1860's Bonnet Construction

I have searched in vain to find a "how to" on putting together an 1860's bonnet, so here is a very brief "how I did this" picture tutorial. 

WARNING: I may not have done this correctly and I am not a professional milliner in any way.  I also highly recommend spending the money to buy this item from a professional.  Very much worth it.  Every penny.

Note: this is not my pattern.  Anna Bauersmith traced it off for me & sent me directions for a drawn bonnet (which I did not do due to a lack of fabric - not kidding, I had exactly enough silk to do what you see here).  You can see her blog here:  http://annaworden.wordpress.com/
And her Etsy store here:  http://www.etsy.com/people/AnnaWordenBauersmith?ref=si_pr  go buy something from her, she's fabulous.

1860 is not exactly a decade I visit very often, but there are many Civil War events that I want to walk into & visit this summer, so it required a new CW era day dress & some kind of head covering.  I'll get dressed up and have my dear mother take photos of my nifty Plain Jane Day Dress at some point.

I'm going to assume that you are starting off with a finished buckram or straw base, which you can buy from several companies, or make with a pattern, (though if you bought the pattern it probably came with directions for covering the hat & you won't need this).

All silk is flat-lined with cotton muslin to give it more body & make it easier to handle.  Flat-lining also provides a stay stitching line so the silk doesn't fray all over the place while you are working.

I highly recommend obtaining a curved sewing needle.  It will make your life soooo much easier.  Barring that, a very long milliner's needle will work well.  No teeny-tiny short things, OK?

 Start with the back/crown/tip of the bonnet & cut a circle slightly larger than the finished shape.  I used a 6" circle.  Whip stitch it in place.  You may have to ease things in to keep the silk flat.

Next, I pinned in the tip/crown/back lining.  (I think I did this backwards & it should be done last, but I wanted the stitching line for the crown to show me where to put the brim covering).  Make it look like a coffee filter.   Leave a lot of excess (this will be cut off shortly).

 Stitch to the tip/back/crown (optional) for a tip lining that stays in place.  Anna says that the lining is optional, but I wanted to make sure everything was covered and that I had something to stitch to when I put the brim lining in.
Stitch above the mid-wire line to secure the tip lining.
Leave the back neckline open for now with room to turn under.
Trim the excess off of, leaving a bit of a seam allowance so it doesn't pull out.

 Stitch the brim cover just over the back/tip/crown stitching line, turning under as far as necessary to make it a smooth fit.  I had some puckering at the top, which made me make a face.
(This is a movable line depending on how you want the hat to look.  Some are well onto the brim, others are actually gathered in on the tip itself.  Just depends on the style you want).
Pull the silk smooth & pin to the inside front brim, pin in place & stitch around all edges.  You may have to tuck/cut around the curves to get it to stay flat on the outside.  Fray-check optional at certain points.

Pin the back curtain or bavolet in place, arranging carefully so it doesn't go all wonky.  Make sure the tip lining is out of the way.
(Right now I'll tell you that this bonnet is too long for me on the tabs & bavolet, I have a short neck & it scrunches up... so you may want to make sure yours actually fits before you get to this point).
Stitch the bavolet on.
I left the tabs loose for now, you may want to stitch them on here.

 Pin the tip lining over the raw edge of the bavolet & stitch that.

 Here it is at this point.  Outside...

 Inside...
 OK, Everything look good?
Fix anything that isn't.

Stitch the brim lining onto the outer brim (it doesn't take much seam allowance & you may have to trim a bit here & there anyway).  There are 2 different ways to do this.  You can cut a lining to shape, or you can cut a rectangle the same length as the outer edge & then pleat/fold it into shape towards the smaller inside.  I've found examples of both techniques in the MET.
The brim lining can be raw if you are going to bind the edge with a finishing strip, or fold it over for a finished edge (that's what I did & it may change because it's uneven in places - see the right side of the pic?)

Stitch the brim lining to the tip lining wherever you can catch something without going through to the outside.

