The OLD WAY.......Ephemera, and other stuff...BEFORE 1920

[M Hatman]

Page capture of An American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1848, Harper & Brothers.

View attachment 196849

Cassinette is a cloth (fabric) made from cotton and wool, or wool and silk. This definition seems to be accepted up to the present day.

Not claiming this is what "Cass." is, but it provides another clue, possibly.

Nice research!!

But probably does not apply as these are felt hats and not cloth.....

I DID find that the definition of Castor besides being a "Half Beaver hat" later morphed into also a "Hat made with Beaver and/or RABBIT (also beaver AND rabbit...so back to the half definition). So that would apply here very well also. Especially the rabbit part.....
It is a LOT to think about!!
PS: Ironically (or perhaps not) I have that 1848 edition also....

 

[Frunobulax]

Nice research!!

But probably does not apply as these are felt hats and not cloth.....

No, we don't know what they are. They are listed as "Cass." We're trying to determine what "Cass." is made of. You are making a leap of faith not supported by the evidence at hand.

 

[Frunobulax]

Well, on the intro page they talk about wool and fur hats (and straw) and mention NOTHING of cloth....

They mention nothing of "Cass." either. But they do mention "Plushes."

PS: Show me anywhere where we have western, Spanish, fedora style hats offered in wool felt, fur felt AND cloth (and the cloth is more than the wool)!?!?!?!?!

Are you going to pay for.......................................MY time?

 

[M Hatman]

They mention nothing of "Cass." either. But they do mention "Plushes."

YES, they mention "Plushes"....... IN RELATION TO LADIES "Millinery" TRIMMINGS........
What the heck is your problem?!?!?!?!?!?!?

PS....They do not mention "beaver" either.......JUST wool and FUR for the men's hats and Straw for the ladies......

 

[Frunobulax]

It sure is.....look at it's position in the feed....right before your "Bird" posting......when edited all I did was underline and bold the reference (so maybe YOU would see it better)...It was sitting there for a while ..unless you want to call me a lier.....
Most of my edits involve punctuation or spelling unless noted. I have a hard time typing on these tablets......
PS when I add additional info I will note EDIT or PS

I don't think you are a liar, I think you leap to conclusions too quickly and, once you've determined you've reached the conclusion, you get your hackles up if somebody doesn't see eye-to-eye with you, or accept your "word" as an authority. Working backwards to justify a conclusion is just the opposite of how I think we should look at these weird little mysteries.

Just for the record, while I find it fun and interesting to pursue minutiae such as this, I don't get too wrapped around the axle about it, and I don't care whether I am "right" or "wrong." I like to find the answers to things, and I like to put interesting pieces of the puzzle together in hopes of coming to a fairly definitive conclusion. I love finding the "smoking gun;" but moreso, I like the process of determining such a thing.

I don't think we're there yet, and may never be. Some of us may like to make leaps in judgment based on a loose conglomeration of facts and suppositions, but - thanks probably to my profession and training - I'm more empirical than that.

I can't leap to the judgment that the abbreviation for "castor" is "Cass." for one thing. And while we have information that indicates "castor" may be a blend of wool and beaver, or rabbit and beaver, that's inconclusive, and doesn't solve the abbreviation mystery. We do know that cassinette is a wool/cotton or wool/silk blend, which would clear up the abbreviation predicament, but the catalog intro doesn't necessarily support this (it doesn't "not" support it, either).

Someday, we may find out. Or may not.

 

[M Hatman]

I don't think you are a liar, I think you leap to conclusions too quickly and, once you've determined you've reached the conclusion, you get your hackles up if somebody doesn't see eye-to-eye with you, or accept your "word" as an authority. Working backwards to justify a conclusion is just the opposite of how I think we should look at these weird little mysteries.

Just for the record, while I find it fun and interesting to pursue minutiae such as this, I don't get too wrapped around the axle about it, and I don't care whether I am "right" or "wrong." I like to find the answers to things, and I like to put interesting pieces of the puzzle together in hopes of coming to a fairly definitive conclusion. I love finding the "smoking gun;" but moreso, I like the process of determining such a thing.

