How old is too old?

[Tophat Dan]

A few years ago, I bought my wife a wonderful vintage black cotton velvet formal cloak with a dark blue satin lining. There is no label and the style is fairly generic, so it could have been made anywhere between the late 1800's and the 1920's. In the antique store, it seemed fine, no moth holes, all seams intact, the lining was flawless.
Being that it was a surprise gift for her, I couldn't have her try it on. The moment she did, we both heard the telltale crackling of many stitches letting go! Cursory inspection shows no damage at any of the major seams or anywhere else, but now she's left with a beautiful garment she's afraid to wear. We're thinking of donating it to a local museum.

This situation got me to thinking today: How old, for you, is too old?
For me, I've had experience with clothes dating back to around the 1940's and had no real problem with them. I think I'd be a little iffy on wearing anything that was much older though, even if it was deadstock/ perfectly preserved. I'm also a history nut (who here isn't?) and have an ingrained respect for the things that eventually fall into my hands. I think I would feel guilty wearing out something that survived eighty or ninety years of floods, fires and acts of God, only to have it get to me and be worn out in two years (or even ten).

So what is your opinion? When would you put an acquisition up for good, or would you bother at all?

Dan Peterson

 

[ShoreRoadLady]

Could you post a photo? A few of the ladies here might be able to help you date it. I'd give it a shot too, although I'm no expert.

I personally would feel iffy about wearing anything pre-1920 for any extended period of time, and once you hit pre-1900 you're getting into garments that have survived for 108+ years! I think that's old enough for retirement in my book. Old silks, especially, have a tendency to "shatter" (split and shred all over the place). I might be less concerned about a cotton or wool garment, but I still wouldn't want to get it dirty.

 

[anon`]

No such thing as "too old" is everything else is good. By that I mean that I've yet to encounter a 9th-century kyrtle well-enough preserved to wear, and thus wouldn't try it, but that I won't allow the age of an otherwise-intact garment to prevent me from wear it.

I retire garments only when it becomes obvious that they are on their last legs: frayed or threadbare fabric, gaping moth holes that cna't be fixed and the like.

Otherwise, it feels to me like a slap to the proverbial face of an aged garment to not wear it, after surviving eighty or ninety wears of whatever disaster you can think of. Besides, they hold up pretty darn well for the most part, and can often be fixed when something does break.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Housekeeping

Since this is more of a broad spectrum thread, I've moved it here to capture more voices.

 

[Atterbury Dodd]

[/QUOTE]

This situation got me to thinking today: How old, for you, is too old?

For me before the sixties(1960's) is usually to old for extensive use.

 

[Atterbury Dodd]

I retire garments only when it becomes obvious that they are on their last legs: frayed or threadbare fabric, gaping moth holes that cna't be fixed and the like..

Anon,
I realize there's just something about a vintage item that catches the imagination, but I think we must also look at the other side and realize that once these items, clothes, or whatever they may be, are gone, they are gone for good. The 30's and 40's and even the 20's didn't seem so long ago when my WWII generation grandparents where still alive. Those eras are swiftly dropping farther and farther back. The people that designed those items and made them and wore them, will never do so again. There will never be another yesterday.

Since my involvement in Civil War reenacting I have come to feel that sometimes lovers of an era can be it's worst enemies as far as a historic object's survival is concerned. For example, some Civil War reenactors have come to live with history so much that it is very alive to them, and they don't really respect the age of an item. They are careful with them; however, I have known reenactors that would carry rare original pocket-knives(and lose them), pocket watches (and one broke a jewel which is very hard to replace), rifles, and bring books from the 1860's to camps. Before some of these things got ridiculously rare this was done far more. They try to be careful with these things but they get damaged none-the-less. I have been guilty of some of these things myself as it is hard to get reproductions of some items (Civil War or 1920's-40's.

My thought on vintage clothing is that through my collecting I want more items to be saved through me for the next generation to enjoy (by viewing probably, by then it will be ridiculous to wear them) than would have happened had I not bought them in the first place. I am keeping some things in excellent shape and never wearing them just to preserve them. I don't want this vintage thing to die with us because we wear everything out; there must be a standard of excellence to serve as models of quality for us latter, and those to come.


