Stats Wrap-Up: Stitch Analysis

first draft;

I am often asked about which stitches were used when on caps.  There’s a theory afloat about which stitches are likely to be earlier and which are likely to be later. I can never keep it straight.  So I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything here; I just know it’s a question, and here’s my data.

The gathered CF ruffle of DAR 1203

I did a quick and dirty run down of this on Facebook a couple years ago in the “Historically Accurate 18th and early 19th Century Sewing” group. That group is retired now; but I can still get to the archive. Perhaps you can only see it if you were a member, but a lot of my readers were.  Still, it’s OK if you can’t get back to see that, because now I’m going to go back and be more careful.

First of all, we are talking about only 13 caps.  I saw more than 100, and started off saying there were about 30 for the time period, but in the end I’m only betting on these 13 as being 18th C. I have described them all in the posts on this blog. (I started by counting a whole set of caps that were dated 1800-, allowing for wiggle room, but in the end I decided not to include them because there were differences that seemed to attach to the date.)

I’ve laid these out earlier to later (museum date) in the chart below. Remember, it’s a small data set.

Also, there are many places where a cap is stitched, and most caps are put together with several different stitches.

I’ve tried to make a nice, easy, chart here. I had trouble, as you can see, with spacing; it still looks bulky on the page, so here’s a Word Doc for you, too: stitch chart rev

chart of stitches used in 18th Centurycaps on this blog

 

Can we draw any conclusions here?  We might say that the earlier the cap, the more often the gather on the caul is likely to be a stroke gather. On the other hand, several of these have no gather, or are constructed so there is no join. And the ruffles in all these examples are whipped gathered, so it doesn’t mean they weren’t using that stitch.

Why did they use so many different methods and stitches? I think it is because joining the caul to the headpiece is much more complicated than adding a ruffle.  To add a ruffle, I make a straight piece with a whipped edge that can be pulled to a gather at any point, and I whip that piece in place.  To join a caul to a headpiece, I have to switch from gather to finished edge somehow without creating bulk; the transition is awkward.  Then, I wonder why every edge isn’t whipped?

Anyway, there’s my data.  Enjoy.

“Squared” Caps, Early and Late

1st draft; pics rev. wrote to alexis today. This is the last cap description.

Caps with a simple rectangle for a headpiece appear early and late in the 18th C.  This cap is probably an early one, but with so little to compare it to, it’s best guesses all around.  Its home is the McCord Museum in Montreal, Canada, #M980.4.26. It does not have an online record. The museum dates this cap as “late 17th? or early 18th” Century. If that’s true, it is the oldest cap I have found.

The Original

This one is very simple: a half-circle caul of linen attached to a rectangle of lace for a headpiece.  A tape gathers the caul at the nape, as is common.

Cap McCord Museum #M980.4.26 photo by author. A rectangular headpiece of lace marks this cap as early (or late?) 18th C.
The lace headpiece will help us date the cap, perhaps?

The large size assures me this is an adult cap: 9″ high by 9.5″ from back to front edge.  The caul is made of two pieces, felled together down the center back line, with about 10 big stitches per inch.  The front edge of the caul is hemmed back with a 3/8″ seam. There aren’t any gathers sewn in.  The only gather is the drawstring along the bottom, which isn’t drawn through any casing in the cloth, but caught up within a looped string.  Two tapes, anchored at opposite ends, pull across one another through these loops to effect the gather.

The headpiece is a rectangle of lace with a motif of birds and flowers. Is is whipped onto the caul with big uneven stitches. The bottom edge is finished with another piece of lace sewn on that is about 1/2″ wide; the front is edged with a piece that is about 1/4 wide.  This makes me think the large lace piece is cut on those edges. One of the points has a small loop – for a tie or button? Please someone who knows lace come behind me here and help with the lace description!

 

 

Cap McCord Museum #M980.4.26 photo by author.. Close-up of inside of join of headpiece and caul shows unusual drawstring arrangement.
At the join of the headpiece and caul (inside), the arrangement of the tapes, sewn down, doubled through, and attached with a looped string.
Cap McCord Museum #M980.4.26 photo by author.. Close up inside of bottom edge of lace headpiece.
The lace that edges the bottom is sewn on with large straight stitches.
Cap McCord Museum #M980.4.26 photo by author. Close up of midpoint back, inside, of caul, showing construction of drawstring.
The felled join of the back of the caul can be seen, as well as the way the string is sewn down to created the loops.
Cap McCord Museum #M980.4.26 photo by author. Cap laid open to see inside details.
The hemmed caul and placement of edging laces.
Cap McCord Museum #M980.4.26 photo by author. Close up of lace, with motif of birds and flowers.
The lace design isn’t exactly centered; another reason to think it was cut from some other use.

