From: Gretchen Miller Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 19:54:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 282, 4/14/95 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 282, April 14, 1995 Send items for the list to h-costume@andrew.cmu.edu (or reply to this message). Send subscription/deletion requests and inquiries to h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu Enjoy! ------------------------------ Topics: Question and answer: Patterns for late 18th C German clothing The Cotton Thread continues Getting rid of mold on period clothing/what was in the trunk :-) Question and answers: Sources for 18th C pewter buttons Question: difference between Irish and Scottish kilt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ladyspnr@aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 15:35:57 -0400 Subject: Women & Children's Clothing I am hoping someone can help with some research I am doing. I am trying to find patterns for clothing in the late 1700's (specifically of German origin if possible) for myself and my two children, (girl - age 10, boy - age 4) I am having a tough time finding actual patterns that I can utilize for the kids. I am a living history re-enactor and I want to be as accurate as possible. It's tough portraying a German colonist in French clothing. Thanks for whatever info anyone can pass on! : ) ------------------------------ From: KATHLEEN@ANSTEC.COM Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 16:36:58 EST Subject: Re: Women & Children's Clothing Have you tried "Rural Pennsylvania Clothing" by Ellen Gehret? I believe it is based on German farm clothing in the 18th century. It's a large paperback book with photos of the pieces and patterns. Very useful. Kathleen kathleen@anstec.com ------------------------------ From: BPH3213@ACS.TAMU.EDU Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 15:59:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Cotton : some primary sources offered. Having been offered nothing substantial in the way of references to support the idea of cotton as a wool yet, I went in search of a few of my own today. The following will be of use to both sides in the cotton debate I would think... 1. Cotton as wool; A primary source: "And where also many straungers inhabytinge in other townshyps and places, have used customably to resorte to the sayd towne of Manchester with a great number of cottons, to be vttered & sold to the inhabitantes of the same towne, to the great profit of all the inhabitantes of the same and therby many poore people have ben well set a worke, as wel with dressyng & frisyng of the sayd cottons, as with putying to sale the same" statute 33 of Henry VIII. c. xv. quoted in Edward Baines (1835) _The History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain_. Another act of 1552 under Edward VI also offers proof of the use of the word cotton to be a wool, but (only in reference to specific phrases): The act for the "true making of woollen cloth" orders "all the cottons called Manchester, Lancahire, and Cheshire cottons shall be in length..." Notice the term cotton is linked to specific kinds though, but still it may denote use of the term in a more general sense in the 16th century. Having found some proof now (since none has been offered yet), we can state with backing that in the *16th* century cotton _could_ mean some kinds of wool. The first quote uses the term in relation to the _procees_ of frising (different from Frieze, the fabric, on occasion), a method to treat wool to raise and curl the nap. However, we are a century earlier than the Cromwellian shirts which began my part in this, and even moreso before the 18th century cottons which I take most interest in. The records still suggest (to me anyway) that by the later 17th and definately the 18th century cotton as a term generally means the fiber, not just on rare occasions does it mean that. Now for some more primary sources on that: 2. Cotton as a plant: As David's post mentions his first observance of the word cotton refers to wool, I thought I would offer my first observance of the word I have come across in England. It comes from Bolton Abbey, in the year 1298: "In sapo et cotoun ad candelam" (quoted in Baines 1835:96). Here it meant, we can safely assume, the fiber. (Ever try to make a candle with wool wicks?). And now for some more primary evidence: By 1641 Manchester has now gone into the cotton (fiber) business: "The town of Manchester...buy(s) cotton wool in London, that comes first from Cyprus and Smyrna, and at home worke the same, and perfect it into fustians, vermillions, dimities, and other such stuffes, and then return it to London, where the same is vented and sold, and not seldom sent into forrain parts..." (Lewes Roberts _The Treasure of Traffic_ 1641:32-33). The Cromwellian shirts mentioned awhile back would fit well into this time frame, and as described (linen and cotton) would certainly be _able_ to be a cotton-linen mix. As David recommended, I tracked down Thomas Fuller's _Worthies of England_. However, I found it helps in the case for cotton as cotton by the mid 17th century rather than the reverse. Fuller stated about fustians: "these retain their old names at this day, though several sorts are made in this country, whose inhabitants, buying the _Cotton Wool or Yarne_, coming from beyond the sea, make it here into fustians, to the good employment of the poor, and the great improvement of the rich therein, serving mean people for their outsides, and their betters for the lineing of their garments. Bolton is the staple-place for this commodity, being brought