As part of Colonial Williamsburg's free digital library vintage womans damask fashion, you can examine a transcription of an inventory of a woman called Mary Cooley's property here. This is one of the papers we appreciate sharing with visitors. Cooley was a York County nurse-midwife who died in February 1778. Because she was a widow and had a little infant, her estate had to be valued through a probate inventory. Among other things, she had ten dresses, six petticoats, thirteen aprons, fifteen hats, and nine shifts in her wardrobe when she passed away. Not bad for a single mother and professional woman. However, a flaw with this data is immediately apparent when one looks more closely at the values and descriptions of the clothing listed. Where are the work clothes of Mrs. Cooley, who was obviously not delivering babies in Persian silk, red satin, or damask? Inventories only contained goods that were valuable enough to be sold again since they served as the formal record of a deceased person's estate. Items having little apparent market worth, such as well-worn daily wear, were not counted and were just discarded, giving us an imprecise image of what a person's wardrobe actually looked like. In summary, there was always more than what is seen on paper.
Take Martha Jefferson's inventory, which was written many months before Mary Cooley's in September 1777 and was written by Thomas Jefferson's wife. Looking in her own closet, Martha mentions 20 shifts, 9 petticoats, 18 aprons, and 16 dresses (18 if you include the two "to be made up"). Even though the two women's socioeconomic statuses differ, the figures are really rather similar to what we could have assumed Cooley's to have been, if this personal account is accurate (see how many times she makes a distinction between "old" and "new" products).
However, when it comes to Vintage womans damask fashion," even these self-reported figures are questionable. Although we are lucky to have such a document, its current historical context is something we do not have. What initially prompted Martha Jefferson to do such an inventory? Should it be interpreted as "I only have sixteen gowns, Thomas! Before the season starts, I have to go shopping! Or even "I have sixteen gowns." Let's take a short break from spending, would you? Did 16 seem like a big number? Was Martha Jefferson typical of women of her class or just typical of all stylish women who enjoyed shopping, regardless of social standing?
However, didn't individuals have to sew their own clothing?
In the 18th century, the majority of individuals were able to sew. Boys and girls from all social classes were taught to sew as a fundamental life skill as part of their hands-on education. However, not everyone who knew how to sew was also able to manufacture clothes. As we like to say in our shop, you can't construct a house just because you can hammer in a nail. A professional apprenticeship was required to teach someone how to cut out the forms for clothing and fit them to a specific body. Only experts possessed the breadth and depth of expertise required to make garments before patterns, instruction manuals, and the internet democratized that knowledge by making it readily available. Although sewing did take place at home, it was the type of stitching that repaired and preserved a wardrobe rather than the type that created it from beginning to end.
However, how could the majority of people in that era buy custom-made apparel given their limited financial resources? That was excessively pricey, wasn't it?
It is true that there was little cash available in the colonies, but it didn't stop people from shopping! Consider the current state of the economy: the majority of us also do not carry cash. We mostly rely on credit instead, which is a financial substitute that entails the promise of future payback. For three centuries, this has been the case. Because Virginia's economy was agrarian in the eighteenth century, most people only had money once a year, when their crops were gathered and sold. Merchants and stores kept credit account books that allowed consumers to spend freely, whether or not they had the money to support that spending, in order to keep the economy rolling in the meantime. There are certain things that never change!
Additionally, remember that a person does not necessarily need to have a tiny wardrobe simply because they do not have a large budget for clothing. Clothes came in a variety of pricing points, much like now. Customers just selected less costly fabrics to obtain more reasonably priced clothing because the cost of materials, not labor, determined the pricing of the majority of things. The most stylish look of the season would look as good in a luxury silk brocade or a workaday worsted wool. If you had to choose, would you rather spend $150 on a single pair of name-brand shoes or the same amount on three pairs of shoes that cost $50 each but didn't have the designer label? For some, "fashion" refers to the brand's standing, but for others, a range of outfits is more significant. Both in the 18th century and now, a person's clothing choices reveal far more about their personal values and interests than they do about their social standing or financial standing.
However, I can say with certainty that closets were small and that, if they existed at all, there were not many in older homes. That suggests that humans could not have had as much clothes, doesn't it?
It's true! Visitors to our ancient homes here at CW often and accurately comment on the paucity of closet space. However, closets were utilized for quite different purposes in the 18th century than they are now. The best place to keep important moveable property, such as the family's silver, is a lockable closet from the 18th century. Instead, clothing was kept in portable storage like trunks or furniture like chests of drawers and clothes presses, which made it simple to put away infrequent or off-season items until they were required again. Clothes may be kept easily accessible on hooks to allow air to flow and air out while being worn, which would help keep creases at bay.
The Wall