I think there is an etymological point to be made. Uniform comes from the Latin for one and appearance so it's clothing that is meant to look the same across different sets. Costume on the other hand comes from the same root as custom and can also be the dress (including hair, makeup, ...) of a specific period or culture (a culture's customary clothing is it's costume) Since you are wearing identical looking remakes of a uniform that was customary for a specific culture, I'd argue that it's both.
xyldkefyi I’d define things this way: Brandon is wearing a costume in order to portray a soldier who is wearing a uniform. A reenactor strives to accurately portray a historical soldier. The maker of a reenactor’s costume strives to accurately portray a historical uniform to the re-enactor himself and to the people he will meet in-person. The maker of an actor’s costume strives to accurately portray a historical uniform to the people who will see it on stage and screen. The maker of a stripper’s costume strives instead to symbolically refer to a uniform. The maker of a halloweengoers costume might be more like that of the stripper or the actor or something else entirely.
;) Cdrtainly worth exploring/ unpicking. I think you were amomgst the threads of the argument when contemplating the self identity... ego... of the wearer and their relation to others there abouts.... comrades... fellow re-enactors...actors... spectators... viewers... adversaries....enemies! the reason the uniform, ahem, came about in the first place.?. Hmmmm contemplating the intension or identity of the wearer, their mythself? ...Christopher walkerloo? ... ; o ) ..."When I'm in my suit I feel a part of my country..." declares Christopher Wanker, Fantasy Banker... who gets to take the credit? Define the relationship? ...hmmm the question of intesion in relation to patronage? ,,, perfect ; o) ... certainly worth exploring. Xx
@@armorsmith43 In a sense, uniform is an ideal term. The ideal being, that article of clothing worn for the purpose for which it was originally intended by a person in the position/occupation for which it was originally intended. The same article of clothing is a costume if it is used to reenact (or portray for theatrical or recreational or educational purposes) someone in that role who is not, in fact, a policeman/soldier, etc. So a reenactor--as portraying a soldier or 19th century bobby--would refer to her/his uniform SPEAKING AS THAT PORTRAYED CHARACTER, or would refer to "the uniform" in terms of the characteristics of the ideal in describing it to an observer. However, an observer and the reenactor, stepping outside their historical persona, would be entirely correct in describing that article of clothing as a costume. An actual uniform, a recreated uniform used for reenactment, and a cheap Halloween costume all partake in "uniformness" but to different degrees through shape/silhouette, color, material, etc.
I think it’s ok to call it a uniform for re-enacting as long as you don’t try to fool people that your actually in the military. In my opinion it’s a costume though because you take part in re-en”act”ments. It a hard subject to cover because everyone will have a different opinion on this matter. Thumbs up for the poppy 👍
If you're wearing an 18th century uniform and trying to persuade people that you are actually serving in the military, I don't think you'll have much success. Stolen valour has its limits. xD
@@someguy3766 - All this time I though that dressing up as Napoleon and insisting that YOU ARE Napoleon would get you put into the funny farm. It is really stolen valor....
Reenacting usually isn't done to recreate things happening Right Now . Simply from the context it is obvious that a currently living person isn't actually a Revolutionary War or Civil War combatant . Or a WWII combatant , if they're less than 90yo . ( In 2021 , someone who had their 18th birthday while serving during the last year of the war will be 94yo . Yes , I know 94 & 96yo Veterans . Include more irregular partisans , guerrilla or resistance , would still be at least 90 yo ).
As someone in the costuming/cosplay community, the way I see the difference is: a uniform is a specific type of clothing that denotes a specific job or purpose (police, garbage man, cruise ship staff, etc.). A costume is a piece of clothing made for the purposes of entertainment. You can use a garment that was specifically designed and formerly used as a uniform in the capacity of a costume (see plays or movies). But the most important question is, is it being worn by someone who is fulfilling the role the garment was made for (i.e. police, military, etc) or is it being used by someone not in that role (usually) for the purpose of entertainment (or sometimes deception).
Well said, it could still be a uniform being used as a costume. For reenactors, you are a part of the reenactment, you are a regiment in the reenactment.
This was a really interesting discussion that explores different perspectives and reasons. I also appreciated that you brought up the theatre and film industries and their definitions. With all that said, I think that it's easy to go down a pedantic rabbit hole, especially if we're trying to categorise a piece as one or the other. To me, the clarification is simple: actors wear costumes. A costume *can be* a uniform. The distinction is that it is not the "uniform of the actor", in that the actors do not all wear the identical items as a uniform. Thus, one person's uniform can be another person's costume. The opposite can also hypothetically be true. In practical terms, a uniform consists of items that are prescribed to be worn to identify people as part of a group. In theory, if I created a private army and required all my men to wear clown masks, that can also be seen as a uniform. The big question that this opens up is whether reenactors consider themselves to be "actors". That's probably a topic in itself.
@@TorianTammas It is *not* an improv theatre! Reenactors are recreating a historical battle. The script is written in accordance to the findings of historians. The "soldiers" who are supposed to lose will lose, and the "soldiers" who are supposed to win will win. Now there are "open end" events, but those events are very distinctively *not* reenactments.
You have to recognize the differences in semantics and context of language between professional/ expert level theatrical productions and the wider population . In theater jargon " costuming " = anything and everything worn by actors . Be it " authentic " whatever , a unique invention for that production , or a performer walking on stage/ set in their everyday street clothes . For regular people , it is anything distinctive , that is different from their regular clothes or appearance .
@@Schattengewaechs99 There are reenactment events that don't replicate a PARTICULAR battle, but have a general idea of a "period" style of battle. I would say that it would fall more into the area of a "mock battle", but even then, one side is the "winner", and the others are the "losers". That doesn't mean it's not a "reenactment", unless it's more of a non-period correct event. I've gone to a particular timeline event for years, and we used to have a "battle of the ages", where the ACW troops went up against the WW2 Airborne, the Romans against the Vikings, and the like. Yes, it was a farb-fest, but it was after the spectators were gone for the evening. Does that mean it wasn't strictly a "reenactment"? Maybe, maybe not, but that's how reenactors have fun. Again, it was "after hours", and the spectators were gone.
to me the best way to break this down is such: A Uniform - Is something that is made to a Published Uniform standered (which will spell out material, patches, placing of seams and pockets, and add-ons) A Costume - a costume is anything else. and yes that would mean that day to day you wear a costume in everyday life. You mentioned Marching bands, Well all marching bands HAVE a written down standered of what there uniforms are made of and how they are worn. Even if the material is "cheap", it is still spelled out what that material is and how it should be made. Schools have dress codes but only some of them specify them enough that it can be said to have a school uniform. in the Theater the Costume department can and does issue out uniforms if the need is there, but they also will issue out any number of other manners of dress so just going by Costume department is just a fancy name for themselfs other then the dressing department. Now a uniform issued out could have a the pockets be just a half a inch to low, and that garment would effectively not be a uniform anymore as it does not meet the published standereds.
So would you count a Halloween costume as a uniform? They are designed by people who will spell out material, patches, placing of seams and pockets, and add-ons for the factory creating them.
I feel it's intent and context. I was in the cadets and had a set of combats issued to me. If I wore the combats for cadets, I was wearing a uniform but if I was wearing them for any other reason it's a costume. They'd still be uniform pieces but they were being worn in a costume. The same applies to your great-grandfather's uniform jacket. When he wore it in the military, he was wearing a uniform, on its own it's a uniform piece and if anyone wore it in reenactment it would be part of a costume. It would still be a uniform jacket as part of the costume but the overall outfit would be a costume.
@White Belt Yeah Ive always heard it called Rememberance day since I am also Canadian, I just found it intresting how no one ever seems to call it Armistice day even though that is what it is lol
Before watching the video: "Costume", cause no person which job it is to check the uniform (here most likely a general from the 18th century) and can say it is on correct standard. Also an uniform says that it is literally your work dress.
I honestly have no idea, how much money a reenactor makes epxecially the ones without any hisotrical degree.... I ment it more as a profession, ppl going to school write stuff down, doinf exams, physical exams.... This is why crappy quality doctor/nurses and crappy quality police costumes are considered more socially allowed compared to other bad quality of costumes...
@@neurofiedyamato8763 99% plus Reenacting/ Reenacting-ish is something you spend money on , not make money from . I suppose a few regular employees of say a museum or historical park will do Living History as a supplemental duty , but generally they were already Reenacting in their private life already .
I am a reenact or and I was swayed to use the term costume since at the end of the day, we are actors. It's in the name, reenACTOR. we play a role. So it is a costume for us to play that role. And of course things will vary on quality. I also believe a costume and uniform could also be the same thing as Brandon mentions
Bingo! It seems this has to be settled every few years. Re-enactors, by the definition of US, British, Canadian and Japanese military bodies (the only parties with which I have directly worked) are in costume. ONLY clothing issued to serving personnel, by an approved supplier, and on duty/warrant is 'uniform'. Intent of the garment matters not. The gestalt is what matters. Were I to squeeze into my old Parades, or BDUs I'd only be in costume, though they were issued to me by the regiment approved Sutler (ironically a civilian outfitter) once upon a time as a serving non-com. Only a self hating FARB would even raise this question. ;)
In my mind, all uniforms are a subtype of costume. They are specifically designed to be worn for some specific purpose, by some kind of "costume designer" (could be a single person for a theater company, or a board of officers, or a fashion consultant, or the CEO's brother) and so whether it's your dress blues in a service, your marching band uniform, your military combat uniform, the shirt and apron at the local grocer's job, the captain's outfit for a major airline, or the Hooter's Girls uniforms, they're all costumes at the root of it. That they are made to a strict standard with every detail defined, or simply loosely prescribed as one or two issued articles in conjunction with any 'civilian' clothes that match well enough, or self-made to meet a general guideline, it's worn to execute a certain duty or role and then when not worn tends to signify exiting the duties or role so prescribed. There's no uniform which isn't a costume. The fact that it's a uniform is generally that multiple such costumes are made and meant to be worn in uniform manner. They might be official costumes, but still. As for what makes something not just a costume but a proper Uniform, is whether it is made rigorously to whatever standard that uniform is defined as. If it was made to the letter of the law, so to speak, it is proper; if it was an interpretation then it's merely a costume resembling or evoking such a uniform. If it was made as a uniform, what makes it an authentic uniform vs a replica or recreation might be strict in that certain serial numbers or proof stamps were applied or not, or loose in that they were made within or outside of some commonly understood original context. Let's say it's the mid 20th century and I had a factory making garments that happened to, 20 years prior, make certain uniforms for some armed forces. And I still have all the patterns and many leftover bolts of materials and so-on, and spin up another batch to sell commercially. If they are indeed properly made then they are factory authentic new-production, unofficial and unissued uniform garments. That doesn't make them official WWII uniforms. And there is now no context to officially wear them as service uniforms. But say a few years later the military purchases 100 sets of these to be worn by service members for a 25th anniversary parade in an official capacity. Are they costumes? Absolutely. Are they official uniforms? At that point, perhaps. If at the same time a movie company ordered 200 of the same sets of clothing for their movie actors and extras to wear for their 25th anniversary film project, using military assistance to ensure the uniforms and so-on are all correct and authentic, with actual veterans either appearing in their own uniforms and so-on, which of the costumes are proper uniforms and which are just costumes? Well IMO they're all costumes, and just which procurement journey a particular garment went though defines whether it's an official, authentic, recreation,( or so-on) garment. Dealing with firearms and other surplus, it has similar issues. Where there is original issued stuff, original accepted but never issued stuff, original production but never left the factory, original production but assembled after the fact, made by the original factory to spec after the fact, made by other entities who have the tooling after the fact, and so-on down the line like... until you have modern company, making an outwardly mostly correct recreation using modern internal parts that *maybe* the original might have used if they had known about it at the time, and then on to "clearly only resembles the original if you squint" replicas. Where is the line? What is the proper term? It all gets quite in the weeds. Always fascinating to think about though.
I don't mind the costume/uniform conversation, but the one that makes my eye twitch is I explain reenacting/living history and someone says "oh, you mean like cosplay?"
I second that. My future husband and I are reenactors doing ww1, civil war and Society for creative anachronism; we arent big fans of the use of costume in reenacting
why? does it trigger your insecurity that you are indeed just putting on a costume and playing soldier? youre larping and cosplaying, just own it. its nothing to be ashamed of, and getting butthurt over semantics is just petty.
I’m ex-military, I’m a role player, and I’m an actor - and yeah, whatever our own pretensions about the dignity of what we do in the latter two instances, it is fundamentally cosplay and LARP. And that’s fine; there’s quick and cheap cosplay, and there’s ambitious cosplay. One can have an educational purpose, another can be purely for fun. St the end of the day, it’s all putting on both an outfit and a performance.
I know this doesn’t exactly play into this conversation of uniforms in the reenactment space but this brings me back to a conversation I had with me unit quartermaster when I was in a deep rut of self doubt. He told me “if you just put your OCPs (the colloquial term for the Army Combat Uniform) on and don’t do anything, you’re just wearing a costume. If you put it on and then you carry yourself with the dignity such a garment deserves, if you keep in mind the principles of why we put it on, then you are wearing a uniform.
What's very interesting is that most people intuit the difference between a costume and a uniform but can't really explain it which is very common when it comes to language, particularly when it involves intangible concepts. We know the words mean two different concepts but it's difficult to say how or why. I would class the clothing worn by re-enactors to be costumes as it is made for the intended purpose of the wearer to portray themselves as something they are not. Whereas a uniform would be something made for the intended purpose of showing yourself to be a member of something like the army, the medical profession or even a band. Something that you are. There would be no tangible difference between a costume and a uniform which is what makes it difficult to define in a definite manner.
