Philly pricebook exhibition

This is awesome stuff and I really appreciate Mrs. Kirtley's response.  Thanks for taking the time to share this with us, Alexandra.  To be perfectly frank, I think the economics here are a bit beyond my comprehension.  I can imagine your sources using published commodity prices etc etc.  And I'm sure their view (and yours) accurately reflects the period.

Here's my take, which I hope will be helpful:

The Nevell account lists wages billed to his customer (MacPherson) for carpentry/joinery work.  The wage for a journeyman is listed at 5s/day.  The work was done at the end of the 1760's.  In 1729, plasterer Thomas Pearse charged John Head £0-5-0 for "one day's work".  Materials were billed separately.  I suspect wages were fairly stable through at least the first 3 quarters of the 18th century.  Philly wages seem higher than London wages. Robert Campbell offered wages for a joiner were 2s-6/day in 1747.  I think Mack Headley has wages for Williamsburg laborers in this price range.

I'm thinking that if wages were stable, furniture prices would be as well.  John Head's account book shows no inflation over his 35 year career 1718-1753.  Chests he built and sold for £3-0-0 in the early 1720's, he continued to sell for £3-0-0 in the late 40's.

Now what I'm taking away from Alexandra is that wage prices spiked in 1772.  If so, I would expect to see an increase in furniture prices.  Comparing prices from multiple sources is tricky.  But I'm going to do it with this caveat.  Who knows if this is a fair comparison?  Not I!

1727 John Head account  "Squar [clock] case" £3-0-0.  This was probably walnut.
1772 Price Book "Clock Cases with square head and corners" £4-0-0 (this is the walnut price)

1730 John Head account "Walnut Dask" £5-10-0
1772 Price Book "Desk without a prospect an straight brackets [feet] £7-0-0  These later desks were probably a bit different from the earlier desks of Head's day. But even the most expensive Walnut Desk in teh Price Bookis only £10, less than double the price 40 years prior. 

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  The prices in Head seem comparable or maybe a bit lower.  Of course, Head's furniture was probably a bit simpler.  I find turned legs are not only easier to make than "crooked" legs, but they make the structure simpler as well.

How about furniture prices after 1772?  If prices were high in 1772, one would think they would come down after.  Though this wouldn't appear in the Price Book, we should see the volatility mentioned in Mrs. Kirtley's sources. 

1774 David Evans day book "Mahogany Sofa" £5-0-0
1772 Price Book Mahogany sofa's range from £4-10-0 to £10-10-0

1788 David Evans Day Book "Mahogany Dining table, claw feet" £5-10-0
1772 Price Book "Dining Table" (mahogany, price varied with length, prices have been adjusted for claw feet £4-5-0 to £9-0-0) A 4' long table would have been £5-10-0

1799 David Evans Day Book "Mahogany Bureau Table" £7-10-0
1772 Price Book "Bureau Table" £7-10-0

IF wages were 5s before 1772 and jumped to 15-25s, I don't see that increase reflected in the Price Book.  It could very well be that the price book prices were recorded before the inflation occurred.  As wages rose and fell, craftsmen could have simply scaled the sale prices in the book.  This combined with my experience making furniture tells me the 15-25s/day figure, though very possibly accurate, may not correspond to the sale prices in the Price Book.  With nothing else to go on, I would have to say the 5s number would be closer to the journeymen's wage in the Price Book.  But I wouldn't put money on it!!!

Adam
 
Alexandra, I really appreciate your making the effort to post about the information upon which you have based your estimate of journeymen cabinetmaker's wages in 1772 Philadelphia. If I can find some of those resources locally, I intend to check them out. Meanwhile, I think we may be able to conduct a little independent reality check.

To begin, let's look at the 1772 piece rate wages for the "Breakfast Table, Plain" in the context of the 15 to 25 shilling per day wages you have estimated. At 12s 6d, the piece rate wages would amount to approximately 83% of a days wages at 15s per day and approximately 50% of a day's wages at 25s per day. If we assume an eleven hour day, this would translate to a range of a little over 9 hours at the 15s rate and 5 1/2 hours at the 25s rate. If we assume a 12 hour day, the calculated time would be slightly less than 10 hours and 6 hours, respectively.

