Re: MtMan-List: Re: Mt man-List: rubber ponchos

[Phyllis and Don Keas <pdkeas@market1.com>]

The vulcanization process was patented in1831, if I remember correctly.  Several rubber buttons were found in the dig at Bent's Fort and shown to be from the Mountain Man era.  Don Keas


John Kramer wrote:
>John,
>
>Maybe I can help a bit.
>
>India rubber is natural rubber also known as caoutchouc.  There are modern
>perversions of the term used to describe other materials; that was not the
>case
>during our period of interest.
>
>Before processing it is a light cream or dark amber color.  It is the latex
>(milky juice) of rubber trees.  It was first polymerized by drying and
>coagulation.
>
>I don't have the exact date reference at hand for the first vulcanization of
>rubber by Goodyear.  As I remember it would, AT BEST, have been pretty
>uncommon
>before 1840.  >Vulcanization only improved strength, flexibility and durability - it also
>allowed for very hard rubber which could be cast into combs and such; the
>natural rubber was used in much the same ways prior to 1840.  Not nearly so
>broadly to so many purposes.
>
>Rubberized cotton canvas of modern manufacture would probably be as close as
>anyone could get commercially today.  It wouldn't be much different than what
>was made before 1840.  More common today, I would suspect, would be a
>synthetic
>rubber which should offer no functional difference.  Perhaps better wearing
>qualities.
>
>I have encountered references to "rubber sheeting" to date I have not
>determined if it referred to rubberized cloth or thin sheets of natural
>rubber;
>or both.  I have not had any rubber I was certain was not vulcanized to
>determine if would have the strength for use in pure sheets to be practical. >Then again I haven't spent a lot of time researching rubber and rubber goods. >I am unaware of existing examples and suspect it all rotted away.
>
>Unless used with great care waterproof goods will condense lots of water where
>you may not want it.  Often more than if you used untreated canvas.  I would
>suspect the most common use for rubberized cloth or oil treated canvas would
>have been for protecting goods from weather - where condensation would not
>be a
>problem.  For example for bundling goods sealed in a cache.  Or packing
>foodstuffs on a mule.
>
>I have not encountered exact reference to colors finished goods may have been
>traded in, most recipes call for black or brown pigment.  Yellow would have
>been possible though not nearly as bright as the items you mention.  Yellow
>Ochre --- maybe. >
>I have recipes that call for "rubberizing/waterproofing" many materials
>including canvas, cotton, linen, hemp and leather; many call for caoutchouc.
>
>I am not presently aware of a source for pure natural India rubber.
>
>Do any of the Lewis & Clark researchers out there have any specifics as to the
>rubber goods they carried?  Unless I'm remembering wrong they had a rubber
>boat.  If so, has anyone found out how it was built?  >
>Rubber goods would have been expensive.  It would be heavy to transport or to
>carry.  I doubt it was widely used.  Oilcloth would be lighter and cheaper and
>I suspect not much more common.  Why uncommon?  Because there aren't many
>references.  Allan's Fort Hall find is significant I doubt they saved samples
>or recorded much detail.  Damn.
>
>John...
>
>
>At 08:00 PM 10/30/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>Alan,
>>
>>As usual, your information is invaluable and knowledge abounds.  >>However, I fear that certain generalizations may prove misleading to the
>>novice amongst us. The fact that "vulcanized'" cloth/rubber garments
>>existed within the fur trade period doesn't mean that yellow crossing
>>guard rain coats  and goulashes are acceptable at various events
>>replicating fur trade activity.  My point is that a more definitive
>>response on that subject matter is earnestly needed, ie. what sort of
>>fabric was rubberized?  What kind of "rubber" was used?  Where did it
>>come from?  What colour was the eventual product?
>>Was it sold as premade garments and/or sold as bulk
>>sheeting?..........and so on.  What was "India rubber"?
>>
>>I've seen what is sold by Panther and seriously wonder if this is a true
>>replication of a period product.  I tend to think that vulcanization in
>>its infancy probable consisted of a gum type rubber, ill refined and a
>>bit bulky.  Could be totally wrong.
>>
>>Any further incites on the particulars of this subject?
>>
>>John Funk
>>
>>___________________________________________________________________
>>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at
><http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html>http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
>>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>> >John T. Kramer, maker of: 
>
>Kramer's Best Antique Improver
>>>>It makes wood wonderful<<<
>        >>>As good as old!<<<
>
><http://www.kramerize.com/>
>
>mail to: <kramer@kramerize.com> >
>
>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Received: from lists.xmission.com [198.60.22.7] by mail.market1.com with ESMTP
>  (SMTPD32-4.03) id A6A33EE500BE; Tue, 03 Nov 1998 03:10:43 MDT
>Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 2.04 #1)
>	id 0zadOS-00003j-00
>	for hist_text-goout@lists.xmission.com; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 03:08:56 -0700
>Received: from [209.54.40.10] (helo=shire.middleearth.net)
>	by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #1)
>	id 0zadOO-000030-00
>	for hist_text@lists.xmission.com; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 03:08:52 -0700
>Received: from bull (arc10x170.kcnet.com [206.150.214.170])
>	by shire.middleearth.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id EAA12793
>	for <hist_text@lists.xmission.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:08:46 -0600 (CST)
>Message-Id: <Version.32.19981030234515.00f7d550@mail.kramerize.com>
>X-Sender: kramer@mail.kramerize.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
>Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 03:58:16 -0600
>To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com
>From: John Kramer <kramer@kramerize.com>
>Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Mt man-List: rubber ponchos
>In-Reply-To: <19981030.202029.11614.0.j2hearts@juno.com>
>References: <199810292040.NAA15317@lewis.mt.net>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Sender: owner-hist_text@lists.xmission.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com
>X-UIDL: 909623974
>Status: U
>