thither from all parts of the country" (Fuller 1662:537). As the wool merchants were concerned about cotton, here is a petition they sent to Parliament dated 1621: "For about twenty years divers people in this kingdom, but chiefly in the county of Lancaster, have found out the trade of making fustians out of a kind of down, being a fruit of the earth growing on little bushes, or shrubs brought into this kingdom by the Turkey merchants from Smyrna, Cyprus, etc., but commonly called cotton wool and also of linen yarn, and not part of the same fustians of any wool at all. There is at least 40,000 pieces of fustian of this kind yearly made in England, and thousands of people set on working of these fustians" (1621, quoted in M. Crawford _The Heritage of Cotton_ 1948:92). Thus, from the very mouths (ok pens) of the wool industry, we have evidence of a sizeable cotton (the fiber) industry going on as early as 1600-1620 in England. Back to Thomas Fuller of 1662 now: "The Chethams [of Manchester] were the principle buyers [of fustian from Manchester] and the London market was cheifly supplied by them with those materials of apparel, _then in almost general use throughout the nation_". (The Chetham's were prominent in Manchest in the 1630's). So, Fuller states in 1662 that fustians (with cotton fiber content) were becoming rather popular by the time of the English Civil War in some parts of England. Altogether, I still maintain there is a large body of evidence to suggest that cotton typically meant the fiber by the mid 17th century. The dictionaries of the period call it a plant fiber, contemporary writings refer to it as a plant fiber, and legal petitions mention it as a plant fiber. If we talk about times _before_ the mid 17th century, then yes, look into types of wools. We cannot, however, dismiss cotton as a possibility after the 17th century is underway. That is not to say it displaced established cloths at that time, but it was most certainly becoming more available and has left us a record of its use. Bryan P. Howard bph3213@acs.tamu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 15:33:25 PST From: Loren_Dearborn@casmail.calacademy.org (Loren Dearborn) Subject: Re: Cotton : some primary sources offered. "For about twenty years divers people in this kingdom, but chiefly in the county of Lancaster, have found out the trade of making fustians out of a kind of down, being a fruit of the earth growing on little bushes, or shrubs brought into this kingdom by the Turkey merchants from Smyrna, Cyprus, etc., but commonly called cotton wool and also of linen yarn, and not part of the same fustians of any wool at all. There is at least 40,000 pieces of fustian of this kind yearly made in England, and thousands of people set on working of these fustians" (1621, quoted in M. Crawford _The Heritage of Cotton_ 1948:92). Thus, from the very mouths (ok pens) of the wool industry, we have evidence of a sizeable cotton (the fiber) industry going on as early as 1600-1620 in England. If they call the cotton "Cotton Wool" couldn't this also mean that some of the references to wool or cotton wool could also be references to cotton? Just a thought...The whole cotton question is fascinating to me, thanks for all the great information folks! Loren Dearborn ldearborn@calacademy.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 17:37:11 EDT From: (David W. Rickman) Subject: Sigh, cotton. Hello, This is getting rather tedious, don't you think? I seem to have to keep repeating what I wrote in the original post. If you think you have read this before, you probably have. In what follows, an arrow > indicates a quote Bryan makes from my last night's post. These are followed by Bryan's responses. My responses to Bryan will then follow, marked with an *. >when the term "cotton" is used in reference to textiles (as opposed to fibres) in early documents (i.e. prior to the late 18th century), these more than likely mean a type of rough woolen cloth, and not what we today assume is meant by cotton; a textile made from cotton _fibre_. Again we have the assertion, but no _references_ are offered to back this up. PLEASE share your references and citations with us. They would be of great value to all concerned. For my research that part of the arguement for or against is crucial. We have heard several second hand sources mentioned, but none which I can stow away in my files as a verifiable source yet. I would like to see these (hopefully primary) sources which will tell us "cotton" must mean wool in the 17th and 18th century, and not cotton. I'm not trying to nit-pick, I *really* want to see references along this line as I keep hearing about them, but haven't come across one yet. *And I really thought I gave my references which back these up. You can check my last night's message for details, but here they are again: - "An English Dictionary" 1676, which Bryan cited, gives as its _first_ definition of "cotton" the word "frize" which is, in fact, "frieze" which is, of course, wool. -We know frieze or frize is wool because Thomas Fuller's _Worthies of England_ 1662 defines frieze as a fabric produced in Wales, "than which none warmer to be worn in winter..." Now, I suppose he could mean some fabric other than wool, and which is warmer than wool, but what would that be? -Not until 1757 does the quote given by Bryan from an English dictionary, list "cotton" as a "stuff" or fabric made from the cotton plant. -However, "cotton," at least in the textile trade, must have continued to mean, at least some of the time, wool, well after 1757. In 1822, James Butterworth, in his _Antiquities of the