I think the difference is how long you intend to use it. A uniform even one used by a re-enactor is used over the course of years in different re-enactments and in a way are long term costumes that is what I would say a uniform is. A costume is more temporary, a production of a historical play may use a costume for x amount of shows for 4 months and then sell it or put it in storage until next year. So overall it isn't the intention behind wearing it, the nature of its creation or the context of its use, a uniform is in my opinion defined as a costume or outfit that you would wear for a specific purpose regularly or consistently over a long period of time say a year or 2 at least. A costume is basically the same except it will only be worn for a few months or so. Kit is a uniform but for sporting purposes, I play airsoft using a surplus MTP British Army uniform (it was cheaper than buying purpose made airsoft kit) but don't worry I do not claim any sort of service nor do I wear any unit patches for real units (thinking of getting a 501st patch although the blue will stand out, maybe a 41st elite corps patch). Anyway tangent aside I use it as a kit because it is now used as a sporting uniform which is what a kit is at least in my opinion. Anyways that just my two pence on this, I never really thought much about what distinguishes a uniform from a costume or vice versa so this really got my brain thinking.
As a Cosplayer who performs characters from a military science fiction, I too wear a military uniform, one that stitch for stitch is nearly identical to the ones used onscreen, and while it's not 100% in regulation, it's close enough to be recognized as a military uniform. I'd say that a garment can indeed be both a costume and a uniform simultaneously. That said, as I am not a member of the United States Air Force, nor any other organization for which such a uniform is required, I would not say that I wear it as a uniform. You wouldn't wear your great grandfather's Army uniform and call it "your uniform," would you? Now I think as a member of a reenactment group, or if I were to join a cosplay club for my show, then it does become your uniform, as then you are required to wear it, just like if you had to wear a shirt with a restaurant's logo on it while working there. There is no negative connotation to the word "Costume," nor should there be for "Cosplay" either, I have seen some very intricate and detailed costumes and cosplays that are every bit as realistic as your redcoat or my own costume.
@@SonsOfLorgar At the Karneval in Düsseldorf a DJ dressed up as a policeman. He wore the pants and the shirt, but nothing else. The shirtbuttons were opend way to far and he had realy long hair. He wasn't acting like a policeman at all, just doing his job as a DJ. He was charged with a crime, although he wasn't acting like a policeman and had no intentions to do so. In the end he had to pay 375 € (about 420 $). You can see a picture of him here and make your own opinion: www.duesseldorf-tonight.de/lokales/partyszene/spass-oder-straftat-dj-theo-fitsos-vor-gericht.994094
@@Stefan-qr8ip But his major problem was useing nation insignia. As you can see he is not only wearing the "uniform" but the rank and the NRW insignia. Which is a felony in germany- Wearing a policeuniform without them is not. That is at least the definition in germany that a uniform only is an offence IF the insignia are worn as well.
@@alberich3099 Okili dokili! Maybe that's the reason they charged him with that 375 €. Because of the insignia and not because he was dressed as a policeman. At first he was charged with about 3000 €, if rember correctly. They may have reduced the charge, because they realized ... yeah, everybody can see he's not a policeman ... but he uses the insignia. Btw as far as I know the insignia is a FEDERAL insignia (Northrhine Westphalia /NRW), not a NATIONAL insignia (Federal Republic of Germany/BRD) ;-) As far as I know only the Bundespolizei has a nation insignia. Don't want to be a "smart-ass", just want to correct that ;-) But if I'm wrong, correct me on my statement as well!!!
There’s a much simpler definition to be found: Uniform is *eiher* clothing defined one way or another (regulations or similar) as identifying someone as belonging to some form of unit *or* clothing to make a group look uniform. So a reenactor’s uniform would be that group’s uniform, but only emulates an actual military uniform. Similarly, an actor might wear an actual uniform for a part, perhaps even rented to the production by the actual unit being represented, and it would be a uniform by both definitions. However, since neither the actor nor the reenactor serve in the capacity the uniform is intended for, both the recreated uniform and the genuine issued uniform become their costumes *as well*. They don’t have to be one or the other.
Huh, I experienced the same when I used to take part in Viking and Saxon Reenactments. The same issues around the word "Costume" exist lol. Having said that, obviously there aren't any Uniforms involved (unless you portrayed a Varangian Guard) but we still called them "Clothes" as opposed to "Costumes". I think it's heavily contextual. Say, you were dressing up as a Viking for Halloween or a party, then I suppose you'd be wearing a costume.. after all it is a one off event and everyone else is in costume. However during a reenactment show, you are likely in that "costume" for days at a time or at the very least, over night. Not to mention surrounded by peers all taking part in living history. At that point I'd argue you were wearing "period correct clothing"; you are living in these clothes as opposed to explicitly showing them off. I would have thought that the same would apply to reenactment uniforms: If it's a one off, you are in a costume but as a group and as a part of a living history show it becomes a uniform. With the added bonus of course that if there is a group of you then what you are wearing literally fulfils the job of an actual uniform. TL:DR: It's both depending on context.
I always saw it as, if it denotes you as a member of a specific Organization, and you are part of that organization, then it is a uniform. This includes Reenactors! Reenactment groups are in fact organizations, right? Meanwhile costumes always struck me as being used by actors and people on Halloween.
You are 100% correct knowling many languages makes it possible to think outside the boks your ancestors have set. No slav is able to diferenciate between prestige, glory, reputation, aureole, fame, renown, honor and splendor they are all just the same word SLAVA.
Uniform as I see it is a clothing intended for the sole purpose of representing an individual as a member of a group. As a costume is Intended as a representation of the clothing used to represent a member of a group. So, as I see it a re-enactor’s clothing can simultaneously be a uniform and a costume. 1. It signifies the individual as a member of the re enactor’s group. (Uniform) 2. It represents the the clothing signifying the original group. (Costume)
I've had all kinds of uniform growing up (US Girl Scouts, UK Girl Guides. UK High School (quite a few items to that). Band and Orchestra uniform (both US and UK), work uniform (provided by the company), and choir (UK and US) uniform.). I'll say this. Unless it's a specific patterned set of clothing used by a specific group of people for a specific purpose, it's a costume (the item worn might be an actual uniform piece, but it's intent as a garment is transmuted to a costume *because* it's being worn outside of it's original specific purpose by someone who's not working/serving in that job/field.). I'm saying this as someone who trained for years (and failed) for the theatre (You can get actual uniform pieces for a play, and be worn by an actor playing the part - but those uniform pieces are now a *costume*.). Now. You make your specific item of clothing (e.g. identical copy of military jacket) to your specifications to wear once a month with a group of people who have *all* done the same thing (making their own), wanting to fit in as a group, but with independent general specifications, making it at home out of fabric they've bought themselves from independent sources, then it's *still* a costume. But. You want your costume to be a uniform for/with a bunch of reenactors - then get a group (2, 3, 4 or more) of seamstresses/tailors/people who like to sew - to fit a specific set of patterns to *everyone* (per group part) in the group using the same fabric(s) (per group part) bought in bulk for everyone (so new players will be wearing the same stuff (per group part) as everyone in that part). You can get period specific fabric and period specific patterns and so on ^and^ tailor each piece to fit each person. It'll still be a uniform (set of clothing for a purpose by a group of people with a specific reason to wear them.).
Uniform = Uni (one) form. A set of clothings and accessories that are the same for all members of an organisation (with some variation indicating ranks and functions) wich are assembled to accomplish a goal. Costume = Comes from italian and french "Costume/Coutume". Coutume is french for "custom" (In its first definition as "a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time." ). Note that in french, the word "clothes" can be translated as "Vêtements" or "Habits", and that the english word "Habit" is translated in french to "habitude". So Costume represent a way of wearing clothes that is representative of certain traditions or personnification. With time, the personnification aspect became more prevalent in its use for theatrical plays and movies/series, giving the word a meaning of "Representation, act, play". Reenactors are doing a representation of different aspects of the past, among wich is the military aspect. In that way, reenactment clothing can be seen as "costume". However, reenactment groups also are organisations wich require their members to adhere to a certain dress code in order to achieve their goal of giving an accurate representation of a different time period. In that definition, reenactment clothes are also uniforms in their own right. TL;DR: Reenactment clothings are uniforms that are costumes of uniforms.
If you're putting it on an occasion to pretend to be what that outfit represents, then it's a costume. If you're putting it on because it is your job and required of it, then it is a uniform. There is no good or bad connotation of any kind in either word, only people choosing to feel a negative/positive connotation from either word will find offense in them.
Interesting point regarding "stolen valor" brought up around minute 7. In United States v. Alvarez, the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 because it burdened too broadly the right to free speech. After the decision the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 was passed that narrowed the provisions of the 2005 act to where it is now a misdemeanor if you falsely represent your military service only in instances where you are attempting to obtain a "tangible benefit." Simply falsely claiming military service or awards without attempting to obtain a tangible benefit per se is no longer illegal, though still frowned upon. In this context you could very well buy a US Army OCP pattern uniform and wear it as a costume as this is considered free speech protected by the first amendment.
And then someone comes along not wearing a reproduction of military clothing, but as a civilian from a specific time period. Since it's not a military-looking outfit, they're not reenacters then? This discussion is valid, but since reenactment includes so much much more than the american civil war, it needs to be more generalised. 2 examples: 1. During the european middle ages (lets say the year 1400 for simplicity's sake here), the soldiers wheren't uniformed. So no uniforms. But calling a hand forged breastplate a "costume" will not go down well. Assuming of course it is used as a part of a proper period recreated outfit. 2. Civilian. Let's stick to the year 1400 here. Makes it easier. A craftsman, civilian clothes, based on archaeological finds and illustrations and writings. It's not a uniform, it's being used in the exact same way and for the same reason as the originals would have. So, does this make it a costume, since we're not in the 1400's anymore? Or clothes? Since this is the garments purpose. Making the discussion only relate to uniforms makes it a whole lot simpler to discuss, but it also pretty much makes any conclusions pretty narrow, and useless outside of that field.
Whats the differance between a fiddle and a violin? - hows its played. whats the differance between a uniform and a costume (assuming it is 100% accurate) is the manner in which it is being worn.
David; as another David, I would disagree, slightly. What is important is not the manner in which it is being worn, but rather all of the baggage that comes with it. Back when I was in the Army, even when I was wearing civilian clothing, I was still a soldier, but when a reenactor takes off his clothing, even if it is not a reproduction but an actual outfit, he becomes just another civilian. As a soldier, I was lucky enough not to be deployed to a combat zone, but I could very easily have been so deployed, even if I was wearing civilian clothing. I doubt there are many reenactors who would accept being moved from Point A to Point B as part of wearing that outfit. Wearing a Uniform means that you accept EVERYTHING that goes along with it, both the good, AND the bad (and yes, that does mean up to and including both actual combat, and, even death), where as wearing a Costume means that while you PORTRAY a solider, there are certain lines that have been drawn that you will not accept. As a Soldier wearing a Uniform, if the other side started shooting real ammunition at me, then I have an obligation to continue to follow my orders, and perhaps start shooting back. On the other hand though, as a Reenactor (which I am not) I would not be expected to remain where I was if the other side started using real ammunition, but rather I would be expected to "get the hell out of Dodge", so to speak.
As an active duty soldier (US Army), I often referred to our uniforms as "costumes" or even "combat drag", much to the displeasure of the NCOs who took themselves far too seriously. After the USSR collapsed, I bought a complete WW2v Soviet officer's uniform for next to nothing, under $50...the Russian Army boots cost more. Replica costumes are just that, costumes -they look like accurate representations of uniforms. Even general-issue uniforms (such as the US Air Force issue jackets during the 1980s)sometimes looked horrible without expensive tailoring, but an official, government-issue uniform is just that -A uniform. There was a time when officers had their uniforms privately tailored, in fact, they occasionally weren't so "uniform" all the time, but were fine nonetheless, as long as the tailoring didn't stray too far from regulation. I was fortunate enough to join a group of "living history" enthusiasts who would do meticulous research and custom craftwork to make their costumes as historically accurate as possible, then learned enough to make a presentation about where and when a soldier in that particular uniform would have appeared and what battles he would have participated in, so it was all centered around educating people and not just an excuse for wearing a cool costume.
As with anything related to history, it's important to do research first. A simple reference of a dictionary will show that historical military uniforms worn in the modern day by living historians fit the definition of both costumes ("an outfit worn to create the appearance characteristic of a particular period, person, place, or thing") and uniforms ("dress of a distinctive design or fashion worn by members of a particular group and serving as a means of identification"). (Quoted source: Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.)
Stolen valour is claiming to be a member of the armed forces to gain benefits if i remember, like trying to get veterans discount at a store when you are not actually a veteran
it is part of the stolen valour, but only part, stolen valour is passing yourself as a ex/active member of the armed forces while not being one but it does not always includes trying to get the financial privileges
@@eddiesanchez1899 like Mercure said but also avoid wearing the complete uniform outside of special events like i also wear French uniforms of WWII, Indochina/Algeria and 1990s but when i'm not participating at an event or playing airsoft, if i chose to wear a piece of uniform, it will only be either the Jacket or the pants, never the two together (pants with boots is fine), and if the jacket has patches that can be removed/hidden, i do so and no medals, like, no you want to piss off a vet or a serving member, wear medals in public. you'll wish that you were never born (didn't do, but seen in person. protip: never anger a Legionnaire)
It is a complex issue indeed. There are several scenarios a definition should cover: a) uniforms can be issued by services to the servicemen to perform their duties b) servicemen can purchase articles from 3rd party sellers as long as they conform to regulations c) it is usually illegal to wear a uniform if you are not in the service or even off duty (MP in my country will issue a fine and escort you to your unit) So we could say a piece of clothing is a uniform if it conforms to regulations and then question the legality of it being worn, and not if it ceases to be a uniform (otherwise it wouldn’t be illegal to wear it)
Basically my conclusion when I did Vietnam reenactment. I had mixed articles including original Vietnam surplus webgear, helmet (w/ new cover), and boots, but new production fatigues (and yes, I did once walk through a grocery store in fatigues and jungle boots when I forgot to buy mosquito dope). Although most bystanders would call it an "outfit" or a "uniform", I wouldn't be offended if someone called it a costume. I think the only reason they didn't is because we still have living Vietnam veterans. It's easier to call the "posh" uniform of an 18th century soldier a costume, because it's so far removed from modern times. I'm sure in 50 years, more people will call my outfit a costume. Use the word that comes naturally I say. You and your friends will certainly call it a uniform, but it's okay for someone outside of this hobby to call it a costume. If they're complimenting it, they're certainly not trying to diminish it's quality.
