The "cupboard" in Lizzie's room

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:33 pm

FHG...

What was traditionally done with the 3rd floor and cellar in the typical 2 tenement flats?

Were they shared?

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:45 pm

Yes, Audrey, attic and cellar were shared.

You'll notice with the Borden house that the front hall, used by visitors, only allows access to the two "apartments." The back hall, however, allows access to the cellar and the attic as well. The cellars were used, as the Bordens used theirs, for washing, cool food storage, coal, etc. The attics were for additional storage space, but often served to house additional family members as they arrived from "the old country."

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:49 pm

Did each flat then have a front and back door?

Would they have had to go outside and to the back door to reach the attic or cellar?

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 8:10 pm

The kitchens had doors into the back hall staircase. Again, the Borden house is typical--Andrew and Abby's bedroom would have been the second floor kitchen.

In most cases the outside back (or side) door stayed unlocked. The attic and cellar doors off the back stairway would probably lock against strangers, but the dwellers of both tenements would have duplicate keys.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 8:20 pm

I assume that these tenants would not have had servants and therefore the cellar was used to typical purposes and the attic for storage. They would have not been able to use the attic rooms for additional bedrooms or guest rooms?

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 9:23 pm

No servants. The people who lived in these houses were typically immigrant mill workers, laborers, etc.--English, Irish, Portuguese, French Canadian, Polish. Many times they slept several to each small bedroom, and, yes, they used the attic as sleeping space. They also often could sleep more people, because they slept in shifts, as they worked in shifts, with different people using the same sleeping spaces at different times of day.

Typically, the owners of the buildings did not occupy them, at least not originally.

After saving for several years, sometimes extended families could buy a house together. We have some Brazilian friends in New Bedford who have three generations living in a "three decker." The family members live in apartments on the first floor, second floor and attic, while the third floor is rented to an unrelated family.

It seems the Borden house may have been an owner-occupied tenement house in a somewhat better part of town. When Andrew bought it, he was "moving up" and could afford to convert it to a single family.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:37 pm

When I was first married my husband and I rented half of a duplex in Cambridge Mass. The area was known as Avon Hill. The people who owned the house lived in the other side and were the loveliest people. Elderly and very kind.

We had a common basement and they let us use their washer and dryer. Thayne mowed the postage sized lawn (with one of those old rotating blade type mowers-- and it took him 15 minutes at that!) and moved the snow in the winter. They gave us a $50 per month rent decrease for this and in those days-- that $50 made the difference between us being able to afford the place or not!

Each unit had 2 bedrooms and when either of us had too many overnight guests we used to "borrow" the other's guest room!

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:28 am

At Lizzie's inquest, right off the bat Knowlton hits Lizzie with: " 'Somebody' told me
it was once fitted up for two tenements".... (to throw her off guard? to put her in her
place and embarrass her?) She was just a kid of about 13 then and remembers
the man they bought it from staying on for a month or so while his house was being
built. If it were important, why didn't Knowlton call Southard Miller, the builder of the
house and longtime friend and neighbor? It doesn't seem like 2 families ever lived
there, just the single man. Somehow I can't picture Andrew tearing down walls and
removing heavy cook stoves from upstairs? FHG: I did not know for a fact that the
downstairs dining room was once 2 bedrooms. (except Lincoln) what is your source
for that information?

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:06 pm

PS: I tried to edit the above post, I also found
reference to the downstairs bedrooms in Radin,
sorry FHG

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:46 pm

The only moves our family made were before I was three, but I remember a very early image being in that house before we had moved in. My grandparents were helping my parents get things ready. I can see grandpa up on a stepladder in the kitchen, I think painting the ceiling.

Are you saying, Nancy, that a junior high school age girl wouldn't remember moving into "their own house?" And that she wouldn't remember a strange man living their upstairs at first?

Lizzie's own testimony is good enough for me on this simple detail.

I donnot know the primary source for the original layout of the house, if there is one. It's my general understanding, and it also makes sense architecturally, that the second floor was nearly identical to the first. The strange spacing of the dining room windows is another clue.

I live in a home with a similar layout. My inlaws do, too. In both cases the walls were removed between our living and dining rooms to created a large double-parlor. (This is frequently done; ours are by no means unique.) In any case, one can clearly see by careful examination of the walls and ceilings, and by the arrangement of the boards on the hardwood floors, exactly where these walls stood.

