This Old Thing?

[Spinster]

I'm lifting a piece of discussion from the "ceramic cup" thread in hopes of provoking more discussion. And I'm posing this question for items of household use, and not clothing (out of fashion clothing is a whole 'nother question)

When does something move from being "this old thing" to a prized item from a past time? When does a common household dish move from feeding people to watering the chickens, and under what circumstances? When does using a thing from an earlier time period move from being a sign a of frugal household and become an unacceptable abberation?

I have a large clay water cistern (a big, lidded jug with a wooden tap at the lower edge), its parent dug from a 1740's farmstead, and reproduced by a local potter from clay dug on the same riverbank, and fired on the site. In looks, weight and utility, the reproduction matches its parent. I'm perfectly comfortable in using this cistern in my 1750 quarters and on the mantle of my 1812 period cabin, on the same riverbank less than a mile down the path. Its handy to have water at the turn of a wooden tap that is cleaner and cooler than that in an open bucket.

Yet, in 1860, (when this cistern is over 100 years old, an item in daily household use, made of a breakable material), should I still rely on its utility as a reason for having it? They 'could' have had it--but would they have?

[Drygoods]

Re: This Old Thing?

I would think that the old cistern would have been still used. Why not? I mean after all that time it was still useful and served a functional purpose. It certainly would have been used somewhere on the property.....on the other hand, it might have been one of those treasures left in the barn. However, my money goes on it still being used.

Sometimes, old things find different uses. For instance.....

Some 20 years ago when my husband and I courted, we found some blue and white staffordshire in an antique store for quite a hefty price which just so happend to match some old china that we had at home. I always liked the pattern and decided to retrace the number of pieces left at my parents home and nearby grandparents property. It seems that the china had been reduced to being used for flower pot holders that sat out in the heat and snow for many years. I gathered up what I could and found enough place settings for 20 people! Who knows how many pieces were in the original set when it was made and traveled from England in 1837. My lesson was that anything can still serve a function in life and never to give up on anything despite the age. :D

I often use this china with many of my living history interpretation events. No doubt many of the folks here on the forum use personal family items in the same way.

Mfr,
Judith Peebles

[MissMaggie]

Re: This Old Thing?

You have to consider how people are in modern society. Today people upgrade, trade in, throw away, tear down, and generally get rid of anything that shows even the slightest hint of being old or worn out. However, you don't need to go that far back before you find a generation that doesn't think that way. My Grandmother is using the same two living room armchairs from 1975, she is used the same microwave for 20 years, she had the same bedspread from sometime in the 1960s up until 3 years ago (she gave them to me at that point). My other grandmother (who is about 15 years older) works exactly the same way. My Mom will only buy new if she finds something she absolutely falls in love with and then whatever it is replacing is given to a charity shop. I work with a girl that will only wear Nike shoes and stops wearing them the moment they start look worn. Sometime in my parent's generation we stopped caring so much about function and started worrying about the fashion end of things.
I suspect the average lady of the 1860s would be much like my grandmother's, getting new only when things got too worn out for practical use or they were broken entirely. The very wealthy would very likely change everything for the current fashions, and even then the old China would either be sold or downgraded for use by the children or servants. The very poor would use everything until it was broken beyond any further use.
Of course, in all of this one must add in personal taste. I personally love old stuff and if its got some character in the form of a repaired break, a name written on the page or a worn piece of furniture I love it all the more. Of course, I'm also a cheap skate...the more modern things you buy new the less fabric you can buy for dresses. :D

[Jefferson Guards]

Re: This Old Thing?

Just to add a little bit to the discussion:

One of the problems with finding Mid-19th century men's clothing is the fact that very often when styles changed the clothing was altered to suit the new fashion as best they could. Therefore, the "old" could be made into the "new." If some article of clothing was unusable in its intended form it could be utilized for some other purpose. Thus there was less waste especially if money was tight.

One thing you would have to consider is; would the cistern have survived the 100 years from the date of it's manufacture to the 1860s? Being a breakable item and one that would probably have been used daily, the odds of it breaking would be greater than something more durable. Especially when you consider that it would have been past on to two or three generations by 1860 with each generation probably being less careful with it. I find people are much less concerned over common items and treat "fine" or "special" goods with more care.

[MrsArmstrong]

Re: This Old Thing?

If we are looking at household goods, like dishes and furniture that would last longer than clothing styles, wouldn't one need to look at "when" they were first acquired? Would it not be feasible to figure about when you would have gotten them.
If I know about when I got married, then what would I have taken with me when married and what would have been purchased? Would you have moved into an established home or started new? Did you take a lot from your home if a woman?
They didn't move like we do today. If an item like the cistern was always in the same place and not moved, might not it have survived if taken care of?
At one conference that talked about furniture, some furniture would be moved to upper less seen rooms or out to the kithen or back stoop.