Frontiersmen unit I used to be part of made it very simple. We wore "outfits", clowns wear "costumes". Granted, we did have more than our fair share of clowns...
Very interesting thoughts. I'm a cosplayer. I make costumes. This year, I'm working on recreating a WWI St. John Ambulance VAD uniform. I've never thought of this project as a costume. I've never put years of research into a costume.
Wow, this really can get philosophical when you start thinking about it. At first, I agreed with those that said they were costumes, based on reenacting not being a profession, but then I started thinking more about it. I mean, marching bands, football players, and cheerleaders at a game are considered to be in uniform. They are members of a group, expected to be in a certain place to do a specific task. Unless you call an LV Raiders player at an NFL game “in uniform” but an UNLV player at an NCAA game “in costume” then the profession angle doesn’t work, as college and HS bands/players/cheerleaders aren’t paid. Reenactors are part of an organization, expected to show up for events dressed in the same manner, as much as marching band members are. So I say that reenactors ARE in uniform: of their specific reenactment group. They aren’t MILITARY uniforms, as the group isn’t military, but they are uniforms.
I would say they are not mutually exclusive terms, a uniform is to make everyone in a company/organisation/regiment look the same, look uniform, in that regard if you are playing that kind of organisation whether it be military, school or a private corporation, it is a uniform. Meanwhile a costume is anything you wear to fit the part you are acting/playing a given role. Neither of these terms suggest the quality of the dress, and the first does lead to some sort of guidelines or requirements, though how precise those are varies. For example a school uniform may just state straight black trousers, it does not have the school directly issue them, or cover whether the waste band has belt loops or is semi-elasticated. Given all this, if one is doing an authentic portrayal, then it is a costume uniform or a uniform costume, in other words it is both a uniform and a costume at the same time, it is a costume as it is the role you are acting in, but a uniform as it is a dress that is uniform across your re-enacting regiment to a set of guidelines based on historical realism for that role.
I agree with what you said. My opinion is that it's a costume because reenacting is a performing art. A uniform would need to be issued by whichever institution which produced it.
I think the distinction is that a uniform is something you wear to signify your profession, whilst a costume is something you wear to signify somebody else's profession. If a binman wears the appropriate get up while he is out on his job, he is in uniform, but if I (not a binman) was to wear it in order to make people think I'm a binman (for example in a show) then it is a costume. Therefore, in the context of reenactment, you are wearing costumes, as you yourselves are not 18th Century soldiers, but you are wearing these clothes in order to make people believe that you are. NB, I want to add that "making people think you are" does not necessarily imply malicious intent. Of course it can, as in cases of stolen valour, but in the vast majority of practical cases both parties know really that you aren't actually what you are dressed up as, it is just a suspension of disbelief.
On the topic of old uniforms, they are true uniforms when they are being worn as uniforms, when they are in a museum they are artefacts, but still uniforms, because they are kept as an example of what such uniforms looked like. However if I put on an old uniform for a play, it becomes a costume. If you wear the uniform to a historical occasion, say wearing a WW2 uniform to a D-Day memorial service, then you are doing it in a context where everybody knows that you are not trying to represent a soldier yourself. In cases like this, you are wearing somebody else's uniform, and people know you are wearing somebody else's uniform, and so it remains a uniform and not a costume.
I would like to differentiate between those 2 terms by the intention of the maker of the clothing - whether to have members of the same organisation wear the same clothing in relation to their work (uniform) or to pretend you are someone else for entertainment purposes (costume). This way you can wear your great-grandfather's uniform and use it as a costume in a play. You can also reenact in a costume that represents a certain uniform. I think this definition is more helpful as one article of clothing doesn't change its term just by having been worn by different people.
Whenever I see anyone wearing bits of Golden State Warriors uniform, I accuse them of stolen valour. Even if they are wearing it in a professional capacity. Kevin Durrant does not like this.
In my opinion, a uniform is made a specific way to identify a specific group of people. A costume merely mimics the appearance of something. That is, a uniform is made to a “uniform standard,” as established by an authority, to identify a group of people. Any item constructed to meet that standard is a uniform. Therefore, a “uniform” is not an attempt to resemble something else, but rather “match” something else. It doesn’t matter who is wearing it or who has made it. Thus, a reenactor wearing American Army clothing made to exact WWII US Government specifications is wearing a uniform, even if the item was made in 2020. We can’t say that the item is an “official uniform,” because it was not issued by the authorizing authority, but it meets the requirements and is a uniform. A costume, on the other hand, seeks to copy the look of something else. A costume is not required to respect the construction standards of a particular garment. Any materials can be used, with the goal of recreating a certain appearance. If historically appropriate materials are used, then we say the costume is “authentic.” For example, a dress made today in an 18th Century style, using historically authentic materials and methods, is still a “costume,” because it seeks to emulate the appearance of something else. It is not made to a specified standard dictated by an authority and it is not made to identify a particular group of people. In this case, we say the dress is an “authentic costume.” This is how I've always understood it, anyway.
I'm a combat vet. Stolen Valor is NOT a crime. But it is severely frowned on. There are a lot that say its a crime. But its not. Often people confused two different things. If you are serving. And wearing officer rank When you are a private. There are regulation against this. But if you are a civilian. You don't have nor required to obey these regulations. Since you have no officer over you. And there is no way to punish you for it in the military. To make a law that made it illegal would be difficult. Because very few people walk around with a DD214. And sometimes it can take months to get a copy of your DD214.. What really gets to me is the person that claims to be like SF and has no idea other then movies about it. And people believe them. I could easily pull off being a SF Engineer or SF Medic. Because I know so much about them and worked with them. But I'm proud of what I really did. To be clear. I never was SF. Now I use to joke with my privates on my ribbons. I have a good amount. I use to say.... I just went to the clothing sales ( the store) and bought all the pretty ribbons. Honestly, I would have to look at my DD214s to get ribbons today. Because I don't remember many of them. Its just not important enough to me. If I still had my class A's it would be easier. But they were stolen. ( long story)
Whereas uniforms are a style of clothing specifically designed to maintain an appearance of unity and cohesion; one would be correct in labeling the garment, whether issued by a government agency or hand made to resemble the former, as such. A costume, being any garment worn to identify you as part of a group. Do not get hung up on the negative "Halloween Store Quality" connotation that you attribute to the word. In addition to the Halloween and theatre costumes that you mentioned, there are religious costumes, historical costumes, cultural costumes, ceremonial costumes as these are clothing and accessories associated with customs (which shares a Latin root). You are not a member of the military of the 18th-20th centuries and, therefore, your garments, despite intention, quality, and precision lack the authority of authenticity. Whether you portray a civilian or military persona, you are merely interpreting an approximation of a society and clothing. In short, you are right. The garment you wear can easily be simultaneously a uniform AND a costume.
A "uniform" is a piece of clothing worn by a group of people to have a "uniform appearance", so yes, band uniforms are uniforms. A "costume" is a piece of clothing worn by someone "portraying a role", so yes, a reenactor's uniform is indeed also a costume. While there is an overlap, obviously, the difference is that when a policeman, soldier, or even a band member is wearing a uniform, they aren't portraying a role, they simply are what they are. I would say the line gets slightly blurred for *professional* reenactors, perhaps, since they are getting paid to *be* soldiers, but they are also still *portraying* soldiers from a different era, so yes, in the eyes of the public, their uniforms *are* costumes, no matter how authentic they may be. Your ancestor's authentic uniform becomes a costume when you put it on to portray him, even though it obviously remains a uniform. There's nothing that says the terms are mutually exclusive. A piece of clothing can be both a uniform, *and* a costume, at the same time.
I think the problem is trying to differentiate between two things. A costume is a one-off made for a thing, like a play or party. Uniforms are 'uniform' by definition, part of a set of like dressed individuals, like a football team, a police force, storm troopers, or a troop of reenactors all dressed according to "the standard". You are wearing a storm trooper costume at a party so you could look like a storm trooper, or you are a uniformed storm trooper on maneuvers with your platoon.
Yes, if you put on your grandfather's uniform it becomes a costume. They say "Clothes maketh the man" but when it comes to uniforms it's the other way around.
Really it's a mixture of both. For some reenactors they do their absolute best to get a Uniform 100% accurate, no details spared. For others they may mix mash their uniforms with an external authenticity but internal farb gear for comforts sake of budget, and for the very few reenactors they take the bare minimum of what is required and then a good majority of their gear is Inaccurate in their portrayal, sometimes for budget and other times for sheer laziness.
I think the difference is immersion. If you're at an reenactment you're representing a certain person from a certain time. In acting during a performance they are not referencing their costume so it matters less, and if they are for the sake of immersion yeah its a uniform. Well if you are reenacting or acting in an a correct military uniform to me its a uniform. It can be a costume and a uniform, they're not mutually exclusive. But something like a civilians clothes is a costume or alternatively just civilian dress.
In the museum field we often refer to clothing in general as costume or "dress", especially when it comes to living history. I.E. Cultural dress, cultural costume, historic dress, historic costume, etc. When it comes to living history my museum at least has always called it "Costumed Interpretation". When referring to military clothing in general we do tend to call them uniforms since that does bring to mind that image and is convenient for description, but I've seen military costume used in plenty of academic sources referring to the historic wearers and culture. It's also helpful since if you get back further in time where actual uniforms were rare, but there was still common dress worn by soldiers. For instance a knight in armor could accurately be described as wearing the military costume of his specific culture, but knights certainly were not wearing military uniforms as we think of them. When I'm working as an interpreter, I tend to qualify it. If I'm portraying a civil war soldier, I don't call it "my" uniform, but usually say "This is the clothing a soldier would have worn" or "I'm wearing a reproduction of a Sergeant's uniform". The only time I don't is if we are doing 1st person interpretation, in which case it's definitely more like acting and then you're trying to portray a part so at least to the public it just wouldn't make sense to call it a costume.
Section 132a german criminal code: (1) Whoever, without being authorised to do so, [...] 4. wears domestic or foreign uniforms, official dress or official insignia incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine. (2) Designations, academic degrees, titles, honours, uniforms, official dress or official insignia which are easy to confuse with those referred to in subsection (1) are equivalent to those referred to in subsection (1). therefor you got the textbook definition by one of THE countries that overregulate everything. you're welcome for a quick reminder about the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 amends the federal criminal code to rewrite provisions relating to fraudulent claims about military service to subject to a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both for an individual who, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds himself or herself out to be a recipient of: *bunch of honors*
I think it's a pretty obvious, uniform, be it issued or purchased or even self made, is meant to blend an individual with a group. Where as a Costume is an individual outfit worn without regard to the overall group, the context, or circumstances. A uniform can be 100 people wearing black shirts and blue jeans. And a costume can be 1 person or a couple of people wearing an outfit because they want to portray a specific appearance not normally seen in typical clothing of the modern era.
It depends on who is wearing it and in what context their wearing it. Also when I'm talking about uniforms I have first responders and military in mind. A uniform is earned and a costume isn't. You can put a costume on with out having to do anything for it while you have to make a commitment and earn it. If I buy a OCP top from a surplus store for Halloween it's a costume. If I go to basic and I wear the same top it's now a uniform cause I had to earn the right to wear it. Military, Police, Fire, EMS they all had to go through some kind of training and process to wear the uniform. The context comes in on where their wearing it. If you wear a military uniform to a party that's not stolen valor and your not out of place for wearing a costume. If your walking around in public wearing it for no reason and act like your military that's stolen valor.
I'd agree IF we are talking about MODERN military dress, but a military uniform from 100+ years ago? If it's not current, then it's neither "stolen valor" or impersonation. Intent has a bit to do with it as well. If I dress up in a proper, current, police or military uniform and claim authority that I don't have, THAT'S a crime. Just wearing a "perfect" uniform is not. How do you know that I'm not going to a costume ball/Halloween party/cultural festival/reenactment of a "modern" military situation/etc? And how is it any of your business?
I have read a definition of uniform that it is a set of clothes that are of the same design meant to distinguish a unit of people. It does not have to be military or established by authorities. Could be for example a uniform for work for example at a restaurant or a bus company. But a uniform is regulated by set rules. Clothes and costume are not.
In the Medieval recreationist world we use the term garb, the idea being it's not a costume, because it's not just worn during a how, but meant to be worn for days on end, and someone could have several outfits at an event, but then we aren't wearing uniforms. What do you call the clothing worn by people acting as non military roles in your reenactment?
I'd probably choose words ''portrayal of uniform''. Costumes are not made to certain specifications, and they don't have to be uniform (pun not intended, I just don't have a better word for this) with others. However reenactors use portrayals of uniforms which are made to certain specifications (some even use original pieces of kit and uniform pieces, in that case it's rather hard to not use the term ''uniform''), and which are therefore uniform. However they often wouldn't pass milspec, and wearing a reproduction of uniform makes it a military uniform about as much as reenacting makes you a soldier. I would therefore argue that the correct way to describe it would be ''portrayal of uniform'' (or maybe ''uniformed costume'' or other similar choices, ''portrayal of uniform'' is just term which I would prefer).
well, when I was in, I often thought of our uniforms and kit as being a costume (odd colored, features and design choices that aren't really necessary, everyone looks the same, ect), of sorts. It's kinda like in Spongebob, where they're making fun of Texas: "What's the difference?" (say it in your best Patrick impersonation)
As a Renaissance Faire performer of some decades experience (who has discussed such things with other performers), I think that in most cases we try to think - and certainly to speak - of what we wear as 'our clothes', at least while we are wearing them on the Faire streets. It is part of staying 'in character', which of course will vary from Faire to Faire and performer to performer (dare I say it is not uniformly applicable?) as to whether performers will consider this important. When we are backstage and the clothes are on a hanger, it seems that even the performers who are most assiduous about staying in character will refer to the thing on the hanger as a 'costume'*. But your point is well taken: if somehow we were able to wear authentic 16th-century museum pieces, I think they would be 'clothes' whether we are wearing them or not (and, to help you muddy the waters, the customers would still call them a 'costume' because for them, it's just a show). The intention of the maker _is_ important. I think 'uniform' (such as football player's garb) applies when they are made to a, well, uniform standard. Think of private school uniforms, as another example. I remember hearing comic-book fans refer to the characters' wear as 'uniforms' sometimes (e.g., for the Green Lantern Corps), though 'costume' is far more often heard. Words are slippery things. *incidentally, I often hear Faire people refer to changing back to their 21st-century clothes as "changing into civvies".