With all of the careful research that went into the creation of the B&B, I'm sure something as structurally easy to see as where a wall once stood, can be determined without a blueprint dated 1845.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 5:38 pm

Yes, I would like to hear evidence like that, of the
walls being torn down. or an architect stating that
there were once walls there. It really doesn't matter one bit in the case though, I am just interested because as I have said before, I grew up in a house identical to that. (and I just can't imagine 2 bedrooms in that little dining room)

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:34 pm

Here is a quote from Nancy McNelly's Virtual Lizzie Borden House website.
http://www.halfmoon.org/borden/

"The Second Street house was originally used as a two-family dwelling, which is why it has certain redundant features. There were two coal-bins and two wood rooms in the basement (the walls still stand), and the second floor had a sink-room, kitchen, and pantry that mirrored those on the first floor. It was orginally heated by fireplaces and Franklin stoves, but a coal furnace was subsequently installed.

"Andrew had the wall between two small bedrooms on the first floor removed to make a dining room. He made the second floor kitchen into a master bedroom, and, as an economy measure, he had the water supply to the second floor sink-room cut off. Cold running water was available in the first floor sink-room, the basement laundry room, and the stable. There was a two-seat earth privy in the basement."

On this site, McNelly thanks Martha McGinn and the late Ron Evans for their assistance during the creation of the "virtual house" site. In particular, Evans is thanked for pointing out certain details in the cellar. I imagine that other details, such as the removal of the dining room wall, were discussed as well.

With regard to the bedroom sizes, they would have been the same sizes as "Mrs. Borden's Room" and "Emma's Room" on the second floor, 8'7"x11'3" and 9'8"x11'3." Eight or nine by eleven foot bedrooms are rather small, but certainly not unheard of. My wife and I share an 11x12 bedroom and the "office" I'm in right now, which the realtor had suggested could be used as a third bedroom is 8'6"x 11'6".

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:44 pm

FHG, thank you for your research, I concede!

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:50 pm

Nancie,

You are absolutely correct in questioning sources and not taking the word of others at face value without a challenge. I enjoy the way the members of this forum push each other to dig harder and continue to add to the research. It makes for better more accurate history.

Chris

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:45 am

Perhaps not enlightening on the Borden house situation, but, a coincedence notheless; my sweetie just finished moving into a new apartment this weekend. Its in a Victorian house built in the late 1890s to early 1900s that is a duplex, the upstairs and downstairs are and always were seperate units. Whats strange is that the nextdoor neighbor's house came from the same cookiecutter mold but is a one family home. It has built-ins, but only in the kitchen area; theres a built-in glass doored cupboard with drawers underneath, built-in cupboards in the pantry on one side and open shelving on the other, and one of those in the wall drop-down ironing boards.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:16 am

Fairhaven, something confuses me about the statement from the Virtual Lizzie site: the 2 seat earth privy. That matches the depiction in the movie, but all other sources I know of refer to it as a water closet, which I thought was supposed to be a flushing toilet. Although there certainly were indoor privies for the cold New England winters, the term "water closet" would not fit a dry earth privy.

--Lyddie

P.S. Congratulations on your engagement, Susan. The Sistine Chapel! What a romantic setting for a proposal.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 9:56 am

I would also like to know about that "earth privy".

Is that like an "indoor outhouse"???

Just what did they have down there?

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 11:47 am

The "earth privy" is a question that would have to be bounced back to the folks at the B&B. It could mean that this was far pre-Borden.

Fairhaven didn't have a public water system until 1893. I'll see what I can find out about Fall River.

Okay, just found this in "Bristol County and Its People. . .," 1899. pp. 546-547

Prior to 1871 the water supply was inadequate and unsatisfactory for domestic and public use. "It was supplied wholly from wells and springs." The first Board of Water Commissioners was appointed in 1871. The water works started operating in 1874. "The engine pumped into a 24 inch force main extending from the engine house to the corner of Main and Bedford streets."

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:55 pm

http://www.housemouse.net/60watercloset.htm

http://www.jldr.com/henrymoule.htm

http://www.jldr.com/ohcloset.html

Saying "Mon Dieu" just does not cut it...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:08 pm

Thank you, FairhavenGuy!

Here is Rebello, pg. 25:
" 'Mr. Borden was an exceedingly hard man concerning money matters, determined and stubborn, and when once he got an idea nothing could change him. He was too hard for me. When his father died some years ago, he offered my wife [Lurana Borden Harrington, sister of Andrew Borden] the old homestead on Ferry Street for a certain sum of money. My wife preferred to take the money, and after the agreements were all signed, to show how close he was, he wanted my wife to pay an additional $3.00 for water tax upon the homestead.' Hiram C. Harrington, brother-in-law of Andrew J. Borden," Fall River Daily Globe, August 6, 1892: 7.