Feel free to decorate it however.  Most of the ribbons come right off the cheek tabs, but I've seen a few that angle to the back neckline/cheek tab curve.  Both inner brims & outsides were decorated in various ways: ribbons, silk flowers, netting, etc.  If you want to stick with historic accuracy, find a fashion plate or museum piece to inspire you.  If not, have at it.

Anna suggests adding a velvet ribbon to the inside brim where it sits on your head to help it "stick" in place.

Academics, Archeologists, Professionals & Weekend Researchers

Is it strange that most of my rant-posts come from Things People Have Said in online forums/groups?

Today got me thinking about Who The Experts Are, and who they aren't in terms of studying history, recreating it, etc.  I got thinking about what "qualifications" are.

Academics:
I'll include college professors, published historians, museum specialists & those who both study and publish their findings in journals, books, etc.
Obviously published academics in any given field fall into the Expert category, though many are specialists vs. generalists, which is good!  They have a remarkable ability to shed light on a few aspects of life at a certain time & place, and while other aspects may escape them, their work in that area is invaluable especially for the generalist. 

On the down-side (also an up-side), just about anyone can publish today, and unless there is a period of peer review pre-publication, the work may have areas that are highly suspect.  One example of this is using Victorian Era sources as major references.  While many are excellent, there was a general trend at the time to "fill in" missing information with speculation, opinions & outright fabrications to bulk out the book - ur, umm, I mean "findings."  That work will also be colored by the author's academic environment (ie. politics), which is something to read with caution.  Humm... sounds familiar...  BUT, the moral of the story is, we have to be careful what we take as truth from literary sources & what we take as opinion or fabrication.
The best academics look at primary sources.  Actual literature of the time, first hand accounts, etc. 
Note: I just finished reading an excellent translation of an old manuscript where the translators took literally half the book to apologize for the original author's attitude toward women.  After reading the actual translation, I found the author to be a totally normal man of his time and while he might have made a modern woman a little flustered, it certainly wasn't cause for actual hurling of knives or general verbal evisceration. 

Which brings me to...
Archeologists!  (and pathologists, biologists, & whatever other "ologist" you can think of)
I do love archeologists.  Wonderful people who have the Best Time Ever digging in the mud with garden trowels & paint brushes and then sifting literally tons of dirt for some speck of metal/wood/fabric/glass/bone that Means Something.  Most excellent people!  (oh, and their slaves too- I mean Interns! Yes Interns... that's the right word...)
Definitely experts, though you'll probably go home with a stomach ache from laughing so hard after you talk to them.  They certainly have their own sense of humor (which is often edited out in their final publications).

The downside of archeological publications is that archeologists, like other people, come in different flavors.  - You have the minimalists, who write like a police report.  Just the facts, ma'am.  (I actually like them quite a bit).
- You have the moderates, who give facts, a bit of context & maybe some speculation as to use, etc. around the object being discussed; they might link said item to similar items found Here.  (I also greatly appreciate them).
- Then you have the dreamers, who give the facts, but then completely overshadow them in speculation, assumptions & embroidered stories about who/what/when/where/why/how and what they were thinking.  (While fun to read, I cringe at this Victorian-ish writing style because it leaves so much room for error... much like the Always/Never folks).  This is not to say that Dreamers aren't good archeologists, they just aren't very good writers... or rather they ARE very good writers, but they like stories a bit too much for my taste. 


These first two categories are Experts, no matter if you agree with their conclusions/findings or not.  These are the people from whom all others derive their knowledge.  They are the base of the pyramid of history, so to speak.



The Pros:
The next level of historic research is the Professionals.  This includes Experimental Archeologists, Craftsmen, Artisans, independent researchers (who can be just as good if not better than academics) and people who do Talks/Demonstrations.

There is a wide variety of competence in this category: you have everything from "The Guy At The Country Village Who Bangs Out Horseshoes Once A Month" to "Scott the Gunsmith who makes hand-forged barrels, locks & stocks based on decades of research, different forging techniques & skill... and sells them for more money than I want to contemplate anyone ever spending on a firearm, but will teach a weekend history class that's worth more than a college education."  (Can you tell that I like Scott?).