BTW...I am not a GM and I like my 20 year old microwave. I take care of it, clean it and do put anything in it that would make it stop working....my son almost killed it last week while home on vacation! Also my mother has gone thru about four of them!
Susan Armstrong

[ElizabethClark]

Re: This Old Thing?

They didn't move like we do today.

Nope, they packed up everything and migrated across continents in a wagon, and we use a van. :) Very different.

While some folks were less mobile in the early frontier areas, I really don't think we can say the folks in the early 19th century were less mobile than modern society. The reasons for moving were much the same, even (adventure, better job, better shot at life for children, strike it rich). And reading pre-war travelers accounts, I'm amazed by the nonchalance of many of the moves that I would not undertake today... across the isthmus of Panama, or back and forth across the continent, or round South America a few times... the amount of travel under what we would consider difficult circumstances is really amazing.

Now, some folks did stay put. Some folks still do today; there are people I know who were born here, went to school here, married from here, and still live here--and their family has been on the same land since the 1860s, when their immigrations stopped here. But in the 40s and 50s their families were wandering across the country, having crossed from Britain, and not knowing what they would find at the end of the journey. (Some days, I think they should have kept on looking.)

Travel rant aside, there are some other things I wanted to touch on that factor into whether or not a household item might be kept/used for long times.

One of the complaints and snips I've read in period accounts is of the idiocy of "new money"--Old Money made use of older things well, but "new money" kept upgrading to be fashionable. So wealth isn't necessarily the best predictor of whether or not you'd still use something. Especially when you factor in the development of the ice trades in the 18150-1850 era: it would be more fashionable, by the 1830s, to have daily ice delivery, and keep your drinks in an ice-filler "cooler" (combo of evaporative and double-chambered for ice surrounding the beverage), or drink them with ice chips from the domestic supply. By the 1850s, this is pretty "old hat" for many urban households, including the far "less wealthy" city residents in many port and up-river cities in the US. (Great book on this: The Frozen Water Trade, Gavin Weightman) In rural areas that freeze in the winter, even poor households can stock up their own ice, so geography will play into ice availability more than economics will, in my opinion.

Regarding the specific use of the water cooler, I think one route to take would be to look at cooler designs further into the century. If that same basic utilitarian shape could be documented into the 40s, for instance, then you're talking about a gap of only 20 years... and under the right considerations, that's more possible than a porous, breakable utilitarian object lasting for over 100 years, in my opinion. (And, in any case, even if the cooler's survivability is implausible, it would be far more plausible than those yellow McDonalds plastic ones. :) )

On generalized "heirloomability"--I think the process of changing from utilitarian object to treasured item has to do with children. We tend to treasure what we loved in childhood.

While the rest of the family might view Grandpa's shaving mug with distaste (nasty, old thing!), if a young man has fond memories of "shaving" with the dull side of Grandpa's razor each morning, that item is more likely to be kept, and possibly even used, by the young man, even in the face of mild amusement from his family. As time goes by and he begins to realize that Grandpa was not the only mortal object involved (the mug could die, too), it may be taken out of use and kept in the "treasured" spot. It's possible no one else values it but him, though.

One common complaint I keep reading in household manuals is how "fast" the newer generations are, how focused on the future, and neglectful of the past. How they do not treasure anything from the early Republic, how they are disrespectful of tradition and traditional roles... and that's from the 1850s and 1860s. Sounds a little familiar, actually. :)

While we can't use our own modern concepts of "value" to evaluate the past, some things just haven't changed, based upon the evidence in the historic record.

[1stMaine]

Re: This Old Thing?

Comrades,

I'd like to weigh in here with another angle regarding the life-span of items. Most of these items, especially like the cistern, would be in use until something better or more useful could replace it. It's somewhat akin to Newton's 3rd law of motion, where an item in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. It's the same here. Unless a new technology comes along that does the same thing better and cheaper, the item in question is likely to remain in it's intended use. Barring injury, it's function is still useful and would remain so.
Myfather still has a wood stove in his kitchen. true enough, he doesn't use it for baking or cooking, but he DOES use it for heat and to make coffee with in the morning. It's a gorgeous 1870's cast-iron stove with wonderful porcelain and nickle trim, and it's been in use for as long as I can remember. True enough, he has an electric range and a microwave for the bulk of the cooking, but there's something comfortable about that old stove, and the pile of wood on the porch to feed it.
I have a set of Johnson Brothers china from around the time of WWI. We use it on a daily basis as our regular table service. I have some newer Laura Ashley and plain glass pieces as well, but for the most part, the old stuff is our daily use item. It's getting more expensive now to replace, with plates going for around 30 bucks a pop, but it again is comfortable for our family, and we'd probably miss it if we sold it off.
Up here in Maine there's an old adage that I suspect fits the bill regarding the cistern. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I can see know good reason why the old cistern wouldn't still be in use, especially if itdidn't have something better to replace it.
Respects,

[Drygoods]

Re: This Old Thing?