Abraham died in December, 1882.

The LBQ and the FRHS had info on when the Borden's first got city water.

Rebello, pg. 32:
"Andrew Borden applied for city water 'six months after the convenience was first made available to residents of Fall River.' (Tanous, Jamelle and Dennis Binette, Research Shows a New Side of Andrew J. Borden, Fall River Historical Society Report, vol. 9, no. 1, Winter / Spring, 1997: 16 and Research Discovers an Unknown Side of Andrew J. Borden, Lizzie Borden Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 3, July / 1997:15-16.) The cellar water closet was serviced by city water."

--I got out my issue (of course it was the last one, on the bottom!) and the meter readings document shows Andrew Borden first had city water on June 19, 1874.

BTW: It was #66 Second Street at the time, before the first renumbering which made it #92.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:32 pm

Thanks for the info, Kat. Makes me wonder about those stories about Andrew considering running water on the second floor a luxury and having it taken out, he had running water put in after living there for about 2 years. But, I'm wondering if there were some sort of handpumps at the sinks in the sinkrooms to draw water from the well, was it possible that is what Andrew had taken out?

P.S. Thanks, Lyddie, go to Stay To Tea under the Italy heading, I'll post the story there.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:28 pm

Do we know when the well was filled in?
Then there was the water tank in the attic. That could just use gravity.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:46 am

I would imagine before the Borden house could be hooked up to the city water main that they would be reliant on the well, so, I would think it would have been filled some time after that point?

Yes, thats right, the water tank in the attic, I had forgotten! We had discussed that in the past, whether the idea was to tote water up there and fill it by hand or not. Strange if Andrew did remove the faucet that would have been on the second floor that tapped that tank and not the tank itself, odd.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:18 pm

Back to the Cupboard in Lizzie's room:
On the other topic I wrote a bit on what was found out.

I called the FRHS and talked to Dennis. He got out the City Engineer Kieran's plans of the house. They are bigger than the ones we see in books and are white lettering on blue background. There is an example in The Knowlton Papers- the cellar view.
Dennis described what he saw on both floors and we concentrated on the closet in Lizzie's room. There was the word "Closet" there but not the depiction of a door.
Now, the first floor plan is the same. There is the word "Closet" in the recess next to the fireplace on the south side of the sitting room, but no door is drawn there.

Afterwards I got out the de Mille plans from "A Dance of Death" and scanned them and sent them to Dennis to verify these were copies of the Kieran plans. He responded this morning that they were. Then our William asked me to compare them to Bill Pavao/Len Rebello's plans that Bill has provided us in the past. Today I printed the 4 out and compared and they are all the same but in 2 places. In Pavao/Rebello plan at Lizzie's closet he shows a door, and at the corresponding sitting room closet he shows a door. The Kieran plans call both as "closet" as does our friends, but Kiran has no door on either recess. Those are the only differences that I could see from the original.

Now, I'm thinking that leads back to reliance on testimony and eye-witness accounts as to how those recesses were used in the Borden's day.
Also, I was thinking:
Isn't old glass pretty obvious? Maybe the cupboard we see in the modern pictures in Lizzie's room where the "Closet" shows in the plans, could be dated by the glass front insets?

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:43 pm

Kat,

Glass of that age wouldn't really be that obvious. Not enough to tell if it was from 1890 or 1920 anyway. And that's only if it was never replaced in all these years.

Susan's info on the construction of the drawers might give us more of a clue, but you'd really need an antique furniture expert to make that determination, because the unit could have been put in 25 years after the house was built, but still have been there before the Bordens moved in. Or it could have been installed in 1891 or 1893. . .

If it was a manufactured piece, it could have a stamp or a label somewhere inside.

By the way, the quote in the "92 1/2" thread about the portiere over the door between Lizzie and Andrew's room indicates that Lizzie hid more than just the closet with curtains.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:42 am

Well, I was thinking in terms of original glass versus
*modern* glass. Like 1845 glass vs. 1872. I thought there might be a difference? I recall in England there had been a craze to save old glass in windows and people were rightly proud of their mottled and bumpy glass. Maybe that is much older...
I was thinking the original question is whether the built-in was from 1845 when the room might have been a dining room, and that it doesn't matter after all if the unit turns out to be *modern*.
Oh well...