This debate reminds me a great deal of that trial a few years back where that one juror got in the press for wearing a Starfleet uniform to trial just like any member of the military would wear their uniform and they allowed it because she stated that it was a uniform where is many people would see it as a costume. As somebody who has been part of the actual Federation in that there is an actual organization of Star Trek fans organized into ships ie chapters. It may not be an actual military organization but it is an actual organization not too dissimilar from the various re-enactor organizations except instead of re-enacting the past we are portraying a character from the future. I don't mean any disrespect to reenactors out there I'm just saying that the organization and whatnot is similar between re-enactor organizations and the Federation that actually exists. Back then I was the head security officer of the USS Ticonderoga IE the chapter based out of my local area of northern Utah and I had a uniform and I considered it a uniform not a costume. where is most other people would consider it a costume. I wouldn't have actually worn it to court or anything like this woman in this trial a few years back did but the point is made that this can be applied to a lot of different fields not just re-enacting or theater and the line between uniform and costume is not terribly clear and this whole debate reminded me of that particular incident.
It always triggers me extremly at traditional german Parades, theres english speakers calling historical Uniforms of Cityguards, Shootingclubs, Hunters and Volkstracht like local traditional outfits Costumes.. It's interesting how simplified the english Language is. In german, which most people think is very similar to english which is kinda true but theres so many completly different words for one thing unlike in English. In Army reports sometimes it's very hard to understand what is being said cause theres an fucking great formal language pretty much. Even if I wouldn't here the voice of an person just by the words u could tell the age in german. Btw an Costume/ Kostüm is an unaccurate cheap Uniform purchased for Carnival/Fasching only. An Uniform is an historcial or traditonal based Outfit of an militarized Organisation. In germany you see miltary style uniforms based on the 30s or before 1914 used by like i said those clubs i said and also by Musikkorps and Fife and Drum corps/ Spielmannszug. They're not indentical to the real uniforms of the real army but they're based on them thats means theyre in the colour of the city and they have they're own emblems and traditions and stuff because of the prussian militarism those paramilitary clubs still r alive. If you would call there stuff an Costume you would get shot or something different.. Sorry for the text I'm drunk its beerfest rimw
It's funny because, as a French native speaker, I've heard that English has a lot of words, with many nuances, in part thanks to the huge lexicon the English borrowed from French and Latin. But I've also heard that French has more nuances than English. I believe that the truth is just that there is no such thing as a language with more nuances, at least not when the societies and technologies are similar. The presence and absence of many nuances are just in different areas.
Nonsense. A costume is an item of clothing worn in a given social context where many English speakers assign the word "costume" to it. The child dressing up as Batman at a Halloween even is wearing a costume, not a farby uniform. An actor wearing reproduction clothing items to represent a character in a play or movie is wearing a costume, no matter how accurate that costume may or may not be.
I am missing one simple argument. A uniform denotes a specific role/job that is earned by the wearer (they are entitled to wear it) . This is also why it is usually illegal to wear a present-day uniform, whether to pass oneself of as entitled to wear the uniform or to give the impression that you are. If you are wearing an historical uniform, i.e. , then you are wearing a costume - you are 'dressing up'. It does not matter whether you wear an innapropriate nylon version, an actual vintage costume, or an obssesively 'correct' reconstruction - you are not passing yourself off as an actual soldier/viking/victorian/peasant - you are playing a role - you are wearing a costume.
I prefer the term outfit as im doing 15th century so "Renaissance" as they are day to day medieval clothes not costumes. The sword on my belt is not a prop.
I think if it's made to original specifications, I see itbas a uniform. I have a replica M1917 (US) Brodie helmet. It's real steel. Minus a few modern materials (the comfort pad is cotton instead of asbestos for example) it's exactly like the ones worn in WWI
@@babyinuyasha Is anyone using these replicas to mark themselves as members of a particular group and serving as a means of identification? If there is not a group of people (say, a WWI reenactor group) doing so, I'd call it not a uniform, but a representation of a uniform. If it is the uniform of given reenacting company, it is a uniform, but a reenacting uniform representing a World War 1 uniform, not a World War 1 uniform. The most important distinction to me is not even one between costume and uniform, but original period artifact and latter recreation.
As a 18th century reenactor, I refer to my outfit as clothing. Because the public came to an 18th century reenactment, there is not any confusion. When someone refers to my clothing as a costume I do correct them, because nothing that I wear is fake. Costumes usually have some component that is fake, such as a pocket flap without a pocket. Futhermore during a reenactment reenactors try to live the time period. That is why the flintlocks are real, the tomahawks are real etc.
@@cwg9238IMHO, that depends on the quality of the garb. If it could pass for a Halloween costume, or it's only vaguely period correct, it's a costume. If it's a historically accurate garb, like a period correct military uniform, it's a uniform.
@@johnmullholand2044 uniform clearly implies actually being a part of the organization it belongs/belonged to. not being so is a little thing called "stolen valor" or in some cases even illegal impersonation - you cant go around dressed exactly like a cop if you arent one for example.
@@cwg9238 Unless you ACT like a cop, trying to arrest people, and such, what's the problem with wearing a correct police or security uniform? ACTING like a cop is actually a crime; police impersonation. Wearing a defunct/out of date military uniform, in a military reenactment, is in no way "stolen valor", as I am not claiming to be 100+ year old military personnel.
Someone might have already said this, I apologise if they have but I think a uniform is issued by a governing body for a specific purpose. Police, military, marching band all wear issued 'uniforms' and that will always be a uniform afterwards. If a shop or individual puts an outfit together themselves it is a costume. A middle ground is if you put together a good costume that replicates the original then it's a 'replica uniform', but, because not issued by the government at the time, still, technically a costume!
I was always told that the British redcoat 18th Century uniform is an officially recognized uniform in England, and it carries a similar weight and respect over there as a modern uniform. (10th regt knows more about that than I do). Regiments (like mine) have been inspected by the queen and officers and soldiers of the British Army on multiple occasions, given official recognition by the British army, and regiments sometimes go to England for Royal review. Therefore we treat it like a real uniform, hold ourselves to the Royal standards, and aim to give it the proper honor it deserves. We know we’re not actual soldiers, but we are portraying historical ones. I myself refer to it as both a kit, and a uniform.
Ah... semantics... I've always seen "uniform" as a term that describes clothes that are worn to indicate you are a member of a certain organization (military, police, parade, school, or even a company). In the reenactment world, from watching your videos, it seems you are really recreating the organizations that existed at that time (18th century British army, as well as the regiment you're a member of) and thus, what you wear indicates that you are a member of those recreated organizations. If you will, you are a member of the group that represents those old organizations that existed. And the group in question has a uniform : what you are wearing during your reenactments. In acting, however, the actual organization you are a member of is merely the movie or theater team. What you are wearing in that context does not indicate you are a member of that team, it does not indicate you are a member of the original organization, and you are not recreating that organization either; you're merely playing a character which is/was a member of that organization. Therefore, it is a costume. Of course, within the narrative of the movie or the play, it is a uniform, but from our perspective, it is a costume. But then, the movie or theater crew (probably excluding the actors) might be required to wear a certain piece of clothing which represents the fact they are members of the movie or theater team. That would be a uniform.
A costume is something you have made or had made and then chosen to wear of your own accord to emulate the appearance of your chosen subject. A uniform is something that is either issued to you or you are required to purchase as is mandatory that you wear as part of a group to ensure that everyone is well....UNIFORM in appearance. However, If you work at McDonald's you are issued a uniform. If you don't work at McDonald's but get hold of and choose to wear the uniform, then you are wearing a McDonald's uniform. If you sew your own McDonald's uniform then you are wearing a costume designed to emulate the appearance of a McDonald's employee.
my interpretation would be uniforms are issued by its original intention (military/band) wearing the WW2 jacket is still a uniform even tho obsolete it was at one point in history issued in an official capacity and thus has present day value as a historical uniform. to make a replica would be loosely refereed to as a uniform in its intention but would often be refereed to as a replica / replica uniform or an outfit. the same argument could be made for rifles.
A uniform is uniform clothing that displays your allegiance/purpose, so if you are member of the "4th Group of shooty shoot" and you must wear specific uniform clothing to identify yourself as a part of this group and your purpose, then that clothing is the/a uniform of the "4th Group of shooty shoot" Edit: I'm saying it is the uniform of your re-enactment group, not of the unit you are re-enacting. In the first respect it is a uniform, and in the second a costume, an object can be both.
It's always a uniform but you wear it as a costume. And wearing a uniform you didn't earn is stolen valour. I think it's perfectly simple but I understand that if you spend years making an authentic uniform and someone calls it a costume, what you hear is NOT a perfectly resonable gramatial, linguistic frasing but what you hear is someone calling it a haloween costume :D A uniform is a piece of clothing that marks you out as a member of a group. It can be as simple as an armband or a bandana (I think one of the first uniforms was a piece of straw tucked in the band of the hats of a military force). A costume is when you try to replicate someone elses appearance or make an impression of someone or something and it can be as complicated as wearing a real uniform as a costume, replicate a uniform in every detail or even exagerated as it often is in theatre. One is defined by what IT does and the other is defined by what YOU do. By the way I think that wearing a uniform the way you do you have definately "earned" it. You try to make it look right and be right. You respect the uniform and the soldier it represents. The stolen valor part is not about wearing the uniform but it's about claiming, or making it appear as if you are something that you are not, that you did something you did not.
A uniform is issued to an authorized person in a specific job/career. If you are wearing clothing/uniform to perform/reenact/act in a role to portray such a character then it is a costume.
I would just defined as uniform a piece tha is use to make uniformity in a group, bringing a easily recognition in that group. So if I use a military uniform for a party, theater or movie they are costume or acting props. My first language being portugues I use the word "Figurino" as theater or acting costume. "Fantasia" as party costume. And "Uniforme" as the word for uniform. So yes there is a lack of words in the english language. As to reenactment costume I dont have a specific word for it in portuguese, neither I would know how to call it better in english. But I would believe the main difference its purpose, cause its a history leaving, experience, and in a way science testing in clothes.
Reenactors wear costumes, which are of uniform appearance. You wear uniform constumes. ;) Besides, you could also say that you are wearing the official uniform of a reenactor, which looks like the uniform from the time period and unit you are reenacting. So while it isn't an original uniform, it is still uniform.
The difference is intention. If you are required to wear something as part of a group or to perform a certain job, it is a uniform. If you are wearing it to look like a uniformed person, you t is a costume. On your grandfather, that coat is a uniform. If you wear it as part of a re-enactment to play the part of a soldier, it is a costume...even though the garment itself is an actual uniform. I.e. “I am wearing my grandfathers uniform for my Halloween costume.” It is the same whether in a play, or Halloween, or reenacting. You are impersonating, pretending, or putting forth the appearance of being a person you are not.
"Reenacting is just overcomplicated historical cosplay" -My best friend when she attended my first reenactment
BF used Shots Fired: it was super accurate XD
As a reenactor, it’s closer to historical LARP but...yeah pretty much
Except that reenacting was a round long before LARPing and cosplay...I rather think those two things came from reenacting...
She's right though. Re-enactors are actors playing out historical events and dress up for it.
She's right.
I think there is an etymological point to be made.
Uniform comes from the Latin for one and appearance so it's clothing that is meant to look the same across different sets.
Costume on the other hand comes from the same root as custom and can also be the dress (including hair, makeup, ...) of a specific period or culture (a culture's customary clothing is it's costume)
Since you are wearing identical looking remakes of a uniform that was customary for a specific culture, I'd argue that it's both.
xyldkefyi I’d define things this way: Brandon is wearing a costume in order to portray a soldier who is wearing a uniform.
A reenactor strives to accurately portray a historical soldier.
The maker of a reenactor’s costume strives to accurately portray a historical uniform to the re-enactor himself and to the people he will meet in-person.
The maker of an actor’s costume strives to accurately portray a historical uniform to the people who will see it on stage and screen.
The maker of a stripper’s costume strives instead to symbolically refer to a uniform.
The maker of a halloweengoers costume might be more like that of the stripper or the actor or something else entirely.
;) Cdrtainly worth exploring/ unpicking. I think you were amomgst the threads of the argument when contemplating the self identity... ego... of the wearer and their relation to others there abouts.... comrades... fellow re-enactors...actors... spectators... viewers... adversaries....enemies! the reason the uniform, ahem, came about in the first place.?. Hmmmm contemplating the intension or identity of the wearer, their mythself? ...Christopher walkerloo? ... ; o ) ..."When I'm in my suit I feel a part of my country..." declares Christopher Wanker, Fantasy Banker... who gets to take the credit? Define the relationship? ...hmmm the question of intesion in relation to patronage? ,,, perfect ; o) ... certainly worth exploring. Xx
drawing from the comments, the difference seems to depend on how pretentious someone is.
@@cwg9238 E who smelt it dealt it.
