|
Posted by Kate XXXXXX on October 29, 2007, 8:00 pm
Candide wrote:
>>> 36" wide. And on reflection, it's a bit to ... exuberant
>>> to make clothing without approval from the recipient.
>>>
>>> Lovely hand, cotton. Robert Kaufman Co. (on the selvage)
>>> Pillowcases maybe. (But I've got more than 5 yards)
>>>
>>> Some kind of lightweight comforter? With a solid alternate.
>>>
>>> Want to move this one out of the stash.
>> If it has nice print, how about making dinner napkins and give out as
>> holiday gifts of 6 napkins each? If you have embroidery machine, you
>> can monogram as well.
>
>
> Just to mention, large sheets are rather a recent invention. Up until
> about the 1800's or so sheets larger than what we would call "twin" or
> perhaps "double" were made by sewing narrower lengths of fabric together
> with one long seam down the middle. When the sheets began to wear down
> the centre, the seam was opened up and the sheet turned "sides to
> middle", and sewn together again. Highly doubt anyone today would sleep
> on sheets made that way today though.
>
> This also explains why vintage sheets in large or very large sizes go
> for vast sums, being that they are so rare and all. Oh, the reason for
> sheets being so narrow was simply looms were not invented yet that could
> produce very wide expanses of linen.
>
> Candide
>
>
They did have wider looms before 1800. Wool, for example, was woven up
to 120" wide in the 18th C and fulled down to 60" wide for Melon cloth.
Wider looms became more common when powered looms came in, but they
were certainly about before then. It's just that for anything much more
than 27" (common still for hand woven silk and Harris tweed), you needed
two people and a MUCH bigger space!
--
Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
|