Bill Pavao · Post by **Bill Pavao** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:18 pm

Hi!!

Well...I read all these postings and they are very interesting. It is so great to have so many different viewpoints!!! I love it!

The cupboard in Lizzie's room is not original to the house. It was added by the McGinn family. They used Lizzie's room as a dining room when Mr. McGinn's mother and then aunt lived on the second floor.

In 1892, the cupboard area was simply and open area in the room. It was like a closet without a door. Lizzie hung a silken portiere across the doorframe. In this area, Lizzie kept her chamber pot, etc.

There is substantial documentation to prove this. There are numerous pages in the Prelim. and Trial that can be cited. Also, Kieran's floorplans show this part of Lizzie's room to be just like a closet without a door.

Also, I personally have pulled out the drawers of the cupboard and there are traces of wallpaper inside [on the sides]. Therefore, the cupboard was not original.

I really hope this helps everyone. Keep up the good sleuthing. I want to learn as much as I can. I love it when people open my eyes to new ideas, etc.

All the Best,
Bill

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:43 pm

Boy oh boy! Thanks!
And I didn't call him folks- he came out of his own interest!

I love it!

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:13 am

Thanks again Bill for your insight! You've answered another question I had had which was how you came about the knowledge of that built-in in Lizzie's room. Nice to finally lay that one to rest.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:01 am

Thanks very much, Bill. That settles it for me. We needed to hear from somebody who had actually pulled out and studied those drawers. Of course knowing the McGinn family made the alteration eliminates any doubt.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:08 pm

Nice to have something that can be resolved in this case! Thank you to Bill for helping us out on this one!

--Lyddie

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:37 pm

I just thought of something today and work and couldn't wait to get home to check on it. When the Borden house was set up as a two family house, whomever lived on the first floor would have had more closet space. The sitting room had two closets, one which is now a built-in bookcase and the other is directly across from it and goes under the front stairs. Lizzie's room only had the one closet which would correspond with the closet next to the fireplace in the sitting room. There is no closet across from it in Lizzie's room. But, I guess upstairs made out having that extra room that was used as a dress closet by Lizzie and Emma. Not a big deal, but, interesting, I thought.

SITTING ROOM

LIZZIE'S ROOM

LIZZIE'S ROOM

john · Post by **john** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:15 am

Andrew kept his safe in the kitchen? Now why would people think the Borden's were strange?

john · Post by **john** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:16 am

Oops - wrong 7.

john · Post by **john** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:21 am

That house was jammed. I wonder if they put all their junk, old lamps and stuff, up with Bridget in the attic?

john · Post by **john** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:26 am

P.S. - I wonder why the door to the dress closet would be kept locked? Did Andrew or their guests (Uncle John?) dance?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:53 pm

Well, I don't know what dancing would have to do with it, but, it sounds to me like there were many locked doors in that house. It even sounds as though Bridget locked the door to her attic room too! Whether this was due to Andrew having business meetings at the house with all kinds of different men or was simply paranoia after the robbery, or was just the ways things were, hard to say. Lizzie locked the door to her bedroom and apparently locked the drawers in her bureau too, sounds like overkill to me.

I imagine Lizzie and Emma must have had some expensive dresses in that closet along with their hats and such. I imagine if they were stolen and sold, someone could make a pretty penny off of them. Maybe it had something to do with women's lack of control over their lives in the Victorian era? Lizzie being able to lock and unlock doors that she only had the keys to gave a sense of contol and power?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:17 am

I think all the locks and paranoia in that household shows just how disfunctional everyone was, because normal families don't show such an obsessive need to overprotect their individual boundaries.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:17 pm

That's a good point about the house being used for business callers, Susan, and thanks for the pictures.

It's an interesting idea too about a woman's power.
Combine the two, and it might be some paranoia combined with some practicality.

I had an innate sense that when "they" took Abby's key to the front door that week, that she was losing power, and maybe she knew it- else why specifically bring it up to Mrs. Dr. Bowen?

Lizzie locking her own drawers in a locked room seems a bit overboard to me, too, tho.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:51 pm

Angel @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:17 am wrote:I think all the locks and paranoia in that household shows just how disfunctional everyone was, because normal families don't show such an obsessive need to overprotect their individual boundaries.

