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

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

Expand Messages
  • loom@verizon.net
    Cassandra can also tell you that you are dead on. Spinning was very fine and even. So was the weaving. I have seen thread counts on historical textiles that
    Message 1 of 38 , Sep 1, 2001
      Cassandra can also tell you that you are dead on. Spinning was very
      fine and even. So was the weaving. I have seen thread counts on
      historical textiles that scare me. If cloth was not up to standard,
      the weaver could be fined or put in the stocks w/ the cloth burnt in
      front of him.

      You want to get reeled silk. Consider a mortgage on the house.

      There is not much evidance of hemp being used for clothing. Although
      considering it's odd of surviving... I read of it being more commonly
      used for rope.

      Here is the fiber list. Wool, linen, silk (luxury fabric), cotton
      (luxury fabric, India, Italy), goat hair. All were spun and woven as
      finely as possible. Coaser weaves in wool were for pesants.

      As to perfection, commercial cloth frequently contains imperfections
      also. Just ask any sewer.

      Cassandra of Glastonbury

      --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., unclrashid@a... wrote:
      > --- 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
        --- 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.