@@armorsmith43 In a sense, uniform is an ideal term. The ideal being, that article of clothing worn for the purpose for which it was originally intended by a person in the position/occupation for which it was originally intended. The same article of clothing is a costume if it is used to reenact (or portray for theatrical or recreational or educational purposes) someone in that role who is not, in fact, a policeman/soldier, etc. So a reenactor--as portraying a soldier or 19th century bobby--would refer to her/his uniform SPEAKING AS THAT PORTRAYED CHARACTER, or would refer to "the uniform" in terms of the characteristics of the ideal in describing it to an observer. However, an observer and the reenactor, stepping outside their historical persona, would be entirely correct in describing that article of clothing as a costume. An actual uniform, a recreated uniform used for reenactment, and a cheap Halloween costume all partake in "uniformness" but to different degrees through shape/silhouette, color, material, etc.
I can't help but wonder when Brandon will finish painting those figures on his desk
I thought I was the only one
The night before the tournement.
@@mr.butter1017 same lol
I think it’s ok to call it a uniform for re-enacting as long as you don’t try to fool people that your actually in the military. In my opinion it’s a costume though because you take part in re-en”act”ments. It a hard subject to cover because everyone will have a different opinion on this matter. Thumbs up for the poppy 👍
If you're wearing an 18th century uniform and trying to persuade people that you are actually serving in the military, I don't think you'll have much success. Stolen valour has its limits. xD
@@someguy3766 - All this time I though that dressing up as Napoleon and insisting that YOU ARE Napoleon would get you put into the funny farm. It is really stolen valor....
Reenacting usually isn't done to recreate things happening Right Now . Simply from the context it is obvious that a currently living person isn't actually a Revolutionary War or Civil War combatant . Or a WWII combatant , if they're less than 90yo . ( In 2021 , someone who had their 18th birthday while serving during the last year of the war will be 94yo . Yes , I know 94 & 96yo Veterans . Include more irregular partisans , guerrilla or resistance , would still be at least 90 yo ).
"Stripper Outfits - Costumes or Uniforms?"
Yup, title of my thesis.
gotta know how that one goes lmao
As someone in the costuming/cosplay community, the way I see the difference is: a uniform is a specific type of clothing that denotes a specific job or purpose (police, garbage man, cruise ship staff, etc.). A costume is a piece of clothing made for the purposes of entertainment. You can use a garment that was specifically designed and formerly used as a uniform in the capacity of a costume (see plays or movies). But the most important question is, is it being worn by someone who is fulfilling the role the garment was made for (i.e. police, military, etc) or is it being used by someone not in that role (usually) for the purpose of entertainment (or sometimes deception).
Well said, it could still be a uniform being used as a costume. For reenactors, you are a part of the reenactment, you are a regiment in the reenactment.
This was a really interesting discussion that explores different perspectives and reasons. I also appreciated that you brought up the theatre and film industries and their definitions. With all that said, I think that it's easy to go down a pedantic rabbit hole, especially if we're trying to categorise a piece as one or the other.
To me, the clarification is simple: actors wear costumes. A costume *can be* a uniform. The distinction is that it is not the "uniform of the actor", in that the actors do not all wear the identical items as a uniform. Thus, one person's uniform can be another person's costume.
The opposite can also hypothetically be true. In practical terms, a uniform consists of items that are prescribed to be worn to identify people as part of a group. In theory, if I created a private army and required all my men to wear clown masks, that can also be seen as a uniform.
The big question that this opens up is whether reenactors consider themselves to be "actors". That's probably a topic in itself.
This pretty much represents my view on this!
Rean"actor" - A simple look at the term shows that it is an act of an actor. It is a play of improve theatre.
@@TorianTammas It is *not* an improv theatre! Reenactors are recreating a historical battle. The script is written in accordance to the findings of historians. The "soldiers" who are supposed to lose will lose, and the "soldiers" who are supposed to win will win. Now there are "open end" events, but those events are very distinctively *not* reenactments.
You have to recognize the differences in semantics and context of language between professional/ expert level theatrical productions and the wider population .
In theater jargon " costuming " = anything and everything worn by actors . Be it " authentic " whatever , a unique invention for that production , or a performer walking on stage/ set in their everyday street clothes .
For regular people , it is anything distinctive , that is different from their regular clothes or appearance .
@@Schattengewaechs99 There are reenactment events that don't replicate a PARTICULAR battle, but have a general idea of a "period" style of battle. I would say that it would fall more into the area of a "mock battle", but even then, one side is the "winner", and the others are the "losers". That doesn't mean it's not a "reenactment", unless it's more of a non-period correct event.
I've gone to a particular timeline event for years, and we used to have a "battle of the ages", where the ACW troops went up against the WW2 Airborne, the Romans against the Vikings, and the like. Yes, it was a farb-fest, but it was after the spectators were gone for the evening. Does that mean it wasn't strictly a "reenactment"? Maybe, maybe not, but that's how reenactors have fun. Again, it was "after hours", and the spectators were gone.
to me the best way to break this down is such:
A Uniform - Is something that is made to a Published Uniform standered (which will spell out material, patches, placing of seams and pockets, and add-ons)
A Costume - a costume is anything else. and yes that would mean that day to day you wear a costume in everyday life.
You mentioned Marching bands, Well all marching bands HAVE a written down standered of what there uniforms are made of and how they are worn. Even if the material is "cheap", it is still spelled out what that material is and how it should be made.
Schools have dress codes but only some of them specify them enough that it can be said to have a school uniform.
in the Theater the Costume department can and does issue out uniforms if the need is there, but they also will issue out any number of other manners of dress so just going by Costume department is just a fancy name for themselfs other then the dressing department. Now a uniform issued out could have a the pockets be just a half a inch to low, and that garment would effectively not be a uniform anymore as it does not meet the published standereds.
So would you count a Halloween costume as a uniform? They are designed by people who will spell out material, patches, placing of seams and pockets, and add-ons for the factory creating them.
I feel it's intent and context.
I was in the cadets and had a set of combats issued to me. If I wore the combats for cadets, I was wearing a uniform but if I was wearing them for any other reason it's a costume. They'd still be uniform pieces but they were being worn in a costume.
The same applies to your great-grandfather's uniform jacket. When he wore it in the military, he was wearing a uniform, on its own it's a uniform piece and if anyone wore it in reenactment it would be part of a costume. It would still be a uniform jacket as part of the costume but the overall outfit would be a costume.
I agree, that's exactly how I'd categorise it.
I'm glad you brought the poppy back for Armistice Day!
Never heard it called Armistice day before even though it is technically lol
@White Belt Yeah Ive always heard it called Rememberance day since I am also Canadian, I just found it intresting how no one ever seems to call it Armistice day even though that is what it is lol
the Royal Brittish Legion call it both
Before watching the video: "Costume", cause no person which job it is to check the uniform (here most likely a general from the 18th century) and can say it is on correct standard. Also an uniform says that it is literally your work dress.
What if you do reenactment for a living?
I honestly have no idea, how much money a reenactor makes epxecially the ones without any hisotrical degree.... I ment it more as a profession, ppl going to school write stuff down, doinf exams, physical exams.... This is why crappy quality doctor/nurses and crappy quality police costumes are considered more socially allowed compared to other bad quality of costumes...
@@neurofiedyamato8763 99% plus Reenacting/ Reenacting-ish is something you spend money on , not make money from .
I suppose a few regular employees of say a museum or historical park will do Living History as a supplemental duty , but generally they were already Reenacting in their private life already .
It's all fun and games until your at the pub, and a real redcoat calls "STOLEN VALOR!!!"
I've always called my clothing 'kit'. I do three periods in reenacting and its always been'kit'
I always called it "garb".
The most important of questions require the strongest of intellect
Ur gay
@@scoop765 no u
@@jaxsonh.266 frick you
Hey hey
@@samuelwarshaw9480 ur gay to
Well done, Sir. Once again you made me think of another branch of the Reeanacting hobby that had not come to my mind. I Thank You.
I am a reenact or and I was swayed to use the term costume since at the end of the day, we are actors. It's in the name, reenACTOR. we play a role. So it is a costume for us to play that role. And of course things will vary on quality. I also believe a costume and uniform could also be the same thing as Brandon mentions
EggingPeanut would you say that you are wearing a costume in order to portray someone wearing a uniform?
I prefer uniform, as I spent 3 grand on my impression and it follows the period guidelines
Bingo! It seems this has to be settled every few years. Re-enactors, by the definition of US, British, Canadian and Japanese military bodies (the only parties with which I have directly worked) are in costume. ONLY clothing issued to serving personnel, by an approved supplier, and on duty/warrant is 'uniform'. Intent of the garment matters not. The gestalt is what matters.
Were I to squeeze into my old Parades, or BDUs I'd only be in costume, though they were issued to me by the regiment approved Sutler (ironically a civilian outfitter) once upon a time as a serving non-com.
Only a self hating FARB would even raise this question. ;)
You're kinda cringe!
@@johnlemon3809 Handbags at 20 paces?
Either way we are all still in costume.
As you young folks say. Deal with it.
In my mind, all uniforms are a subtype of costume. They are specifically designed to be worn for some specific purpose, by some kind of "costume designer" (could be a single person for a theater company, or a board of officers, or a fashion consultant, or the CEO's brother) and so whether it's your dress blues in a service, your marching band uniform, your military combat uniform, the shirt and apron at the local grocer's job, the captain's outfit for a major airline, or the Hooter's Girls uniforms, they're all costumes at the root of it. That they are made to a strict standard with every detail defined, or simply loosely prescribed as one or two issued articles in conjunction with any 'civilian' clothes that match well enough, or self-made to meet a general guideline, it's worn to execute a certain duty or role and then when not worn tends to signify exiting the duties or role so prescribed.
There's no uniform which isn't a costume. The fact that it's a uniform is generally that multiple such costumes are made and meant to be worn in uniform manner. They might be official costumes, but still.
As for what makes something not just a costume but a proper Uniform, is whether it is made rigorously to whatever standard that uniform is defined as. If it was made to the letter of the law, so to speak, it is proper; if it was an interpretation then it's merely a costume resembling or evoking such a uniform. If it was made as a uniform, what makes it an authentic uniform vs a replica or recreation might be strict in that certain serial numbers or proof stamps were applied or not, or loose in that they were made within or outside of some commonly understood original context.
Let's say it's the mid 20th century and I had a factory making garments that happened to, 20 years prior, make certain uniforms for some armed forces. And I still have all the patterns and many leftover bolts of materials and so-on, and spin up another batch to sell commercially. If they are indeed properly made then they are factory authentic new-production, unofficial and unissued uniform garments. That doesn't make them official WWII uniforms. And there is now no context to officially wear them as service uniforms. But say a few years later the military purchases 100 sets of these to be worn by service members for a 25th anniversary parade in an official capacity. Are they costumes? Absolutely. Are they official uniforms? At that point, perhaps. If at the same time a movie company ordered 200 of the same sets of clothing for their movie actors and extras to wear for their 25th anniversary film project, using military assistance to ensure the uniforms and so-on are all correct and authentic, with actual veterans either appearing in their own uniforms and so-on, which of the costumes are proper uniforms and which are just costumes? Well IMO they're all costumes, and just which procurement journey a particular garment went though defines whether it's an official, authentic, recreation,( or so-on) garment.
Dealing with firearms and other surplus, it has similar issues. Where there is original issued stuff, original accepted but never issued stuff, original production but never left the factory, original production but assembled after the fact, made by the original factory to spec after the fact, made by other entities who have the tooling after the fact, and so-on down the line like... until you have modern company, making an outwardly mostly correct recreation using modern internal parts that *maybe* the original might have used if they had known about it at the time, and then on to "clearly only resembles the original if you squint" replicas. Where is the line? What is the proper term? It all gets quite in the weeds.
Always fascinating to think about though.
I don't mind the costume/uniform conversation, but the one that makes my eye twitch is I explain reenacting/living history and someone says "oh, you mean like cosplay?"
Me too. My friend insists I'm a LARPer since I do civil war reenacting. It drives me up a wall.
I second that. My future husband and I are reenactors doing ww1, civil war and Society for creative anachronism; we arent big fans of the use of costume in reenacting
@@chrisbolland5634 oh god I forgot LARPing. That's another pet peeve.
why? does it trigger your insecurity that you are indeed just putting on a costume and playing soldier? youre larping and cosplaying, just own it. its nothing to be ashamed of, and getting butthurt over semantics is just petty.
I’m ex-military, I’m a role player, and I’m an actor - and yeah, whatever our own pretensions about the dignity of what we do in the latter two instances, it is fundamentally cosplay and LARP. And that’s fine; there’s quick and cheap cosplay, and there’s ambitious cosplay. One can have an educational purpose, another can be purely for fun. St the end of the day, it’s all putting on both an outfit and a performance.
I know this doesn’t exactly play into this conversation of uniforms in the reenactment space but this brings me back to a conversation I had with me unit quartermaster when I was in a deep rut of self doubt. He told me “if you just put your OCPs (the colloquial term for the Army Combat Uniform) on and don’t do anything, you’re just wearing a costume. If you put it on and then you carry yourself with the dignity such a garment deserves, if you keep in mind the principles of why we put it on, then you are wearing a uniform.
What's very interesting is that most people intuit the difference between a costume and a uniform but can't really explain it which is very common when it comes to language, particularly when it involves intangible concepts. We know the words mean two different concepts but it's difficult to say how or why. I would class the clothing worn by re-enactors to be costumes as it is made for the intended purpose of the wearer to portray themselves as something they are not. Whereas a uniform would be something made for the intended purpose of showing yourself to be a member of something like the army, the medical profession or even a band. Something that you are. There would be no tangible difference between a costume and a uniform which is what makes it difficult to define in a definite manner.
I think the difference is how long you intend to use it. A uniform even one used by a re-enactor is used over the course of years in different re-enactments and in a way are long term costumes that is what I would say a uniform is. A costume is more temporary, a production of a historical play may use a costume for x amount of shows for 4 months and then sell it or put it in storage until next year. So overall it isn't the intention behind wearing it, the nature of its creation or the context of its use, a uniform is in my opinion defined as a costume or outfit that you would wear for a specific purpose regularly or consistently over a long period of time say a year or 2 at least. A costume is basically the same except it will only be worn for a few months or so.