The long & short of it is that professionals make their living from selling their products, often based on years of research and skill development.  While not all professionals are experts, many are, and what they have to say about their area of expertise should not be discounted.  If you see someone who makes magnificent reproductions, don't hesitate to talk to them - they are a treasure trove of knowledge.  Let the junk dealers sort themselves out (they have their place & they do fine in it).

Weekend Researchers / Amateur Historians:
This category has the widest range of competence in it.  Many people will focus in on one area of history (like fashion or wars or one battle in a war), and stay there.  They become experts in that one thing and that's good enough.  Others are generalists & want to see the flow and context of societies.  They tend to get the gist of history, and are no less expert in that capacity than the others.
Some people will claim expert status based on having read one history book after college, or having joined some history club or other.  Others won't ever share their interests but have more knowledge in the library of their skulls than Alexandria ever thought of containing.




Perhaps the point in this bit of a ramble is that you never know who will fall into the Expert category and who won't based on an online profile, academic title or what history club someone belongs to.  The chick you just cut down for not being a Laurel in the SCA is one of the premier silver smiths at Colonial Williamsburg.  Just because you don't know her & she doesn't hold a familiar title doesn't mean she doesn't know what she's talking about.  Insulting someone who doesn't have a PhD, but has dedicated their life to experimental archeology - planting, growing, harvesting, processing, spinning & weaving flax into linen just to do it, one thing among the 1,000 things they've done... well, they deserve respect for doing it, and you may want to listen to them relay their real-world experiences. 

The Problem of Racism in Reenacting

WARNING: 
Someone's feelings will get hurt. 
Someone will be insulted. 
Someone will take offense.
You'd better because it's cause for hurt, insult and offense.

1821  Public House in London, Crookshanks

I got suddenly & quite surprisingly upset this morning about an article on hidden racism in Goth circles, which you can read here (it's quite good).  I didn't get upset because of the Goths, I got upset because in my own dear social circle racism is positively rampant (let's not even broach the issue of sexuality, they aren't ready for the science).  Sometimes it's hidden, sometimes it's all out in the open for the world to see... probably depends on the weather & how much is left in the flask.

You see, Reenacting has a Racism Problem.

I know, News Flash, right?
But to me, it was a surprise.  I just (innocently & obliviously) figured that black people just didn't want to reenact a painful and difficult time in American history and so naturally gravitated to earlier or later time frames, like the SCA or Civil War era.  In part, this may have some truth to it, but there were truly shining moments for black Americans in the 1600's-1800's and we lose something beyond measure by ignoring that history.  We lose an entire cross-section of our society.

Then in 2011 my eyes and ears got opened.  Not pretty.  What I had taken as bad jokes in poor taste -for years- turned out to be comments & commentary that were said in all seriousness.

"Come over here and sit with the White Folks where you belong."
"I hate the N----s."
"It were the Africans & Hitler what spread AIDS"
countless others...



Then, in 2011 the call went up.

"White Power!"

It traveled from the man in front of me, down the roadway, skipping tents here & there but always carried on; some voices I knew and some I didn't until it'd gone from one end to the other like a shock-wave through camp, so many I lost count and for days I could hear that echo.



My heart broke that day.



You see, there are hundreds of good, honest, loving, accepting people in reenacting.  Many of them are very dear friends who would welcome anyone with a genuine interest in the hobby.
And then there are These Guys.
You want to come play with them?  No?  Neither do I.

Really, it only takes one or two turds to empty a pool.  We've got a mess of diarrhea floating in the shallow end.


I thought the sexism was bad, but quite frankly, having grown up in this hobby, wading through the opinions of Misogynistic Mountain Men is a minor annoyance; and they all know I'll gut them in a heartbeat if they put a hand in the wrong place... but somehow being threatened on a generic gender level with a bit of sexual harassment isn't nearly as shocking as realizing that these people, many of whom I truly like, could and would actually hurt someone for the color of their skin.  They actually, actively Hate people based on skin pigment.


