Talk:Fustian

Bombast

For bombast the OED says, "mid 16th century (denoting raw cotton or cotton wool used as padding, later used figuratively)".

Both bombast and fustian may be metaphors for pompous, but that doesn't mean they're the same type of physical object. We need to have a source that uses bombast to refer to the woven cloth.--72.152.235.205 (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad photo: Textile samples: Fustian, Linen, and Moleskin

Fustian is a useless blue blur. --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:48B1:FABE:6C83:FC2F (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Wrong crosslinking to German WP?

The language selector dropdown menu links to what is supposedly the equivalent page on the German Wikipedia: Barchent. However, that page describes a cotton-linen blend with a cotton weft and a linen warp that was historically made from camelhair, used for undergarments and socks in WWI, isn't in use anymore, and doesn't seem to have much in common with fustian, this category (not specific type of cloth) of heavy cotton weaves mainly used for padding.

That largely matches the description of the "original fustian" described here, but the two names seem to have developed differently enough that "Barchent" still refers to a very specific type of cloth, while "fustian" (as the article describes) came to lose its meaning and to refer to an entire category of loosely-related cloths ("The term seems to have quickly become less precise […] and in the reign of Edward III of England, the name was given to a woollen fabric").

I might be wrong, so please give me some second opinions here, but it seems to me that the two pages are tangentially related at best and certainly not equivalent articles describing the same thing. Could it be this linking from one to the other was mistaken (or one of the pages got moved/merged/renamed and the association between the two was rendered meaningless at some point)?

--HashtagH (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Confusing association in "Political significance" section needs clarification

According to the description of the production process, fustian (which included velveteen and corduroy) was labor-intensive, which usually results in an expensive product. How does this square with the statement made under the heading "Political significance" in which it says this: "Fustian was worn by workers during the 19th century. Accordingly, radical elements of the British working class chose to wear fustian jackets as a symbol of their [working] class allegiance"? It is counterintuitive that an expensive cloth would be used for making working-class clothing. I am not doubting the claim, I simply think that in order to explain this apparent paradox, more context is needed in this section. Thank you.
Bricology (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)