Kit is a uniform but for sporting purposes, I play airsoft using a surplus MTP British Army uniform (it was cheaper than buying purpose made airsoft kit) but don't worry I do not claim any sort of service nor do I wear any unit patches for real units (thinking of getting a 501st patch although the blue will stand out, maybe a 41st elite corps patch). Anyway tangent aside I use it as a kit because it is now used as a sporting uniform which is what a kit is at least in my opinion. Anyways that just my two pence on this, I never really thought much about what distinguishes a uniform from a costume or vice versa so this really got my brain thinking.
I the (very little) reenactment I've done, it was always refered to as an "impression".
Yes I refer to it as an impression
john Mullholand interesting
As a Cosplayer who performs characters from a military science fiction, I too wear a military uniform, one that stitch for stitch is nearly identical to the ones used onscreen, and while it's not 100% in regulation, it's close enough to be recognized as a military uniform. I'd say that a garment can indeed be both a costume and a uniform simultaneously. That said, as I am not a member of the United States Air Force, nor any other organization for which such a uniform is required, I would not say that I wear it as a uniform. You wouldn't wear your great grandfather's Army uniform and call it "your uniform," would you? Now I think as a member of a reenactment group, or if I were to join a cosplay club for my show, then it does become your uniform, as then you are required to wear it, just like if you had to wear a shirt with a restaurant's logo on it while working there.
There is no negative connotation to the word "Costume," nor should there be for "Cosplay" either, I have seen some very intricate and detailed costumes and cosplays that are every bit as realistic as your redcoat or my own costume.
5:24 in some countries this act is actually illegal. Being properly dressed up as a serviceman imitating one is a felony sometimes.
Only when the context is to take advantage of that impersonation to comit or to misdirect attention away from another crime.
@@SonsOfLorgar At the Karneval in Düsseldorf a DJ dressed up as a policeman. He wore the pants and the shirt, but nothing else. The shirtbuttons were opend way to far and he had realy long hair. He wasn't acting like a policeman at all, just doing his job as a DJ. He was charged with a crime, although he wasn't acting like a policeman and had no intentions to do so. In the end he had to pay 375 € (about 420 $).
You can see a picture of him here and make your own opinion:
www.duesseldorf-tonight.de/lokales/partyszene/spass-oder-straftat-dj-theo-fitsos-vor-gericht.994094
@@SonsOfLorgar I know in England it is illegal. That, however, has to do with IRA activity.
@@Stefan-qr8ip But his major problem was useing nation insignia.
As you can see he is not only wearing the "uniform" but the rank and the NRW insignia. Which is a felony in germany- Wearing a policeuniform without them is not.
That is at least the definition in germany that a uniform only is an offence IF the insignia are worn as well.
@@alberich3099 Okili dokili! Maybe that's the reason they charged him with that 375 €. Because of the insignia and not because he was dressed as a policeman. At first he was charged with about 3000 €, if rember correctly. They may have reduced the charge, because they realized ... yeah, everybody can see he's not a policeman ... but he uses the insignia.
Btw as far as I know the insignia is a FEDERAL insignia (Northrhine Westphalia /NRW), not a NATIONAL insignia (Federal Republic of Germany/BRD) ;-) As far as I know only the Bundespolizei has a nation insignia. Don't want to be a "smart-ass", just want to correct that ;-) But if I'm wrong, correct me on my statement as well!!!
There’s a much simpler definition to be found:
Uniform is *eiher* clothing defined one way or another (regulations or similar) as identifying someone as belonging to some form of unit *or* clothing to make a group look uniform. So a reenactor’s uniform would be that group’s uniform, but only emulates an actual military uniform. Similarly, an actor might wear an actual uniform for a part, perhaps even rented to the production by the actual unit being represented, and it would be a uniform by both definitions.
However, since neither the actor nor the reenactor serve in the capacity the uniform is intended for, both the recreated uniform and the genuine issued uniform become their costumes *as well*. They don’t have to be one or the other.
I believe that what matters is why it was build not who is wearing it.
Wearing the Poppy I see, classy Brandon
Huh, I experienced the same when I used to take part in Viking and Saxon Reenactments. The same issues around the word "Costume" exist lol. Having said that, obviously there aren't any Uniforms involved (unless you portrayed a Varangian Guard) but we still called them "Clothes" as opposed to "Costumes". I think it's heavily contextual. Say, you were dressing up as a Viking for Halloween or a party, then I suppose you'd be wearing a costume.. after all it is a one off event and everyone else is in costume.
However during a reenactment show, you are likely in that "costume" for days at a time or at the very least, over night. Not to mention surrounded by peers all taking part in living history. At that point I'd argue you were wearing "period correct clothing"; you are living in these clothes as opposed to explicitly showing them off. I would have thought that the same would apply to reenactment uniforms: If it's a one off, you are in a costume but as a group and as a part of a living history show it becomes a uniform. With the added bonus of course that if there is a group of you then what you are wearing literally fulfils the job of an actual uniform.
TL:DR: It's both depending on context.
I always saw it as, if it denotes you as a member of a specific Organization, and you are part of that organization, then it is a uniform.
This includes Reenactors! Reenactment groups are in fact organizations, right?
Meanwhile costumes always struck me as being used by actors and people on Halloween.
We just call it, "Kit."
You are 100% correct knowling many languages makes it possible to think outside the boks your ancestors have set.
No slav is able to diferenciate between prestige, glory, reputation, aureole, fame, renown, honor and splendor they are all just the same word SLAVA.
Uniform as I see it is a clothing intended for the sole purpose of representing an individual as a member of a group. As a costume is Intended as a representation of the clothing used to represent a member of a group. So, as I see it a re-enactor’s clothing can simultaneously be a uniform and a costume. 1. It signifies the individual as a member of the re enactor’s group. (Uniform) 2. It represents the the clothing signifying the original group. (Costume)
I've had all kinds of uniform growing up (US Girl Scouts, UK Girl Guides. UK High School (quite a few items to that). Band and Orchestra uniform (both US and UK), work uniform (provided by the company), and choir (UK and US) uniform.).
I'll say this. Unless it's a specific patterned set of clothing used by a specific group of people for a specific purpose, it's a costume (the item worn might be an actual uniform piece, but it's intent as a garment is transmuted to a costume *because* it's being worn outside of it's original specific purpose by someone who's not working/serving in that job/field.). I'm saying this as someone who trained for years (and failed) for the theatre (You can get actual uniform pieces for a play, and be worn by an actor playing the part - but those uniform pieces are now a *costume*.).
Now.
You make your specific item of clothing (e.g. identical copy of military jacket) to your specifications to wear once a month with a group of people who have *all* done the same thing (making their own), wanting to fit in as a group, but with independent general specifications, making it at home out of fabric they've bought themselves from independent sources, then it's *still* a costume.
But.
You want your costume to be a uniform for/with a bunch of reenactors - then get a group (2, 3, 4 or more) of seamstresses/tailors/people who like to sew - to fit a specific set of patterns to *everyone* (per group part) in the group using the same fabric(s) (per group part) bought in bulk for everyone (so new players will be wearing the same stuff (per group part) as everyone in that part). You can get period specific fabric and period specific patterns and so on ^and^ tailor each piece to fit each person. It'll still be a uniform (set of clothing for a purpose by a group of people with a specific reason to wear them.).
Uniform = Uni (one) form. A set of clothings and accessories that are the same for all members of an organisation (with some variation indicating ranks and functions) wich are assembled to accomplish a goal.
Costume = Comes from italian and french "Costume/Coutume". Coutume is french for "custom" (In its first definition as "a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time." ). Note that in french, the word "clothes" can be translated as "Vêtements" or "Habits", and that the english word "Habit" is translated in french to "habitude".
So Costume represent a way of wearing clothes that is representative of certain traditions or personnification. With time, the personnification aspect became more prevalent in its use for theatrical plays and movies/series, giving the word a meaning of "Representation, act, play".
Reenactors are doing a representation of different aspects of the past, among wich is the military aspect. In that way, reenactment clothing can be seen as "costume". However, reenactment groups also are organisations wich require their members to adhere to a certain dress code in order to achieve their goal of giving an accurate representation of a different time period. In that definition, reenactment clothes are also uniforms in their own right.
TL;DR: Reenactment clothings are uniforms that are costumes of uniforms.
If you're putting it on an occasion to pretend to be what that outfit represents, then it's a costume.
If you're putting it on because it is your job and required of it, then it is a uniform.
There is no good or bad connotation of any kind in either word, only people choosing to feel a negative/positive connotation from either word will find offense in them.
Interesting point regarding "stolen valor" brought up around minute 7. In United States v. Alvarez, the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 because it burdened too broadly the right to free speech. After the decision the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 was passed that narrowed the provisions of the 2005 act to where it is now a misdemeanor if you falsely represent your military service only in instances where you are attempting to obtain a "tangible benefit." Simply falsely claiming military service or awards without attempting to obtain a tangible benefit per se is no longer illegal, though still frowned upon. In this context you could very well buy a US Army OCP pattern uniform and wear it as a costume as this is considered free speech protected by the first amendment.
And then someone comes along not wearing a reproduction of military clothing, but as a civilian from a specific time period. Since it's not a military-looking outfit, they're not reenacters then?
This discussion is valid, but since reenactment includes so much much more than the american civil war, it needs to be more generalised.
2 examples:
1. During the european middle ages (lets say the year 1400 for simplicity's sake here), the soldiers wheren't uniformed. So no uniforms. But calling a hand forged breastplate a "costume" will not go down well. Assuming of course it is used as a part of a proper period recreated outfit.
2. Civilian. Let's stick to the year 1400 here. Makes it easier. A craftsman, civilian clothes, based on archaeological finds and illustrations and writings. It's not a uniform, it's being used in the exact same way and for the same reason as the originals would have. So, does this make it a costume, since we're not in the 1400's anymore? Or clothes? Since this is the garments purpose.
Making the discussion only relate to uniforms makes it a whole lot simpler to discuss, but it also pretty much makes any conclusions pretty narrow, and useless outside of that field.
Whats the differance between a fiddle and a violin? - hows its played.
whats the differance between a uniform and a costume (assuming it is 100% accurate) is the manner in which it is being worn.
David; as another David, I would disagree, slightly. What is important is not the manner in which it is being worn, but rather all of the baggage that comes with it. Back when I was in the Army, even when I was wearing civilian clothing, I was still a soldier, but when a reenactor takes off his clothing, even if it is not a reproduction but an actual outfit, he becomes just another civilian. As a soldier, I was lucky enough not to be deployed to a combat zone, but I could very easily have been so deployed, even if I was wearing civilian clothing. I doubt there are many reenactors who would accept being moved from Point A to Point B as part of wearing that outfit. Wearing a Uniform means that you accept EVERYTHING that goes along with it, both the good, AND the bad (and yes, that does mean up to and including both actual combat, and, even death), where as wearing a Costume means that while you PORTRAY a solider, there are certain lines that have been drawn that you will not accept. As a Soldier wearing a Uniform, if the other side started shooting real ammunition at me, then I have an obligation to continue to follow my orders, and perhaps start shooting back. On the other hand though, as a Reenactor (which I am not) I would not be expected to remain where I was if the other side started using real ammunition, but rather I would be expected to "get the hell out of Dodge", so to speak.
As an active duty soldier (US Army), I often referred to our uniforms as "costumes" or even "combat drag", much to the displeasure of the NCOs who took themselves far too seriously. After the USSR collapsed, I bought a complete WW2v Soviet officer's uniform for next to nothing, under $50...the Russian Army boots cost more.
Replica costumes are just that, costumes -they look like accurate representations of uniforms. Even general-issue uniforms (such as the US Air Force issue jackets during the 1980s)sometimes looked horrible without expensive tailoring, but an official, government-issue uniform is just that -A uniform. There was a time when officers had their uniforms privately tailored, in fact, they occasionally weren't so "uniform" all the time, but were fine nonetheless, as long as the tailoring didn't stray too far from regulation.
I was fortunate enough to join a group of "living history" enthusiasts who would do meticulous research and custom craftwork to make their costumes as historically accurate as possible, then learned enough to make a presentation about where and when a soldier in that particular uniform would have appeared and what battles he would have participated in, so it was all centered around educating people and not just an excuse for wearing a cool costume.
As with anything related to history, it's important to do research first. A simple reference of a dictionary will show that historical military uniforms worn in the modern day by living historians fit the definition of both costumes ("an outfit worn to create the appearance characteristic of a particular period, person, place, or thing") and uniforms ("dress of a distinctive design or fashion worn by members of a particular group and serving as a means of identification"). (Quoted source: Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.)
Stolen valour is claiming to be a member of the armed forces to gain benefits if i remember, like trying to get veterans discount at a store when you are not actually a veteran
it is part of the stolen valour, but only part, stolen valour is passing yourself as a ex/active member of the armed forces while not being one but it does not always includes trying to get the financial privileges
When you look 20-something but try to convince someone you are a Vietnam War veteran.
I’m 21 and I often wear original WWII and Vietnam era clothing. Is that technically stolen valor?
@@eddiesanchez1899 I don't think so unless your claiming to be a ww2 or Vietnam vet
@@eddiesanchez1899 like Mercure said
but also avoid wearing the complete uniform outside of special events
like i also wear French uniforms of WWII, Indochina/Algeria and 1990s but when i'm not participating at an event or playing airsoft, if i chose to wear a piece of uniform, it will only be either the Jacket or the pants, never the two together (pants with boots is fine), and if the jacket has patches that can be removed/hidden, i do so
and no medals, like, no
you want to piss off a vet or a serving member, wear medals in public. you'll wish that you were never born (didn't do, but seen in person. protip: never anger a Legionnaire)
It is a complex issue indeed. There are several scenarios a definition should cover:
a) uniforms can be issued by services to the servicemen to perform their duties
b) servicemen can purchase articles from 3rd party sellers as long as they conform to regulations
c) it is usually illegal to wear a uniform if you are not in the service or even off duty (MP in my country will issue a fine and escort you to your unit)
So we could say a piece of clothing is a uniform if it conforms to regulations and then question the legality of it being worn, and not if it ceases to be a uniform (otherwise it wouldn’t be illegal to wear it)
Basically my conclusion when I did Vietnam reenactment. I had mixed articles including original Vietnam surplus webgear, helmet (w/ new cover), and boots, but new production fatigues (and yes, I did once walk through a grocery store in fatigues and jungle boots when I forgot to buy mosquito dope). Although most bystanders would call it an "outfit" or a "uniform", I wouldn't be offended if someone called it a costume. I think the only reason they didn't is because we still have living Vietnam veterans. It's easier to call the "posh" uniform of an 18th century soldier a costume, because it's so far removed from modern times. I'm sure in 50 years, more people will call my outfit a costume.