That's my take-- even if it is out there.
Atterbury

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think it depends on the sturdiness of the specific garment. I wouldn't wear a 1930's cotton dress on a regular basis -- but I'd have no qualms at all about wearing a '30s wool coat regularly. I'd have no problems wearing a '40s felt hat regularly, but I'd be very careful with a '40s summer straw. I wouldn't ever wear a '50s Lastex bathing suit, but I'd have no concerns at all about wearing a '50s nylon slip. And so forth and so on.

 

[Mojito]

I wear 1920s, but usually only to a particular event and usually only for a short period of time. If in doubt, I don't wear it. I try to wear something like a modern slip between my skin and as much fabric as possible. I try to "retire" pieces before they start showing distress or fatique. There are exceptions - I have a very sturdy velvet jacket that has shattering lining but is otherwise fine except for some velvet rubs - I can wear that casually over jeans.

So far - touch wood! - the closest thing to a real mishap I've had was an underarm seam giving way...and that could have been avoided if I'd followed advice from Madame Circa on having the armcycles of long sleeved 1920s gowns restitched before wearing (the fabric itself was fine and suffered no damage, so it wasn't a huge issue).

There is a bit of an ethical dilema in wearing what is a finite resource - but if you select the right pieces and wear with care, you can wear textiles of this era. I'd even wear the odd earlier teens piece. Pre turn of the century I probably wouldn't, and dresses of the teens would take a lot of considerataion and assessment.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I have a dear friend who collects and sells vintage clothing and she has articles from the late 19th century that she is afraid to touch and other items, like an Edwardian dress and whale bone corset that she has worn. As Lizzie said, it depends on the robustness of the item. We are but stewards of these things after all, me thinks.

 

[Undertow]

I have to agree with LM and HJ; if you do a little research on a material, and what it's being used for, I believe you could make a pretty educated guess as to what will hold up and what would not.

I think '30's hats are a good example because the fur felt examples I've had a chance to own and handle stand up very well whereas I couldn't imagine a wool felt hat lasting that long with regular use. And like LM mentioned, I wouldn't count on a cotton shirt from the '20's but I think I would consider a wool coat from the 20's.

Personally, I think my cut off is the '30's for hats, and probably the '50's for clothing, although I wouldn't be opposed to getting some good suits from the 30's!

 

[HatfeathersVint]

Was it the fabric threads themselves that she felt were giving way, or the seam threads? I have had a lot of nice articles of man made or mixed fabric (not cotton/silk) that were sewn with cotton thread. That cotton thread had reacted to the elements differently than the fabric, and had given way.

I would have no hesitation to get the seams re-stitched if the fabric itself were still strong, just have them run over with modern threads, no need to remove the old ones. A seamstress worth her salt would have no trouble doing this, as long as there were no issues with getting to the seams (ie attached lining).

If the garment was silk based, and a lot of velvets (heck, a lot of fabric in general) was silken, then it may well be a piece for show and display, as there may have been some shattering. Silk is a real bugger, as it eats itself alive, especially in any sort of diverse storage conditions, even when it has been stored in contact with itself (folded over).

I don't have a problem with someone wearing an old garment for a special occasion, as long as the condition will take it. The fit has to be spot on, though, as the older garments won't take a squeeze or tug, and they won't stretch or hold like something new will. Just don't wear it to the spagetti restaurant or somewhere that you know you might get something flung on you....or wear it to your wedding if you plan on having the customary cake in the face bit.

Jenn

 

[anon`]

Anon,
I realize there's just something about a vintage item that catches the imagination, but I think we must also look at the other side and realize that once these items, clothes, or whatever they may be, are gone, they are gone for good. The 30's and 40's and even the 20's didn't seem so long ago when my WWII generation grandparents where still alive. Those eras are swiftly dropping farther and farther back. The people that designed those items and made them and wore them, will never do so again. There will never be another yesterday.

