Thread Number: 32432
The amazing and gentle Gyrafoam action of my Maytag E2LP |
[Down to Last] |
Post# 489236   1/15/2011 at 22:51 (4,820 days old) by bradross (New Westminster, BC., Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Thought I'd just share my laundry experience with ya'll today! I recently received from a cousin a very old, woven jacquard bedspread that belonged to my great-great grandmother in Iowa. I had seen it in old family portraits dating back to the 1880s, when it was used as a backdrop for photography. Well, it REALLY needed cleaning, but as you can imagine, I was a little hesitant, given its age. Well, I decided to use the old wringer washer, as that way I could closely monitor the wash time, and the "gyrafoam" action of the old Maytag seems fairly gentle. I also feared the spin cycle on an automatic could damage it. Well, it turned out BEAUTIFULLY! It's amazingly soft and clean. Seeing it now, one would never imagine it's about 130 years old or more!
|
|
Post# 489249 , Reply# 1   1/16/2011 at 00:25 (4,820 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 489252 , Reply# 2   1/16/2011 at 00:36 (4,820 days old) by qsd-dan (West)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
All of these recent Maytag wringer posts are really making me anxious in finding a decent machine. I have had thoughts of using a variac on a wringer for precise agitation control, especially on delicate fabrics or awkward loads, like shoes. Can't use a variac on an automatic without pissing off the timer, as well as other controls that rely on at least 110v for proper operation.
|
Post# 489260 , Reply# 3   1/16/2011 at 01:20 (4,820 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Wringer or otherwise, but am keen to find a good mangle in working operation.
Why? Well for just the sort of item spoken of above. Large bukly but yet delicate items such as bedspreads, quilts and even some older wool blankets. Such items may or may not fit in the Miele, but even when or if they do their weight when wet can lead to damage. Know of one domestic front loader that literally bashed itself to bits trying to spin a heavy quilt. One could always take such things to the laundromat and use the 50lb commercial washer but there we run into several problems. One, am getting leary of public wash houses what with the plague of bed bugs that seems to be infesting NYC at the moment. Then there is the lack of control one has over coin operated washing machines. Once the money goes in/machine starts that is it until the program is over. Should the item begin to ball up, colours start running, or you can see seams starting to break via the window, you are out of luck. Well suppose there is asking the attendant to some how cut power/stop the washer, but what does the good of that? You still are stuck with a wet heavy, and now maybe damaged item. |
Post# 489267 , Reply# 4   1/16/2011 at 03:25 (4,820 days old) by StrongEnough78 (California)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 489288 , Reply# 5   1/16/2011 at 09:09 (4,820 days old) by electronicontrl (Grand Rapids, MI)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 489289 , Reply# 6   1/16/2011 at 09:18 (4,820 days old) by polkanut (Wausau, WI )   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 489293 , Reply# 7   1/16/2011 at 09:37 (4,820 days old) by electronicontrl (Grand Rapids, MI)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 489347 , Reply# 9   1/16/2011 at 15:20 (4,820 days old) by JaredH ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
This Is NOT 130+ years old. probably approximately 40. |
Post# 489354 , Reply# 10   1/16/2011 at 16:09 (4,820 days old) by bradross (New Westminster, BC., Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
It appears there might be a little confusion to the reference of "130+ years old". I'm not referring to the machine (which is a 1977 model), but rather, the bedspread, which is precisely that ... at least if my arithmetic serves me correctly, 1880-2010 is 130 years.
This post was last edited 01/16/2011 at 18:26 |
Post# 489375 , Reply# 11   1/16/2011 at 18:14 (4,819 days old) by polkanut (Wausau, WI )   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 489378 , Reply# 12   1/16/2011 at 18:20 (4,819 days old) by bradross (New Westminster, BC., Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
As requested, here are a few shots of the bedspread. As a jacquard/damask weave, the pattern is the same, but reversed colors on each side.
I didn't think to take before pics, but not sure if anything would have looked that different. There weren't major stains - just dingy in general, with a smell of mothballs. |
Post# 489379 , Reply# 13   1/16/2011 at 18:21 (4,819 days old) by bradross (New Westminster, BC., Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 489380 , Reply# 14   1/16/2011 at 18:21 (4,819 days old) by bradross (New Westminster, BC., Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
And here's the reverse side, showing the white background.
This post was last edited 01/16/2011 at 20:00 |
Post# 489456 , Reply# 15   1/16/2011 at 22:53 (4,819 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 489492 , Reply# 16   1/17/2011 at 06:31 (4,819 days old) by polkanut (Wausau, WI )   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 489602 , Reply# 17   1/17/2011 at 16:23 (4,819 days old) by autowasherfreak ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
That's a beautiful bedspread, and the washer isn't to bad either :-) |
Post# 489725 , Reply# 18   1/17/2011 at 22:06 (4,818 days old) by stan (Napa CA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 489768 , Reply# 19   1/18/2011 at 00:06 (4,818 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 489778 , Reply# 21   1/18/2011 at 01:32 (4,818 days old) by stan (Napa CA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Is that there is no outer tub the dirt and nastyness go down to the bottom, and is filtered by the lint screen. The washtub, and screen can be cleaned out, or sanitized before the rinse or next wash if necessary. If one is forced to use a conventional washer, say in a laundry mat, you never know what`s lurking beyond the holes of the inner tub. Launderess is right "no unbalance situation" the worst thing that could happen, is the wringer washer may want to walk a little but that what the break wheel is for. Best to all
|
Post# 489903 , Reply# 23   1/18/2011 at 17:32 (4,818 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Well yes, it would depend upon the condition of the item when it comes to cleaning and or "extracting". A heavy but vintage quilt that is very fragile probably won't withstand extraction by either wringer or spinning without a real risk of damage.