Use the word that comes naturally I say. You and your friends will certainly call it a uniform, but it's okay for someone outside of this hobby to call it a costume. If they're complimenting it, they're certainly not trying to diminish it's quality.
Only you could ramble on so much about such a trivial subject
I just went to a Halloween Party in my Rev. War. Uniform as my Costume.
Frontiersmen unit I used to be part of made it very simple.
We wore "outfits", clowns wear "costumes".
Granted, we did have more than our fair share of clowns...
Unless I was reenacting a military persona, I've always called it "garb".
Very interesting thoughts. I'm a cosplayer. I make costumes. This year, I'm working on recreating a WWI St. John Ambulance VAD uniform. I've never thought of this project as a costume. I've never put years of research into a costume.
Wow, this really can get philosophical when you start thinking about it. At first, I agreed with those that said they were costumes, based on reenacting not being a profession, but then I started thinking more about it. I mean, marching bands, football players, and cheerleaders at a game are considered to be in uniform. They are members of a group, expected to be in a certain place to do a specific task. Unless you call an LV Raiders player at an NFL game “in uniform” but an UNLV player at an NCAA game “in costume” then the profession angle doesn’t work, as college and HS bands/players/cheerleaders aren’t paid.
Reenactors are part of an organization, expected to show up for events dressed in the same manner, as much as marching band members are. So I say that reenactors ARE in uniform: of their specific reenactment group. They aren’t MILITARY uniforms, as the group isn’t military, but they are uniforms.
I would just like to point out the re-creating the uniform to make an exact copy would just be known as a replica not a costume.
I would say they are not mutually exclusive terms, a uniform is to make everyone in a company/organisation/regiment look the same, look uniform, in that regard if you are playing that kind of organisation whether it be military, school or a private corporation, it is a uniform. Meanwhile a costume is anything you wear to fit the part you are acting/playing a given role. Neither of these terms suggest the quality of the dress, and the first does lead to some sort of guidelines or requirements, though how precise those are varies. For example a school uniform may just state straight black trousers, it does not have the school directly issue them, or cover whether the waste band has belt loops or is semi-elasticated. Given all this, if one is doing an authentic portrayal, then it is a costume uniform or a uniform costume, in other words it is both a uniform and a costume at the same time, it is a costume as it is the role you are acting in, but a uniform as it is a dress that is uniform across your re-enacting regiment to a set of guidelines based on historical realism for that role.
I agree with what you said. My opinion is that it's a costume because reenacting is a performing art. A uniform would need to be issued by whichever institution which produced it.
And round and round the argument goes. Thank you for your excellent thoughts on the subject.
I think the distinction is that a uniform is something you wear to signify your profession, whilst a costume is something you wear to signify somebody else's profession. If a binman wears the appropriate get up while he is out on his job, he is in uniform, but if I (not a binman) was to wear it in order to make people think I'm a binman (for example in a show) then it is a costume. Therefore, in the context of reenactment, you are wearing costumes, as you yourselves are not 18th Century soldiers, but you are wearing these clothes in order to make people believe that you are.
NB, I want to add that "making people think you are" does not necessarily imply malicious intent. Of course it can, as in cases of stolen valour, but in the vast majority of practical cases both parties know really that you aren't actually what you are dressed up as, it is just a suspension of disbelief.
On the topic of old uniforms, they are true uniforms when they are being worn as uniforms, when they are in a museum they are artefacts, but still uniforms, because they are kept as an example of what such uniforms looked like. However if I put on an old uniform for a play, it becomes a costume. If you wear the uniform to a historical occasion, say wearing a WW2 uniform to a D-Day memorial service, then you are doing it in a context where everybody knows that you are not trying to represent a soldier yourself. In cases like this, you are wearing somebody else's uniform, and people know you are wearing somebody else's uniform, and so it remains a uniform and not a costume.
Good points.... "shoot that prisoner as a spy, he should have been in the uniform of his comrades.. not in costume as one of ours..." ...
I would like to differentiate between those 2 terms by the intention of the maker of the clothing - whether to have members of the same organisation wear the same clothing in relation to their work (uniform) or to pretend you are someone else for entertainment purposes (costume).
This way you can wear your great-grandfather's uniform and use it as a costume in a play. You can also reenact in a costume that represents a certain uniform.
I think this definition is more helpful as one article of clothing doesn't change its term just by having been worn by different people.
Whenever I see anyone wearing bits of Golden State Warriors uniform, I accuse them of stolen valour.
Even if they are wearing it in a professional capacity.
Kevin Durrant does not like this.
In my opinion, a uniform is made a specific way to identify a specific group of people. A costume merely mimics the appearance of something. That is, a uniform is made to a “uniform standard,” as established by an authority, to identify a group of people. Any item constructed to meet that standard is a uniform. Therefore, a “uniform” is not an attempt to resemble something else, but rather “match” something else. It doesn’t matter who is wearing it or who has made it. Thus, a reenactor wearing American Army clothing made to exact WWII US Government specifications is wearing a uniform, even if the item was made in 2020. We can’t say that the item is an “official uniform,” because it was not issued by the authorizing authority, but it meets the requirements and is a uniform. A costume, on the other hand, seeks to copy the look of something else. A costume is not required to respect the construction standards of a particular garment. Any materials can be used, with the goal of recreating a certain appearance. If historically appropriate materials are used, then we say the costume is “authentic.” For example, a dress made today in an 18th Century style, using historically authentic materials and methods, is still a “costume,” because it seeks to emulate the appearance of something else. It is not made to a specified standard dictated by an authority and it is not made to identify a particular group of people. In this case, we say the dress is an “authentic costume.” This is how I've always understood it, anyway.
Thanks Brandon F for sharing your knowledge *LIKED* the video pard. --LT
I'm a combat vet.
Stolen Valor is NOT a crime.
But it is severely frowned on.
There are a lot that say its a crime. But its not.
Often people confused two different things.
If you are serving. And wearing officer rank When you are a private. There are regulation against this. But if you are a civilian. You don't have nor required to obey these regulations. Since you have no officer over you. And there is no way to punish you for it in the military.
To make a law that made it illegal would be difficult. Because very few people walk around with a DD214. And sometimes it can take months to get a copy of your DD214..
What really gets to me is the person that claims to be like SF and has no idea other then movies about it. And people believe them.
I could easily pull off being a SF Engineer or SF Medic. Because I know so much about them and worked with them. But I'm proud of what I really did. To be clear. I never was SF.
Now I use to joke with my privates on my ribbons. I have a good amount. I use to say.... I just went to the clothing sales ( the store) and bought all the pretty ribbons.
Honestly, I would have to look at my DD214s to get ribbons today. Because I don't remember many of them. Its just not important enough to me. If I still had my class A's it would be easier. But they were stolen. ( long story)
Whereas uniforms are a style of clothing specifically designed to maintain an appearance of unity and cohesion; one would be correct in labeling the garment, whether issued by a government agency or hand made to resemble the former, as such.
A costume, being any garment worn to identify you as part of a group. Do not get hung up on the negative "Halloween Store Quality" connotation that you attribute to the word. In addition to the Halloween and theatre costumes that you mentioned, there are religious costumes, historical costumes, cultural costumes, ceremonial costumes as these are clothing and accessories associated with customs (which shares a Latin root). You are not a member of the military of the 18th-20th centuries and, therefore, your garments, despite intention, quality, and precision lack the authority of authenticity. Whether you portray a civilian or military persona, you are merely interpreting an approximation of a society and clothing.
In short, you are right. The garment you wear can easily be simultaneously a uniform AND a costume.
I think a lot of this has to do with the time that has passed. An 18th century uniform is no longer active service so it seems more like a costume.
A "uniform" is a piece of clothing worn by a group of people to have a "uniform appearance", so yes, band uniforms are uniforms.
A "costume" is a piece of clothing worn by someone "portraying a role", so yes, a reenactor's uniform is indeed also a costume.
While there is an overlap, obviously, the difference is that when a policeman, soldier, or even a band member is wearing a uniform, they aren't portraying a role, they simply are what they are.
I would say the line gets slightly blurred for *professional* reenactors, perhaps, since they are getting paid to *be* soldiers, but they are also still *portraying* soldiers from a different era, so yes, in the eyes of the public, their uniforms *are* costumes, no matter how authentic they may be.
Your ancestor's authentic uniform becomes a costume when you put it on to portray him, even though it obviously remains a uniform.
There's nothing that says the terms are mutually exclusive. A piece of clothing can be both a uniform, *and* a costume, at the same time.
I think the problem is trying to differentiate between two things. A costume is a one-off made for a thing, like a play or party. Uniforms are 'uniform' by definition, part of a set of like dressed individuals, like a football team, a police force, storm troopers, or a troop of reenactors all dressed according to "the standard". You are wearing a storm trooper costume at a party so you could look like a storm trooper, or you are a uniformed storm trooper on maneuvers with your platoon.
Well the lead actors from saving private ryan were wearing lightweight fiber glass helmets...
Yes, if you put on your grandfather's uniform it becomes a costume. They say "Clothes maketh the man" but when it comes to uniforms it's the other way around.
Really it's a mixture of both. For some reenactors they do their absolute best to get a Uniform 100% accurate, no details spared. For others they may mix mash their uniforms with an external authenticity but internal farb gear for comforts sake of budget, and for the very few reenactors they take the bare minimum of what is required and then a good majority of their gear is Inaccurate in their portrayal, sometimes for budget and other times for sheer laziness.
I think the difference is immersion. If you're at an reenactment you're representing a certain person from a certain time. In acting during a performance they are not referencing their costume so it matters less, and if they are for the sake of immersion yeah its a uniform.
Well if you are reenacting or acting in an a correct military uniform to me its a uniform.
It can be a costume and a uniform, they're not mutually exclusive.
But something like a civilians clothes is a costume or alternatively just civilian dress.
Please make a video on the term “the long 18th century”
In the museum field we often refer to clothing in general as costume or "dress", especially when it comes to living history. I.E. Cultural dress, cultural costume, historic dress, historic costume, etc. When it comes to living history my museum at least has always called it "Costumed Interpretation". When referring to military clothing in general we do tend to call them uniforms since that does bring to mind that image and is convenient for description, but I've seen military costume used in plenty of academic sources referring to the historic wearers and culture. It's also helpful since if you get back further in time where actual uniforms were rare, but there was still common dress worn by soldiers. For instance a knight in armor could accurately be described as wearing the military costume of his specific culture, but knights certainly were not wearing military uniforms as we think of them. When I'm working as an interpreter, I tend to qualify it. If I'm portraying a civil war soldier, I don't call it "my" uniform, but usually say "This is the clothing a soldier would have worn" or "I'm wearing a reproduction of a Sergeant's uniform". The only time I don't is if we are doing 1st person interpretation, in which case it's definitely more like acting and then you're trying to portray a part so at least to the public it just wouldn't make sense to call it a costume.
Section 132a german criminal code:
(1) Whoever, without being authorised to do so,
[...]
4. wears domestic or foreign uniforms, official dress or official insignia
incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine.
(2) Designations, academic degrees, titles, honours, uniforms, official dress or official insignia which are easy to confuse with those referred to in subsection (1) are equivalent to those referred to in subsection (1).
therefor you got the textbook definition by one of THE countries that overregulate everything. you're welcome
for a quick reminder about the Stolen Valor Act of 2013
amends the federal criminal code to rewrite provisions relating to fraudulent claims about military service to subject to a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both for an individual who, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds himself or herself out to be a recipient of: *bunch of honors*
I think it's a pretty obvious, uniform, be it issued or purchased or even self made, is meant to blend an individual with a group. Where as a Costume is an individual outfit worn without regard to the overall group, the context, or circumstances. A uniform can be 100 people wearing black shirts and blue jeans. And a costume can be 1 person or a couple of people wearing an outfit because they want to portray a specific appearance not normally seen in typical clothing of the modern era.
It depends on who is wearing it and in what context their wearing it. Also when I'm talking about uniforms I have first responders and military in mind. A uniform is earned and a costume isn't. You can put a costume on with out having to do anything for it while you have to make a commitment and earn it. If I buy a OCP top from a surplus store for Halloween it's a costume. If I go to basic and I wear the same top it's now a uniform cause I had to earn the right to wear it. Military, Police, Fire, EMS they all had to go through some kind of training and process to wear the uniform. The context comes in on where their wearing it. If you wear a military uniform to a party that's not stolen valor and your not out of place for wearing a costume. If your walking around in public wearing it for no reason and act like your military that's stolen valor.
I'd agree IF we are talking about MODERN military dress, but a military uniform from 100+ years ago? If it's not current, then it's neither "stolen valor" or impersonation. Intent has a bit to do with it as well. If I dress up in a proper, current, police or military uniform and claim authority that I don't have, THAT'S a crime. Just wearing a "perfect" uniform is not. How do you know that I'm not going to a costume ball/Halloween party/cultural festival/reenactment of a "modern" military situation/etc? And how is it any of your business?
I have read a definition of uniform that it is a set of clothes that are of the same design meant to distinguish a unit of people. It does not have to be military or established by authorities. Could be for example a uniform for work for example at a restaurant or a bus company. But a uniform is regulated by set rules. Clothes and costume are not.
In the Medieval recreationist world we use the term garb, the idea being it's not a costume, because it's not just worn during a how, but meant to be worn for days on end, and someone could have several outfits at an event, but then we aren't wearing uniforms. What do you call the clothing worn by people acting as non military roles in your reenactment?