The question is whether this seems realistic. Luckily, we don't have to rely on our own impressions concerning this. In addition to containing piece-rate wages for various pieces of furniture,_The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book of Prices for Manufacturing Cabinet Work_ of 1828, also includes a figure of $1.33 1/3 as a minimum to be paid a journeyman when hiring him by the day. In other words, this work has it's own "key" by which to ascertain the nominal times in which pieces might have been constructed. Fortunately, one of those pieces is "A Plain Breakfast Table."

These Pembroke tables were something of a staple piece throughout this period, and I doubt that the basic construction details and times changed all that much from 1772 to 1828. In the 1828 Price Book, the piece-rate wage to be paid for this item was $ 2.37 1/2. Based on an eleven hour work day, as also given in the book, this translates to  a little more than 19 1/2 hours. A far cry from the 5 1/2 to 10 hours calculated from the estimated  1772 daily wages of 15s to 25s.

As an additional check, both sources also detail the amount to be paid the journeyman for adding a drawer to this form. So, even if there is some doubt about the similarity of the tables, themselves, over this period, it seems to me unlikely that the drawer construction & times changed all that much. The 1772 entry adds 2 shillings of wages for the drawer, while the 1828 entry adds 37 1/2 cents. Based on the 1772 estimated range of 15 to 25s per day and assuming either an eleven or twelve hour day, this extra 2 shillings results in a time range from slightly less than 2 hours to somewhat less than an hour. On the other hand, the 1828 figure calculates to about 5 minutes more than three hours.

In fact, I think this latter figure can be used to suggest a range of 1772 wages which would calculate to times more in keeping with the 1828 figures. Since the 37 1/2 cents is approximately 28% of the given 1828 daily wage, one approach would be to infer that the added 2 shillings for the drawer in 1772 could also be roughly equal to 28% of a nominal daily wage. That works out to 7s 2d, assuming an eleven hour day. If they were working twelve hour days in 1772, then the daily wage would figure out closer to 8s, using this approach.

There are a lot of details about this which could, and may, be discussed. But, unless we are to assume drastically different work methods and times between 1772 and 1828, I think this has some merit as a rough reality check.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
 
Don,

While I agree with your conclusion, I can think of a couple reasons why someone in Mrs. Kirtley's position wouldn't feel comfortable using 19th c data.  In fact, reading between the lines, I don't think she was comfortable using 1769 data.  Looks to me to be the case that the reason she published what she did is because she was looking for data from 1772, very likely because she believed that times changed often and quickly thru the latter portion of the 18th c.

The problem with using 19th c sources is that craft life, workshop processes, and furniture forms may have been significantly different from their 18th c counterparts.

It's very possible that the workmen in Philadelphia's shops in 1828 had never served apprenticeships.  They may not have been substantively different from modern day factory workers. There may have been guys who did nothing but make drawers.   I think they used a lot more jigs, standardized dimensions to make all this happen, and happen quickly.  According to Charles Montgomery,  The Empire stye marked the end of regionalism in American furniture.  As far as I know (using your example) Pembroke tables made in New York looked essentially the same as those made in Baltimore or Boston.  This points to a real change in the shop, away from the artisanal family run shops of 18th c Philadelphia, to small factories.

Not many people believe me (I'm hoping you are one of the few) but the presence of a table saw to roughyour lumber as they may have done in 1828, makes a big difference in how you approach doing a job quickly and who can do it.  It's use enabled them to "break up" furniture into chunks that could be handed over to unskilled laborers (which is exactly what did happen later). 

For example: In my shop, I've found the only way for me to prep stock quickly is to forgive the requirement to 4-square every board (6-square is actually more typical). But I can only do that because I'm intimately familiar with where each board is going and what it's requirements for the joinery are.   Not every board needs to be 4 squared to work in a piece of furniture.  And this is precisely what I see in piece after piece of 18th c furniture.  I don't see this in 19th c furniture.

Furniture also got a lot simpler to build in the 19th c.  Gone were the really complex pieces, as well as most of the sculpture.  You don't even really need to do a  great job on carcase dovetails or sliders if you are covering the entire piece in veneer.

I get that folks think snobbery alone explains Nutting's famous quote "Nothing built after 1830 is worth reproducing".  Giving Nutting the benefit of the doubt, there are objective differences in the furniture style and structure, the methods of manufacture (tho obviously not in every instance), that are different enough to warrant exclusion.