I don't think we're there yet, and may never be. Some of us may like to make leaps in judgment based on a loose conglomeration of facts and suppositions, but - thanks probably to my profession and training - I'm more empirical than that.

I can't leap to the judgment that the abbreviation for "castor" is "Cass." for one thing. And while we have information that indicates "castor" may be a blend of wool and beaver, or rabbit and beaver, that's inconclusive, and doesn't solve the abbreviation mystery. We do know that cassinette is a wool/cotton or wool/silk blend, which would clear up the abbreviation predicament, but the catalog intro doesn't necessarily support this (it doesn't "not" support it, either).
Someday, we may find out. Or may not.

I can see where you come from in the here and now...but I come from the viewpoint of an historical education background where verification, provenance and MUCH is derived from EDUCATED (lots of primary documents, letters and diaries, technical and reference books (of the particular era), photographs (if available) and first hand accounts provide the best logical inference. As we none of us actually lived a hundred years ago...WE never saw it and it use then......

AS AN EXAMPLE.......

We have muskets and manuals from the Civil War.....in my world we assume the soldiers used them....In your world they say the soldiers MAY have used them as WE NONE OF US have seen a civil war soldier ever fire his weapon in person.......

In the catalog the proprietors mention WOOL and FUR only for their hats (Straw for the ladies). In my world that means the hats they sold were made from ...well...wool or fur........and being hats....felt. My world also does recognize the current world and looks at common practices and descriptions and price placement of current hat products to assist in affirming our conclusions.

In your world, you say I am not sure...they do not actually describe the wool as being a felt.....or that it is not blended cloth...(really????)...and as I am not now holding one of their hats....they may be cloth. I suppose as the current Stetson line does not discount their wool felt hats as being a cloth product some or all may be????

Now WHO is stretching the logic here......

I like discussing things to a point. If you remember YOU ASKED ME my opinion.....THEN IMMEDIATELY disagreed......well if you had your own opinion WHY ASK ME?!?!?!?!!? When I offered why I thought the way I did you jumped on that......SO AGAIN WHY ASK ME?!?!?!!? YOU MUST be RIGHT and I MUST be wrong...and just jumping to conclusions......

I would hate to have you visit ANY MUSEUM, because unless they post pictures and show a doctoral thesis of why something displayed was identified as it was....you would say their descriptive(s) were unsupported and you know more than they do and have your own suggestions of how they should describe their displays. I am sure you would spend all day there and barely see more than one artifact......

Any way I am done. I am removing my posts and will post no more history to argue over in this thread....PLEASE stay away from my other threads......PLEASE........

PS: I am Sorry to the others that this has degenerated to this point. I honestly thought these catalogs and ephemera were nice things to post.....
They are not nice things to argue about. And I don't buy and trade these to argue over.......

 

[alanfgag]

I have never seen the scientific genus "castor" used in connection with beaver fur hats in the United States, only in Italy, where castoro is the common name. Has anyone else?

Castor (bean) seemed to have been in common parlance referring to a bitter oil for medicinal purposes, which would likely disqualify it for marketing anything pleasant. Just my .02.

 

[BobHufford]

Does "Cassimere" come into play here? Not sure if it is a material description (finely woven wool) or a finish.

The Irish Canadian - Apr 10, 1878

From Mark's post in the Hatters, Cleaners and Dyers thread:

From hatshapers.com

The Hatter and Furrier, Vol. 10, May, 1881.

The Lafayette Weekly, Vol. 12, 1886.

 

[Frunobulax]

Does "Cassimere" come into play here? Not sure if it is a material description (finely woven wool) or a finish.

The Irish Canadian - Apr 10, 1878
View attachment 197056

From Mark's post in the Hatters, Cleaners and Dyers thread:

From hatshapers.com
View attachment 197058

The Hatter and Furrier, Vol. 10, May, 1881.
View attachment 197067

View attachment 197060

View attachment 197068

The Lafayette Weekly, Vol. 12, 1886.

View attachment 197070

That definition is just before the cassinette is cassimere and I briefly considered that. It seems that your new clues provides something closer to our answer. We now have direct and verifiable evidence of cassimere hats and at least one definition (cited) that indicates it's even a felt hat.