Town, and a Complete History of the Trade of Manchester_ wrote of "Kendal cottons, a manufacture which has subsisted now near five centuries,...made entirely of wool, and that of the coarsest kind." He goes on to say that this fabric is similar to one produced in Wales (see Fuller quote above). If these references and citations from original sources are not enough to back up my assertion that "cotton" meant _wool_ from the 14th century to as late as 1822, I really do not know what else I can do. If someone out there still thinks that "cotton" could mean a _textile_ made from bombast (cotton wool) at any time from the 14th century to 1757, I will happily look at their sources. The ball is no longer in my court. >Bryan gives us the quote from the 1676 "An English Dictionary"... but he did not look up "frize." Actually, I did look up frize and frieze in the 1676 dictionary. No definition was offered in my post as I could not find that word in that dictionary. I also looked it up in _Fairchild's Dictionary of Textiles_ and was informed frieze can be of cotton as well as wool. Granted this dictionary is not period, but the only ones I have at hand tonight (Spence's 1775 and Sheridan's 1780 dictionaries) both state frieze to simply be "a sort of coarse warm cloth". No mention as to fiber content. *The absence of frize in the same dictionary where it is used as a definition is inconclusive. The fact that we have an earlier source defining frieze as a cloth which must be wool is enough. And if Spence and Sheridan both describe frieze as "a sort of coarse warm cloth" isn't it likely that they mean wool? Linen and cotton have many fine qualities, but warmth is seldom one ascribed to them. >I believe that it is clear by now that in England and America by the 17th century, the word "cotton" meant several things: a fiber from the "bombast" plant, a woolen cloth, and a process for raising the nap of that same woolen cloth by "cottoning". But did "cotton" mean a _textile_? Agreed, it had several meanings. But from all I've seen, yes, a _textile_ was one of them. *Again, the ball is in your court. Remember though, we're talking at least 17th century here. >fustian, a linen and almost unspun cotton textile was manufactured in England had to do with the difficulty and expense northern Europeans found in making a strong cotton warp... Linen and cotton...wasn't that how the Cromwell shirts were described? *Kathleen gave the original citation, and I believe that she said that the shirts were of linen and cotton. But watch the inflection here. It does not necessarily mean "these shirts were made from a combination of linen and cotton." Why would they, when the common word for that was "fustian?" And without evidence that "cotton" meant, in the 17th century, a textile made from the cotton plant, such an interpretation would be quite risky. I believe that two different fabrics are meant here, not a blend. I did find a quote in the Oxford English Dictionary from Richard Hakluyt, the early 17th century chronicler of sea voyages and explorers, that reads simply "cloathes of cotton and bombast." I hesitated to cite this as a source because it is secondary and incomplete, and because I haven't had a chance to look up the original. However, here is an example of cotton listed alongside bombast, and so a distinction is made between the two. If bombast is, as the dictionary says, cotton, then what does Hakluyt mean by _cotton_? By the way, it was established in an earlier post of mine that cotton textiles were imported in quantity by the East India Company after 1600, but in the early days they were used as a cheap substitute for linen in such mundane roles as sailcloth and wrapping cargoes. Since this quote probably describes sailors (given Hakluyt's subject) this use of "bombast" or Indian cotton, as clothing is not to be considered reflective of what landsmen were wearing at this same time. Sailors traditionally have made clothing from scraps of sails. >Nathalie Rothstein wrote an article on the anti-calico campaign of 1719-21 called "Calico Campaign," in _East London Papers_ 7 (1964):3-21, concerning the economic and social upheaval caused by cheap cotton imports from India into Britain. The results were tariffs and anti-import laws. Thanks for the reference citation. I can look it up. However, I might ask if this implies (since I haven't read it yet) cotton textiles (imported) _were_ becoming widespread enough as to be able to cause a problem? (Elsewise why the fuss?). Yes, I did mention in an earlier post that by 1670 Indian cotton textiles of the finer sort were begining to replace fine lawns and cambrics in many English wardrobes. Many of these fine linens were also imports, from Europe, but there must have been pain enough in the British textile industry to make tariffs and bans desirable. However, the greatest fear was of _printed_ cottons, for that was something the British linen industry could not compete against. Linen prints poorly compared to cotton, and if cotton wore out more quickly than linen, printed cottons were just too attractive to consumers. >Bryan comments on the availability of cotton as a textile. While cotton may have been _available_ in England and America in the 17th century, (most certainly after the charter of the East India Company in 1600), there was more than just trade regulations which kept cottons from displacing linens... I never claimed cotton displaced linen or wool. Re-read the posts. I merely pointed out that the word cotton may actually mean cotton and was therefore apparently available. Wool was, in my opinion, the most widely used fabric in