Latest Posts

A make-do-and-mend granny square throw

It’s been a while since I did a proper ‘Textiles on Thursday’ with something from my collection, but I’m trying to go back to that.

This week I have a piece of real kiwiana, but also something that people all over the world may recognise with nostalgia: a throw of crocheted wool granny squares.

The granny square throw

My throw consists of 24 large granny squares: 6 one way, 4 the other, in shades of aqua, forest green, grey, lavender, periwinkle, heathered gold, yellow gold, white, ocean blue, brick red, pale blue, royal blue, peach, magenta, grape, cream and black.  Lots of colours!  The throw is lined in three cotton flour sacks which have been machine sewn together, and machine sewn to the crocheted throw around the edges.

Lots of little bits of yarn and many colours harmonise in this throw

Most of you will recognise granny squares from the 1970s, but the technique dates back to at least the 19th century.  Weldon and Company published a crochet  pattern for what they call ‘patchwork squares’ in 1895, and extolled the ease with which they could be made, and how frugal they were.

Felicity models the throw, because everything looks better with a cat

Their frugality based on the way they used up spare bits of wool, made granny squares popular during the Depression, and in the war years afterwards, when yarn and other textiles were rationed.

I believe my throw dates to the end of this period, probably the mid 1950s, possibly as late as the mid 1960s.  This is based on two things: the yarns used, and the flour sack lining.

Cat & textile

The yarns used in the throw are all pure wool: highly unusual for a 1970s quilt, even in New Zealand where wool has always been predominant over synthetics.

Felicity sniffs the throw. Do the yarns smell old to her?

The colours used are also consistent with 1950s knitting advertisements in New Zealand.  Even the orange shades, which we think of as typical of the 1970s, frequently appear in ’50s designs.

Interestingly, some of the yarns have perished and faded more than others.  The pale aqua blue, for example, is very weak.  I wonder if the dye has actually weakened the fibres?  Unfortunately, there is a lot of this yarn in the throw.

Cat cuteness, and large areas of weak aqua blue

The other evidence for my date is the flour sacks that the throw is lined with.

The old, worn, stained flour sacks

When I first got the throw the flour sacks were so old and worn and torn and stained that I didn’t realise what they were, though the piecing should have given me a clue.

It was only when I started to unpick them, with the thought of re-lining the throw, that I saw the printing on the back and realised their significance.

This flour bag was possibly from Atlas Flour Mills in Timaru, South Canterbury

50 lbs net. DH Brown & Son Limited

New Zealand switched to the metric system in 1967, so the ’50 lbs’ on the second bag definitely dates them to before that date.  Atlas Flour and DH Brown & Son were both established in the 19th century, but I haven’t been able to determine when they ceased trading.  The last mention I have of the former is 1943.  DH Brown seems to have been going strong until at least 1964.

An advertisement for DH Brown & Son 'Peerless' Flour, circa 1900

In addition to the wear to the flour sacks, there is distinct fading to the wool yarns, which is visible when you compare the vivid colours of the protected reverse of the throw to the exposed front.

The bright colours of the reverse - just as they were the day it was crocheted

The one thing that makes me question my dating is the heathered, or marled, gold and cream yarn.  This is a colour I think of as very 1970s in comparison to the other colours. There is a possibility that the throw was made in the early 70s from materials that were primarily stashed over a decade earlier, but the bulk of the yarns and textiles date to the 50s.

Whatever the actual date, I just love the aesthetic and philosophy behind the throw.  I love the vivid hodge-podge of colours: the idea that if you throw enough things together, it will work.  It’s so comfortable and unique and homey and organic.  Everything that modern, synthetic, mass produced items aren’t.

Mmmmy...I just want to snuggle up in the throw and play with Fissy!

I also love thinking of the woman who made this throw (and yes, it was almost certainly a woman).  The love and work that she put into this quilt.  The effort & skill of making something beautiful and useful, something that gave warmth and comfort, out of the last ends of balls of yarn, and three spare flour sacks.

The throw embodies all that is good and noble about crafts: a unique aesthetic, a personal touch, a clear, useful purpose, and a respect for the materials used, and the environment that produced them.

Felicity is more interested in toy than textile

This throw was in my collection for a while, but has moved on to another home.  Much as I love them, there are only so many pretty textiles I can own, and this one was quite bulky.  I hope its new owner love it as much as I do, and is as inspired by it.

What do you think of this fabric?

Blue & pink chintz on dark red background

I picked it up cheap at an op-shop in the form of two curtain panels.  I’m really not sure about it.  It’s sorta late 18th century – but really pushing the accuracy with the pattern.

A curtain panel pinned on Isabelle

I’m either going to commit to making something out of it, or de-stash it right away.  I don’t want it just sitting around in my stash.

No matter what I think, Felicity likes it

Things that are not historical about it:

  • The dark background (most 18th c chintzes have a white background)
  • The evenness of the print
  • It’s a little too busy
  • The pink and blue are a little too modern

Modern pinks & blues, and clear lines

But on the other hand…
  • It was super cheap
  • I already own it, and finding these types of prints can be a headache
  • I want a late 18th c chintz dress
  • It isn’t completely out of the bounds of historical accuracy
  • It’s 100% cotton, and good quality cotton

And it looks rather nice with a pleated back

But on the other hand…
  • Some of the edges are faded
  • There is just enough to make a round gown, if I’m lucky.  It will be a squeeze.

So, dear readers, I ask you, what do you think of this fabric?

Does it say late 18th century to you?  Or does it say “bad fake late 18th century”?

And is it visually appealing?  Do you think it would look good as a robe a la anglaise?

If you saw it made up nicely at a costuming event would you go away saying “wow, did you see that gorgeous wine red chintz dress” or would you forget about it entirely, or would you go away saying “wow, that wine red chintz dress was awful!”

Be brutal with me!

Rate the dress: ruffles, flounces, puffs & bows in the late 1860s

Last week I presented the pseudo Roman ‘Julius Ceasar’ costume worn by Fritz Lieber in the 1917 version of Cleopatra.  Despite the respectable official rating of 6.8 out of 10, I think the real rating should be much, much lower, because most of you were so bored by the outfit that you couldn’t even be bothered to comment on it.  As Daniel said “Eh’.

Ouch.  Sorry.

I’ll try to be more interesting!

This week I present a dress that I’ve been interested in for months and months, but haven’t found the right time to show you.

This dress is the antithesis of anything even slightly manly that might have been going on last week.  When it comes to girly, this dress from the MFA Boston has it all: tiers of stiff, ribbon edged ruffles down the front of the skirt, a pleated flounce at the bottom, a wrapped lace and ribbon trimmed bertha with bows catching up the ruffled sleeves, a pleated sash, and three tiers of graduated poofs descending down the back of the skirt, culminating in a final ruffled flounce, all with more bows and lace.   The only thing it doesn’t have is pink: the colour scheme is quite unusual and restrained, with slightly off white tulle, floral patterned off-white brocaded taffeta, blonde lace, and burnt orange and black trim.

Evening dress, 1865-1870, Mme Roger, Paris MFA Boston

Wowzers!

Too much girly fluff and froo froo?  Or does the unusual trim colour save it?  And is there enough interest?  Or is it too much too process?  And will the colour scheme be too close to the ill fated Worth Jr dress, thus dooming this one?

Rate the Dress on a scale of 1 to 10