Comparison of felts--vintage and modern

[Zanzibarstar]

Maybe this subject has been addressed before, but I'm fascinated with the different characteristics of felt from the different manufacturers. Every single one of my hats feels different!
My hats and their characteristics:

Vintage Dobbs 5th Ave.--Thick, soft felt. Pliable but durable.

Vintage Resistol XXX Beaver--Velour like softness. Retains shape, slightly stiffer than Dobbs.

Vintage Royal Stetson--Extremely stiff.

Vintage Churchill Beaver "50"--Soft, luxurious feeling felt. Thinner than Dobbs and Resistol. Dents easily.

Modern Akubra Cattleman--Stiff, stout felt.

So...a number of questions. How do other's hat's felt compare to these makers as well as others? How do modern felt hats compare to the vintage? How about Vintage Silhouettes? Penman? Are they of comparable quality felt to the vintage? I think this would be an interesting comparison to make. Anyone agree?

 

[Greyfox]

I just spent a long weekend with a bunch of experienced collectors and a couple of hatters. A great deal of discussion was centered around this topic. The general consensus was that vintage felt is superior to what is available today.

 

[jwalls]

Your pre EPA vintage hat bodies were made with a mercury process that is no longer used. With newer bodies it is sometimes just the luck of the draw. I am currently working with some dress bodies from Winchester that are really great.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not an expert on vintage hats, but I possess a modicum of knowledge about them, and a lot about modern fur felts.

While I agree that the best vintage felt is generally superior to modern, one factor seldom mentioned is the effect of age and wear on quality felt, be it vintage or modern: To a point, they improve fur felt, then the favorable returns gradually diminish. Excellent modern felt such as that from Akubra's Heritage Collection is pretty stiff, but with time and wear and weathering, it becomes much softer, pliable, and "vintage"-like. So, to be fair, one must compare vintage felt--that is, by definition old and generally well-worn--with equally broken-in modern felt.

 

[rlk]

Your pre EPA vintage hat bodies were made with a mercury process that is no longer used. With newer bodies it is sometimes just the luck of the draw. I am currently working with some dress bodies from Winchester that are really great.

Mercury was banned in Felting in Dec. 1941 Nationally and stopped earlier in many shops. The EPA dates back to 1970.

 

[Woodfluter]

Maybe this subject has been addressed before, but I'm fascinated with the different characteristics of felt from the different manufacturers. Every single one of my hats feels different!
My hats and their characteristics:

Vintage Dobbs 5th Ave.--Thick, soft felt. Pliable but durable.

Vintage Resistol XXX Beaver--Velour like softness. Retains shape, slightly stiffer than Dobbs.

Vintage Royal Stetson--Extremely stiff.

Vintage Churchill Beaver "50"--Soft, luxurious feeling felt. Thinner than Dobbs and Resistol. Dents easily.

Modern Akubra Cattleman--Stiff, stout felt.

So...a number of questions. How do other's hat's felt compare to these makers as well as others? How do modern felt hats compare to the vintage? How about Vintage Silhouettes? Penman? Are they of comparable quality felt to the vintage? I think this would be an interesting comparison to make. Anyone agree?

Hi Zanzibarstar -

Yep, you guessed right, this has been covered, but I'd say there's not been a definitive evaluation. So you're raising a valid question! And perhaps a sensitive one, since there's some wonderful and conscientious hat makers on this forum. Who do the very best they can with the best modern hat bodies available.

The underlying question being...how much is due to the felting processes used and how much is due to the hatmaker? Once upon a time, they were often one and the same. Apparently not so now, for most high-end hats.

I don't know much more than what I've read here at the lounge, but it seems that mercury isn't the core issue. Some equally fine hats seem to have been made after mercury was banned. I'm tempted to compare this to a chemical company I used to work for, that fought tooth and nail against fluorocarbon emission regulation because they had a patent on the primary refrigerant at the time. When this became a lost cause on substantive grounds, they went forward and developed an equally effective alternative refrigerant. I suspect felt hats are a similar tale but would love to hear details about the replacement carroting process.

Anyway, you mention a Dobbs 5th Avenue. Here's mine from the 1950's, apparently:

Also thick, soft and easily formed into any crown or brim style. Steaming has little effect. It can be molded pretty much as you like, and the longer it's left that way the more it tends to retain that shape - until you redo it. A Dobbs homburg I have is quite similar in felt properties.