 

Questions that remain

Other Squared caps that we have access to are few.  Burnston covers two of these in Fitting and Proper, pps 35-37. She dates these 1790-1810.  (West Chester, PA., items # 1989.1995 and # 1994.3270; I got to see 1994.3270, but didn’t see 1989.1995) Her descriptions in that book are clear and detailed, so I won’t repeat them here.  The other place a squared cap is described is in Rural Pennsylvania Clothing. (Caps C and E, pp 68-69.) Gehret notes these caps are late 18th C (some say they are even later.). All that to say there isn’t much to compare this cap to, especially if we want to date it to the early  1700’s.

Being housed in Montreal also adds the complication of possible French influence. The museum record notes the provenance as “Antwerp?” so it might be Belgian.  If so, it is technically outside the scope of this study, in which I am trying to keep to items from places that became the United States.

Still, if it is “late 17th, early 18th” century, it is the oldest adult cap I have found. 

Portraits

Ann Pollard portrait, 1721.
Ann Pollard, 1721, wears a cap with a squared-edged headpiece.

Few portraits show caps with squared headpieces.  Or, we might say, in few portraits are we sure we are seeing a really squared headpiece.  In many portraits, the cap is high and back too far to be sure; only the ruffle suggests the shape.

Ann Pollard was 100 when she had her portrait made.  Her caps looks definitely squared at the edges.  Since she is aged, I wonder if this was old fashioned at the time?  I’ve only found 2 other portraits with the same shape cap, and they are also early.

Then, in the 19th C, they show up again, and styles take off with additions of deep lace & ruffles, inserts and embroidery.

The Reproduction

I haven’t made a repro of this cap yet.

My Notes

Click here for notes: mccord 980.4.26 notes

Thank Yous and Permissions

Thank you to Alexis Walker, Curatorial Assistant, Costume and Textiles, who corresponded with me and helped me at the McCord.  I have written for her permission to use these images and discuss this artifact here.

Photos by the author.

Other Related Scholarship

I am not aware of any other scholarship on this cap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those Mushrooms: The Dormeuse and the Corday, and the Mystery of the Missing Caps.

We’re going along swimmingly across the 18th C, with familiar cap shapes: lappets, round-eared caps, laces and ruffles, linen on linen.  Familiar construction, familiar materials, and then, 1775,  this happens:

Man and woman seated at a table; her cap is the new dormeuse style
Mrs. Izard’s cap is something new: the dormeuse.

The Dormeuse

What’s so different here?  For one, the headpiece is split, or at least shaped like wings. This is something new.  It is decorated with not just a ruffle or lace, but poufs of ribbon, a large, wide, white, striped ribbon tied in a loopy bow, and another row of gathered lace where the caul and headpiece meet. The caul is much larger than it has been, and held back and high up with, one assumes, her hair.  Her neat ‘do is visible in the triangle between  the cap’s wings.

This is one style that has its own name: the Dormeuse, from the french word for night cap. (Cumming and Cunnington, Dictionary of Fashion History, 2010, p. 68.)

Mr. and Mrs. Izard are colonials touring Europe at the time this portrait is painted, but it quickly comes across the water, and the cap continues to grow larger.

Woman in red gown and large loose cap.
Winthrop Chandler painted this portrait, “new England Woman” about 1775. Her large floppy cap is very much the mode.

This woman’s cap, abut 1775,  has the characteristic high point at the center front, and very large, baggy caul.  Something is tied at the side back, leaving loose ends flowing behind.  The ruffle is pleated lace.  We’ve gone from an enlarged but still neat and fitted caul to a roomy, baggy, rumpled look.

Portrait painted by Reuben Moulthorp of woman in colorful gown with cap of layers of lace piled hig.
Mary Kimberly Reynolds, 1788, in her grand pouf.

