Poirier’s (Duluth) # 1 pack size

[Boreal Birch]

Anyone have the dimensions of the original # 1 size of Camille Poirier’s pack sack (Duluth & Frost River’s original inventor). I have a book, someplace that lists them all, but in my dotage I can’t remember title or where it might be. I have the original sized #3 & #2 but am thinking that the #1 might be nice for a fly fishing bag. To carry my waders, fishing gear, and tea/coffee brew kit. I currently use the Duluth Pack’s Rambler pack which is probably a better pack for my purposes, although doesn’t look at all like a Poitier’s original.
Off to the catacombs to search for Cal Rutstrum’s books.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

Anyone have the dimensions of the original # 1 size of Camille Poirier’s pack sack

This sparked my curiosity, but I don't yet find a #1 designation or the dimensions.

Here is the U.S. patent granted to Camille Poirier in 1882 (the actual patent being in the downloadable PDF):

US268932A - Pack-strap - Google Patents

patents.google.com

Neither the illustration or text of the patent states dimensions. Here is the illustration in the patent:



The following biography of Camille Poirier on the Duluth Pack website . . .

Celebrating 139 Years In Business - To Our Founding Father, Camille Poirier - The Pack Report

Duluth Pack was founded in 1882 by a French-Canadian immigrant by the name of Camille Poirier. He was a well-respected man with an inspiring story. This story began in Montreal and ended in Duluth, MN, USA. The hardships of Camille Poirier, perhaps, more importantly, his overcoming of adversity...

www.duluthpack.com

. . . says that: "The 59-liter pack came in the Olive Drab colorway that we still use today. The original design is sold on our site to this day" as the #2 Pack (with dimensions):

#2 Original Pack - 59L

Check out the deal on #2 Original Pack - 59L at Duluth Pack

www.duluthpack.com

This sort of implies that there would have been a #1 pack, but I don't find any called that on the Duluth Pack site or anywhere else yet.

 

[Boreal Birch]

Thanks Administrator MacGrady…..
I spent the greater part of Sunday looking for a link too. Spent a hour this morning looking through boxes of old books that I have stored away.
I did however make headway on sorting out the chaff from the grain. I have four photocopy paper boxes full of books I will not read again, loaded into my truck to take to the Fairbanks Literary Council, on my next trip to town, My wife will be so proud of me.
Also found a small Bergan’s of Norway frame pack that folds out, into a stool, that I had forgotten I had. It will should be ideal for my day trip adventurers of fly fishing for Arctic Grayling, Cloudberry, Blueberry and Lingonberry picking and general puttzing around in the woods.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

Well, something else is obvious. The illlustration in the 1882 patent clearly shows a chest strap. The current Duluth #2 doesn't have a chest strap. Nor do the pictures of "original" Poirier packs in any of the following three blogs (the third being @Murat V's outstanding site) show a pack complete with a chest strap:

1882 Camille Poirier Duluth Pack Sack A1 backpack

The (supposed) Holy Grail! (of the backpack world.) French-Canadian Camille Poirier arrived in Duluth, Minnesota in 1870, set up...

warymeyers.blogspot.com

DULUTH PACK – PATENTED BY C.POIRIER (1882) – The Vintage Showroom Ltd

thevintageshowroom.com

1882 Duluth Poirier Pack - US $100,000

For those traditional canoeists who want a piece of historic gear, I came across this EBAY listing for a circa 1882 canvas Poirier Pack, th...

paddlemaking.blogspot.com

P

 

[Boreal Birch]

Haven’t seen the umbrella attachment that was part of the original patent either. For that matter haven’t seen many umbrellas outside of bigger cities. I once met a man from the British Isles that had dual purpose walking staff/umbrella well off the beaten track on the Seward Peninsula, Northeast of Nome, Alaska. He was a birder in search of some rare Eurasian species that I have forgotten the name of.
The other umbrella user I remember, was a moose hunter sitting on a knoll over looking a moosie spot. He had a large doorman’s umbrella open over him, keeping off the cold September rain. I have thought of buying one of those big umbrellas many times, usually when out in a cold rain far from shelter.

 

[Boreal Birch]

I believe that the Frost River Packs are much better than the current Duluth Pack Company’s product. If I were buying a new pack today it would most likely a Frost River brand or if I wanted grace, beauty & durability, I would go with a Jane Barron crafted, Alder Stream Canvas pack.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

Haven’t seen the umbrella attachment that was part of the original patent either.

Good catch. The chest strap was on sliders so that apparatus could have been lost from the packs pictured in the three blogs above. But the umbrella strap-loop looks like it was sewn onto a leather patch on the flap. That patch should have remained. I conclude that none of the packs pictured in the blogs was the same pack that was submitted for the original patent. I wonder if someone actually paid $100,000 in 2009 for that one in Murat's blog. (Do new ones cost about that much now?)

Murat's research also says that Poirier put metal plates carrying the date Nov. 10, 1882, on packs he made from 1882 to 1911, when he sold out to Duluth Tent and Awning. That date is confusing. The patent was applied for earlier, on October 11, 1882, and was issued later, on December 12, 1882. So the real "original" treasure would be the pack illustrated in the October 11, 1882, patent application. If I ever get one, I promise to sell it for less than $100,000.