Why am I so surprised?  I grew up hearing the n-word... though as it fell out of use my memory faded...

Because somewhere along the line, I got the idea that people were better than this today; that society's heart had changed, become kinder.  I found a nice pair of rose colored glasses & slipped them on without noticing.

Well, a couple years ago the glasses got cracked.  The Headphones of Happiness got removed & I hear you now.


So, when my friends ask me "what camps are you coming to? we miss you," I have to think long & hard about where I'm going and who I'll visit with.  I'll always wonder if your voice was one that was raised in that horrible call.  I can't see you through the veil of history anymore; I'll always wonder if you carry your modern (if outdated) ideals, prejudices & attitudes with you into this pretend past.  I'll always wonder if you hate me because I have the brown eyes and black hair of my possibly less than Lilly-White ancestors. 

So the next time a group of school kids comes through camp and asks the painfully obvious question "where are all the black people?" you'll have to ask yourself if you are going to tell them the cold, hard truth or give them a spoonful of sugar with the poisonous lie. 


It's a hard pill to choke on, Ladies & Gents.  To think that those of us who love history with such a burning passion would purposely exclude an entire race of people who contributed just as much as our own ancestors to the building of this country... A very hard pill to choke on indeed.


Note: There are a few black reenactors in the 1640-1840 scene, and I give them all the credit in the world. They are braver than I am, that's for sure... though I've never asked if they sleep with knives too.

Quick Thoughts on Blogging

I know people use blogs for 10,000 different things, and that's why I adore this medium.
But I want to clear up some misconceptions about what I use this blog for.

While I have some semi-serious research on here, some crack-pot theories, some great tutorials, and some awesome "this is how I made this" garment diaries, this is not a place for uber-super-serious academic scholarship (as you can tell by my Valley Girl chirping of "uber-super-serious").  That doesn't mean that I'm not serious about my research.  It just means that chances are, you won't find the actual stuffy-academic paper here.  You're going to get the layman's version.



So that's clear, right?

The reason I'm bringing this up is that in the past 3 weeks or so, there have been several online discussions where bloggers (and some of them are indeed serious academic researchers) have self-referenced their own blog posts as serious academic sources.  These  blog posts did not, in fact, contain any historic references of any kind, no citations, no original quotes - some pictures, yes, (but they weren't even labeled with the museums or original publications)... but the words contained in the posts were those of the blog authors drawing their own conclusions about their own research.  Which is fine.  That's what research is for.  It's just not a suitable reference source.  You can't cross-check research that doesn't have references. 

So, dear blog readers; please be careful about listing your references, or please refrain from being self-referential.  You may well be "the best in the business" in your area of study, but without a bibliography post-post... it's useless to the rest of the world, and makes you look less professional than you may actually be.

Hopefully no one is mortally offended, but it's something to bare in mind.
Serious Research = Bibliography. 
No References = Just For Fun.

The Skivvies Question

WARNING: this post is rather comically graphic about female anatomy & function (or malfunction), if you are shy about this topic, go read one of my pretty dress posts instead. 
If you have a giggling bladder, you may want to get a new pad before reading this.

Roman de la Rose
(Psst...the book is all about sex)

Getting lost down the rabbit hole of reenactor blogs is always fun.  Welcome to my little corner of Wonderland.

This particular burrow twisted its way to the topic of women's undies in the 14th c. or rather the lack of evidence for them (which continues right up to the 1790's when someone finally bothered to mention them, unless you are Italian, then go for it since pre-Rome).  It kept to the polite world of fashionable evidence*  and what was considered right and proper for the time and place.  All well and good, and possibly right... but I think on this topic maybe we should get a bit more personal, a bit more anatomical and a bit more honest about what girl-bits actually do. 
*or lack thereof except for the German things which may or may not have belong to a man or woman, the DNA tests were inconclusive.

I think underwear is like bras. Women with small busts will make the braless argument (14th c.), and have good physical evidence to back it up, "Look!  My A/B breasts are perfect for this time period!  I look just like the paintings." Women who are well-endowed can't imagine going without for extended periods of time - it HURTS, and there is plenty of written evidence to suggest that many people used bust support of some kind; be it camisoles, partlets, breast bags (bras), bindings, supportive shifts, etc. sometimes referenced in art, sometimes not. 