And it doesn’t end there. Time passes, and the Piles just get higher.  Kimberly Reynolds, 1788, has even more layers of wide lace falling loosely from her tall cap, and a big white ribbon on the crown of it all.  It really looks like she just took all her best lace, arranged them on her head, and pinned them down.

And still it keeps growing. The next year, 1789, Mrs. Salisbury sports this incredibly impractical version:

1789, Mrs. Elizabeth Sewall Salisbury, in her massive pile of linen.
Elizabeth’s cap is the same shape, just hugely enlarged.

All the same pieces are there:  the pointed headpiece, layers of ruffles, the huge caul, the big white silk bow.  There’s no way she could move about with that thing on her head!  It must be pinned into her hair at a dozen different spots.

I would like to find more 1775-1783 portraits to see the whole range of styles here.  Help me if you can! This is the evidence I am using when I say I don’t think Rev War reenactors portraying campfollowers should indulge in this fashion:  as worm in the period, it is high fashion, requires dressed hair, and is too unwieldy for working.

The Corday

A related style that comes along a little later is the Corday, named after Charlotte Corday, depicted in such a cap as she awaited her execution for her role in the French Revolution.   The distinguishing characteristics of the Corday are 1) the ruffle gets wider and wider as it falls from the CF point, so it is widest at the nape (while the headpiece itself is fitted) and 2) the caul is poufed up like a chef’s hat.

Mrs. Alsop's cap has the standing call and falling ruffles of the Corday style.
1792: caps that look to us like chefs’ hats are popular.

These have a neater look than the Dormeuse, starched and regular rather than soft and layered.  These, too, reach crazy heights.

The Corday cap is large, starched, and has wide ruffles at the nape.
Mr and Mrs Elsworth, 1792. Her Corday cap is very high.    

And then there are some odd items that I don’t even know how to categorize, like Hanna Bush:  I can see that the double ruffles come out

Women in pink with large cap with tall pleats standing up across the top of a teased-out hairdo.
Hannah Ackley Bush, 1791, in a cap rides her big hair like a sail.

pleated on either side of a headpiece, with a wide lace bow around it.   The whiffs to the right might be feathers, or a suggestion of further pleats.  The caul is hidden, so we can’t discern its shape.  A square piece of lace-edged cloth hangs down behind like a backwards apron.  She has the same style echoed in her body linen: smaller pleats on the edge of her gown and really big starched pleats standing up from her bosom under her neckerchief.

The Artifacts

There is only one: described over here, from the DAR Museum.

Which makes no sense.  Portraits attest that these were all the rage from 1775 ish to 1800.  The whole last quarter of the century was full of them.  So there should be more of these than other, older styles, right?  Or at least as many?  Or more than one?  Why don’t we have any extant mushrooms to examine?

One thought I’ve considered is that there was so much cloth in one of these that as soon as the style passed, they were dismantled for the pieces and remade. Fluffy caps come back in the 19th C. Maybe those deep lace ruffles that curtain their faces are made from grandmother’s cap pieces.  What do you think?

 

Another Quaker Cap: Philly 87.35.826

2nd draft; pics ok

This is very similar to many other Quaker caps I saw in my travels, especially a group from Chester County Historical Society, but also individual examples in other places.  It’s the only squared-lappet one museums date 1750-1800, though, and I want to talk about that while I suggest it’s more probably 19th C.  This one is housed at the Phildelphia History Museum. Its item number is #87.35.826. It does not have an online catalog record.

The Original

Typical of turn-of-the-century Quaker caps, this is a lappet of a superfine cloth, gauzy and see-through.  But while its shape is standard, its construction has some unique features.

A gauzy lappet made with interesting construction.
Philly 87.35.826 is dated 1750-1800, but is more likely 1800-, when compared to similar examples elsewhere.

The headpiece and ruffle are all one piece.  So is the caul and the bavolet, or ruffle around the nape.  Then there is a third piece that’s really just the lappets pieced onto the rest of the cap.  The shaping is created by strings in self-fabric channels in all three pieces. I’ve made a color-coded quick drawing to help you see what I’m talking about.

The ruffles are created from strings through self-fabric channels in the caul and headpiece.
A color-coded version of Phill 87.35.826, to show construction. Probably 19th C.

