What is the proper name for "possibles bag"?

[oldwood]

One of the posts suggested the term for shooting bag/possibles bag could be a regional thing. Jim Webb wrote a book w/ sketches of many hunting pouches he has seen and collected in his life from Southern Appalachia. To repeat , in that "region" , the device was called "hunting pouch". ....oidwood

 

[pab1]

Great info and pics of Nosworthy's outfit @Smokey Plainsman and @Notchy Bob! I've recently been working on a similar setup with a belt bag, tomahawk and knife.

I'm late to the party with info on possibles bags. I browsed over the thread so if I missed this being mentioned before forgive me. I just finished reading Four Years in the Rockies The Adventures of Isaac P. Rose. Near the end of the book there is a description of Rose's possible sack.

It was described as a "large leather sack that would hold about three bushels." In it he carried "curiosities he had collected during his stay in the mountains." These included a dried wolf head, a dried three foot long snake, a snakeskin backed bow, a quiver full of arrows, several pairs of moccasins and "leggins" and other "curiosities of every description."

It was written that Rose valued the bag more than all the money he earned during his stay in the mountains. Unfortunately the bag was stolen on his return trip to St Louis. From this description it sounds like a possible sack would most likely have been packed on a horse, not carried day to day by someone.

Interesting, but still not used to refer to a shot pouch....
Out of curiosity, what year was the book written?

The original post in this thread was asking whether or not "possibles bag" was the correct term for a shooting/hunting bag. My post was in reference to that question. It shows pretty clearly that a possibles bag was not a shooting/hunting bag. I was not trying to explain a shot pouch.



The book was first published in 1884.

I know you weren't. I figured I would just make sure the point was not missed. Some might say I was gloating.

I thank you for your posts.

Is that why some people call you an "old gloat" like I've been called?

For the life of me I can't figure out what the point of the claimed "gloating" was. I took the time and effort to answer the question posed by the OP using actual documentation from the fur trade era. In response (not by the OP) I was basically told that my answer was interesting but irrelevant.

Thinking I misunderstood the OP's question, I took the time to go back and verify what the original question was. I then find that the OP's question was exactly what I thought it was. I respond to the member that dismissed my post only to have them claim they were making sure the "point" (which apparently they missed) was not missed.

Then, instead of apologizing, they claim they were "gloating" with a dismissive "I thank you for your posts" comment. Gloating is "dwelling on one's own success or another's misfortune with smugness or malignant pleasure". While not a desirable trait, "gloating" by definition, in this case does not apply.

"Trolling", which is "the act of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument" is a more fitting definition for what took place.

Unfortunately, over the years, I see responses like this becoming more and more common here. I'll often take considerable time to pore over volumes of documentation in order to verify a quote or to confirm that my answer is accurate.

To have that effort met with a dismissive post is annoying to say the least. Why should I (or any member) take the time to answer questions only to have the response dismissed haphazardly by someone who didn't take the time to review the original question in the first place?

 

[Billy Boy]

Men historically carried purses, but they were small and worn close to or on the belt with loops.

Purser on a ship was the money guy.....

 

[FishDFly]

Geez.

Why do folks worry about what another person calls their personal property?

That makes as much sense as worrying about what pet name a person calls their significant other.

 

[Brokennock]

Geez.

Why do folks worry about what another person calls their personal property?

That makes as much sense as worrying about what pet name a person calls their significant other.

Because some people are trying to portray history, correctly. That would include using the correct terminology for things. As I've said many times before in similar discussions of historical accuracy, it is true that it doesn't matter what one carries, wears, or calls their gear, until they start telling people that something that was not carried, used, worn, or called a certain name, actually was.

Someone posted recently, in another thread, about being asked to leave a historical site when the guide/interpreter told the tour group that the defenders of this site used paper cartridges in their rifles, and this person corrected him. This is where all this conjecture and passing on of information known to be false leads.

Please excuse me everyone for actually wanting our history to be portrayed correctly.

 

[Brokennock]

For the life of me I can't figure out what the point of the claimed "gloating" was. I took the time and effort to answer the question posed by the OP using actual documentation from the fur trade era. In response (not by the OP) I was basically told that my answer was interesting but irrelevant.

