Some of the pieces displayed offer the visitors a glance at the changing lives of many gowns of the period, as well as an understanding that information transferred along with an artifact is not always accurate.

A brown printed cotton gown from 1783 from Cornell University and a Prussian blue printed cotton gown from ca. 1805-1810 from the Connecticut Historical Society were used alongside a child's ca. 1810-1811 frock of possible Ohio provenance and similar fabric (see images below).  This juxtaposition further impresses upon the visitor the value of textiles and their constant reuse, which was typical during the period and is a concept first introduced through the Spitalfields open robes made of 1750s textiles and presented in their last altered forms dating from ca. 1780s-early 1790s.

The child's frock was made of ca. 1775-1785 fabric for Ben Mowry (born 1808) to wear before he was put in breeches (typically at age 4 or 5). Although further research is needed to confirm that Ben was born or wore the frock in Massillon, where the garment was found, two portraits of the Worthington daughters, one of Sarah Ann Worthington (age 8) dated 1808, and one of Mary Tiffin Worthington (age 11) dated 1809, also portray similar garments being worn at this time (see images below). The surviving frock and those seen in portraiture follow the new high-waisted or empire style popular in women's wear, which is visible in the nearby display of a woman's Prussian blue printed dress. In addition to the reuse of the fabric and the demonstration that female styles were used to dress young boys, brought out by the Ben Mowry frock, the grouping of garments enables the matter of provenance to be discussed further through the study of the Cornell 1783 gown seen above.

When faced with the chronic lack of provenance affecting most artifacts, one is always interested in items that are accompanied by detailed information. The cataloguing information for the Cornell gown mentions that the fabric was brought from Calcutta, India, by a sea captain to the grandmother of Louise Tift Montgomery in 1783. It further remarks that the textile is believed to be among the first pieces of calico brought to the United States of America.(1)  However, further research by Elsie McMurray into the textile and the cut of the gown refutes part of this story. One of the most important pieces of evidence against the textile's Indian origin lies in the presence of three blue threads in the selvage of the fabric. The weaving of these blue threads in the selvage was mandated from 1774 to 1811 by a British act imposed on "cloth intended for export if a drawback, or refund, of the tax levied on printed cloth was to be claimed."(2)  McMurray's research into the print's popularity further narrowed the time frame to 1775-1785 and, through the 1783 re-establishment of trade after the War of Independence, concluded that the date given by the donor was plausible.(3)  Although part of the information can be proven wrong by the presence of the three blue threads which indicate British origin and the importation of calicos to America as far back as 1721, the donor's claim that the sea captain had returned from India or even that he purchased the fabric there could still be true since textile goods were international commodities which were brought to the American continent from all over the world. Donor information is relevant and extremely important but, as proven in this case, it should not be believed unquestioningly. To obtain knowledge that is more accurate, researchers must question the written sources as well as pay close attention to the artifacts.

____________
(1) Elsie McMurray indicates that "In 1783, 'calico' was one of many words used by English speakers to refer to cotton cloth-printed, painted or plain-imported from the East or produced in Europe." See Elsie McMurray, "American Women's Dresses -1780-1900: Identification and Significance of 148 Extant Dresses" (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Media and Technology Services Resource Center, 2001, computer file), 24.
(2) Florence M. Montgomery, Printed Textile: English and American Cottons and Linens, 1700-1850 (New York: Viking Press, 1970), 34.
(3) McMurray, 30.