Not to put words in your mouth my friend, but I want to make sure I say clearly- I think Alexandra Kirtley has done us all a great service.  I think Mrs Kirtley is all too familiar with the information both you (Don) and I have offered here and chose not to use it because she sought a higher level of accuracy and authenticity.  I'm especially grateful to read her thoughts precisely because it does provide a glimpse into the museum/furniture scholarship world where higher and higher levels of fidelity are being sought.  This gives me more to shoot for in my scholarship and craftsmanship.  In my opinion, encouraging people to learn more and do more is the highest achievement of any museum or museum worker.  Thanks Alexandra.

Adam
 
Here is another thread to add to this tapestry of comments.  A current furniture maker who has an employee or 2 can be said to be roughly in the same position as back then (1775 approx)  You are busting your butt to get the job done and get paid.  Anything that is not immediately seen or nescessary to compleating the piece is eliminated or substituted for.  In order to get the job done faster.  One reason for the wage structure may have been to solve the problem that exists now and the recent past (last 50yrs) I am thinking.  Once a journeyman is competent enough, they are thinking why endure this job when I can go somewhere else and get another position for higher pay or start my own business.  This after the owner of the business has trained the person for several years.  Those wage scales may have been a way of reducing the cutthroat part of the business of retaining workers.
 
A few questions and random thoughts on this all. The Philly price book is for journeymen wages right?  So if the journeyman is in a shop there is a master and appprentice right?  So I would assume the apprentice would be doing the dimensioning of rough lumber and the journeymen would most likely do the joinery or a little of both?  Would the master then do the final clean up?  Was it typical to have the journeyman do the entire piece start to finish?

If there is a large number of furniture makers in one area and not that many wealthy buying customers, could the price book have been set up by the masters to limit the income of the journey man and reduce the number of "masters" thus preserving their jobs?

I may be wrong but it seems some of the numbers quoted by other contirbutors may be master rates.  Right?  If so, these numbers really cant be used as a general comparison to other makers.  We can research all we want about about regional economic comparisons, and that is great, but the wages do not take into account the economics of the individual maker.  Maybe his work flow was down, bills were due, and he needed to make sure he got work so he "underpriced" it just to get it,  the lower rate was then recorded.  Oposite of that, maybe the client drove him nuts and he raised the price in hopes of driving them away and he got the job....Been in both these situations.... You just dont know. 

All very interesting comments and thank you to Mrs. Kirtley.
 
"Not many people believe me (I'm hoping you are one of the few) but the presence of a table saw to roughyour lumber as they may have done in 1828, makes a big difference in how you approach doing a job quickly and who can do it.  It's use enabled them to "break up" furniture into chunks that could be handed over to unskilled laborers (which is exactly what did happen later)."

Adam - While I certainly don't disagree with your overall premise in this post (that specialization allowed a semi-factory atmosphere by the late 1820's), it's worth noting that table saws did not exist during this period of time.  Even the power planer wasn't around, though it would be less than 20 years before the first rudimetary circular-motion planers wer first put together in France.  One of the reasons for this is that the boiler-fired steam engine necessary to run a circular saw was not available until later in the century.  Water-powered mills, of course, have been in American since the 1600's, and I'd certainly believe that "rough stock" was probably available as cut by a water-powered mill in the larger cities like Philadelphia, but it does appear from the archeological evidence in Williamsburg and other locations that pit-sawing was standard practice until at least the 1840's.

But I've another question - you cite several references from cabinetmaker's account books - where were these gentlemen located?  I would think they would have to have been located in Philadelphia or a larger US city to make the comparisons valid.  In particular, I would think prices would be somewhat higher in the country than in a city, where there were a lot of competitors to push the cost of goods down.
 
I'm really mystified by some of the responses to my posting about the 1828 Philadelphia price book.

How in the world do you infer a "factory type" operation from a book of piece-rate wages for building individual pieces of furniture? The only way such a piece-rate system would work is if individual journeymen were responsible for building individual pieces. Much as they were still doing in 1850 in London, according to Mayhew. A most interesting description, by the way.

It does appear that the shortage of skilled labor in the U.S. contributed to the earlier and more thorough-going introduction of machinery into the woodworking trades than in the U.K. But, again, there is no hint of this in the 1828 publication. In addition to the "prices" for individual pieces of furniture, there are a number of "tables" (charts) for specific operations in this price list. It might be tempting to see these as the origins of a more factory-type approach, but I seriously doubt it. Virtually all of them are presented as add-ons or deductions from already "priced" pieces of furniture.

There are a couple of these "tables", though, which are very basic woodworking operations and I believe can shed light on the question of hand vs. machine work.