1411 Fountain of Youth
(look!  skivvies! on a person with boobs!)

Regarding underwear, drawers, trousers, leggings, etc.

The Period.
There is the old argument that says "they must have worn something at least once a month" which is valid, but can be answered with tampons* so as not to leave a red trail on the ground or stain one's shoes, clothes, furniture, etc... However, I want to take this beyond the pad/tampon sticking point and talk about the every day life facts of being the proud owner of occasionally non-cooperative and troublesome female bits - through sickness and health.
*for light flow folks who have never seen a clot in their lives...

Thighs.
Women who have slender thighs will say "you don't need drawers, they didn't wear them, go without," whereas women who chaff without leg protection will get a bit testy* if they are told they can't wear something to protect their upper legs from their upper legs.   Let's face it, Lady Monkey Butt may be awesome today (for 30 steps), but it sure wasn't on the market in the 1400's.
*Murderous

I happen to be one of these unfortunate souls - my thighs have not parted ways since I was 8 yrs. old and got run over by the puberty truck.  The last time I was able to walk around without a cotton lining between my legs I was in 2nd grade.  I hated gym class because you had to wear shorts.  Those stupid things would crawl up to my crotch within 5 steps, and here's the busty/hippy girl, trying to run around the track while simultaneously holding my boobs still, pulling out the frontal wedgie, praying I wouldn't get blisters and feeling them bloom with each step; looking like a damn fool and getting yelled at for being last because I was waddling across the finish line trying not to let my thighs move/touch/rub any more.  No, your thighs don't get used to it; they just chafe.  I tried it again a few times in college just to be interesting, and got rubbed red blisters with bloody abrasions that took weeks to heal with me walking around trying to be bowlegged.  It's funny, but I assure you, it's not fun.

A small piece of advice: don't even try to tell us girls with conjoined thighs that we should suffer for historic accuracy, or that our dusty counterparts did so either - no one is that stupid or masochistic.  I could rest my case there, but being mostly English and not at all Italian it's not a strong historic argument - though it does cover body type needs quite well; which should end the reenacting discussion for any rational, thinking, compassionate person.  For the love of all that is comfy, don't take my drawers away!

Personal Humidity.
Ladies with a drier personal environment may say "you don't need underwear."  Those who reside in the subtropics and employ panty liners to catch the copious amounts of mucus are not all that different from their ancestors.  Personal humidity varies throughout the month, and person to person.  Some people may never have a hint of moisture in their lives unless it's stained red... others have never seen a dry day.  If you are one of the many ladies of a more damp persuasion, underwear and liners become quite critical - especially if coupled with wedded thighs and fewer than 4 layers of cloth.

Can you imagine walking around with runny boogers hanging out your nose like that sticky toddler your used-to-be good-friend somehow spawned?  No?  Then don't expect someone to walk around with that between their legs.  Let them have their personal tissues which need something to hold them in place - like a pair of underwear, though I'm sure someone will come up with some ridiculous contraption to deny the possibility of such a simple, logical, easy (historically available) solution.

Sex.
Yes, adults do it.  It's how we get the snotty-nosed toddlers referenced above.  Reproductive sex is messy.  If you are lucky, it's only temporarily messy; but alas, this is reality and like all other fluids in the pelvic region, it can surprise you with ill-timing and astonishing amounts later in the day.  Again, I reference the need for absorbent material on the outside.  Sex was considered part of basic human health, which has thankfully made a return in modern medicine (curse the Victorians).  The most common places you see women without underwear in Medieval, Renaissance & Baroque artwork?  Pornography.  Jokes.  Porny jokes.  Anywhere there is sex, there are naked bums. 