 

[Frunobulax]

I can see where you come from in the here and now...but I come from the viewpoint of an historical education background where verification, provenance and MUCH is derived from EDUCATED (lots of primary documents, letters and diaries, technical and reference books (of the particular era), photographs (if available) and first hand accounts provide the best logical inference. As we none of us actually lived a hundred years ago...WE never saw it and it use then......

AS AN EXAMPLE.......

We have muskets and manuals from the Civil War.....in my world we assume the soldiers used them....In your world they say the soldiers MAY have used them as WE NONE OF US have seen a civil war soldier ever fire his weapon in person.......

In the catalog the proprietors mention WOOL and FUR only for their hats (Straw for the ladies). In my world that means the hats they sold were made from ...well...wool or fur........and being hats....felt. My world also does recognize the current world and looks at common practices and descriptions and price placement of current hat products to assist in affirming our conclusions.

In your world, you say I am not sure...they do not actually describe the wool as being a felt.....or that it is not blended cloth...(really????)...and as I am not now holding one of their hats....they may be cloth. I suppose as the current Stetson line does not discount their wool felt hats as being a cloth product some or all may be????

Now WHO is stretching the logic here......

I like discussing things to a point. If you remember YOU ASKED ME my opinion.....THEN IMMEDIATELY disagreed......well if you had your own opinion WHY ASK ME?!?!?!?!!? When I offered why I thought the way I did you jumped on that......SO AGAIN WHY ASK ME?!?!?!!? YOU MUST be RIGHT and I MUST be wrong...and just jumping to conclusions......

I would hate to have you visit ANY MUSEUM, because unless they post pictures and show a doctoral thesis of why something displayed was identified as it was....you would say their descriptive(s) were unsupported and you know more than they do and have your own suggestions of how they should describe their displays. I am sure you would spend all day there and barely see more than one artifact......

Any way I am done. I am removing my posts and will post no more history to argue over in this thread....PLEASE stay away from my other threads......PLEASE........

PS: I am Sorry to the others that this has degenerated to this point. I honestly thought these catalogs and ephemera were nice things to post.....
They are not nice things to argue about. And I don't buy and trade these to argue over.......

Well, there you go again, making wild assumptions based on incomplete information. No, that's not even remotely how my "world" works.

Have a nice day.

 

[M Hatman]

Does "Cassimere" come into play here? Not sure if it is a material description (finely woven wool) or a finish.

The Irish Canadian - Apr 10, 1878
View attachment 197056

From Mark's post in the Hatters, Cleaners and Dyers thread:

From hatshapers.com
View attachment 197058

The Hatter and Furrier, Vol. 10, May, 1881.
View attachment 197067

View attachment 197060

View attachment 197068

The Lafayette Weekly, Vol. 12, 1886.

View attachment 197070

Bob, you may be on to something here.......I know later this was used for a longhair finish felt......this could very well be the answer......finish.......long hair finish......

 

[Frunobulax]

Bob, you may be on to something here.......I know later this was used for a longhair finish felt......this could very well be the answer......finish.......long hair finish......

And there it was, right in your own research material. Yet you drew a likely erroneous conclusion, not considering anything after your first assumption because you were so convinced of your own expertise.

 

[M Hatman]

From: a Treatise on Hat Making...1868


"Pumicing or Pouncing.
Pouncing is a term for rubbing down the outside
of a hat with a piece of pumice stone, sand paper, or
emery paper, whereby the hat is made entirely bare,
smooth, and fine, resembling a piece of very fine
cloth. These are generally called cassimere hats.
This operation is usually performed after dyeing, and
previous to finishing."

So, the opposite of what I was thinking (no surprise there)....at least that was the definition in 1868. So it is the fine finish of the felt and not the composition (beaver/rabbit) of the felt as I was thinking earlier....though that may have been a component of the cost (that is composition of the felt, as rabbit is cheaper than beaver).

So, "Cass" is very probably the abbreviation for Cassimere rather than Castor.......

Thanks Bob!!!!!

PS: and looking again you even posted that definition from "Hat Shapers". So this is rather a confirmation....

 

[M Hatman]

Edited for additional content

And there it was, right in your own research material. Yet you drew a likely erroneous conclusion, not considering anything after your first assumption because you were so convinced of your own expertise.

I was a heck of a LOT closer than you!!

It DOES have to do with the type of felt after all (not cloth), in this case a finish. With "Castor" being defined as : "a half Beaver Hat" (in an American dictionary) and/or a "beaver/rabbit hat" in other sources and "Cassimer" being a hat finely pounced" BOTH can and do fit the bill with Cassimer being the (much) more likely.

And I DID consider other things....otherwise I would not have looked up Bob's suggestion!!!!

YOUR's were the ill considered suggestions.....I was going down the fur felt line...as should have you!!!

YOU thought my train of thinking (about the quality of the felt) off base....NOT ME. I based this of course on the fact that the hats represented were FELT styles AND the company described their wool and fur hats (straw for the ladies). NOTHING mentioned of cloth (which would have been MUCH cheaper anyway).

You scoffed at CASS even meaning/being a fur felt....Just based on price structure it HAD to have something to do with the fur felt quality (which it DOES).

So, it seems in the end I DO have perhaps more expertise than YOU (or at least did a better job of analysis). And at NO point did I say I was right...I just described my findings and what I thought likely and WHY.

AND that is still the case....(though we have VERY LIKELY solved the riddle).......

 

[M Hatman]

One last comment on the "dust up". When I posted (and indeed when I received the catalog) my interest is always in the styles present and the general history behind the catalog. I have learned (especially with hats) to give little notice to the quality designations of the manufacturers as they really have little meaning beyond establishing a price connection with the attendant quality expectations. OBVIOUS was the fact we were dealing with wool and fur felts and beyond that I cared little.

When ASKED about the meaning of CASS proffered the opinion I did not know (in fact I responded simply "NO") but opined (after looking at the listing again) that it must have something to do with the felt quality (in all probability, which it did in the end) and that it struck me that it could be an abbreviation for Castor which I recollected meant the genus of Beaver and had roots in the fur trade. I felt that answer sufficient. But for others it was not and they obsessed that I, yes, I... HAD to supply the answer as I had supplied the post.

So I LOOKED UP CASTOR which at the time seemed a likely candidate (and still could be, but a MUCH MUCH better candidate "Cassimere" has come forth...Thanks to the observant BOB!!) and found that in America in 1856 it had the additional definition of a "Half Beaver Hat" which "fit the bill" so to speak, and that definition I then documented as my earlier "opinion" was scoffed as being insufficient (even though I WAS ASKED and did offer an answer). I surmised (again based on the price points) that Cass was a 50% beaver felt with the "beaver" listing being 100% (which the definition of "Half Beaver Hat" fits. Kind of like now with the XXXX beaver and the 100 beaver qualities.......

THIS was still not good enough for the obsessed (who by the way kept ignoring the post on the additional DOCUMENTED definition (who when they finally found the definition or course said I just placed it there), and THEN I was accused of not wishing to be "bothered by pesky details" and it was implied I was being a jerk not wanting to continue to obsess about this "Cass" definition myself. I must admit again, personally I little cared (does it really matter..what is the composition of Royal, Royal Deluxe...Select Quality...Premier Quality et al?????))...and REALLY....are each of us who list anything here, do we really need to document, and predict the many questions others will ask (and obsess about) and supply them an endless chain of investigation to satisfy them?!?!?!?!?!? Is a doctoral thesis necessary with each post we make?!?!?!?!?!?!

If THIS is to be the responsibility of the poster simply sharing their finds.......then I am OUT!!!!!!

In the end the star-worth BOB stepped forward with his observation of the 19th century offerings of "Cassimere Hats" (which I admit I ignored as they seemed disconnected from the Soft (felt) offerings) of those companies. And when I looked around and referenced the "Treatise on Hat Making" I found the same definition Bob had with a different source.

So I guess the take away is: if here in the tread I started..... If I have to meticulously document every item before I post and further provide a definition of each possibly unique technical term included in the items composition ......I AM OUT!

What the heck is happening here on the lounge anyway????.....no wonder we are loosing so many of the muses we used to have here.....

THERE.....now I feel better.....(I DO think I broke the soapbox!!)

 

[BobHufford]

Thanks to the observant BOB!!

Thanks Mark. Just glad we learned something after all that.