Table No. 9 is "Of Thickening up Stuff." In other words, basic surfacing and thicknessing of stock. And for this table to make any sense, I believe the only interpretation is that of something very nominal, like starting with 4/4 stuff, "gotten out" to approximate size, then surfaced and thicknessed, probably to 7/8". To take just one example, to thickness a piece of timber 1 to 2 feet long and 8 to 12 inches wide, the piece-rate wage is six cents. Based on the figures I discussed previously, this translates to about 1/2 hour. Even if this time includes getting the stuff out to approximate width and length, I contend that it would be ridiculous to assume that it would take 1/2 hour if using a thickness planer.

Another is Table No. 32, "Of Sawing out Stuff, Straight Cut." This refers to ripping out stuff thicker than 4/4, and the prices given are for "each cut." Again, to take just one example, the price for one rip cut in 2 1/2" thick stuff, "Two feet long or under," is 2 cents. This translates to approximately ten minutes. Even if this time includes cursory lay-out, etc., does it make any sense to assume this refers to a table saw operation? These folks were working entirely by hand, much as they had been some fifty years earlier. I stand by the comparison to the 1772 price book as a valid reality check.

As I've already touched on, it does appear that machinery was introduced more quickly in the U.S. than in the U.K. And, yes, the introduction of machinery did change things. But this didn't happen all at once, nor does it mean that all oral and written knowledge (and practice) of traditional hand tool trade techniques was suddenly and irrevocably lost. As we read later texts we do have to be aware of the ways in which the introduction of machinery impacted the oral tradition of this trade lore, but to summarily reject them all as throughly corrupted is facile and vacuous.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
 
Don,

Sorry you missed my point, my friend.  I don't always do a great job explaining myself (unlike you).  I didn't mean to dismiss what you wrote.  All I'm saying is I can see why Mrs. Kirtley might not have considered 1828 Cabinetmaker's Union Book of Prices relevant.  I think 1830 is different enough from 1772, and she's already said her sources told her the economy was volatile.  I think you did a good job of relating your source, using it to suggest a trend etc.  And I agree with your sense for this here.  But I can see why that might not fly in the museum world.  I think that's the point here.  She was looking for 1772 data.  I'm offering her 1730 and you're offering 1830.  That's all well and good for we armchair historians!  But I think it's a big no-no in the museum world.

That said, one can learn a lot from an armchair historian, especially one like you who's done the stuff he researches.  I hope Alexandra sticks around these parts because I think she'll find useful and stimulating posts from you and others as I have. 

Sorry for the miscommunication, Don

Adam
 
Where might I find a copy of the 1828 philadelphia price book?  I can't seem to find it listed anywhere.

Thank you,

Jerome Bias
 
Jerome et al,

When I worked for the Ohio Historical Society, a colleague and I had access to their copy of the 1828 _Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book of Prices_ in conjunction with preparing an exhibit. We were allowed to make our own personal research photo-copies, and that is what I have available.

According to the World Catalog there are also original copies at Bryn Mawr College and the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
 
The earlier discussion on the different price books lead me to do some reading on the history of cabinetmaking in Philly between 1800 and 1840.  I read a thesis by Kathleen Matilda Catalano Cabinetmaking in Philadelphia 1820-1840 (U. Del) and a dissertation by Deborah Ducoff-Barone The Early Industrialization of the Philadelphia Furniture Trade (U. Penn).

I see why the curator of the current exhibit did not compare and contrast the price book that she is working with that of 1811 or 1828 price books .  I was surprised by both the amount of industrialization that cabinetmaking had experienced and also the role that Journeymen and apprentices played during that time frame. 

In these two papers  it was pointed out that during this time frame cabinetmaking was industrialized through the division of labor and tasks.  The later introduction of saw mills furthered this industrialization. With the compartmentalization and specialization of various tasks, the need for highly skilled workers diminished.  Journeymen were used less and less, apprentices and unskilled laborers were increasingly used.

The other outcome of this division of labor was that cabinetwares could be produced at an increased pace, at a lower overhead cost.

I also got a very clear understanding that the start rate that is listed in the various price books do not reflect the actual amount that the journeymen often received.  I understand that when paid by the piece they received a predetermined percentage of the start price up front.  The remaining amount often was not paid or was heavily effected by the lack of cash in the market system at the time.

To me this makes the search for an estimate of productivity rates even more elusive and interesting.

Jerome Bias
Mebane, NC

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top