more old terminology

Two half-gangs form a bout, right?

From The Art of Weaving, by Hand and by Power, a half-gang consists of the number of ends you are warping with (portee?)and the bout is the loop formed by the "coming" and "going". The book is published 1844.

Can I use these terms, and be understood? I doubt the "bout", which nowadays seems to mean "a smallish number of ends", but the "gang"?


Posted on Mon, 02/20/2012 - 15:58

Kerstin for posting a link to this book. As someone interested in the history of textiles and the eveolution of techniques this will bring me many hours of reading  and hopefully learning, enjoyment. Andprobably some confusion as well!



Posted on Mon, 02/20/2012 - 16:46

Thank you Ellen! Maybe I should have included the Swedish: "ett lang" or "ett lang-par" (either lang singular, or pair of lang(s)). Books use either one or the other -  myself, I tend to confuse them. I often say "I use 4 ends per lang", and, the next day I can say "One lang each 4 dents for rough-sleying" - meaning different things... (but at least I *know* I'm inconsistent ;-)

Posted on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 03:02

I did not know of "half-gang" or "gang" as weaving terms before reading your message today.


Posted on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 07:07

In Germany we are used to say "Gang" and it means all the ends you are warping at one time. "Halber Gang" means to go down all the warping mill and "Ganzer Gang" means going down and up again. We make two crosses: One is called "Fadenkreuz" (each end is crossed to the next) and the other "Gangkreuz" ("Halber Gang" crossed with the next "Halber Gang"). It's very helpful to count!


Posted on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 10:32

The internet archives has lots of old books on weaving and textile. I've downloaded a bunch myself. There is a book on calculating warp and weft, lots of terms in there.;D


hanks, cuts, skeins, lea, drams, spyndle, heers, slips, hesps, heads, run, grain. From "Textile Calculations and Structure of Fabrics" by Thomas Ashenhurst, Fth Ed. (1902).

Posted on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 14:38

Ok, a 1902 book is more modern than an 1844 one. Question still is: are those terms useable (I mean, of course, do modern weavers understand them), today? I remember a discussion about hanks, some time ago - nearly no-one "admitted" to a hank as a defined measure. Which of course means it is not useable (as a defined measure) in an ordinary "off-hand" discussion...

(Ashenhurst seems to say, w/o  reading *all* of it, that a hank generally is 60 revolutions. However, the circumference (or total lenght) differs...  Link: A Treatise on Textile Calculations and the Structure of Fabrics