Thread: The Sheffield Flood

Originally Posted by Cangooner

Yup, mediaeval tanning recipes included both urine and dog poop in the tanning process. It worked then, so I see no reason to think its use didn't continue until other alternatives became available. If it ain't broke, and all that...

BTW, how do you like "Vermin Destroyer" as a job title?!

Thanks for sharing that

That's not funny.....I have strops ordered from Neil Miller!

Just kidding! Really! About the other....Strops on the way!

They did indeed use dung and urine in processing leather - in some places they still do. If you walk through the bazaars in Egypt where all the colourful leather goods are, or in Cyprus or parts of spain the unmistakable odour of dog dung and leather fills the air.

Once the fat was scraped off the leather it was still hairy, so it was steeped in either lime water, wood-ash lye or urine - this loosened the hairs allowing them to be scraped off. Next the leather was 'bated' - in dung, commonly from dogs and pigeons, or brains (brains made a very soft leather). People would earn money scouring the streets for dog dung and collecting it using lidded bags and spiked sticks - usually children and very poor people, although those with 'connections' - like knowing a kennel owner - could make 15 shillings or more a week. Chamber pots of urine were also left outside for collection.

Interestly, the Victorians called dung collectors 'Pure Finders' which may have partly been an example of Victorian 'etiquette' but is more likely from their idea that it was cleansing and thus 'pure' - the old whitened sort sold for more as it was supposed to have more cleansing alkali in it. IN the vicinity of Bermondsey there were 30 tanyards in the late 1850s, and it is supposed that there were between 200 and 300 Pure Finders working full time to support them.

Even the fancier goods used leathers bated in this way - glovers used it for kid gloves, book-binders used it in the form of 'morocco' leather (the Egypt connection again!), as well as cobblers for fine shoes, etc, etc.

This is the chief reason why an Act of Parliament removed all tanneries to the edges of towns - so that the fetid stink and reek of decaying fat, gore, dung and urine did not assail the noses of the virtuous.

Urine found its way in the preparation of clothing too. For example, the colours in tweed were fixed by steeping in urine. At one time the House of Lords was said to be redolent of the tang of urine, because most of the gentry wore tweed. On a damp or wet day it used to reek of urine.

Now then Tom, that was a 2.5" wide strop, wasn't it...?

Regards,
Neil

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

They did indeed use dung and urine in processing leather - in some places they still do. If you walk through the bazaars in Egypt where all the colourful leather goods are, or in Cyprus or parts of spain the unmistakable odour of dog dung and leather fills the air.

Once the fat was scraped off the leather it was still hairy, so it was steeped in either lime water, wood-ash lye or urine - this loosened the hairs allowing them to be scraped off. Next the leather was 'bated' - in dung, commonly from dogs and pigeons, or brains (brains made a very soft leather). People would earn money scouring the streets for dog dung and collecting it using lidded bags and spiked sticks - usually children and very poor people, although those with 'connections' - like knowing a kennel owner - could make 15 shillings or more a week. Chamber pots of urine were also left outside for collection.

Interestly, the Victorians called dung collectors 'Pure Finders' which may have partly been an example of Victorian 'etiquette' but is more likely from their idea that it was cleansing and thus 'pure' - the old whitened sort sold for more as it was supposed to have more cleansing alkali in it. IN the vicinity of Bermondsey there were 30 tanyards in the late 1850s, and it is supposed that there were between 200 and 300 Pure Finders working full time to support them.

Even the fancier goods used leathers bated in this way - glovers used it for kid gloves, book-binders used it in the form of 'morocco' leather (the Egypt connection again!), as well as cobblers for fine shoes, etc, etc.

This is the chief reason why an Act of Parliament removed all tanneries to the edges of towns - so that the fetid stink and reek of decaying fat, gore, dung and urine did not assail the noses of the virtuous.

Urine found its way in the preparation of clothing too. For example, the colours in tweed were fixed by steeping in urine. At one time the House of Lords was said to redolent of the tang of urine, because most of the gentry wore tweed. On a damp or wet day it used to reek of urine.

Now then Tom, that was a 2.5" wide strop, wasn't it...?

Regards,
Neil

Wow. Great set up, great delivery.

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

Now then Tom, that was a 2.5" wide strop, wasn't it...?

Regards,
Neil

Uh....yes Neil. That is correct. Could you...uh...air that puppy out before sending?

Can we add "Pure Finder" to your resume?

Originally Posted by sharptonn

Uh....yes Neil. That is correct. Could you...uh...air that puppy out before sending?

Can we add "Pure Finder" to your resume?

I presume you mean I follow bulls about...

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

I presume you mean I follow bulls about...

Not at all, Neil! But B.S. surely has to come from somewhere!

Seriously, Thanks once again for your outstanding contribution!
Tom

Originally Posted by sharptonn

We seem to use the records of the 1864 Sheffield flood a lot to find out about makers at that time, as they all wanted compensation! Interesting, at least!
Here's a link.
Sheffield Flood Claims Archive | Postscript to the Sheffield Flood

Thanks, Tom

The issue is the post must be part of a thread. I cannot bring in outside links as far as I know.

Been awfully busy with Randy last weekend and now getting ready to Charlie's meet. I do hope you make it.

Originally Posted by rolodave

Thanks, Tom

The issue is the post must be part of a thread. I cannot bring in outside links as far as I know.

To explain Dave's above post, I thought this would be interesting for Dave to put on his front page spot.
Seems he misunderstood and replied here instead of PM's?

Well, thanks for inadvertently bumping the thread, good read.

Indeed, interesting stuff!