Hen Pecked
Awhile back, I stumbled across a blog whose owner was looking for inspiration in order to write a few stories. I (as were others) was asked to come up with a name of a character and a genre. I was going to suggest a hardboiled detective, but I am sure lots of other people would choose the same thing.
So “Mrs. Polly Pickensfield,” who happens to be a hen, is what I suggested in the genre of Kiddie Lit that became the seed for a new story.
Read “Maestro,” which takes us back to a time when life’s realities weren’t minced in front of children, but were perhaps made a little more comforting with familiar settings and farm animals. I was quite impressed with the talent of the writer and the bittersweet story that came as a result.
blogging | Comment (0)January 6, 1947: (Don’t) Burn, Baby, Burn
I was so excited to do a “this day in history” last Sunday, but I neglected to actually share it with the world. So….its a week late, but today I pose the question:
What exactly happened on January 6, 1947?
I have recently learned that The California Flammability Act went into effect. (Exciting, huh? Well, it certainly changed the fabric and clothing industry)
Retailers were ordered to clear their shelves of any clothing and “yard goods” were constructed of a flammable fabric. Some retailers purchased or were provided with test equipment to determine which goods were at risk. Not all retailers immediately complied.
Fabrics were not graded on the failure to protect the individual from a large scale fire (such as a house fire or those also involving flammable liquids), but the sudden catching of fire from a very small source such as a heat glow or a spark. Fabrics were considered flammable when they caught fire in less than 6 seconds. Materials most targetted were, according to Fairchild’s Mens Wear Magazine of March 7, 1947, “long napped rayons, sweaters and robes with the same characteristic, or with short or finer nap, nets as used in evening gowns, and thin, coated fabrics.” In fact, for a time, any synthetic fabric more flammable than natural cotton was banned.
The ban did not include hats, gloves, shoes, purses, or interlining materals that were not exposed.
Not only mills in the state were barred from producing them, retailers were fined or penalized for carrying flammable clothing and purchased or supplied with equipment to test fabrics. They were ordered to clear their shelves and check their insurers for liability.
Retailers did not all immediately comply. There were some questionable fabrics that individual stores inquired the fire marshall about. In doing so, the retailer could probably sell off the remaining forbidden items because it took 6 months at times for the subsequent ruling.
It is very interesting to think about the presence of particular fabrics lending towards accurately dating a garment. However, since the regulation did not immediately spread across the country, nor did it become federal law, fabric content alone cannot be relied upon to accurately date a suit or a nightie, except perhaps in the case of California Designers of the times.
1940s, history | Comment (1)