I'd probably choose words ''portrayal of uniform''. Costumes are not made to certain specifications, and they don't have to be uniform (pun not intended, I just don't have a better word for this) with others. However reenactors use portrayals of uniforms which are made to certain specifications (some even use original pieces of kit and uniform pieces, in that case it's rather hard to not use the term ''uniform''), and which are therefore uniform. However they often wouldn't pass milspec, and wearing a reproduction of uniform makes it a military uniform about as much as reenacting makes you a soldier. I would therefore argue that the correct way to describe it would be ''portrayal of uniform'' (or maybe ''uniformed costume'' or other similar choices, ''portrayal of uniform'' is just term which I would prefer).
well, when I was in, I often thought of our uniforms and kit as being a costume (odd colored, features and design choices that aren't really necessary, everyone looks the same, ect), of sorts. It's kinda like in Spongebob, where they're making fun of Texas: "What's the difference?" (say it in your best Patrick impersonation)
As a Renaissance Faire performer of some decades experience (who has discussed such things with other performers), I think that in most cases we try to think - and certainly to speak - of what we wear as 'our clothes', at least while we are wearing them on the Faire streets. It is part of staying 'in character', which of course will vary from Faire to Faire and performer to performer (dare I say it is not uniformly applicable?) as to whether performers will consider this important. When we are backstage and the clothes are on a hanger, it seems that even the performers who are most assiduous about staying in character will refer to the thing on the hanger as a 'costume'*. But your point is well taken: if somehow we were able to wear authentic 16th-century museum pieces, I think they would be 'clothes' whether we are wearing them or not (and, to help you muddy the waters, the customers would still call them a 'costume' because for them, it's just a show). The intention of the maker _is_ important.
I think 'uniform' (such as football player's garb) applies when they are made to a, well, uniform standard. Think of private school uniforms, as another example. I remember hearing comic-book fans refer to the characters' wear as 'uniforms' sometimes (e.g., for the Green Lantern Corps), though 'costume' is far more often heard. Words are slippery things.
*incidentally, I often hear Faire people refer to changing back to their 21st-century clothes as "changing into civvies".
This debate reminds me a great deal of that trial a few years back where that one juror got in the press for wearing a Starfleet uniform to trial just like any member of the military would wear their uniform and they allowed it because she stated that it was a uniform where is many people would see it as a costume. As somebody who has been part of the actual Federation in that there is an actual organization of Star Trek fans organized into ships ie chapters. It may not be an actual military organization but it is an actual organization not too dissimilar from the various re-enactor organizations except instead of re-enacting the past we are portraying a character from the future. I don't mean any disrespect to reenactors out there I'm just saying that the organization and whatnot is similar between re-enactor organizations and the Federation that actually exists. Back then I was the head security officer of the USS Ticonderoga IE the chapter based out of my local area of northern Utah and I had a uniform and I considered it a uniform not a costume. where is most other people would consider it a costume. I wouldn't have actually worn it to court or anything like this woman in this trial a few years back did but the point is made that this can be applied to a lot of different fields not just re-enacting or theater and the line between uniform and costume is not terribly clear and this whole debate reminded me of that particular incident.
Soldiers wear uniforms. Reinactors wear costumes.
If you can’t spell “reenactor” correctly, most people won’t take you seriously. It’s in the title for Christs sake
It always triggers me extremly at traditional german Parades, theres english speakers calling historical Uniforms of Cityguards, Shootingclubs, Hunters and Volkstracht like local traditional outfits
Costumes..
It's interesting how simplified the english Language is. In german, which most people think is very similar to english which is kinda true but theres so many completly different words for one thing unlike in English. In Army reports sometimes it's very hard to understand what is being said cause theres an fucking great formal language pretty much. Even if I wouldn't here the voice of an person just by the words u could tell the age in german.
Btw an Costume/ Kostüm is an unaccurate cheap Uniform purchased for Carnival/Fasching only.
An Uniform is an historcial or traditonal based Outfit of an militarized Organisation.
In germany you see miltary style uniforms based on the 30s or before 1914 used by like i said those clubs i said and also by
Musikkorps
and Fife and Drum corps/ Spielmannszug.
They're not indentical to the real uniforms of the real army but they're based on them thats means theyre in the colour of the city and they have they're own emblems and traditions and stuff because of the prussian militarism those paramilitary clubs still r alive.
If you would call there stuff an Costume you would get shot or something different..
Sorry for the text I'm drunk its beerfest rimw
It's funny because, as a French native speaker, I've heard that English has a lot of words, with many nuances, in part thanks to the huge lexicon the English borrowed from French and Latin.
But I've also heard that French has more nuances than English.
I believe that the truth is just that there is no such thing as a language with more nuances, at least not when the societies and technologies are similar. The presence and absence of many nuances are just in different areas.
A costume is basically just a farby uniform.
Nonsense. A costume is an item of clothing worn in a given social context where many English speakers assign the word "costume" to it. The child dressing up as Batman at a Halloween even is wearing a costume, not a farby uniform. An actor wearing reproduction clothing items to represent a character in a play or movie is wearing a costume, no matter how accurate that costume may or may not be.
Did you watch the video?
It‘s kinda like the Paradoxon of Theseus' Ship.
I am missing one simple argument. A uniform denotes a specific role/job that is earned by the wearer (they are entitled to wear it) . This is also why it is usually illegal to wear a present-day uniform, whether to pass oneself of as entitled to wear the uniform or to give the impression that you are. If you are wearing an historical uniform, i.e. , then you are wearing a costume - you are 'dressing up'. It does not matter whether you wear an innapropriate nylon version, an actual vintage costume, or an obssesively 'correct' reconstruction - you are not passing yourself off as an actual soldier/viking/victorian/peasant - you are playing a role - you are wearing a costume.
I prefer the term outfit as im doing 15th century so "Renaissance" as they are day to day medieval clothes not costumes. The sword on my belt is not a prop.
I've always used the term "garb" for my period clothes and gear.
I think if it's made to original specifications, I see itbas a uniform. I have a replica M1917 (US) Brodie helmet. It's real steel. Minus a few modern materials (the comfort pad is cotton instead of asbestos for example) it's exactly like the ones worn in WWI
Baby Inuyasha Where’d you get it?
If it is not 100+ years old, it is not exactly like the ones used in WWI. It is a recreation of such a uniform.
@@RyanControl I already said it's a replica but it's true to the originals
@@emorynguyen1583 amazon
@@babyinuyasha Is anyone using these replicas to mark themselves as members of a particular group and serving as a means of identification? If there is not a group of people (say, a WWI reenactor group) doing so, I'd call it not a uniform, but a representation of a uniform. If it is the uniform of given reenacting company, it is a uniform, but a reenacting uniform representing a World War 1 uniform, not a World War 1 uniform.
The most important distinction to me is not even one between costume and uniform, but original period artifact and latter recreation.
As a 18th century reenactor, I refer to my outfit as clothing. Because the public came to an 18th century reenactment, there is not any confusion. When someone refers to my clothing as a costume I do correct them, because nothing that I wear is fake. Costumes usually have some component that is fake, such as a pocket flap without a pocket. Futhermore during a reenactment reenactors try to live the time period. That is why the flintlocks are real, the tomahawks are real etc.
Can confirm this, I hate it when people call it a costume.
its a costume of a uniform.
You hate when they call your costume a costume?
@@cwg9238IMHO, that depends on the quality of the garb. If it could pass for a Halloween costume, or it's only vaguely period correct, it's a costume. If it's a historically accurate garb, like a period correct military uniform, it's a uniform.
@@johnmullholand2044 uniform clearly implies actually being a part of the organization it belongs/belonged to. not being so is a little thing called "stolen valor" or in some cases even illegal impersonation - you cant go around dressed exactly like a cop if you arent one for example.
@@cwg9238 Unless you ACT like a cop, trying to arrest people, and such, what's the problem with wearing a correct police or security uniform? ACTING like a cop is actually a crime; police impersonation.
Wearing a defunct/out of date military uniform, in a military reenactment, is in no way "stolen valor", as I am not claiming to be 100+ year old military personnel.
5:20 I think you might be wrong on that one Brandon, your getting arrested for impersonating a police officer 😂
Someone might have already said this, I apologise if they have but I think a uniform is issued by a governing body for a specific purpose. Police, military, marching band all wear issued 'uniforms' and that will always be a uniform afterwards. If a shop or individual puts an outfit together themselves it is a costume. A middle ground is if you put together a good costume that replicates the original then it's a 'replica uniform', but, because not issued by the government at the time, still, technically a costume!
I was always told that the British redcoat 18th Century uniform is an officially recognized uniform in England, and it carries a similar weight and respect over there as a modern uniform. (10th regt knows more about that than I do). Regiments (like mine) have been inspected by the queen and officers and soldiers of the British Army on multiple occasions, given official recognition by the British army, and regiments sometimes go to England for Royal review. Therefore we treat it like a real uniform, hold ourselves to the Royal standards, and aim to give it the proper honor it deserves. We know we’re not actual soldiers, but we are portraying historical ones. I myself refer to it as both a kit, and a uniform.
No such thing as the 'Royal Army'.
@@wolfgangkrupp My bad. I've been researching the Royal Artillery lately and my mind switched the names out.
Ah... semantics...
I've always seen "uniform" as a term that describes clothes that are worn to indicate you are a member of a certain organization (military, police, parade, school, or even a company). In the reenactment world, from watching your videos, it seems you are really recreating the organizations that existed at that time (18th century British army, as well as the regiment you're a member of) and thus, what you wear indicates that you are a member of those recreated organizations. If you will, you are a member of the group that represents those old organizations that existed. And the group in question has a uniform : what you are wearing during your reenactments.
In acting, however, the actual organization you are a member of is merely the movie or theater team. What you are wearing in that context does not indicate you are a member of that team, it does not indicate you are a member of the original organization, and you are not recreating that organization either; you're merely playing a character which is/was a member of that organization. Therefore, it is a costume. Of course, within the narrative of the movie or the play, it is a uniform, but from our perspective, it is a costume.
But then, the movie or theater crew (probably excluding the actors) might be required to wear a certain piece of clothing which represents the fact they are members of the movie or theater team. That would be a uniform.
A costume is something you have made or had made and then chosen to wear of your own accord to emulate the appearance of your chosen subject.
A uniform is something that is either issued to you or you are required to purchase as is mandatory that you wear as part of a group to ensure that everyone is well....UNIFORM in appearance.
However, If you work at McDonald's you are issued a uniform. If you don't work at McDonald's but get hold of and choose to wear the uniform, then you are wearing a McDonald's uniform. If you sew your own McDonald's uniform then you are wearing a costume designed to emulate the appearance of a McDonald's employee.
my interpretation would be uniforms are issued by its original intention (military/band) wearing the WW2 jacket is still a uniform even tho obsolete it was at one point in history issued in an official capacity and thus has present day value as a historical uniform.
to make a replica would be loosely refereed to as a uniform in its intention but would often be refereed to as a replica / replica uniform or an outfit. the same argument could be made for rifles.
A uniform is uniform clothing that displays your allegiance/purpose, so if you are member of the "4th Group of shooty shoot" and you must wear specific uniform clothing to identify yourself as a part of this group and your purpose, then that clothing is the/a uniform of the "4th Group of shooty shoot"
Edit: I'm saying it is the uniform of your re-enactment group, not of the unit you are re-enacting. In the first respect it is a uniform, and in the second a costume, an object can be both.
It's always a uniform but you wear it as a costume. And wearing a uniform you didn't earn is stolen valour. I think it's perfectly simple but I understand that if you spend years making an authentic uniform and someone calls it a costume, what you hear is NOT a perfectly resonable gramatial, linguistic frasing but what you hear is someone calling it a haloween costume :D
A uniform is a piece of clothing that marks you out as a member of a group. It can be as simple as an armband or a bandana (I think one of the first uniforms was a piece of straw tucked in the band of the hats of a military force).
A costume is when you try to replicate someone elses appearance or make an impression of someone or something and it can be as complicated as wearing a real uniform as a costume, replicate a uniform in every detail or even exagerated as it often is in theatre.
One is defined by what IT does and the other is defined by what YOU do.
By the way I think that wearing a uniform the way you do you have definately "earned" it. You try to make it look right and be right. You respect the uniform and the soldier it represents. The stolen valor part is not about wearing the uniform but it's about claiming, or making it appear as if you are something that you are not, that you did something you did not.
A uniform is issued to an authorized person in a specific job/career.
If you are wearing clothing/uniform to perform/reenact/act in a role to portray such a character then it is a costume.
I would just defined as uniform a piece tha is use to make uniformity in a group, bringing a easily recognition in that group.
So if I use a military uniform for a party, theater or movie they are costume or acting props.
My first language being portugues I use the word "Figurino" as theater or acting costume. "Fantasia" as party costume. And "Uniforme" as the word for uniform. So yes there is a lack of words in the english language.
As to reenactment costume I dont have a specific word for it in portuguese, neither I would know how to call it better in english. But I would believe the main difference its purpose, cause its a history leaving, experience, and in a way science testing in clothes.
Reenactors wear costumes, which are of uniform appearance. You wear uniform constumes. ;)
Besides, you could also say that you are wearing the official uniform of a reenactor, which looks like the uniform from the time period and unit you are reenacting. So while it isn't an original uniform, it is still uniform.
Marching band uniforms are typically made of wool and are far from cheap
The difference is intention. If you are required to wear something as part of a group or to perform a certain job, it is a uniform. If you are wearing it to look like a uniformed person, you t is a costume. On your grandfather, that coat is a uniform. If you wear it as part of a re-enactment to play the part of a soldier, it is a costume...even though the garment itself is an actual uniform. I.e. “I am wearing my grandfathers uniform for my Halloween costume.” It is the same whether in a play, or Halloween, or reenacting. You are impersonating, pretending, or putting forth the appearance of being a person you are not.