Infections.
Yup, we all get them.  One kind or another, one time or another, every female on the face of the planet is going to have a bad girl-bits day.  Some are best treated with medicine, others with open air... but no matter what, medicine doesn't stay in.  It comes out eventually.  Preferably, it comes out when it's supposed to, which is in the bathroom.  Usually it's when you stand up from the dinner table... then you get that funny look on your face and your husband says "what's wrong Honey?" and you have to sorta try to smile and say "nothing Dear" but the kids all think they just did something wrong and now your husband is wondering what you aren't talking about and.... just imagine that moment on bare thighs and the uncertainty of where that precarious gob is going to land...  Draw whatever conclusions you like, but the fact is, things don't stay in.

Incontinence.
Many women suffer from varying degrees of incontinence, which is quite natural after childbirth, as one ages, has hormonal changes, gains weight, etc.  I can't imagine visiting a friend in 16th c. England, being terrified to laugh or sneeze least my bladder let go all over their new imported oriental rug (which would probably be on the table, not the floor... but you take my meaning).  Nor can I imagine soiling every dress I owned every day at least several times a day while going about my daily tasks.  This doesn't rule that scenario out, but the fact is fabric was expensive.  Silk doesn't like urine, while linen will easily tolerate it.  A shift & petticoat are simply not enough to keep a 55 yr. old bladder's contents away from that damask when the human it resides in sneezes; but several layers of folded diaper linen, an absorbent weave often found in gong tower excavations, are.
Urine cannot be caught by tampons, the anatomy just isn't right. 



The moist squishy facts of being born with that particular body part is that it leaks.  It leaks blood, urine, mucus and various other substances as life goes on.  True then, true now.  For some women more than others.

As a reenactor, I think it has to come down to comfort and feasibility. If you are fine going without, go without. If you'll be crippled by blisters and chaffing within 8 steps or have a wet spot on your skirts 30 minutes into the morning, please ignore the skeptics and wear something.  Quite honestly, as much as I care about historic accuracy, anyone who is close enough to see that garment either needs to not care about your choice in undies or get kicked real hard with shoes that have metal bits built in.

In terms of history and evidence, if you want to find lady's underwear, look at what the sermons are preaching against and glance through the medical treatises on women's health, you'll find a lot more than what is listed in the tailor's inventories. Also look into funeral practices; personal items were routinely burned or donated to charity without being listed individually, and while we can't know exactly what was there, there is room for a reasonable assumption (with caution).

1475-1500 The World Turned Upside Down
Gender role reversals
German

Caution: Don't take my reasoning as proof.  There is scattered evidence, but it is not generally accepted in the academic costume community.  Take my reasoning as logic based on biology; but also remember that modern logic is not always logical in a historic context. 

I'm not using the "if they'd have had it they'd have used it" argument.  I want proof before marketing a product which is why I only carry women's drawers for post-1500 Italy and post-1800 for everyone else.  What I'm saying is, you live now, today in your body.  If it comes down to a choice between perfect scholarly accuracy and being painfully crippled for a week by chaffed thighs, the thighs should win. 

But I also think the thighs won then.  People aren't stupid, and they won't suffer needlessly or cripple themselves when there is a simple solution available.  There is absolutely no logical reason to assume that women did not wear similar styles of underwear as men did when need or want dictated... after all, it was women who made the skivvies in the first place.  It may or may not have been proper, popular or talked about in mixed company - other than in sermons where it was being preached against for hundreds of years - so why?  If it wasn't done, it wouldn't have caused the controversy.  In art, it's either satire or allegory, but that doesn't mean it didn't actually happen.  Just as today, different women may or may not have worn that garment.  Now, just as then, it's not anyone's business but your own.



(I sincerely hope that no one is deeply offended, I did warn you... But I think it's important to address more than the menstrual cycle when talking about this garment and its function in historic context for once-living women).

How not to clean an iron

So, you know that lovely piece of 100% wool that isn't wool?  Yeah, that one.
Honestly, I thought Dad was making popcorn at 11:00 a.m.

I even had it set on Polyester.

So, before I go any farther & you think the following is how you should do this, just go get yourself some Barkeeper's Friend, Faultless hot iron cleaner, or some other product specifically designed to clean irons.  I hear fine steel wool is also helpful.

