horses. However, K Troop was detached for frontline duty and heavily engaged in four pivotal offensives. Aisne-Marne Offensive (July 18 - Aug 6, 1918) attached to I Corps. Vesle Front (Aug 7 - 17, 1918) attached to III.Oise-Aisne Offensive (Aug 18 - Sept 9, 1918). Meuse-Argonne Offensive (Sept 14 - Nov 11, 1918). Throughout these campaigns, the troopers fought on the front lines and were authorized to wear the 3rd Corps patch.
Post-Armistice Following the November 1918 armistice, Troop K joined the March to the Rhine and served in the American Sector of the Army of Occupation in Germany until July 1919. 1917 "Rough Cut" Service Coat No known specification number Its estimated time of adoption was the summer of 1917 This pattern of coat appears to have been in service on a limited scale until the end of the war No Quartermaster specifications for the so caled 1917 "Rough Cut" Service Coat have been located.
However, a number of examples have been found with contract labels that have no specification numbers, two labels however, have surfaced bearing very curios specification numbers. 1160 for the second pattern 1911 Service Coat Specification No. 1176 for the 1913 pattern enlisted men's Overcoat The earliest known contract for the Rough Cut coat was dated July 19, 1917 Frankel Bros. And the latest was dated February 8, 1918 Nathan A.Those dates give us an approximate time frame in which the Rough Cut service coat may have been fabricated. Give or take a month or two. It does not however, explain the use of specification numbers that had been assigned to an obsolete service coat and to the pattern of enlisted men's overcoat that was issued at the time when America declared war.
But more about that later. Although there is no proof available, evidence suggests that the 1917 Rough Cut Service Coat may have been the result of an undocumented emergency measure that was enacted sometime during the summer of 1917, when military clothing of all types was scarce. Regardless of the when and why, Quartermaster clothing inspectors certainly allowed the Rough Cut coats to pass inspection despite their many irregularities!
The fact that all of the Rough Cut coats were produced from a very heavy weight of woolen fabric that was at least equal to the 30 ounce to the yard olive drab melton wool that was called for in the 1913 dated Overcoat Specification No. 1176 just so happened to appear on one of the Rough Cut coat's contract labels. A number of contract labels found on the Rough Cut coat names Frankel Bros. I suspect that Frankel Bros. Were originally contracted to fabricate overcoats.
All of the coats were unlined; they were likely made that way because the weight of the woolen fabric was already of sufficient warmth. All of the seams were not turned under and sewn as required by all previous service coat specifications. This was likely because the weight of the wool prevented the material from being turned under or because it was determined, if they were turned under, that the finished product appeared too bulky or clumsy. Therefore, that specification was likely waived. Note: this information came from US Militaria Forum : A.
Service Coats by World War I Nerd.