Mudlarking Finds

Mudlarking is time-consuming. I spend hours collecting, washing, drying, sorting, arranging, photographing, labeling, and writing about what I find. But I love it. I can’t WAIT to show things to people back in the US who will be able to learn from, and teach me about, what I’ve found.

Tuesday during the low mid-day tide I celebrated my children’s return to school by doing something they find mind-numbing: kneeling on hard rocks and not paying enough attention to passing boats to keep my feet dry. (The Thames doesn’t have waves, but large craft create them; they can rather quickly go further up the beach than you expect.)

I exercised little self-restraint while collecting, picking up anything that caught my eye and quickly plopping it into the bag. I had some delightful discoveries when I washed up.

This find made my day. The domino is thin, about 1.5mm. I suspect it is bone or ivory. I found it propped sideways against a rock, just one thin short edge visible. (I’ll send a photo into the Museum of London to see whether she wants to record it.)
cwh_mb_010714c

I suppose it goes well with my best find from two months ago (the last time I was out on the Thames), a wooden die:
IMG_9981 IMG_9989

I found a few very curious things that I cannot identify, such as the bit of antler, top left. It isn’t JUST an antler, because the narrow end is clearly worked – rounded, with some cuts. A friend suggested that it might be the top of a walking cane, but I’m not sure the top is smooth enough for that. It doesn’t have the slick, worn pattern I’d expect regular use to create. Hmmm…do you have ideas?
cwh_mb_010714x

The rest of the objects are natural (not man-made) items I collected. Below the antler is an oyster shell – the discarded “street food” wrapper of Elizabethan London. Usually I ignore them – they’re everywhere and ugly – but this one has a faintly opalescent blue color. Below that, two bits of agate, and at the bottom, coral. These didn’t erode from the local clay; they were imported. When, and from where, I cannot tell. The other objects are mother of pearl. Someone must have worked them nearby; the small patch of beach I visited is littered with them.

What I most enjoy finding are the really tiny things. The way I FIND tiny things is to hunt for pins. When I’m close enough to the ground to find lots of pins, I’m close enough to find fabulous treasures (like a domino!). I’d heard that there was a spot with a LOAD of pins near my favorite hunting ground, but I’d never encountered it because I hadn’t been looking there when the tide was low enough. Tuesday I found it. I saw the ground just bristling with pins, I started picking them up…and counting. 341 pins and two very wet feet later (and my jeans, all the way to my knees) I quit – the incoming tide had covered the sweet spot. Before finding this “nest” of pins, I’d collected quite a few, so (as usual) I counted them when I got home. How many do you think I found?
cwh_mb_0107a cwh_mb_0107b

Five hundred and thirty two. Those little piles are 25 pins each. Later, like when I can no longer go mudlarking in the Thames, I must study them. Sort them. Learn from them. Maybe polish them up and see how shiny they can get!

Besides pins, the tiniest things I found were beads (middle). The column on the left at first seamed like beads – the larger object has the tiniest hole I can imagine running through the center – but now I wonder whether they might be a fossilized something? On the right are two marble-like objects. The lower one is coarse – cracks all over, not perfectly round. Are they man-made? Were they for industrial purposes, not playthings?
cwh_mb_010714y

More strange and unidentified finds below: on the left, a rusted bit of pipe (now blocked with rusted-on sand, but originally hollow) with intricate piercings. What can it be?

The second column is buttons. Top a modern, boring one that says “Cherokee” – but below that is one that says “16 Fenchurch St” and “Kin(g?) Bros.” I can find the shop location – about a 20 minute walk from where I found the button, in the middle of the City of London – but I cannot decipher or locate the name of the tailors. The odd twisted bit below the third, upside down and totally plain button, is (I think) a button shank, one on which the soldering has failed, detaching it from its button.

The third column, top two items, are twists of wire that likely held goods ready for sale, maybe pins. Below are a series of wires that have been shaped, worked – but I cannot discern their uses.

Last a collection of seven aglets, two very thin wire rings, both split, and two hooks for holding clothing closed. I especially love the large bent hook, so clearly hand-made.
cwh_mb_010714v

I have no idea why I picked up so many rusted iron nails and odd brass tacks this time out. The super-tiny tack on the right even has a pattern on its head.
cwh_mb_010714w

Even after cleaning and studying, some of the metal and wire fragments I find are just that – unidentifiable scraps. I was actually at the point of putting away the items below before I figured out what those two similar gray bars on the left are: printer’s type. I have a colon and a lowercase letter “m”.
cwh_mb_010714u

The long wire with the metal tag was also a surprise, because the reverse looks like this:
cwh_mb_010714t 

A merchant’s tag, perhaps? And is that a letter T before the S, or perhaps a poor impression of a J?

