DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.25990#0090
DACCA MUSLINS.
59
DACCA MUSLINS.
As under this head we shall have occasion to notice the famed and still valued productions
of the Dacca loom, we shall here take the opportunity of making some general remarks
regarding their fineness.
It has long been a subject of interest and doubt whether the finest Dacca muslins have
ever been equalled or surpassed by the machine-made muslins of Europe.
An answer has been given to the question by the British manufacturer, who alleges that
the hand-spinner of Dacca has produced nothing so fine as some of the examples produced
by his machinery. It was asserted, and it has been generally accepted as true, that in the
Exhibitions of 1851 and 1861 there were muslins of European make which were finer than
anything shown there from India.
Whatever be the state of the case, however, as regards the contest between Dacca and
European muslins, quoad actual fineness, this at least seems clear—and it is admitted, we
believe, by all—that as regards apparent fineness India bears the palm. It is said that
this is explained by a greater compression of the thread, depending on the peculiar mode
of spinning, and by a consequent lessening of its diameter.
We do' not think that this fact should be lost sight of. Apparent fineness, of course, is
not actual fineness ; but actual fineness loses much of its value by seeming coarse. Whether
the muslins which disputed with Dacca for the prize were or were not really the finer, it was
admitted by our best judges in such matters that they seemed not to be so.
In dealing with a vexed question of this kind the first thing to be done is to examine the
•way in which the relative fineness of the different muslins is practically determined and stated.
We cannot show this better than by quoting from a letter which we received from Mr. H.
Houldsworth, in February 1864 :—
“ It may be useful to repeat here the formula for ascertaining the fineness of yarn
when woven. In England it is designated by the number of hanks in one pound weight of
7,000 grs. A hank is 840 yards, or 30,240 inches. The first step is to count the number of
threads of warp and weft in one square inch. This is usually done by the weaver’s magni-
fying glass, which, through an opening of \ inch, brings the threads in that space distinctly
into view. Thus the specimen A B (muslin from Arnee, Madras) counts 40 threads each
way in I inch, or 80 threads in 1 inch of warp, and 80 of weft, showing that each square
inch contains 160 inches of yarn.
Thus the sq. ins. in the piece X 160
-3--— the hanks m the piece;
30,240 r
and, as the wt. of the piece in grains : the hanks : : 7,000 : No. of the yarn.
Then for A B (the length of wkich is 15 yds. 18 inches, the width 1 yd. .16 inches,
' Sq. ins. piece. Thds. p. inch. inch.
and the weight 6891 grs.), 29016 X 160 X 7000_ AT „
‘ 30240 X 6891 grs. 1 °‘ °° '
Nothing can be more clear or simple than the process here described, but it is, at the
same time, very evidently one into which error may easily creep. For instance, if we take
two specimens of the same muslin—halving a piece, for example—and if we starch and
dress the one half, and leave the other unstarched, by following the manufacturer’s method
of determining fineness, w7e shall arrive at the startling conclusion that it is two things at
(3428.)
L
59
DACCA MUSLINS.
As under this head we shall have occasion to notice the famed and still valued productions
of the Dacca loom, we shall here take the opportunity of making some general remarks
regarding their fineness.
It has long been a subject of interest and doubt whether the finest Dacca muslins have
ever been equalled or surpassed by the machine-made muslins of Europe.
An answer has been given to the question by the British manufacturer, who alleges that
the hand-spinner of Dacca has produced nothing so fine as some of the examples produced
by his machinery. It was asserted, and it has been generally accepted as true, that in the
Exhibitions of 1851 and 1861 there were muslins of European make which were finer than
anything shown there from India.
Whatever be the state of the case, however, as regards the contest between Dacca and
European muslins, quoad actual fineness, this at least seems clear—and it is admitted, we
believe, by all—that as regards apparent fineness India bears the palm. It is said that
this is explained by a greater compression of the thread, depending on the peculiar mode
of spinning, and by a consequent lessening of its diameter.
We do' not think that this fact should be lost sight of. Apparent fineness, of course, is
not actual fineness ; but actual fineness loses much of its value by seeming coarse. Whether
the muslins which disputed with Dacca for the prize were or were not really the finer, it was
admitted by our best judges in such matters that they seemed not to be so.
In dealing with a vexed question of this kind the first thing to be done is to examine the
•way in which the relative fineness of the different muslins is practically determined and stated.
We cannot show this better than by quoting from a letter which we received from Mr. H.
Houldsworth, in February 1864 :—
“ It may be useful to repeat here the formula for ascertaining the fineness of yarn
when woven. In England it is designated by the number of hanks in one pound weight of
7,000 grs. A hank is 840 yards, or 30,240 inches. The first step is to count the number of
threads of warp and weft in one square inch. This is usually done by the weaver’s magni-
fying glass, which, through an opening of \ inch, brings the threads in that space distinctly
into view. Thus the specimen A B (muslin from Arnee, Madras) counts 40 threads each
way in I inch, or 80 threads in 1 inch of warp, and 80 of weft, showing that each square
inch contains 160 inches of yarn.
Thus the sq. ins. in the piece X 160
-3--— the hanks m the piece;
30,240 r
and, as the wt. of the piece in grains : the hanks : : 7,000 : No. of the yarn.
Then for A B (the length of wkich is 15 yds. 18 inches, the width 1 yd. .16 inches,
' Sq. ins. piece. Thds. p. inch. inch.
and the weight 6891 grs.), 29016 X 160 X 7000_ AT „
‘ 30240 X 6891 grs. 1 °‘ °° '
Nothing can be more clear or simple than the process here described, but it is, at the
same time, very evidently one into which error may easily creep. For instance, if we take
two specimens of the same muslin—halving a piece, for example—and if we starch and
dress the one half, and leave the other unstarched, by following the manufacturer’s method
of determining fineness, w7e shall arrive at the startling conclusion that it is two things at
(3428.)
L