OTHO a heavy wool blanket or whatever that is in good condition should be fine. Most all my vintage laundry manuals give directions for using a wringer washer or mangle (all that was around at the time), when cleanng "comforts", quilts, blankets, coverlets and so forth. As another poster stated upthread you had to adjust the mangle/wringer rollers to suit. Wringer vs Extraction: Machine extraction will most always remove more water, detergent residue and so forth even at lower speeds than a wringer. Though each involve forces of compression, a machine can do so (hopefully) by some what evenly distributing weight of an item. On a wringer one has to keep feeding the item through several times, each pass requiring closer and closer spacing of the rollers to squeeze out water. If this is not done properly it can lead to textile damage, especially if air bubbles are trapped at the end of whatever and have no where else to go. For this reason items like pillow slips are always fed into any mangle/ironer/wringer *closed end first*. Cleaning anything heavy that will only become more so once wet, such as quilts, blankets, coverlets, etc can be a challenge for front loaders. Normally one attempts to have a mix of items in a load so the machine can properly balance, and for good washing action. Large bulky items may by themselves reach the dry weight limit of a washer, and adding another heavy item such as a towel (for balance), may not help things. What normally happens is the bulky item balls up upon itself, and if the washer isn't careful about spinning, the first attempt can send that heavy wet thing slamming against the drums. Many a domestic front loader has seen it's shocks shattered, concrete balance weights destroyed, and or simply bashed itself to death. |
Post# 489994 , Reply# 24   1/18/2011 at 22:54 (4,817 days old) by bradross (New Westminster, BC., Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
And to answer Rex's question - I suppose I was being rather bold in washing it at all, but I closely examined the fabric and it appeared to be in fantastic condition for its age (it actually feels like it could be a blend of wool and cotton). The Maytag wringer's tension is pre-set, and is not really that tight, unlike some other brands whereby you could manually increase the wringer tension by tightening a screw on the top of the wringer housing
Believe it or not, I even threw it in the dryer! Now that was probably REALLY stupid of me, but I monitored it throughout the drying cycle, and as I said previously - it came out beautifully. And just in case there are any skeptics out there, I've attached the photo showing it as a backdrop behind my great-great grandparents (seated, circa. 1890). I'm assuming it wasn't new when the photo was taken. |
Post# 489997 , Reply# 25   1/18/2011 at 23:45 (4,817 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 490103 , Reply# 27   1/19/2011 at 11:35 (4,817 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I was testing Maytag's capacity and I washed a full mixed load on Extra Large in the WP/LSP9245 BO. Then I drained & spun the water into the Maytag J2L , transferring the clothes into the big square white enamel tub. The old girl did just fine, some of the items gliding flat across the surface before going under.
Cool to see, but you need a really big load for the Gyrator to execute this square, up, across, down current. At full water level, you can also see how gentle yet thorough the action is. Normally though, I use less water and smaller loads and the action is vigorous and dramatic.
The WP holds 21 gallons at this level, and I'm sure Geoff is right about the Tag's 18. I think I pumped all the water in, though; it was full to the gills. Will have to do it again some time. |
Post# 490184 , Reply# 28   1/19/2011 at 16:20 (4,817 days old) by cmlrobison (Ontario, NY)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Thanks, Stan, for answering my question on capacity and to Bradross for the wonderfully historic pics. This topic and machine is fascinating..... |
Post# 490244 , Reply# 30   1/19/2011 at 20:35 (4,816 days old) by polkanut (Wausau, WI )   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 490404 , Reply# 32   1/20/2011 at 16:17 (4,816 days old) by polkanut (Wausau, WI )   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 490449 , Reply# 33   1/20/2011 at 20:24 (4,815 days old) by bradross (New Westminster, BC., Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
First to Geoff (geoffdelp) ... no, I didn't soak it at all. Just started the agitation and dropped it into the sudsy water. I've been using "ALL" detergent now for over a year and love it! And yes, I have to rinse in the machine as well - no room in the apartment for rinse tubs!
Second to Brandon (washernoob) ... I actually DO dress in late Victorian period clothing occasionally! I volunteer at the local museum and on occasion, I'm required to dress in clothing of that time. That era (1890-1910) fascinates me. I've attached a pic of me taken a while ago, wearing vintage morning attire and a bowler hat. Thirdly to Tim (polkanut)... no, the dye didn't bleed in the least! And I even washed in hot water. It was risky, I know, but I really wanted to get it CLEAN! I was prepared for some shrinkage, and that didn't happen. Would love to know what is the actually material, or if it's a blend. I think fabric blends were pretty rare back then, but maybe somebody else can shed some light on that. |
Post# 490556 , Reply# 34   1/21/2011 at 11:27 (4,815 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 490564 , Reply# 35   1/21/2011 at 12:01 (4,815 days old) by bradross (New Westminster, BC., Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|