 

The strings are all running in self-fabric channels just large enough to hold the string.  I think there are two strings, but there might be three.  One starts at the join where the lappet, headpiece, and caul all cone together, and goes back on each side, coming out to a visible bow at the center back, 1″ from the bottom edge.  The other starts from the end of one lappet, wraps and over the CF, and comes out the other lappet, to be tied under the chin.  It runs up the middle of the lappet, so it makes a pretty ruching when pulled.

The caul is whip gathered, then sewn on to the (rolled edged) headpiece  with big loose stitches, flattening the effect. All the outside edges are whipped to finish.

The characteristic that most gives away this cap’s 19th C date is the square end of the lappets.  That seems to be one detail that curators I talked to agreed was a dividing point.  In other examples, the gather up the middle of the lappet is created by finishing the edges of 2 rectangles, and leaving gaps in the join where the string is threaded.  Here’s an example of that technique in another Philly cap, #1000.179.

The gather is accomplished by leaving gaps in the vertical seam down the middle of the lappet, and weaving the stings in and out.
Philly 1000.179 (not the same cap) shows a variation on the gather technique in a Quaker lappet, probably 19th C.

Questions that remain

I’m making a judgement call on the idea that there are only two gather strings. The one that goes up and down the front, creating the faux ruffle, might be two different strings.  This cap was too fragile to manipulate much, but as it sits there is a slight pucker in the front string.  Also, other Quaker caps with similar construction have sometimes a separate string, creating this false-ruffle effect.  Sometimes it is just a silky thread, without even a channel, and the bow is at the CF.  Kannik’s Korner pattern #6602 (view B) reproduces a cap like that.

Also, notice that the way the lappet is sewn on, it has to fold like a piece of origami under the chin.  You are sewing a straight piece into a corner.  Who came up with that?  It’s very awkward.

Portraits

Peggy's cap is very similar to this one, but note her lappets are rounded.
Margaret “Peggy” Custis Wilson (Mrs. John Custis Wilson) 1791 Artist: Charles Willson Peale (1741-1827) Colonial Williamsburg

I was so excited when I discovered this portrait at Williamsburg!  Look! her cap looks like this one!

Two things are important here:  This is one of only 2 portraits I’ve seen of a cap with the lappets loose.  Which is great to know — they did it too, and all ya’ll that complain about ties under your chin can use these rare exceptions to justify your attire.

Here’s the only other example I can find of a loose lappet. It is British, and portrays lovers, so I think the the idea isn’t that she would go out and about like this.

A man hovers over a women in a chair feeding her cat. Her cap and her neckerchief are loose.
Francis Wheatley, The Rustic Lover Francis Wheatley (1747 – 1801) – Artist (British) Shows a woman with her lappets dangling, but I think it is meant to convey her availabilty.

The other great thing about the Peale portrait is that this has a solid date, 1791, which makes us feel very confident that these types of caps were being worn by wealthy people in our time period.  But note the ends of her lappets are rounded.

The Reproduction

I haven’t reproduced this one yet.

My Notes

Click here for notes and pattern: Philly 87.35.826

Thank Yous and Permissions

Kristen Froehlich, Director of the Collection and Exhibits at the Philadelphia history Museum at the Atwater Kent gave me permission to use images I made and discuss this artifact here.

Photos by the author.

Other Related Scholarship

I am not aware of any other scholarship on this cap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martha Canby’s Cap: Quaker Lappet

2nd draft; pics rev.

Another of those rare birds: a cap with provenance. This one, held at Winterthur Museum, #1982.0064, was part of a group of needlework passed down through the Canby-Ferris family. The note with this cap reads, “Great-great grandmother Martha Canby’s cap – died 1826.” She was married in 1774, but no birth date is included.  That puts the majority of her life before 1800, and no construction details make me think otherwise, so I accept this as a possible 18th C cap.

The Original

Martha’s cap is a well crafted example of what later became Quaker fossilized fashion in caps. A simple lappet, with no lace or froufrou.  Made in three pieces: caul, headpiece, ruffle. The only gather is around the tip of the lappet where a short tape ties it under her chin; the caul is gathered with “kissing strings.” The ruffle skinnies as it goes around, and ends about 1 3/8″ back along the caul, but doesn’t wrap around the back.

18th C woman's cap: lappet with ruffle gathered only at the tips. Long strings gather the nape.
Winterthur #1982.0064 is a simple lappet of Quaker provenance, beautifully crafted.