Don't try what you're about to see at home...

BUT if you want to giggle, read on...

THIS is what happened to my nice iron.
NOT happy.

Calling in the troops I had on hand.
Windex, Goo Gone, Dawn (incognito), Gojo and Paper towels.

After 3 applications of Goo Gone,
I switched to Gojo & things started chipping off.

Following the Gojo was Dawn. 
She worked for a bit, then quit.

Slightly better after fingernail scraping for an hour.

Now, after fingernail scraping for an hour, a person gets pretty frustrated.
Yes, that's a small screw driver.

More Gojo.

After about 8 Gojo/Dawn/screwdriver/Windex
sessions, we now have a clean iron.
A bit scraped up, but usable until I get to buy a new one.
2 hours later.

See this black crap? 
That's melted nylon on my cotton pressing cloth.

Just as an FYI, it's perfectly legal to have up to a 15% blend in wool & call it "100% wool"... in some cases it will be upwards of 30% depending on country of origin.
>>CougH, I woN't sAy where that comes from, cough<<

Anyway, it's legally wool, and at $18.00/yd it was a darn good lie.
Blends can be acrylic, nylon, polyester, rayon or any number of other fibers.  They serve various purposes, mostly to help the wool be a more consistent fiber... until someone like me actually believes the fabric label & sets their iron on one-degree-less-than-required to press a seam and melts it all over the place.

Labels may lie, but irons do not.

Saxony Wheel

My husband gave me an early Christmas gift this weekend.

We went to Mt. Morris, NY to buy a spinning wheel that I'd been looking at for months, only to find that Tom Cook of the Nunda Historic Society had snapped it up a few days before.  I'm very fond of Tom, so I won't be upset, and I hope the wheel finds a good home there.

On went the hunt for a good treadle wheel for me though.  We went through all of the antique shops on Main St. visiting & chatting & talking to no avail.  I was told twice "you are the first person to ever ask for that."  Then we went to Letchworth Barn Antiques down the hill and the moment we walked in the door, she was there.  The Yarn Angles sang.  Much like the Great Wheel in the basement, I looked up & knew she was coming home with me.  She gave me a lovely splinter the first time I laid hands on her.  It was meant to be.

Dusty, dirty, missing parts, a bit chipped, desperate for a drink.
But she went around, the treadle went up & down, the tension screw worked, the wood is sound.

It's missing the top of the distaff - no surprise there; and the entire flyer mechanism, which is disappointing as I'll have to find one that will work with the machine.  The drive band is long gone & would have needed replacing anyway.

Unless the graffiti carved into the top of the table is actually a maker's mark, I can't find one... to me it looks like an adolescent's idol defacing, not the work of a careful craftsman.

Dusty Wheel in her new home

Gunked up mechanism
due to old oil & paint (yes, someone painted the bearings)
Wheel pegs missing, but it works without them.

The Mother, maidens, tension screw & distaff base

other view of maidens & distaff base

The footman kept slipping off.
That's the stick that connects the treadle to the wheel.

I washed the wheel with Murphy's Oil Soap and gave it a good cleaning, polishing, and waxing the next day ... oiled the bits that needed it.  After chipping off the years of paint & old oil (yes, someone once painted it white), it whirrs around like a champ.

Happy shiny wheel!

She really needed a drink

cleaned & oiled

Have to figure out how the flyer assembly
attaches.  There aren't any holes for it.

Some ugly paint is still there. 
I haven't decided what to do about it.

Edge of the wheel.  Double drive band.

John also bought the Box of Parts, which came with the purchase, but none of them go with this particular spinning wheel.  Happily, one of the maidens will work wonderfully as a direct drive for my Great Wheel, and the extra spindle just needs a bit of care to be fully functional again.

Box o Parts

It should be quite an adventure!  The first leg of this journey will be finding a flyer mechanism (spindle, flyer, bobbin, etc) that works with this.  Then a drive band (easy), then either making or finding a distaff.

I think this is my favorite diagram so far...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/93685979@N00/galleries/72157627888287428/