After reading the bit about the clothing, I thought of this.......

no doubt your parents have clothing that is over 10 years old, your grandparents probably have clothing over 20 years old. Children of the depression seem to save much more than previous generations (IMO). Another thing, we do not have the large profitable market for used clothing that existed in the 19th Century. Yes, you can find them, but the number of people who shop them is much smaller than the past.

I'd agree with the comment that we are a far more disposable society. A great deal also depends on the amount of space you have for storage.

Mfr,
Judith Peebles

[Spinster]

Re: This Old Thing?

Okay, now lets move beyond the cistern, and look for other 'old things' that an 1860 mindset would value. Again, not speaking only of monetary value here, but of those irreplaceable items of sentiment.

Some things are pretty obvious---if I come from people of substance, then one of the china cups or dishes that my mother/grandmother purchased as import goods around 1800, that graced our table through my growing up years, would be an example of the one true thing that I would hold on to if forced to leave my home--for the same reasons that my Daughter values some 1975 everyday dishes that saw constant use in our home, but disdains the far more valuable 1975 china that mostly stayed in storage, too 'good' to use.

Or it could be a certain treasured book--possibly a Bible, but maybe some other inspirational or devotional title. Or a piece of jewelry or a clock.

But if I came from people of poor means, or was illiterate, what would those items of some sentimental value look like?

If I were Catholic, then Mother's rosary, however crude, would certainly be something that would not leave my sight, but if illiterate and Protestant, what religious item would connect my heart to better times?

A century prior, the carved nostepinne', or spindle, or swift would have been an item of some sentiment to me, as would a scrimshawed corset busk. But other than a lock of a hair, I can't come up with a common 'old thing' that would make a lower class 1860 women weep if it were lost.

So, what I'm really looking for here is examples of what Susan Hughes calls 'mental baggage'.

(And, as an aside, the REAL reason we are now so hinky about carting that cistern around is that, while we gave a pair of exceptionally well made hand knitted socks for it, the potter is now getting $500 in an art gallery for the same piece, and we could not possibly afford to replace it)

[TennViv]

Re: This Old Thing?

Hmmm, how about . . .

a hair brush (or hand mirror, or dresser set)
a thimble
an otherwise worthless knick-knack still displayed proudly on a mantle
a broken & mended serving platter

Just a few examples from my own house.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: This Old Thing?

Man, at $500, I'd be hinky about it, too. LOL That's a mess of socks.

Hmm...
Hair brushes, when used for a long period of time, eventually die--but a pretty silver-back dresser set might be something more long lived.

Thimbles do wear out with use, if it's an ivory one (which I REALLY REALLY want... vegetable ivory, perhaps, since the original material is no longer available to us?)

I don't know if I can agree that we are a far more disposable society than the 1860s. In some respects, perhaps... but I keep running across passages talking about what a wasteful place America is getting to be, with all the easy, cheap goods available--in the 1850s.

With the advent of high domestic printed cotton production (1820s and 1830s), materials become cheap to the point that it makes more sense to trade off a worn-out cotton and buy new, or buy a used wool, than to keep mending it... so it becomes disposable.

With newer manufacturing processes for household goods, cleaning preparations, etc, there's not so much pressure to keep care of them, because cheap (relatively) replacements are available (silver plate, rather than silver, for instance, or cheap cooking pots for stovetop use that wouldn't have survived the open hearth).

With the switch from predominantly agrarian, self-production, to a far more industrialized nation (again, this is happening full swing in the 1830 era--three decades before the war), cash can be made available to purchase manufactured goods; a farm wife isn't necessarily needing to produce every speck of home consumption by hand, and didn't necessarily hang onto every bit for economy's sake. Garbage dumps are filled with things that are actually perfectly serviceable, but got tossed down the pit anyhow, right along with broken things.

If every single person were so darned thrifty, why do household manuals (and even dressmaking manuals as far back as 1838) complain over the lack of frugality in today's homemakers?

I would put forth the thought that things were then as they ever have been: thrift is one option, but so is conspicuous consumption, and both are valid mental and economic pictures for the mid-century.

[Anna Worden Bauersmith]

Re: This Old Thing?