 

Every edge is first finished with a rolled hem. The bottom of the caul has a channel just big enough for the long strings that gather it.  I hadn’t figured it out yet, but I think these are attached on either side after going through the channel.  So they criss-cross in there, and pull at the opposite side.  They come out where the caul and headpiece meet under her ear, on top of the ruffle.  These strings aren’t tapes; they are small round strings.  (Is that a datable clue?)

The top of the caul is whip gathered across the top 6″, then whipped to the headpiece along the rest of the join.

The ruffle goes from 1 1/2″ at the CF, and gradually skinnies down to 1″ at the turn, and 1/2″ by the time it gets to the end.  I’ve pondered that before. But this is the most extreme example so far.  The front of the ruffle seems to stay on the straight grain, so the difference happens on the join.  You can see my confusion in my notes. I kept marking the grain as straight, but the width changed; what was changing? the ruffle? the headpiece?  Answer: ruffle.  The two finished edges of ruffle and headpiece are whipped together, and the seam is immeasureably small. Go ahead, zoom in on that seam. I wish my photos were clearer. I’d like to get another look at this cap.

The headpiece has a really narrow point, only 1/4″ across at the skinniest. The point is reinforced to hold that 5″ long tape.  I’m not sure I’m  looking forward to trying to reproduce that very small detailed work.  The back edge of the lappet, from tip to under the ear, has a nice curve; sometimes that line is rougher, or straighter.

0verall, Martha’s cap is 11 1/4′ tip to stern, 8 1/5″ at its widest point laid flat.

Three edges come together in perfect harmony, showing the perfection common in 18th C stitches.
Close up of Winterthur #1982.0064 shows the join of the caul and the headpiece. Each edge is rolled minutely before being sewn together.
With one lappet folded back, the turn of the ruffle and the skinniness of the lappet are visible.
Lappet showing where tape is sewn on to reinforced edge. The pin holds the museum’s ID tag.
How did they get that ruffle to lay so easily around that tight a turn?
The other side of the lappet. If only I knew which was the right side… Winterthur # 1982.0064

 

Questions that remain

My notes say, “Tape sewn to outside,” yet the picture shows clearly that the tape is on the inside.  That’s because I was confused with this one, whether it was being stored inside out or not.  That isn’t unheard of; I’d already seen a couple like that. 18th C seams can be so incredibly perfectly minutely made that you really have to look hard to determine inside from out.  I think I had decided this one was inside out.  You look and see if you can tell — again I wish my pictures were clearer.  I only have an average camera, and lighting isn’t always photo-friendly.

Have I ranted enough about the sewing here?  This one reminds me of the fineness of Mary Alsop’s cap. I’ve wondered if the edges I’ve seen are really selvages.  That is, what I am seeing is not two edges rolled, then whipped, together, but two selvages whipped together.  How could I ever tell?  But this example, where the inside edge of the ruffle is NOT along the grain, sort of proves that edge, at least, is a hand-rolled edge.

The Reproduction

I haven’t reproduced this one yet.  You try it, and share your attempt with us, OK?

My Notes

Click here for notes: notes wint 1982.0064

Thank Yous and Permissions

Linda Eaton, Senior Curator of Textiles, gave me permission to  discuss this artifact here. Lea Lane met me at the museum that day and helped me with questions afterward.

Photos by the author.

Other Related Scholarship

This cap appeared in Winthurtur’s exhibit, “Who’s Your Daddy?”  The Exhibit Guide, Page 4, includes this cap, and references Martha’s ownership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

More Double Ruffles: Philly 87.35.827

2nd draft; pics rev.

This beauty is at the Philadelphia History Museum, dated 1750-1800, #87.35.827.  It is crafted of very fine linen, 11 1/2″ from tip to CF.  A simple lappet, with those kissing strings and another example of a double ruffle. There is no public catalog record for this cap.

The Original

18th C linen cap from the Philadelphia History Museum.
Philly #87.35.827 is a linen lappet with doubled ruffles.

The Caul is about 8″ tall by 4 1/4″ wide (measured flat). A 3/8″ casing at the bottom encloses a very thin linen tape. These tapes are attached to the far side of the channel, come out on the inside under the ear, and then hang down 19″ on one side and 12″ on the other. I assume the short tape is torn. The front edge hem is 1/16″, and when it turns into a whipped gather over the top, there are 26 miniature pearl-like stitches per inch.  I counted.

