period appropriate fabrics
- Thread starter millcrek
- Start date
Jack Plane
Well-known member
Antiquity
Well-known member
Contact Laura at, www.wmboothdraper.com, and ask her if their fabrics are also for upholstery.
Dennis Bork
Antiquity Period Designs, Ltd.
Dennis Bork
Antiquity Period Designs, Ltd.
Jack Plane
Well-known member
How early do you want to go? Stuart Interiors painstakingly recreate heavy renaissance upholstry fabrics. http://www.stuartinteriors.ltd.uk/renaissance-textiles/39/
Antiquity
Well-known member
Schumacher Fabrics www.fschumacher.com sells fabrics for upholstery. Most of the fabrics in our house are from them. They also made or still make the repro fabrics for CW. You can find them at better fabric/upholstery stores, upholstery shops and interior designer studios.
Dennis Bork
Antiquity Period Designs, Ltd.
Dennis Bork
Antiquity Period Designs, Ltd.
Adam Cherubini
Well-known member
My experience is that there is not a good book on this subject. Nor are there knowledgable suppliers who can give you a choice of 50 authentic materials. There are experts who can tell you what is wrong. Those I have spoken to have said there is really no good place to go. CWF has had textiles made for them in England. Some patterns have been reproduced by Schmacher, but these are often in the wrong material (cotton instead of linen or fustian for example).
To make things more complicated, textiles were insanely expensive in the 18th c and folks' tastes were such that the representation of textiles meant things to them it doesn't mean to us. So you can recreate something exactly and be left with something repellant.
In the museum world, they employ experts who go shopping for "something close". They know what they are looking for, and can often find bargains that are "pretty good". I think we have to do the same.
Here are some tips:
1) Fabrics chosen for clothing were not generally used for upholstery. This includes fabric weight and pattern (tho not necessarily fiber). Toile for example was only used for upholstery, never for clothing. So you have to beware of folks approving fabrics as authentic. I have found they are really focused on reenactor clothing and not necessarily upholstery. Tiny pattrens were popluar in clothing, but not typically found in uphostery. Similarly damasks were used in upholstery but not clothing.
2) Museums use a lot of silk damasks which look like fine antiques to us. You'll see a lot of this in Winterthur for example. But I wonder if this fabric was really all that common in the 18th c. It IS authentic, but I think it's also iconic and may have been the "colonial look" Victorians associated with colonial furniture. My point is there might be more of that now than there was then. It's a safe and elegant choice that speaks to us. But it's not your only choice.
3) CW says leather was much more typical, especially in the South than has been represented. Leather was also used for clothing. Most typically, the "buck skin breeches" worn by tradesmen throughout the northern colonies, were cut like normal breeches (not the mountain man fringed things). Leather was an attractive textile alternative. It was inexpensive and hard wearing.
4) Embroidered fabrics, all but impossible to get now, may have been more typical on the finer pieces. Embroidery in general may have been more common (both on clothes and uphostery including draperies) than we see represented in museums. The simple reason for this is that museums can't get it either.
5) Personally, for Philadelphia Chippendale furniture, I really like the juxtaposition (maybe contrast is a better word) of ginghams, or stripes, regular geometric patterns with the naturalistic carved forms of teh furniture. Also remember that slip covers were fairly common. I think slip covers for these pieces can be very fun. In my opinion, linen ginghams look different enough from the cottons that I would really be reluctant to choose a cotton (tho my wife chose a cotton priint for our bed hangings).
6) Avoid the multichromatic cabbage leaf prints, heavy "homespun" woodlens, and cottons in general if possible. Look to stripes, ginghams, single color prints, damasks, or embroidered material. When in doubt, pick leather. Bright(ish) colors were popular (light green, bright blue, red) as was black, maroon, forest green, spanish brown, etc.
Adam
To make things more complicated, textiles were insanely expensive in the 18th c and folks' tastes were such that the representation of textiles meant things to them it doesn't mean to us. So you can recreate something exactly and be left with something repellant.
In the museum world, they employ experts who go shopping for "something close". They know what they are looking for, and can often find bargains that are "pretty good". I think we have to do the same.
Here are some tips:
1) Fabrics chosen for clothing were not generally used for upholstery. This includes fabric weight and pattern (tho not necessarily fiber). Toile for example was only used for upholstery, never for clothing. So you have to beware of folks approving fabrics as authentic. I have found they are really focused on reenactor clothing and not necessarily upholstery. Tiny pattrens were popluar in clothing, but not typically found in uphostery. Similarly damasks were used in upholstery but not clothing.
2) Museums use a lot of silk damasks which look like fine antiques to us. You'll see a lot of this in Winterthur for example. But I wonder if this fabric was really all that common in the 18th c. It IS authentic, but I think it's also iconic and may have been the "colonial look" Victorians associated with colonial furniture. My point is there might be more of that now than there was then. It's a safe and elegant choice that speaks to us. But it's not your only choice.
3) CW says leather was much more typical, especially in the South than has been represented. Leather was also used for clothing. Most typically, the "buck skin breeches" worn by tradesmen throughout the northern colonies, were cut like normal breeches (not the mountain man fringed things). Leather was an attractive textile alternative. It was inexpensive and hard wearing.
4) Embroidered fabrics, all but impossible to get now, may have been more typical on the finer pieces. Embroidery in general may have been more common (both on clothes and uphostery including draperies) than we see represented in museums. The simple reason for this is that museums can't get it either.
5) Personally, for Philadelphia Chippendale furniture, I really like the juxtaposition (maybe contrast is a better word) of ginghams, or stripes, regular geometric patterns with the naturalistic carved forms of teh furniture. Also remember that slip covers were fairly common. I think slip covers for these pieces can be very fun. In my opinion, linen ginghams look different enough from the cottons that I would really be reluctant to choose a cotton (tho my wife chose a cotton priint for our bed hangings).
6) Avoid the multichromatic cabbage leaf prints, heavy "homespun" woodlens, and cottons in general if possible. Look to stripes, ginghams, single color prints, damasks, or embroidered material. When in doubt, pick leather. Bright(ish) colors were popular (light green, bright blue, red) as was black, maroon, forest green, spanish brown, etc.
Adam
Jack Plane
Well-known member
Millcrek, you haven't said what period and what type of upholstery you're researching which makes it difficult to respond appropriately. There's an excellent book by Geoffrey Beard, Upholsterers and Interior Furnishing in England, 1530-1840, published by Yale University Press. The fashions, styles and materials will translate well to American furnishings. It's an expensive book, but you may be able to borrow a copy from a library.
Again, just taking a stab in the dark, but if you're chasing something for 18th century furniture, then probably the most appropriate fabric would be plain or printed linen.
Again, just taking a stab in the dark, but if you're chasing something for 18th century furniture, then probably the most appropriate fabric would be plain or printed linen.