And pottery. Of COURSE I found pottery. I’m really no expert at identifying it, but I’ll do my best. I’ve linked to Julia’s excellent blog posts about similar mudlarking finds; her writing has been fascinating and informative to me.

Some is hand painted in blue:
cwh_mb_010714i

or other colors:
cwh_mb_010714r

Some is transferware (the top left has three tiny people on it):
cwh_mb_010714h

Some is stoneware with blue accents…hmmm…except for the top right and top left, which might be different.
cwh_mb_010714j 

A few are unique, like the eagle-like cup handle (?) and next to it the tile with the fleur-de-lis. Some are enigmas, like the ridged one in the middle with black squiggles. And the four with blue paint might be delftware…if I’m identifying it correctly.
cwh_mb_010714e

There are lots of bits with green glaze, and some of them are likely Tudor or Medieval:
cwh_mb_010714g

Some are way too big, and I probably should have left them on the shore, but then I thought I might have a pottery-making friend who’d like to see them. The one on the right might be a stove tile – it has glaze on one edge as well as the top surface.
cwh_mb_010714d

Some have holes, as if they might be colanders. Or are curved like handles. Or have holes because they came from, well, what? The last two are likely pipkin handles.
cwh_mb_010714f

Blue and green shell-edged pearlware is so common that at first I thought it was something completely modern, not Victorian.
cwh_mb_010714l

I never get tired of the patterns on combed slipware:
cwh_mb_010714p

There is assorted white pottery – some salt glazed, some pearlware, some who knows what:
cwh_mb_010714m

Some is delicate porcelain:
cwh_mb_010714q

and some is coarse and chunky, like this roof tile (I liked its triangular hole), handle to a “Bellarmine” jar, and a piece of redware painted with green slip.
cwh_mb_010714o

Some are slightly less common, like the black basalt stoneware, spongeware, and bandedware. Hmmm…and the bottom most banded piece might not belong with that group.
cwh_mb_010714n

And pipes. Even though the spot that was so rich in pipes a few months ago has been picked over until it is nothing but boring fragments of pipe stems and crushed bowls without maker’s marks, I did find these to take home. A few maker’s marks, a couple ends of the pipe stem (see how it tapers to such a narrow end, and the way it is rounded?), and one fancy Victorian pipe stem. It says “Parker” on the reverse and “(J)ohn St” on this side.
cwh_mb_010714s

I also brought home a few glass fragments. The photo simply cannot capture what is so intriguing about these. The top bit has aged iridescent, the large one is full of tiny air bubbles, the white one has a lovely shine, the scaly one is an opaque teal color, and the bottom one is simply a nice worn bit of sea glass.
cwh_mb_010714k

Treasures. Every last thing is, to me, a tiny treasure. And as annoying as it is to clean and dry and store everything (and to loose the use of my kitchen counter while I work through the task), I can’t wait to go mudlarking again.

Tailoring Doublets and Hose, Part 2: Draping the Toile

Several months passed between my Tailoring Stitches and Techniques class and my Doublets class. Here Claire and Melanie took on five students: an experienced sempstress who works on an Elizabethan farm, a young woman who works on costuming in an opera house, a graduate student who has taken several other School of Historical Dress classes, and a brand new graduate student with no sewing experience whose adviser told her to sign up for this class but who had not at ALL anticipated how much this was a hands-on exercise (despite this, she did lovely work and kept an admirably cheerful spirit throughout). And me.

We had quite some time to get to know each other, spending six long days tight-packed around the table in Jenny’s workroom, all of us stitching together, learning together, confused together. We had time to talk, to tell stories. We talked about our lives and families, our jobs and hobbies, our homes and hassles. Many of us told stories not only about our partners and children, but of our mothers and grandmothers. Stories about sewing, cooking, teaching and more. We ate lunch together around Jenny’s kitchen table, took tea together every time it was offered, and politely shared the melt-in-your mouth homemade shortbread cookies and assorted sweets. When class ended, it almost seemed as if we were friends.

Patterning Doublets: the Toile

One key thing that I knew I’d learn in the doublet class – because in other classes, students had talked about it, and about how difficult it was – was how to design a pattern. This is something I have attempted before, but I was sure I’d have a lot to learn.

I did.