Since my involvement in Civil War reenacting I have come to feel that sometimes lovers of an era can be it's worst enemies as far as a historic object's survival is concerned. For example, some Civil War reenactors have come to live with history so much that it is very alive to them, and they don't really respect the age of an item. They are careful with them; however, I have known reenactors that would carry rare original pocket-knives(and lose them), pocket watches (and one broke a jewel which is very hard to replace), rifles, and bring books from the 1860's to camps. Before some of these things got ridiculously rare this was done far more. They try to be careful with these things but they get damaged none-the-less. I have been guilty of some of these things myself as it is hard to get reproductions of some items (Civil War or 1920's-40's.

My thought on vintage clothing is that through my collecting I want more items to be saved through me for the next generation to enjoy (by viewing probably, by then it will be ridiculous to wear them) than would have happened had I not bought them in the first place. I am keeping some things in excellent shape and never wearing them just to preserve them. I don't want this vintage thing to die with us because we wear everything out; there must be a standard of excellence to serve as models of quality for us latter, and those to come.


That's my take-- even if it is out there.
Atterbury

Excellent points, and one that I think most of us grapple with to some extent, at least periodically.

However, it raises the question: if tomorrow's generation will only enjoy an object of history visually, why should be not be used now, while still functional? Admittedly, I would not condone wearing or using an object until it was completely obliterated, but it does seem like a bit of a disservice to relegate something to the status of "historical curiousity" if it is still useful.

But then again, I may not have the same level of appreciation for historical objects as a Civil War reenactor: my living history interests revolve around the so-called Migration and Viking Eras. Not a lot left over from back then, and none of it in serviceable condition

 

[Miss Sis]

Adding my 2 cents worth, each item has to be taken on it's on merit.

If fabric is sturdy and the fit right, then it's fine. So things like cotton, linen and wool stand up pretty well to wear. Delicate items made of silk or sheer fabrics need to be assessed as to whether wearing the item is likely to damage it.

Both myself and my partner Ben have clothes from the 30s which are in great condition. We don't wear vintage all the time but certainly many of our things including his suits are very hardy. We just show them a bit of respect by not doing anything too outrageous in them!

 

[der schneider]

what is your take on altering period garments?

I have an employee who also works in a costume shop and they rent out a lot of great stuff and it gets ruined. I have customers who come to my shop and want me to alter old clothes. usually military items from WWI and WWII

I discourage it but they often insist. rather than letting them take it to a chop shop I do make alterations. sometimes I offer to purchase said garment to save it from destruction.

 

[SpitfireXIV]

i am always wary of silks and satins that are turn of the last century. i would like to see a picture however, to better "date" the article to a certain decade.

and yes, this is the great dilemma: to wear or not to wear? i have always thought that clothes were meant to wear; the everyday wear of the era is fair game, the more extraordinary "show pieces" were more for a private display in the closet

that being said; if i had a reason to wear my great-grandmother's purple velvet 1930's opera coat (with white fur collar), i'd wear it. carefully.

 

[Sunny]

and yes, this is the great dilemma: to wear or not to wear? i have always thought that clothes were meant to wear; the everyday wear of the era is fair game, the more extraordinary "show pieces" were more for a private display in the closet

Keep in mind that "everyday wear" is what gets worn out and thrown away in every decade, whereas "show pieces" were rarely used and tended to be saved for mementos. I, too, do Civil War reenacting. The number of fancy silk dresses still in existence exceeds the number of more ordinary wool or cotton day dresses, and FAR exceeds the number of much-worn work dresses. They are just used up!

Incidentally, that's one of the reasons for the myth that "they were all so tiny back then!" A woman's not likely to save her middle-aged regular daywear; that'll be sold to a second-hand shop as soon as it's a bit too worn or too old-fashioned for her status. But she's going to save that lovely little confection from her girlhood, when she was a dainty slip of a thing. Not to mention that larger garments were often cut down and remade by daughters or granddaughters into new garments entirely, while a girl's first ball dress is just too small to remake.