The Dobbs is a contrast to two Cavanaghs I have (one is in my avatar) which tend to be thinner, slightly stiffer, lighter but also take a shape quite easily without steam or moisture - but tends to hold it somewhat more persistently. And if you handle them or see them at close range, I doubt you'd confuse them with a newer hat.

I also have a vintage Royal Stetson but it isn't stiff at all. Nor as soft as the Dobbs. Comparable to the Cavanagh. But not nearly as nice a finish, nor with similar "hand". Nonetheless, not easily confused with any newer hats I've seen. It responds to steaming more or less like the "Heritage felt" Akubras I have, only...hard to quantify, it's just different. Finer finish.

I have a Royal Deluxe Stetson, but it's a bit earlier so apples and oranges. But noticeably softer and more easily shaped. Yet quite different from the Dobbs and Cavanaghs.

Akubras are all over the map as far as stiffness, depending on model. The Heritage felt Federation fedoras, and also the Banjo Paterson and Lightning Ridge westerns (latter from David Morgan) seem to break down nicely with rough handling and become quite soft, but they still require steaming or soaking to take or retain a shape. And then they hold that shape pretty adamantly until re-moisturized. Quite different from some of the vintage ones we've been discussing. Some of the Imperial felt Akubras I have don't soften up as much and appear to shrink more readily.

I've read a bit here about the possible role of aging with respect to felt properties, and it seems plausible. However, I do wonder...in movies of the era (admittedly limited information in brief doses) they appear to show hats that are extremely pliable when presumably new. Also some still photos imply hats that are extremely casually shaped, as would happen with a very pliable felt.

Not knowing better, I might guess that aging is real but not the principal factor. I don't know what is, but I've seen and handled a few current top-end all beaver hat bodies and finished hats, and while very good on the modern scale they honestly don't seem the same as some of the rather common vintage ones. I don't know why or what more to say, just my impression.

- Bill

 

[suitedcboy]

I have another take on this. I think labor is a HUGE factor. There are some modern felts that seem to me to be the equal of the vintage felts and they are not necessarily 100% beaver. Resistol has made a fur blend hat called the Balck Gold that is a 20X hat. 20X is far from their highest grade felt but this hat has a lot more put into finishing and the result is an extremely fine feeling felt. There is variation as I have had several of these hats and the best one is from about 15 years ago with the 24 year old one coming in a close second. I have one that is 6-7 years old that is a close third.
Some I have handled have been overly stiffened but my 15 year old would be a prime candidate for fedora conversion as it is not at all stiff and is so workable and feels so nice to handle. With the liner removed the felt on inside looks coarse and not so swell but the pouncing done to the finished surfaces has brought the felt to life.

 

[Lefty]

Without a scale, isn't all of this just relative - pliable, stiff, soft, etc. [huh]

 

[rlk]

Hi Zanzibarstar -

I suspect felt hats are a similar tale but would love to hear details about the replacement carroting process.

- Bill

I posted this link this morning. Fabian has a number of variations on this patent.
http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showpost.php?p=985222&postcount=1

 

[rlk]

Here's a mostly safe generalization regarding fur felt name designations: Names such as 3X, Royal De Luxe, Aristocrat, Twenty etc. indicate a common price point at a particular time rather than a specific felt. Different fur blends, fiber length, weight and finishing can be found on hats of the same vintage with the same quality(name,#) designation. This makes generalities using these names somewhat unproductive. Hats of different ages would need to have similar weight and appearance for any comparative analysis which would still remain largely subjective.

 

[avedwards]

There is a German report on Akubra hats that shows some of the processes in detail the title for look up is: "How Akubra Hats Are Made" here is the link I hope it works. It had been listed elsewhere in the Lounge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htr4w4nAHkA

Thanks for posting this John. It's unfortunate that very few here will be able to understand it, but it's interesting. I like the fact that most of the steps are done by hand, right down to smoothing out creases when flanging at the end. The workers must be very skilled to make such a large volume of hats so quickly with such precision.

 

[buler]

Without a scale, isn't all of this just relative - pliable, stiff, soft, etc. [huh]

Of course, claylike and moldable have definite specifications/tolerances. Where did I put that reference sheet....

B

 

[rlk]

Of course, claylike and moldable have definite specifications/tolerances. Where did I put that reference sheet....

B

Where in the scale do we place "like butter"?