 

[Boreal Birch]

Glenn……
Interesting thing about the chest strap on Poirier’s pack sack. Most modern back packs, even some day packs have the equivalent sternum strap to keep the pack straps from slipping out of place. I also read somewhere about helping with load distribution or something like that. My memory berry is full, doesn’t store information that it once did. What information it has, it doesn’t want to retrieve in nanoseconds or for days on end. Much of storage area is filled with old radio frequencies, climb rates, fuel consumption and maximum air speed with afterburner, of now obsolete military aircraft.
………Birchy

 

[Mark Z]

In Calvin Rutstrum's book, The New Way of the Wilderness, page 129, he lists "Packsacks are made in the following sizes:
No. 1---24" x 26"
No. 2---26" x 28"
No. 3---28" x 30"

 

[Boreal Birch]

Thanks Mark Z, very much appreciated. Calvin Rutstrum should be put up for Sainthood.
As the packsacks went up in number they increased by two inches in each direction. I noticed that my #2 seemed really small compared to the #3. I would have never guessed that it would only be as little as two inches. I never have laid them side by side, prior to this morning.
The people in Northeastern Minnesota where the iron mines are, referred to those of us that moved there to work in the mines as packsacker’s. You could live there fifty years, still be viewed as an outsider and somewhat suspicious. Stealing jobs from the locals children. I met a a man, that worked as a welder in the Crusher. He was a fisherman, hunter & trapper in his time away from his mining job. He had been there many years and an excellent welder, to the other miners he was an outsider and would always be one. He took me under his wing. He taught me many Finnlander ways, single portages, what a Puukko, how to make Finnish fish head stew and was a great mentor in many other things. We took canoes all over the Superior/Quetico country, fishing, hunting, berry and wild rice picking on our days off. He took me to a small mom and pop store out in the country that sold gas, tires, minnows and canoe camping gear with only a small markup. He helped me select my first Duluth pack sack there, a #3, that I still have and use today, fifty some odd years later.
…….BB

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

In Calvin Rutstrum's book, The New Way of the Wilderness, page 129, he lists "Packsacks are made in the following sizes:
No. 1---24" x 26"
No. 2---26" x 28"
No. 3---28" x 30"

Does Rutstrum's book say which of those dimensions are Height and Width, and does he state the Depth?

Here is the current line of Duluth Packs of the original envelope style (no pockets), canoe-sized packs from the current website. (There are many less voluminous packs or ones with side pockets.) I've listed them by increasing volume. Is it possible to match these up by what we know about Poirier or from Rutstrum?

24H x 24 W x 6D = #60 Utility Pack 57L
25H x 24W x 6D = #2 Original Pack 59L
26H x 28W x 5D = #3 Original Pack 60L
26H x 28 W x 6D = #4 Original Pack 72L (on edit: not pure envelope, has side panels)
29H x 28W x 6D = Paul Bunyan Pack 80L (not pure envelope, has side panels)
26H x 28W x 7D = #3-70 Utility Pack 84L

 

[Mark Z]

Glenn,
Rutstrum does not say which dimension is height and width and gives no depth since the pack is the envelope style with no sides.. However, the picture on his previous page shows a pack which appears to be higher than wide. That picture is a perspective view and so the width may be foreshortened. In that picture, the straps are inset from the sides, unlike the Duluth website where the straps come down from the flap alongside the edges of the body. From the website picture it is obvious the pack is wider than high. I might speculate that Duluth's current pack is not a perfect copy of the original but has been altered to suit current fabric sizes and manufacturing techniques. Only someone with a pack from the original 1940's-1950's era might be able to tell us for sure.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

Rutstrum does not say which dimension is height and width and gives no depth since the pack is the envelope style with no sides.

That's an interesting point. How does Duluth currently advertise depths of 5, 6 and 7 inches if the all the packs, except Bunyan as far as I can tell, are envelope? I suppose if two packs had the same height, one with greater width could be expanded further into a greater "depth" in the middle. However, the Original #2 and #3 show the opposite phenomenon: the wider #3 has one inch less depth than the narrower #2. Even more confusing, the #3 and #4 are both 26H x 28W, but the #4 is an inch deeper. How can that be?

From the website picture it is obvious the pack is wider than high.

Not sure which website pack picture you mean. Some of the current Duluths are higher than wide while others are opposite. The Original #2 at 25H x 24W seems the closest to Rutstrum's Pack 1 if we assume it's 26H x 24W.

I might speculate that Duluth's current pack is not a perfect copy of the original but has been altered to suit current fabric sizes and manufacturing techniques. Only someone with a pack from the original 1940's-1950's era might be able to tell us for sure.

I agree.

Maybe it's worth a call to Duluth to ask about my depth confusion, though.

 

[Boreal Birch]

The envelope packs would only list a height & width. Packs with a depth measurement are box packs, which are a different critter, and according many old time woodsmen are inferior as packs. The added depth pulling out and down on the packer.
My # 2 pack measured a finished size of 24 X 24 inches moments ago. With a flap length of 12 inches. Cut size of the canvas was 25 X 25 inches. I am sure that as Mark Z pointed out the sizes of the pack have changed due to fabric size and manufacturing techniques.The entire pack is constructed of one piece of canvas 41 X 25 inches, with a somewhat lighter canvas sewn into the inside back of the pack to add some strength to where the top of the shoulder straps are riveted onto some lighter weight sewn leather strengthening strips. All straps and buckles have interior leather patches for adding strength to them also.
Alas, she has no umbrella attachment strap.
…….BB

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

Even more confusing, the #3 and #4 are both 26H x 28W, but the #4 is an inch deeper. How can that be?

Wikipedia shows a picture of the Duluth #4 and it has side panels, which were not apparent to me from the website pictures. So, not an envelope style. I'll edit my list above to note this.