The headpiece is also hemmed with that tiny hem all around, and butted to the caul and ruffle.

That hem makes an anchor onto which we can whip the ruffle.  The ruffle is doubled. It’s made by hemming one rectangular piece of cloth all the way around, folding it off center, and whipping it to the headpiece on the fold.  Note that for that to work, the outside edges have to be hemmed to opposite sides of the rectangular cloth.  As is usual, the ruffle is only gathered enough to get around the point, and stops at the join with the caul. The ruffle gets skinnier as it rounds the tip, and skinnier still as it goes up the back of the lappet. (1 1/4″ at CF, but 3/4 at the far ends.)  It is pieced.

The ends of the lappets are reinforced to hold the 1/2″ linen tabby weave tape. It is 4″ long, just enough to make a bow.

Tip of the lappet showing string attached.
I only have one other good photo: a close up of the gathered turn of the lappet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions that remain

This is from the Philadelphia History Museum, and most of its clothing collection is Quaker, and this cap is noted as Quaker.  In the 18th C, that did not mean fossilized fashion.  You could be a “gay Quaker” or a “plain Quaker”, which meant you went in for fashionable colors and embellishments, or you chose muted and simple clothing. Don’t take that to mean not fashionable, or not expensive. If you could, you wore silk of course.  It’s on my list to write about Quaker fashion, as it was one of the many rabbit holes I went down on this journey.

Portraits

Mrs. James Smith, painted by Charles Wilson Peale, 1776, wears a cap like this one.  The gathers under her chin are very subtle. The ties that hold the lappets are visible.  She has added a ribbon.  This is another example of an older woman in a lappet. I like it that her chins are still visible!  She looks friendly. I bet this grandchild was a great favorite.

https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/mrs-james-smith-and-grandson-19292
Mrs. Smith wears a double-ruffle on her cap.

 

The Reproduction

Saines' repro of double ruffle cap on green background, with snow.
It’s frigid and snowing today. My repro of Philly 87.35.827.
Saines' repro on drawing from notes shows discrepancies.
After it was all made, I laid it on the drawing I made and realized it is about 1″ too small all over. *sigh* Philly 87.35.827 repro.

This was the cap that finally showed me how the double ruffles were put together.  It was not nearly as clear in the first one of these I saw. Whipping the folded edge was neat and easy.

But, I didn’t finish opposite sides of the ruffle, so the inside ruffle shows its hem. But it’s really teeny — you’d never notice.  And anyway, you can see both sides of the ruffle’s edge when you wear it.

I always wonder how they would know where to put the gather on the ruffle.  Did they sew down from the CF, and do the gather as they went, where it needed to sit?  I don’t have any evidence that there were patterns with that level of detail to follow. So this time I tried it that way, whipping it to the headpiece, and gathering as I went.  That’s a whole new level of skill!  I got it too tight again. Because you are sewing along a folded piece, at least you don’t have to roll that edge before you join it.

Which brings me back to the ruffle getting skinnier as it goes.  I actually cut this out with a built-in taper.  I’d like to go back to the original and see if I could find a taper in the ruffle.  It has to, doesn’t it?  and if the ruffle’s edges deviate from the straight grain, are shaped to taper on purpose, it means the place where the gather goes is predetermined. That was hard to explain.  Do you see what I mean? Who did that math?

Another complicating factor is how much to allow for the gathered part. I was taught that for ruffles you allow about a 2:1 ratio. That is, allow twice as much cloth for the space you want to cover with ruffles.  12″ yoke? 24″ of cloth. But I am learning that the required measure depends on several variables. Most important is the weight of the cloth.  No one can make 26 whipped gathers to the inch with a 6 oz. linen.  But with super fine, maybe 2.5 oz., you almost can.  So lighter cloth takes up more in a gather than heavy cloth. It also depends on how small a gather you can produce (stroke or whipped). It helps to have a long, fine needle, like a milliner’s needle, and fine, strong thread. Silk is a good choice. The needle should not leave a visible hole in the cloth, and the thread should be the same or lighter weight than the threads of the cloth.

My Notes

Click here for notes: philly 87.35.827

I didn’t include my pattern because it was so off measure. I need to redo this one.