 

[gtdean48]

Thanks for posting this John. It's unfortunate that very few here will be able to understand it, but it's interesting. I like the fact that most of the steps are done by hand, right down to smoothing out creases when flanging at the end. The workers must be very skilled to make such a large volume of hats so quickly with such precision.

One of the take-aways I had from my recent Winchester factory visit was the amount of human actions in the process. Many were repetitive actions at stations that really required little precision but definitely pace. One that really stood out was the machine the agitated the felt bodies to make the fur felt tighter together & the felt cones were 1/2 or more of the original size coming out the other end. Each blank went thru this machine 60 times & was turned over & inside out again & again.

 

[Art Fawcett]

The process of making fur felt has a number of dimensions to it. One is content what types of fur is used, and how much.

The second is in actual felting, how much and how long the felt is "agitated" to bring it together as a tight felt versus a looser felt. Matt Deckard had mentioned to me how in a number of old hats he has the felt is really tight and some new hats it is only a loose "knit" felt so you could pull it apart by hand with out excersion, something you could not do with the older hats.

Since the felting process was previously initially done with a washing machine type action using water and agitation this may explain why a little why some hats taper when they get wet. The wetting makes for a continuation of the tightening of the felt and induces the taper.

John, Had I not spent two days at Winchester last week I might have agreed with your statements to a point but, my education has been furthered.
The ONLY difference in the felting from 80 years ago to today is in the carroting. The mercury has been replaced with an equally efficient chemical combo, the labor force to do the work is identical, even many of the machines are approx 100 yrs old, the fur certainly hasn't changed so for all intents & purposes, the felt is the same as it leaves the plant with one caveat. The hatter can specify the amount of stiffener added to the bodies they want if they order in quantities.

That said there leaves only two areas, aging and initial hat making methods. I think the difference lies in a combo of both but more than anything it's simply the aging process and has been discussed ad nauseum. Felt continues to tighten "re-felting itself" continually with simply no more changes than atmospheric. At some point in time, ( no exact measurements here) it stops felting and becomes "dead". It's felt that has reached this point that we are trying to compare to "just made" felt and it just can't be done.

To clear this up Winchester experimented a few years ago by placing some new bodies outside for a full year. They were exposed to all seasons and after a year were sent to a western hatter of note who reported that " they were the best felts he'd ever worked with". Now I know this is anecdotal and non scientific but, it's good enough for me. It verifies what I've been suggesting for years. Even though the Christmas hat was placed in a box for 60 years it was still exposed in microscopic levels to atmosphere, simply making it take longer to "die"

 

[rlk]

Is the main positive attribute of aged felt dimensional stability? The same is true for fine woodwork(also formerly living).--What other improved qualities are suggested?

Most of the Patents for Carroting, Felting and Finishing were for improvements in efficiency--both time and labor--as much as quality. It was of utmost concern throughout production history every bit as much as today. Competition was even tougher.

 

[Art Fawcett]

Is the main positive attribute of aged felt dimensional stability? The same is true for fine woodwork(also formerly living).--What other improved qualities are suggested?

Yes Sir density, dimensional stability.

I am not saying that age alone is the difference or that the felting process alone in the difference but I do think that for the most part they did make better felts back then. A poor quality felt can't be magically transformed into a top quality simply by time alone. All may improve over time but a in the realm of poor / ok / good / better / best, the best back then then was and is better than the best now because they were able to invest in the time to create a better body.

Streamlining of manufacturing to balance content, time and cost tends to move us from the crafting details of a California Craftsman Bungalow of the past versus the plain and sometimes shoddy near prefab homes of today.

John, did you not read my post? NOTHING has changed with exception of the carroting. There has been NO streamlining, there has been NO labor reduction, there has been NO increasing of production speeds. How much more clear does it need to be?

There is and always has been different furs used in different rations but the bottom line is that the felt is EXACTLY the same when it comes off the line as it was 80 years ago. Even the machines are the same.

John, I understand you and Matt are friends but really, how many hats has Matt made? I don't mean ordered, I mean made. You really need to look past his biases to continue your own education.

 

[Woodfluter]

...NOTHING has changed with exception of the carroting. There has been NO streamlining, there has been NO labor reduction, there has been NO increasing of production speeds.///

...the felt is EXACTLY the same when it comes off the line as it was 80 years ago. Even the machines are the same.

Art -

Thanks for providing these insights - fascinating stuff and things I didn't know. However, it appears to raise several questions in my mind...maybe you can help sort this out.