 

[Atterbury Dodd]

However, it raises the question: if tomorrow's generation will only enjoy an object of history visually, why should be not be used now, while still functional?

Tomorrows generation won't have to enjoy a totally object view if there's some old suits to make reproductions from! If we use them up now they will never know what they missed.

To bad I can only do so many kinds of reenacting at once, that Viking reenacting sounds neat. Are you sure we couldn't go to a dig and find an ax head to make a handle for and use?lol Seriously though, Viking reenacting sounds fun. I've had some interest in Medieval reenacting as well, but the CW reenacting takes up my time.

 

[anon`]

Tomorrows generation won't have to enjoy a totally object view if there's some old suits to make reproductions from! If we use them up now they will never know what they missed.

To bad I can only do so many kinds of reenacting at once, that Viking reenacting sounds neat. Are you sure we couldn't go to a dig and find an ax head to make a handle for and use?lol

I only wish! fftopic: There have been some remarkably well-preserved votive offerings found in Danish bogs over the years, but that gets back to the whole "don't use for fear of utter destruction" dilemma!

Back to the subject at hand: As for suits, if we're talking about making repros based on extant garments, I think it perfectly safe and good to wear what's still out there until it's too fragile to continue to be worn. Then we can turn it over to the museums and tailors. That's my story, and it helps alleviate the guilt so I can sleep at night

(I suppose this is as good a place as any to point out that I am the world's worst packrat and will never throw out something with even a smidge of sentimental value, including a worn-out suit or pair of links or what-have-you. I'm all for not trashing something just because its lived out the "useful" portion of its existence. It's a pity that Vikings didn't feel the same way...)

 

[Daoud]

Clothing will not last indefinitely, no matter how it's conserved. It's ephemeral. Might as well wear it. As far as donating old- I won't say vintage, as that word has become virtually meaningless- articles of clothing to a museum, consider this: most museums have WAY more stuff than they can possibly display. Chances are, unless your item is historically significant, it will end up in a box in a storeroom in whatever museum you donate it to.

 

[Tophat Dan]

Unfortunately my digital camera isn't working at the moment, but I will do my best to describe the garment.

Overall appearance: The garment is a fitted cloak with a fabric-covered single button at the throat for closure and full lining. There is no label or makers mark of any kind, though the quality of the stitching makes me think this was a professionally made article, if not tailor made. There are no slits for the arms, and when closed it covers the body completely. It is fifty-one and one-half inches long from the shoulder seam at the neck to the hem. I theorize that it was either intended to be full-length for someone of average height or 3/4 length for someone rather tall. It has a collar, of the type I think is called a "shawl collar". It is four inches wide and is almost exactly like the collar on the shirt in the picture in the link below, only the front points are rounded off.


http://sewtruedesigns.com/Assets/images/OptimizedForWeb/Garments/GarmBlouseRosesOnCollar.jpg

Condition: Good to very good. No moth holes, no worn or faded spots. This looks like it was bought and immediately hung in a closet. I found the source of the torn stitches I heard though: A six inch portion of a lining seam let go. Fluffy old cotton thread that got tired of doing its job apparently. No cloth damage at all and can be repaired very simply.

Exterior fabric:
Being that I am slightly red-green colorblind I'm usually uncomfortable guessing colors, but that shouldn't be a problem with this piece. It's a nice inky black. The exterior is velvet of a type I haven't felt anywhere before. It is thicker and heavier than than the modern stuff you can buy at chain fabric stores. The back or "non fuzzy" side of the exterior velvet is dark grayish, looking and feeling like cotton cloth. Based upon this I've made an educated guess that it is cotton velvet.

Lining fabric (also black):
Most likely satin, though not of the super slippery, shiny type. It makes quite a rustle when you carry the garment around. There is no shattering or other weird decay on it that would make me think it was silk. Maybe it's cotton based as well?

Any opinions on what era it could be? My guess was really a shot in the dark. I don't have much experience with women's clothing.


Regards;
Dan Peterson