Thank Yous and Permissions

Kristen Froehlich, Director of the Collection and Exhibits at the Philadelphia history Museum at the Atwater Kent gave me permission to use images I made and discuss this artifact here.

Photos by the author.

Other Related Scholarship

There is no other research about this cap as far as I know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Love Those Double Ruffles: Smiths 6608-C

2nd draft; pics rev.

Several caps I’ve seen have double ruffles.  On Smiths 6608-D, they are made of finer cloth than the rest of the cap, and the finishing hem, about 1/16″ across, has stitches so fine I couldn’t see them to count them.  The effect is like an edge of tiny silk ribbon.

Lappet cap shown on graph paper for size.
Smithsonian 6608-D has a doubled ruffle whose edge is invisibly hemmed.

The cap is housed in the textiles collection of the Smithonian’s National Museum of American History*, a part of the Copp Collection. The museum date is 1775-1799. The record for this item is not online.

 

 

 

 

 

The Original

The caul and headpiece are made from handkerchief-weight linen, but the ruffles are finer.  The headpiece, including the lappets, is 10 1/2″ from tip to top.  The Caul is stroke-gathered to the headpiece, and the edge left unfinished inside.  A casing 1/4″ wide along the nape is made of a piece sewn in (I’m not for sure about that, but I can see the edges in the photos) to create the channel for Kissing strings, 18″ long, of 1/8″ linen tape.  The tapes come out on the outside, just where the caul, headpiece, and ruffle all come together.

The headpiece is pieced at the top, felled together.  It is hemmed all around with a tiny hem and then butted to the caul. You can see the stitches, like whip stitches, joining the two, but loose enough that the 2 hems sit side by side.

Then the ruffles:  hemmed on the front side, and whipped to the headpiece, with a gather only around the lappet tip.  The top ruffle is about 1/4″ skinnier than the bottom ruffle.  I decided later, when I’d seen a couple more of these, that the ruffle was made from one piece of cloth, folded, and joined through the gutter.

The ruffles don’t go all the way around the back, but end 2 1/2″ past the point where the strings come out.  Right here, the straight grain of the cloth has to bunch to get around the curve, so although it isn’t actually gathered, it appears so.  But the top ruffle ends earlier, about an inch past the tip of the lappet….

Which makes me wonder. You can see in this picture, which shows the ruffle laid open on the left side, that there’s a little bit of cloth puckered up under there.  Last detail: the ruffle goes from 1 1/4″ wide at the CF to 3/4″ wide at the other end, so maybe the difference is hidden here?  After this point, there’s a felled join, and the single ruffle finishes the round.

Look closely to see a (folded) piece of cloth between the layers of the ruffle.
What is the little fluff hiding between the layers of the ruffles?

 

 

Closeup of CF of cap, inside.
The stroke gathers visible inside. And the exact and fine hems and joins.
Close up of bottom of caul showing tape coming out at join.
The long tapes come out at the point where the caul, headpiece, and ruffle intersect. You can also see what looks like a pieced channel for the gather.
Close up of ruffles at the tip of the lappet.
The skinnier ruffle (1″ at its widest) lays on top of the wider ruffle (1 1/4″ at its widest). The folded cloth, once hemmed, would be 2 1/4″ wide, folded at 1″, and whipped on at the fold. … I think.

Questions that remain

Why do ruffles get skinnier on the sides and back than in the front?  It’s confusing because the grain of the cloth is straight on the outer edge, but the inner edge gets progressively more eaten up by the rolling of the whipped join?  On purpose?  Why?

And the Kissing Strings again.

Portraits

Remember Mrs Galloway?  Her cap is an exact match.

18th c portrait of woman in plain brown gown with lappet cap.
Mrs. Richard Galloway, by John Hesselius (1728–1778), 1764. Held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art

 

The Reproduction

No repro yet.

My Notes

Click here for notes: smiths 6608 c notes

Thank Yous and Permissions

Nancy Davis, Curator of Textiles at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, helped me to identify items in that collection that were useful to this study. That was no small feat, as records were spread across several legacy cataloging systems, and details were minimal.  I can only hope I found what there was to find!

Photos by the author.

Other Related Scholarship

I am not aware of any other scholarship about this cap.

*. . . which is not the same thing as the Smithsonian’s Cooper Hewitt, in NYC. Their textiles section was under construction at the time of this study, so I didn’t get to see their artifacts.