(1) Felt quality for several makers has been quoted as being better prior to 1970's. If this is so...were they getting bodies from Winchester or making them in-house and were those other felt body makers doing things differently after that date? But not so for Winchester?

(2) Hats from the 1970's are now around 30-40 years old. Those from 1950's are about 50-60 years old. If differences (in hats of equal grade) are due to aging alone, is the critical age for maximum density roughly 45 years on average? Will the 1970's hats exhibit a notable improvement in the next 10+ years? Do any of you who were collecting old hats 10 years or more ago remember seeing any changes in hats you owned that were approaching ~45 years in age?

(3) The one-year outdoor aging experiment quoted by Winchester is especially interesting. Reminds me of some attempts at "breaking in" guitars by exposing soundboards to audio frequencies for weeks on end...but aside from that, would it work with a finished hat as well as a raw body? If so, it's an experiment that could be repeated pretty easily. Or accelerated by moving a hat frequently from climate-controlled indoors to outdoors under varying conditions of humidity and temperature in a bugproof container. To stress it as much as possible.

(4) If the one-year Winchester experiment made a significant difference, wouldn't different conditions of storage make 10+ year difference in the rate of aging for typical hats? In other terms: some hats got put in a box and stuffed into the attic - wider range of humidity and temperature - while others got put into a closet downstairs in a more equable climate. Do you all see such differences in the same age and model of hat? Also, could the ~45 year horizon have anything to do with the advent of mass-produced window AC units around 1947 - thus stabilizing the home environment to an unprecedented degree and maybe stretching out the felt aging process?

(5) If felt density and dimensional stability are the critical factors, these are measurable and quantifiable. Not easy because it's a pliable material, but possible. Know if anyone has done that?

(6) If other factors are at play, maybe they can be seen. I started to do some stereo microscope examination of old and newer hats - limited to those I have - some months ago but got sidetracked. Wanted to post pictures but don't have facilities for digital captures. Don't want to jump the gun and reach unwarranted conclusions, but I was seeing some interesting compositional differences - uniformity and thickness of hairs, frequency of unidentified non-hair contaminants. (Caveat: none of these were from modern Winchester bodies.) Now I know from you that the furs are essentially the same and the processes of felting are, but are there any steps not considered in the comparison? Such as those connected with detaching fur from pelts, sorting and mixing the fur fibers, or something else like that? I admit I barely know enough to ask, but can suspect there could be some other things afoot that could affect quality in addition to those Winchester mentioned. Maybe upstream of Winchester themselves?

- Bill

 

[Woodfluter]

In light of the aged felts that were and improvemnet over the regulars is there a way to make improvements or is it not cost effective. (A fur felt cryobath?)

Some makers of wooden "baroque" flutes require that you return the instrument to them after a year of playing, to re-voice and adjust it. Other very high-end keyed flutes I have (same material - grenadilla) had problems with swelling of tenons for years before they stabilized.

My main wooden flute is made by Terry McGee. In the eight years I've had it, never any swelling even after hours of playing and still perfectly in tune. No change in "roundness" of tone holes. Here's what McGee does that the others don't: they all age their wood stocks, but McGee roughs out the wood tubes and then stores them for years in metal racks in a room where the temperature and humidity are artificially fluctuated to extremes several times per day. Then he makes them into flutes. I can attest that this makes a difference.

So if the aging process is the principal issue with stabilizing felts (and I still have some questions about that), you should be able to perform something similar with felt bodies. Or finished hats! But hopefully over a few months, not years.

- Bill

 

[navarre_au]

Not felt per-se I know from the clothing industry that aging wool cloth for suits & trousers etc is (or should say was) an extremely important step.

The place I lived in as a kid, had a woolen mill and seperately a high quality clothing factory - both plants had dug very large cellars in the sandstone and stored fabric there for many months before it was sold - or entered th production phase - the longer it was stored the more stable it was said to be.

Apparently they tried - but failed to find shortcuts. The wool is what it is - and takes time to do what it needs to do.

Back to felt
I recall seeing many years ago a show on TV about rabbits and the history of Akubra and the relationship with rabbits here in Aus (and wish now I had listened more but at the time didnt know better) that when the felt bodies where first made they termed them "green" - the bodies they wanted for better hats would be set aside to age - the longer the better. And I think I saw some similar reference online for an old family of Italian hatters.