We started with something familiar to me: draping a toile, or muslin, which is also sometimes called a pattern block. (Toile is apparently a British term and muslin the American, but because most of the authors I read for costume information – Sarah Thursfield, Janet Arnold, the Tudor Tailor team – are British, some of the UK terminology is more familiar to me than the US versions.) What this means is taking large pieces of inexpensive fabric, often medium weight unbleached cotton, and pinning it snugly around a person so as to capture their three-dimensional shape. When you remove the pins and lay it out, you have two dimensional pattern pieces.

I won’t try to tell you how to drape a toile – there are books and websites out there that will do a better job. I learned by reading Sarah Thursfield’s Medieval Tailor’s Assistant. Later I took a workshop taught by Drea Callicut in how to fit and pattern a self-supporting linen kirtle (known in Society for Creative Anachronism circles as a Gothic fitted gown, or GFG). She used the instructions created by Charlotte Johnson (How to Pattern a Gothic Fitted Dress). With coaching and practice, I got better.

Since our class lacked a model, we fitted a full size articulated dressmakers dummy. Smooth, pin, pinch, pin, repin, shift, wiggle, pin, mark your pin lines, remove the toile. No need to ask whether he was comfortable, or would he lift that arm, or “oh, I’m so sorry! I didn’t mean to prick you!” or “I told you not to look down at me while I’m pinning, it changes the way this drapes on you, please stand up straight like I asked.” He was easy to work with.

We also took his measurements. Later, we had a live model come in for a fitting, and were shown again exactly where on the body to start and end each measurement. I learned a few useful tips:

If you start by fixing something around the person’s waist (his actual waist, not where he’s used to his trousers sitting) – something like a tape measure or a belt – and make sure it doesn’t shift while you’re working, you have a useful baseline for many measurements. You need to measure from under his arm to his waist, and from the nape of his neck to his waist, and maybe even total distance over the shoulder from front waist to back waist. If you have that waist point clearly marked, you’ll be able to take more accurate measurements more quickly.

tshd_claire_measuring1

But you’ll still do a bit of poking hard to find the bone for things like the shoulder point.

When you need to find the nape of the neck, have him tip his head forward. The bone that sticks out is the nape of the neck.

tshd_claire_measuring2

 

The doublet sleeves should be snugly fitted, just like the body. If the gentleman being fitted flexes his arm as pictured below, you can measure the outside and the inside of the arm and get a better idea of how much length you’ll need to keep the finished sleeve from riding up well past his wrist.

 

tshd_claire_measuring3

I feel as if I should be able to point you, the reader, to a useful list of what measurements you need to take, but I cannot think of one. We received a handout from class, but of course the School of Historical Dress holds that copyright, and I cannot post it here. If you know of a book or website with this information, please share!

 

Patterning Doublets: Pattern Drafting

Then came the mind-whirling, amazing, hard to describe stuff. We watched as Claire and Melanie each drafted a pattern, but not in any way I’d ever done it before.

I’m used to taking the toile, laying it flat, and smoothing out the inconsistencies between the two halves of the toile. Even if you’re pinning on a very symmetrical person, each half of the toile will have a slightly different shape, and honestly most people are far from symmetrical. Then you add a bit where you want to pad and shape the garment differently than the basic human form – a bit more added in a nice rounded shape in front on the lower torso to make a peascod belly, say.

They took measurements, a huge piece of paper, and a compass. (An enormous beam compass like this one.) Although they looked at the toiles and measured a few parts of them, they didn’t use the shape of the toile as the basis of the pattern. After they drew the X and Y axes, every point they used, every curve, every straight line was created by casting circles from a previous point (or points). Every circle had a radius that related to a fractional part of a yard, or sometime to a fractional portion of some length that had already been plotted onto the pattern. They’d try one curve, decide they didn’t like it, try another. They’d need a point from which to cast a large, shallow curve – and they’d have to find two other possible curves cast from the pattern to create the point they needed.

If this doesn’t make sense, forgive me. I really haven’t wrapped my head around it yet. I need practice, lots of practice, before I will be able to really explain what they wanted us to learn.

Their patterns grew, bit by bit, with curves and points and lines that all had a numerical relationship to one another. Claire and Melanie had different “favorite” curves they preferred, or repeatedly found useful. They had different ways of describing what they did. But their technique was the same: geometrical construction and a whole lot of “that’s the way I think it should look.” Of course, Claire and Melanie have also studied extant garments and looked carefully at cutting diagrams in period tailoring manuals. The patterns they’ve observed in those heavily influence the choices they made as they shaped their patterns.

It was amazing. Mind blowing. And really, really hard to learn to do. Thankfully, we didn’t have to tackle that until the next day.

Please ask questions – it helps me figure out what I still haven’t described.