I just wanted to add a quick support (before the library closes) for the use it till it is replaced concept. There is a great book called "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap". While much of the book goes beyond our time period, the first third discusses how innovations influenced what people had in their homes and social structure.

Also, Elizabeth, next time you come across some of those passages could you share their location please? I think they could be useful for discussions with some students.

Anna Worden

[ElizabethClark]

Re: This Old Thing?

Absolutely! I'll keep the thread address in my bookmarks, and add to it as I come across them. I'm mostly reading on the used clothing trade, so that has something to do with it, I'm sure. LOL

I know off-hand that there were several remarks upon the subject in Mrs. Child's little book that was reprinted by Applewood books... my copy is upstairs, and I'll transcribe a few bits in the morning.

[vbetts]

Re: This Old Thing?

"But if I came from people of poor means, or was illiterate, what would those items of some sentimental value look like?"

How about a quilt, a coverlid, a bit of lace? Perhaps a step higher, a single silver spoon? Something bigger--a well made chair or rocker, made, perhaps, by a family member. A Bible with the births, deaths, and marriages in it, even if I couldn't read it myself. A mantle clock--"The Honorable Fraternity of Moving Merchants: Yankee Peddlers in the Old South, 1800-1860", a dissertation by Joseph T. Rainer, 2000, goes into great detail on the desire in the backwoods for the status symbol of a clock, even if they had to pay it out on time, even if it was cheap junk.

Vicki Betts
vbetts@gower.net

[Hank Trent]

Re: This Old Thing?

I would put forth the thought that things were then as they ever have been: thrift is one option, but so is conspicuous consumption, and both are valid mental and economic pictures for the mid-century.

From the article "Mothers, Spare Yourselves," in Home Memories, 1858, p. 305-306

In this age of dressing, travelling and sight-seeing; in this age when children are expected to have a large share in all the priveleges and exciting scenes of the times, the mother, with her intense love for her offspring, and an ambition in their behalf, active and unlimited as her love, is very liable to pursue a course absolutely cruel and suicidal towards herself, while towards her family it is injudicious, and in its results unkind....

[the article describes how mothers overtax themselves to spoil their children and keep up with fashion, including the following:]

In the staid and quiet times of sixty, eight, or one hundred years ago... no weeks of toil, with nights of broken rest were spent in the indispensable work of tearing up and throwing out furniture and fixtures (articles endeared to the eye and the heart, by early, fond associations,) to make room for the style and elegance of modern times. Then the employing of a tailoress or mantua-maker for a week or two in the house, was an event which told in the family for one year at least, as the peace and system of the family arrangements were not in those years disturbed by the arrival of the 'latest Parisian style.'

The following is from House and Home Papers, 1869, by Harriet Beecher Stowe. This section is written as a dialog among several people, and I've taken out snippets of their conversation:

...I cannot but think that the requirements of fashion are becoming needlessly extravagant, particular in regard to the dress of women. It seems to me, it is making the support of families so burdensome that young men are discouraged from marriage...

...For instance, in your mother's day girls talked of a pair of gloves,--now they talk of a pack; then it was a bonnet summer and winter,--now it is a bonnet spring, summer, autumn, and winter...

...Every device of the toilet is immediately taken up and varied and improved on, so as to impose an almost monthly necessity for novelty... It seems to me that an infinity of money must be spent in these trifles, by those who make the least pretension to keep in the fashion...

...I wish you could see Miss Thorne's fall dresses... She runs through and wears out these expensive things, with all their velvet and thread lace, just as I wear my commonest ones; and at the end of the season they are really gone,--spotted, stained, frayed, the lace all pulled to pieces,--nothing left to save or make over. I feels as if Jenny and I were patterns of economy, when I see such things...

...There is the same difficulty in my housekeeping... There is no subject on which all the world are censuring one another so much as this. Hardly any one but thinks her neighbors extravagant in some one or more particulars, and takes for granted that she herself is an economist...

...I think there is a peculiar temptation in a life organized as ours is in America. There are here no settled classes, with similar ratios of income. Mixed together in the same society, going to the same parties, and blended in daily neighborly intercourse, are families of the most opposite extremes in point of fortune... our expenses are constantly increased by the proximity of these things... We don't expect to carpet our house with Aminster and hang our windows with damask, but at least we must have Brussels and brocatelle... And so we go on getting hundreds of things that we don't need, that have no real value except that they soothe our self-love,--and for these inferior articles...

...A young man beginning life... thinks it elegant and gallant to affect a careless air about money, especially among ladies... The same is true of young girls, and of married men and women too,--the whole of them are ashamed of economy...

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net