Cite Keepa

Regrettably, meanies have stolen content from Keepa in the past! I'm confident you will choose honesty and cite this page like this:

MLA: Parshall, Ardis E. "Salt Lake Knitting Store, 1914." Keepapitchin.org, 28 Sep 2015, https://keepapitchinin.org/2015/09/28/salt-lake-knitting-store-1914/.

APA: Parshall, A. (2015, Sep 28). Salt Lake Knitting Store, 1914. Keepapitchinin.org. https://keepapitchinin.org/2015/09/28/salt-lake-knitting-store-1914/

HTML: <a target="_new" href="https://keepapitchinin.org/2015/09/28/salt-lake-knitting-store-1914/">Salt Lake Knitting Store, 1914</a>

9 thoughts on “Salt Lake Knitting Store, 1914”

  1. Seems quite pricey. According to the first calculator Goofle gave me, $1 in 1914 was worth about $23 in 2015 money.

  2. About thirty-five years ago, I had a home teaching companion who was about thirty-five years old. It came up once that his mother made his garments. At the prices advertised above, there were likely a lot of mothers doing that in 1914. How late do we have manifestations of garment making in the home?

  3. It should not have been being done after the mid-1920s (I’d have to dig through my files for the exact date). By that time, the First Presidency was becoming very insistent that only the “Authorized Pattern,” with a tag provided by the Church, was acceptable. Over and over, they notified stake presidents by circular letters that no variation was permitted and that garments must have the official seal/tag (specimens of which they sometimes attached so stake presidents would recognize it). That would have ruled out homemade garments.

    That doesn’t mean that everyone complied, of course, but that was the ruling.

  4. An authoritative letter was sent to stake presidents in 1921, with the then-new “modified garment.” The label was discontinued for a time about ten years later, then reinstated in 1938 with very forceful language. Although I don’t see anything specifically related to home-made, home-marked garments, my reading of these documents suggests that they would not meet the requirements of either the 1921 or 1938 letters.

Comments are closed.