Re: Fabric sources, was: Question on source...
- --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Ii Saburou <logan@m...> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, L Joseph wrote:not it
> > If you mean the slubby stuff that smells funny, Kass
> > always says no, that raw silk or silk noil would've
> > been considered full of imperfections and therefore,
> > not desirable. She'd probably be able to tell you
> > more.
> That's what I had thought. However, I was considering whether or
> would have been preferrable to hemp or not.made 'raw
> My thinking is that, if they could avoid it, nobody would have
> silk' to make garments out of; thus hemp would be the next stepdown. On
> the other hand, if it was made, then it would seem to logically bean
> intermediate fabric. I just can't say.I'm conjecturing here, but I think that "raw silk" is made by leaving
out some of the steps in producing the thread. So it's not as if it
is what happens when trying to produce a better quality and it just
didn't make the grade (except maybe with student spinners &
weavers). Therefore I would think that it is something that has to
be intentionally produced, and if they didn't like it, they probably
wouldn't go out of their way to make it.
Just as a general rule of textiles, the "slight imperfections" we now
regard as a sign of quality since they mean a real live person made
something, have only been considered a sign of quality for the past
40 years or so. Prior to the industrial revolution, when everything
was handwoven, "perfection" was considered a sign of quality. Only
after a hundred years or so of mass produced "perfection" for the
masses did it become necessary to find other signs of quality to
distinguish between the rich and the not rich. (sort of like the
role reversal that being tan went through after the industrial
Kass can no doubt tell you whether this is total bunk or not.
- --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Danielle Nunn-Weinberg <dannw@m...> wrote:
> > The only references I have seen have been in the latter part ofthe 16th
> century so, I think that it would be out for early 16th c.Hmm - pity. I suppose it is only one layer...