PACHESTE-L Archives
Archiver > PACHESTE > 1999-08 > 0933808684
From: <>
Subject: Re: Fw: relative money values
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:18:04 EDT
In a message dated 08/04/1999 6:59:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:
> >Don't kid yourself about the value of linen. It was probably more valuable
> >then than it is today. And clothing was a valuable commodity, left in
> wills
> >to family members who were mighty glad to get them. The time involved in
> >the manufacture of linen cloth for clothing was terribly time consuming,
> and
> >so clothes were cut down, pieced, reworked until there was little left.
> >Then it was used for the children. Linen was not a poor man's fabric in
> the
> >18th century. I use to give workshops on 18th century fabrics and period
> >clothing.... and linen was the basis of all wardrobes. All undergarments,
> >petticoats, chemises, shifts, etc...all were linen, along with men's
shirts
> >and undergarments. Coats were lined with it, and many outer garments were
> made of it.....cotton was the luxury fabric, as it was so very difficult to
> >process before the cotton gin! How times change.
Sandy,
Having made MANY reproduction 18th century garments from stays to gowns, it
is the time and labor involved in its production rather than the textile
itself that was really of value. And actually cotton was relatively
affordable, especially in larger cities. My research has been on textiles
available in the Philadelphia area, and EVERYthing was available for any
price, high and low. It is beginning to be seen that cotton was worn much
more often than previously thought because not only was it the same price or
lower than linen, it was easier to keep clean. 18th century newspaper ads
demonstrate that surprisingly, imported linens and imported cottons (little
cotton was being produced here until after the Rev. War.) were about the same
in price. In rural Chester County, commercial weaving of linen was a huge
source of income, yet the price does not reflect the labor involved in just
warping the loom (oh, how I hate warping even my tapeloom!)
Runaway servant ads reveal that female indentured servants in Phila. wore
almost as much cotton as they did linen; most indentured servants lived in
middling sort families. Wool, primarily because of the temperatures in
Phila., were not as much worn here as they were in New England. Linen was in
Phila. and the surrounding vicinity relatively cheap.
It took me three weeks to make a sack back ballgown and that was using a
sewing machine. My shortgowns, shifts, caps, petticoats (what we call skirts)
are almost all made by hand. I haven't timed it precisely, but I've made two
or three shortgowns completely by hand that took me about two weeks; however,
numerous diary entries from the 18th and 19th century reveal that women could
turn out a man's shirt or a woman's shift in a day! Guess they didn't have to
worry about going to the office. And many of the women who had the leisure to
keep journals also had the servants to mind the house and children, so it's
difficult to ascertain the time issue.
Not many clothing inventories exist for Chester County, but those that do
often differentiate between old and new clothes. Ads for runaways refer to a
wide variety of new, good, worn, half-worn, and old clothing. So, as with the
money, the value of clothing was relative.
Karen
This thread: