Dumb questions on shooting pouch liners

[Artificer]

Folks, I hope you will excuse my ignorance as most of my more active shooting and buckskinning was done in the 70's and 80's.

I notice that many of the shooting pouches shown here have liners in them.
It wasn't unknown for pouches to have liners in my more active years, but it was pretty uncommon.

I'm wondering how common pouch liners would have been in the 18th century and particularly 1740 - 1780 time period?

Now this is really a question from my ignorance.  Other than maybe being able to see down into the pouch a little better because of the lighter colored material, what are the practical advantages or reasons for having a liner?

Thank you for any information.

Gus 

[James Rogers]

I'm wondering how common pouch liners would have been in the 18th century and particularly 1740 - 1780 time period?

 Other than maybe being able to see down into the pouch a little better because of the lighter colored material, what are the practical advantages or reasons for having a liner?

I will take the bait first  

Due to the almost non-existent state of pouches from that time it is hard to determine commonality. The few with fairly solid provenance don't have any lining to my knowledge.
I believe one must also separate home made from store bought a well when evaluating any feature.
Look to see more lined flaps than fully lined bags on originals of a later date.
An advantage to a lined bag is marketability of a fancier product.
I have seen an English pouch designed to carry cartridges for an early 18th century flintlock cartridge gun. Superbly made with no lining except the flap which was leather lined.

[G. Elsenbeck]

Okay, I'll make a stab at this with my awl. 

Due to the almost non-existent state of pouches from that time it is hard to determine commonality. The few with fairly solid provenance don't have any lining to my knowledge.
I believe one must also separate home made from store bought a well when evaluating any feature.

I'll agree with James on these points. 

First I'll hone in on the fabric over leather as a liner.  Most using fabric was most likely begun as a 19th century practice, but from whom, only I can speculate.  From looking at today's contemporary's bag makers, including myself, items are lined to satisfy customer demands.  Were they following the same customer trend in 1842?  However, as more of our customers become more 'educated' to what is truly PC, unlined bags are beginning a comeback. 
Now as to why lining MAY HAVE BEEN used 'in the early times'?  Here are my humble opinions for discussion.

1.  Used to add 'body' to a bag constructed of lighter leather, whether veg tan or not. Linings were probably initially applied to the undersides of flaps.
2.  Used to 'quiet' the contents of a rather stiff, new veg tanned bag.
3.  Used to make up for use of far inferior leathers to good cowhide, (squirrel, goat, sheep, ground dogs, etc) that did not take the day to day rigors.   
4.  Used as ‘quick fixes’ to items in No. 3.
5.  Most in the rural probably didn’t know any better of what constituted a well made hunting bag IF they didn’t have access to better materials or techniques.
6.   Probably used by quality harness makers/cordwainers as a means to do something better than their competitors.   Yes, there was competition amongst them just as well there was between all the gunmakers to make something better.  You can tell by reading old advertisers in colonial newspapers. 

Any more potential reasons?

Gary

[smshea]

I'm not hijacking the thread  but I was just discussing this with someone the other day. I admit to knowing very little about the leather trade in the 18th century and while I have photographed every old bag I have had a chance to handle, I own no books on the subject.
 Do we know how much competition there was with imported leather goods from Europe in the 18th century if any? Do Bags show up on trade good inventories? Do we know when lining bags of any kind became fashionable in Europe? Any help on any of these questions would be great...I truly am curious.

[Artificer]

Gents,

Enjoyed reading your comments.  You all brought up some points I had never thought about before, especially as to the use of leathers other than cowhide and repairs of other leathers.  

I should have thought that since cattle and oxen were kept more for beasts of burden and milk rather than meat production in the 18th century America, cow hides would have been hugely more expensive in those days and often less available for use than other leathers - at least in some circumstances.  Also, the time it took to process a cowhide into leather was a long, labour iintensive process.  Even the small amounts of leather that are still made the traditional way, are not nearly as expensive today as it probably would have been in the 18th century.

Maybe the reason we don't find more 18th century pouches is that many would not have been made of cowhide and would not have lasted through the years.  Maybe a leather pouch, even if of cowhide, would be more authentic with a woven strap for most people and especially not the middle to upper classes?  Maybe at least the first pouches many of them used were like that and they only replaced them with higher quality leather pouches in their middle years when they could afford better?    If one is basically a farmer and not going far from the cabin to hunt, would one need to pay for an expensive leather shooting pouch - escpecially when they were young and just starting out?  

I also think the accoutrements of a long hunter would have been noticeably different than those of folks who were settlers.  Since they weren't putting money into land, livestock, etc. and since their lives dependied on the very best geat, they may (if not would) have actually had better quality shooting pouches than the average settler - as they could afford to buy them.  

I have always been very interested in why things were done as well as what was actually done.  I realize we will never have some of the answers as no one would have thought to write down something in common use, fashion, pesonal economics or things made from what they had.  

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Gus

[WElliott]

I have seen many original pouches (presumably 19, not 18th century) over the years and I have never seen a lined pouch that I thought was Southern.  Have I seen an unusual sample?

[Randy Hedden]

I should have thought that since cattle and oxen were kept more for beasts of burden and milk rather than meat production in the 18th century America, cow hides would have been hugely more expensive in those days and often less available for use than other leathers - at least in some circumstances.  Also, the time it took to process a cowhide into leather was a long, labour intensive process. 

Gus,

Leather appears to have been relatively cheap in the colonies during the 18th century.  Tons and tons of cattle hides were imported into the colonies.  These hides came from various Spanish holdings such as Mexico, southern California, South America, as well as several Spanish held island countries.  These hides came off of the Spanish Corriente cattle  which are the ancestors to the Texas Longhorn steers now raised in Texas, New Mexico, etc.  The Spanish brought the Corriente Cattle to the new world as early as 1500 and had breed large herds of these cattle by the 18th century.  Labor was also relatively cheap during the 18th century.  Thousands of immigrants came to our shores as indentured slaves and the 13 colonies were the dumping ground for transported criminals right up to the start of the Rev War.  (After the beginning of the Rev War English transported criminals were shipped to Australia.)

A side benefit of importing cattle hides from the Spanish is that they appear to have shipped the horns that were associated with the cattle hides at no additional charge for the horns or the shipping.

Randy Hedden






 

[David G]

That's good stuff Randy! Gus, your thoughts and questions about linings I think is something we can only speculate about. Very, very  few surviving examples(if any) and literature to support anything  for that time period. I think the general concensus is that the majority were unlined probably because it was simply more practical. I'm sure alot folks did'nt want or needed to use cloth for linings when it was'nt necessary when using descent weight leather and I'm sure the majority of folks had no problems with locating decent weight leather.  I can see where a person may have lined one on a lighter weight hide if he had the material avaliable.  I think the whole  huntin bag/pouch thing is wide open for interpretation as far as materials used and construction methods because the majority never survived. But we do have a general idea. It's a bummer to think of all the very interesting pouches that I'm sure were made that we will never know about.Again pure speculation , I'm sure they were made both ways depending on  for who and where the pouch was being made.

[Pete G.]

Can't say as I've ever seen a picture of an old bag with a liner, so I don't know if they are pc or not, but from my own perspective I will state that they are popular today because they look good. The liner covers the unfinished side of the leather and the edging on the flap adds a little extra class.

[Artificer]

Randy,

I honestly did not know we imported so many cowhides from the Spanish Colonies in the 18th century. Well, that certainly explains where large quantities of cowhide leather came from. I'll bet those low cost horns really kept the horners supplied with rather inexpensive raw materials and helped them make a profit.

I have also often heard the cost of things in the 18th century was more in the cost of materials and that labor was rather cheap.  Recently some here have posted that labor was more costly than what we earlier imagined due to the ever constant shortage of labor and the fact so much had to be done by hand.  I honestly don't know which is true or if there is a combination of both, somewhere.  One thing I would love to know is what was the "average" yearly wages in that time period and be able to compare that to how much things cost retail.  

When I visited Historic Winston Salem in the 80's, one of the Interpreters at the cobbler's shop told of one transaction they had found in the records of just prior to the Revolutionary War.  It seems a man offered to clear 50 acres of trees in trade for a pair of well made shoes.  Both the cobbler (they made the distinction it wasn't a cordwainer) and the man thought that was a good deal.  I suspect the Cobbler got the better end of the deal, but if the man didn't otherwise have enough money, he would still have thought it was a good deal.  

I was aware that England got rid of many "undesirables" by sending them over here willingly or not.  Scots were particularly talked into or forced over here in Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia.  The thinking was what better way to overcome the native barbarians with their own barbarians and get them out of Great Britain where they couldn't make as much "mischief?"  Richmond, VA was known as "a den of filthy Scots" as some said when they wanted to move the Capital here from Williamsburg and those based more in the English tradition weren't very enthusiastic about moving the Capital here.    

Thank you for that interesting information,

Gus

[Artificer]

I wanted to say thanks to eveyone who posted in this thread.  I truly appreciate your input.

Gus

[Jerry V Lape]

When I made my first couple bags I didn't line them because I thought a lined bag would take longer to dry if it got rained on than an unlined one. And that the items carried in a wet bag would be more likely to rust etc.  Glad to learn I am at least partially PC - whether the thought process that got me there was flawed or not.  Good thread!