all American Colonial and British society of the periods with which we speak. Let us not forget the difference between saying a fabric was displacing one and saying it was there. *Nor did I say you claimed this. I simply stated that it was linen's greater economy that kept cotton from displacing it for quite some time. My point was intended for others who might wonder just why Indian cotton textiles didn't displace linen sooner. >For many purposes, cotton was considered a shoddy fabric, which, while cheaper, did not have the durability of linen. Quality was also never an issue in my posts, but if it were cheaper would it not be tempting to import for slaves and servants use? Those I study are of these stations, and that is where the term cotton appears so frequently in the 18th century. *Again, the point was intended for others. However, if you were a plantation owner and could get cheap, durable woolen cloth from England to clothe your slaves in, why would you want Indian cotton? Cotton would not keep them warm, and there are times, even in the American South and the Caribbean, when this is an issue. Cotton would wear out far more quickly than wool and would have to be replaced. I should emphasize that warmth and durability were likely the only important criteria in the plantation owner's choice of a fabric for his slaves...decency was not. Cotton or linen would have covered their nakedness, but it would not keep them warm. When it was warm enough to dispense with woolen clothing, then the slaves went mostly naked, at least through most of the 18th century. Admittedly, this is mostly reasoned speculation, backed up by period descriptions and depictions. As for the frequent mention of "cotton" as a textile imported into the slave-holding colonies, why not accept Butterworth's word that this was a woolen fabric? I do not doubt that you will find in your records plenty of cotton fabrics as imports to 18th century Virginia, but listed under such names as "calico," "gingham," "nainsook" and the like, and not generically as "cotton." Similarly, I wouldn't expect you to find woolen fabrics listed as "wool" but rather as such things as "flannel," "serge," "shag," "stroud," and even just "woolens." And that has been the point of this exercise, to separate the name of the fiber from the name of the fabric when reading original source accounts, and to discourage modern associations when reading such words as "cotton." > Thus, as late as 1838, _The Workwoman's Guide_ lists various linen fabrics...often without mentioning cotton at all. But now we must determine when the word "linen" began to be a generic term for fabrics of more than flax content. It is my understanding (though I may be wrong) that by the date of the guide, linen was already starting to be used less exactingly. Could linen by then apply to a variety of fiber contents, including the elusive cotton? *The ball is in your court. >experts of our day write in books and tell me in person that cotton in the modern sense was not a common textile in Europe and America until the late 18th century, simply because there is no evidence that it was. Back to my original request. Where can I find these expert opinions on the subject of cotton meaning wool? I would be greatly appreciative if someone could list a few of these. If any have been offered, I guess I must have missed them. *I suggest first you read Florence Montgomery's _Textiles in America, 1650 - 1870_ if you haven't already. I mentioned in the first post, the one you responded to initially, that I gathered most of my information there. You might also write to Florence Montgomery, who is still alive and living in Connecticut, though quite elderly. Still hale and hearty, though, is Nathalie Rothstein, who can probably be reached via the Victoria and Albert Museum, though she is retired. She was just a guest in my home, but I am not at liberty to give her address. While here, she was researching import lists for textiles to America, as well as lecturing on 18th century silks. >Perhaps timing causes most of this lengthy discussion. As I stated earlier, my interest is the mid to late 18th century, and that is the period upon which I primarily base my opinions. Maybe we should try and limit sections of this thread to more specific times and places, so they don't get so long in the future. (My preferences are 1760 to 1780 in Virginia, but I'm willing to explore!) *And I hope you do, Bryan. However, I feel a bit like Conan Doyle, trying to kill off his creation. I am _not_ an expert on this subject, the Trans- Mississipi West prior to 1860 is my particular specialty, though I am interested in practically everything. I think I have made the point I set out to, and until someone revitalizes this discussion with new research, I'm out of here. David p.s. to Kathleen. Yes, you've got me there, denim was originally a woolen cloth. But I _had_ intended the remark humorously. And hey, wasn't that _my_ point originally; that words do not mean now what they once meant? And no, I never thought you wished to supplant wool and linen with cotton, just as I never said that "they never wore it." Really, I didn't. Like you, I am waiting for someone else to come along and tell me just who _did_ wear cotton and when and where. