Hamster62
|
Sugarloaf edit
Good point. You made me thinking. Have to check. See you in a while.
Warrington (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, you are right. I guess the whole article entry needs to be rewritten and expanded. Go ahead and do it, if you want. here is some good stuff you can use: REFERENCE:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=58888 INTERESTING FACTS TO ADD:
To prepare sugar for sale in England the canes were crudely processed where they were grown. Ripe canes were cut, stripped of their leaves and crushed to extract juice. The juice was then heated with LIME in order to prevent fermentation taking place, then the syrup was skimmed and evaporated down. The liquid was cooled and allowed to crystallize, usually in a CASK or HOGSHEAD with holes in the bottom through which the residual uncrystallized syrup known as MOLASSES could drain. Once drainage was deemed complete, the holes were bunged up in preparation for transporting to this country. This process explains the many references to leakage in transit, and to the variable weight of each hogshead of sugar on arrival. The resulting crystalline material, known as MUSCOVADO, was the most common form in which sugar was imported; though the term BROWN SUGAR was also applied to sugar at this stage. By comparison, the term RAW sugar was less common in the Dictionary Archive. Sugar was also sometimes identified by its place of origin, hence terms like BARBADOES SUGAR, BARBARY SUGAR or JAMAICA SUGAR. This could be an important distinction because the place of origin could affect use. Barbadoes sugar, for example, was favoured in the making of preserves. The dark, sticky MUSCOVADO was popularly used for home-made wine.
After importation to Britain, sugar underwent further refinement, usually at the ports of entry such as London, Bristol and Liverpool. This process involved dissolving and heating the muscovado and crystallizing it again by running it through an inverted cone-shaped mould packed with sugar. This was intended to encourage crystallization and to trap impurities. The crystalline mass when tapped out of its mould was known as LOAF SUGAR or SUGAR LOAF, the residual syrup as TREACLE. Generally the smaller the mould, the finer the loaf. Once tapped out of its mould or SUGAR POT, the sugar loaf needed drying, hence 'Stoved sugar'. Terms such as REFINED SUGAR and WHITE SUGAR were applied to the product of this first refinement.
Further refinement sometimes took place. The end of the sugar loaf was noticeably duller in colour, because that was where residual impurities collected. This was scraped off, and it could be that this discarded sugar was what was known as FOOT SUGAR. The remaining whiter part of the sugar loaf was known as DOUBLE REFINED SUGAR; further elimination of poor quality sugar produced tripled refined sugar. As result of all this processing both the double and the treble refined sugars were expensive and difficult to obtain; probably only shops in large towns and the capital stocked it. This might explain why the affluent classes frequently bought sugar from London, despite the problems of shopping at a distance, and despite the fact that sugar was readily available in every market town and many smaller places. Sugar could be bought in the form of sugar loaf, though customers may then have also needed a pair of SUGAR NIPPERS to break it up before use. Alternatively, the retailer performed this duty to produce POWDER SUGAR. The whole complicated process of sugar production in its various forms at the end of the period is well covered by Abraham Rees [Rees (1819-20, 1972 ed.)].
The quality and refinement of sugar, not surprisingly, affected prices. Those at the lower end of the social hierarchy would not have been able to afford DOUBLE REFINED SUGAR and the like, opting instead for cheaper types such BASTARD SUGAR, LISBON SUGAR and even the raw MUSCOVADO. This latter contained colonies of sugar mite (Acarus sacchari) which burrowed under the skin of the host, producing irritating pustules that were later called Grocer's itch. In the late nineteenth century one sample of sugar supplied to the warehouses in Dublin contained 100, 000 mites in every pound. There is no reason to suppose that the problem was any worse then that it had been a century earlier [Simmonds (1906)]. As well as being subject to infestation, sugar was often damaged in transit, evident in the Gloucester Coastal Port Books by entries to 'damaged sugar' [Gloucester Coastal Port Books (1988)]. Although of a poor quality, this too was probably traded among low status consumers, or it may even have been used in the manufacture of spirits or beer and it is likely that sugar of all types found niches in the trading markets from the later seventeenth century.
OED earliest date of use: 1299
Simone Clarke
Found described as 4d, 5d, 6d, 8d, Baking, Broken, Bruised, Clarified, COMMON, ORDINARY, RAW, Stoved, Treble REFINED Found describing CHOCOLATE, Scum Found in units of BARREL, BOX, CASK, CWT, FIRKIN, HOGSHEAD, HUNDRED, KINDERKIN, LB, OZ, POUND, QUARTER, STONE Found imported by CASK, CHEST Found rated by the BASKET, BARREL, BOX, CASK, CHEST, FITCH, HUNDREDWEIGHT, POUND (8 of which made a STONE)
Sources: Acts, Diaries, Houghton, Inventories (early), Inventories (mid-period), Inventories (late), Newspapers, Patents.
References: Anon (1695), Brown (1995), Gloucester Coastal Port Books (1998), Hobhouse, (1985), Latham (1990), Rees (1819-20, abridged 1972), Shammas (1990), Simmonds (1906).
yOU CAN DO THAT IF YOU WANT to work with the article..
Cheers and good luck
Warrington (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that's a good article. Have various other sources as well, so I'll work on expanding the page as soon as I can.
Will be in touch
Ok edit
Good. While waiting for that, here's a hamster for you. (In the reflist you can see and check the reference with the photo...)
Cheers Warrington (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the hamster.
Have expanded the sugarloaf page.
Hamster62 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
How to Draw Attention to Yourself edit
Well done indeed. That article is really much better now. God job! Just keep up the good eork... Yes, if you want to attract attention you leave a message on the persons talk page, and he or she is warned - you get new messages...
Some people continue the discussion on the same page, but that can only happen if the other user watchlisted the page (or they watchlisted each others talk pages – by klicking on Watch on somebody’s userpage, (high up)and than checking time to time the watchlist, (you have one too, see above). Or simply check the other’s userpage, but watchlisting is more easy.
Warrington (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you ... and thank you for your help and advice, my first excursion into Wikipedia editing has been very interesting.
Hamster62 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear that You are always welcome to drop any message about anything you wish to know or remark, on my talk page.
And by the way, you may want to take a look at this article, History of sugar. It may benefit from your attention, I belive...
See you
Warrington (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)