Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fabric sources, was: Question on source...

Expand Messages
  • unclrashid@aol.com
    ... not it ... made raw ... down. On ... an ... I m conjecturing here, but I think that raw silk is made by leaving out some of the steps in producing the
    Message 1 of 38 , Sep 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Ii Saburou <logan@m...> wrote:
      > On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, L Joseph wrote:
      >
      > > 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
      not it
      > would have been preferrable to hemp or not.
      >
      > My thinking is that, if they could avoid it, nobody would have
      made 'raw
      > silk' to make garments out of; thus hemp would be the next step
      down. On
      > the other hand, if it was made, then it would seem to logically be
      an
      > 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
      revolution)

      Rashid
      Kass can no doubt tell you whether this is total bunk or not.
    • Lisa
      ... the 16th ... Hmm - pity. I suppose it is only one layer... Lisa
      Message 38 of 38 , Sep 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Danielle Nunn-Weinberg <dannw@m...> wrote:
        > > The only references I have seen have been in the latter part of
        the 16th
        > century so, I think that it would be out for early 16th c.
        >
        > Cheers,
        > Gwendoline

        Hmm - pity. I suppose it is only one layer...

        Lisa
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.