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 20:21:18 EDT From: (David W. Rickman) Subject: Cotton Hello, In response to Loren, I did mention in my first posting Florence Montgomery's citing of the Dutch and Walloon emigrants to England importing the Italian craft of making "fustians of Naples" in 1554. Nevertheless, fustians were originally made of linen/wool, from at least 1336. Because wool was more common and more durable than cotton (bombast), Nathalie Rothstein tells me that fustian continued also to be made of that combination long after the linen/cotton innovation was introduced. There is no way to know just how sizable this linen/cotton fustian industry was, in these early centuries, because both versions of this fabric were called by the same name. David ------------------------------ From: Esante1958@aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 21:07:19 -0400 Subject: moldy situation Hello; Since the Vintage fashions mailing list has been closed. I can not get an answer from that group. And I need help with this situation before the new group is formed. Problem. . .I have aquired 3 dresses from 1925-27. They came out of an old trunk. They smell very moldy. Not mildew, not moth balls, but mold. I have washed them by hand with a mild soap. But i know there must be a product out there that will kill the mold or atleast mask the smell a bit. I need these dresses for a fashion show I am putting on soon. Can anyone give me an idea of what I need to do next? This same trunk had 3 quilt tops from the same time period. I gave them to a quilting fanatic. There was also a world war I navy uniform complete with underwear. Fun trunk to go through but made me sneeze alot. Even found a school costume for the little girl. It dates from 1927. She was a daffodil in the school play. It was made from crepe paper and netting. Great condition. Good for my collection. Thanks for your suggestions. Mary ------------------------------ From: SKROGH@aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 23:46:48 -0400 Subject: Pewter buttons I'm making late 18th century(1770-1780) breeches and waistcoat for my husband. Now that they're almost done, he's decided that he wants "period correct" plain pewter buttons on them. Can anyone recommend a source for these buttons? Resources for 18th century goods are virtually nonexistent here in California. Thanks, Sharon ------------------------------ From: P_SHERYL@KCPL.LIB.MO.US Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 9:44:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Pewter buttons Sharon wrote: >Can anyone recommend a source for these buttons? Jas. Townsend & Sons carries plain pewter buttons like that. They are a mail order company that specializes in costuming supplies, etc. for living history re-enactors and similar people. The seem to carry a lot of items that you might be able to use. I am at work now so I don't have the address on hand. I'll look it up and post it tomorrow. The catalog is free. My friends & I have had very good service from them. Sheryl J. Nance p_sheryl@kcpl.lib.mo.us ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 11:04:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "Johanna R. Forte" Subject: Re: Pewter buttons Sharon: In regards to finding pewter buttons, there is a company called Amazon Dry Goods that most probably will have what you need. Unfortunately, I am not in my office and do not have ready access to that address. If this is an immediate need can anyone else provide the address and phone number? I will be back on Good Friday and can provide the address then. Have fun! Johanna Forte Kutztown University ------------------------------ From: BPH3213@ACS.TAMU.EDU Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 10:39:23 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Pewter button source online Jas. Townsend has their catalog avialable online. Flat pewter buttons go for 35 and 45 cents each. To see the catalog try http://www.jastown.com/townsend/ I have many other sources if you want them, but these are the least expensive I have coome across. G. Gedney Godwin's carries a larger array of styles though, and last time I ordered (awhile ago) they ran from 40 to 50 cents each. (215) 783-0670. Tidy's also has plain pewter flat buttons, but they are rather expensive comparatively, running 60 cents to $1 each. Dixie Gun Works carries some nice hand made brass or silver buttons with hand soldered eyes for about $1.10 each if you want to go with something other than pewter. I can give more complete address and numbers if need be. Bryan H bph3213@acs.tamu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 11:07:00 -0500 (CDT) From: Deb Subject: RE: Pewter buttons Jas. Townsend & Son, Inc. 1-800-338-1665 certainly has pewter buttons and is extremely reputable. WWW address http://www.jastown.com/townsend/ Also (I mentioned this in a private email) if you scan the back archives of this digest, I listed 7 or 8 "pewter button" and "shell button" vendors a few months ago. <============================================================== < Deb Baddorf Fermilab, MS220 Arthurian,Inkling,&Regency buff Baddorf@fnal.gov PO Box 500 Costumer, RevWar re-enactor Baddorf@fnal.bitnet Batavia, IL 60510 MAC Q605 w/ IIe emulator & FPU ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 16:18:37 -0600 (MDT) From: "Carol E. Newby" Subject: another Kilt question .... I have been wondering what the difference is between a Scottish kilt and an Irish kilt. I'm hoping someone here will be able to shed some light on the subject as I have researched as thoroughly as my local resources allow. (Being in the SouthWest it is *very* difficult to find sources on highland/scottish/irish garb.) thanks, Carol * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Unless you are the lead dog, /\_/\ The view is always the same." > < > ^ ^ < source: bumper sticker >(_o_)< U ------------------------------ End of Volume 281 -----------------------