Thinking I misunderstood the OP's question, I took the time to go back and verify what the original question was. I then find that the OP's question was exactly what I thought it was. I respond to the member that dismissed my post only to have them claim they were making sure the "point" (which apparently they missed) was not missed.

Then, instead of apologizing, they claim they were "gloating" with a dismissive "I thank you for your posts" comment. Gloating is "dwelling on one's own success or another's misfortune with smugness or malignant pleasure". While not a desirable trait, "gloating" by definition, in this case does not apply.

"Trolling", which is "the act of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument" is a more fitting definition for what took place.

Unfortunately, over the years, I see responses like this becoming more and more common here. I'll often take considerable time to pore over volumes of documentation in order to verify a quote or to confirm that my answer is accurate.

To have that effort met with a dismissive post is annoying to say the least. Why should I (or any member) take the time to answer questions only to have the response dismissed haphazardly by someone who didn't take the time to review the original question in the first place?

Relax. I was being sincere in thanking you for your post. My gloating comment was partially in jest, and partially in knowing how some would take my pointing out what I thought to be a strong point of your reply.

I most certainly did read and understand the o.p.

 

[FishDFly]

"Please excuse me everyone for actually wanting our history to be portrayed correctly."

Consider how much slang is used here all the time:

!. Front stuffer
2. Rock lock
3. Rock basher
4. Etc.

Is it really important what something is called after 8 pages?

Somehow I have trouble believing a group of folks sat around a fire at night debating what their personal possessions were called.

Did they have to leave the fire for using the wrong term?

 

[Coot]

Use of correct terms in any field distinguishes the knowledgeable.

 

[Bob McBride]

There were 4-5 common terms used to describe everything in those days as there is today. It was mostly a regional thing but some were hipster type terms like our [shudder] ‘front stuffer’ or ‘rock lock’. It’s not important what something is called necessarily but to properly understand something in its context, you must be able to name it specifically. As a ‘hunting pouch’ wasn’t the only bag carried on occasion by our ancestors, so the names of those items weren't interchangeable. That said, getting into the weeds historically isn’t everyone’s cup of ‘joe’, ‘java’, ‘brew’ or ‘perk’ and there will always be two views on this. IMO.

 

[FishDFly]

Very well articulated.

 

[renegadehunter]

I simply refer to mine as my shootin' bag. It has everything I need to shoot, or clear problems that arise so I can keep shooting.
My non muzzle loading brother-in-law calls it my purse of course.

 

[ohio ramrod]

Any nomenclature is better than calling it a purse.

Simple fact ! I have used mine for over thirty years. It was a leather purse I picked up at a flea market for two dollars.

 

[jonathan butcher]

Ain't that the truth. My wife called one of my fav hunting pouches a purse- twice.
I was mortified.

Any nomenclature is better than calling it a purse.

 

[Enfield58]

Ain't that the truth. My wife called one of my fav hunting pouches a purse- twice.
I was mortified.

Try calling your wife by another woman’s name and see how far that gets you.

I double-dog triple dare you with a pinky swear.

 

[toot]

in CALIFONIA it is called a PURSE!

 

[jonathan butcher]

Hahahaha, made me laugh out loud!

Try calling your wife by another woman’s name and see how far that gets you.

I double-dog triple dare you with a pinky swear.

 

[MrMackc]

From an Amazon products search:

Listed as Possibles Bag Kit

Just one example of several listings


One more on Amazon:

 

[Coot]

From an Amazon products search:

Listed as Possibles Bag Kit
View attachment 38985Just one example of several listings


One more on Amazon:

View attachment 38987

The top bag could easily pass as a hippie purse c1970.

 

[shortstart]

Try calling your wife by another woman’s name and see how far that gets you.

I double-dog triple dare you with a pinky swear.

Boy oh boy, I’ll second this ne!

 

[FishDFly]

Try calling your wife by another woman’s name and see how far that gets you.

I double-dog triple dare you with a pinky swear.

Yep, a death wish in the making.