I also sincerely agree with that. I'm surprised they didn't have padlocks on their locks from the sounds of it.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:55 pm

Thanks Susan, great pix. I think the closets downstairs weren't "dress closets" though. Like the
one under the stairs was slanted and not suitable for anything but storage. The "closet" in Lizzie's room being really only a cubby hole for drawers or
shelves. It looks like that dress closet in the upstairs across from Lizzie's room was the main closet where all the dresses and coats were stored.
I have said this a zillion times ad nauseum I'm sure
on this forum but I grew up in a house identical to that house, and the "dress closet" across from Lizzie's room was my parent's bathroom, their room was "the guest room". Closet space was very
cramped but my folks bathroom would have made a
sizable closet for the Borden ladies!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:28 pm

This room was also a nicely sized storage space for Abby and Andrew also. As a bedroom, it's a little cramped though. There is just enough room to walk around the bed, no more no less. The upstairs clothes press, which is now a bathroom, is even smaller than this room. In my opinion it's comparitive to the walk in closets we see in houses now.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:52 pm

yes that would have been part of my bedroom.
I just can't wait to see the Borden house myself,
inside. When I was there I only viewed outside.
"my house" in Cranford, New Jersey, is worth millions now. "A lovely old Victorian
gem.."

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:43 am

Sorry, forgot to give my source for the pics, they were all from the Lizzie Borden Virtual Museum and Library site. I've been trying to figure out which closet in the sitting room they refer to when they ask Bridget about closets downstairs; Preliminary Volume 1, page 61:

Q. Were there not closets connected with any of the rooms down stairs?
A. There was one in the sitting room, I think.

Q. What was kept there?
A. I do not know what they kept; a basket with clothes in it.

Q. Mrs. Borden had her bonnet and shawl down stairs?
A. Yes Sir, she kept them in the closet in the sitting room; sometimes her common shawl was there.

Q. If she wanted to go out, she could go to the closet in the sitting room and get her bonnet and shawl, and go out without going up stairs?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. What else was kept there?
A. Some clothes belonging to Mr. Borden, I guess.

Was the one more a closet, the one next to the fireplace and the one that went under the stairs more of just a storage space with no place to hang clothing?

Allen, is that a pic of the room that was Mrs. Borden's dressing room?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:40 pm

Yes, it's a picture of the room which is labeled Mrs. Borden's room. It's a picture that was taken by me during my stay there. Even though it was labeled as Mrs. Borden's room, it seems like an unlikely dressing room, though her dresser is shown to have been located in this room. Andrew's safe and desk, and the linen cabinet were also in this room. I have always been a little unclear as to why it was refered to as Mrs. Borden's room.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:06 pm

Thanks, Allen. Yes, I always thought it was odd that that room was named as such, just did a search of all my source documents and came up with something!

Trial Volume 1, page 378, Alice Russell on the stand:

"Well", she says, "they have broken into the house in broad daylight, with Emma and Maggie and me there." And I said, "I never heard of that before." And she said, "Father forbade our telling it." So I asked her about it, and she said it was in Mrs. Borden's room, what she called her dressing room. etc, etc, etc.

That is the only source I could find where anyone referred to that small room as Mrs. Borden's room and that was originally from Lizzie's mouth.

One thing I noticed also during my search, more often than not, the elder Borden's bedroom is referred to as Mrs. Borden's room. Maybe bedrooms were considered more a feminine thing then? Or perhaps Abby had put her touch on the room making it more lacy and frilly, not a very masculine room?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:37 pm

I think a woman's dressing room or personal room may very well have been called her "room" in the past.

My mother has always had a room which was called "mama's Salon" It was a room where she never received company... Only family was allowed.

It is where she keeps her jewelry chests, books, writing papers, etc. Now she has her computer in there and her small TV, vcr, etc. She "sits" in there.

On a lovely side note-- My papa had fresh flowers delivered to her 3 times per week and she always had them brought directly to her salon. Lucien sends them to her since his death-- and didn't miss even one delivery....

Mama's salon spells of Lilies and perfume....

Of course Lilies.... fleur de lys!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:42 pm

The closets on the second floor are measured on a floorplan earlier on this topic.
I can't read the dimensions.

It does look like the area which was the closet corresponding in the sitting room to Lizzie's is pretty shallow. I do know the closet in the sitting room under the stairs is deeper. I've pictured a basket of clothes as being in the deeper closet downstairs.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:32 am

I tried to read them too, not much luck, on the closet on the elder Borden's side the only measurement that I could see clearly was 2 ft 4 inches. I blew up the picture so that the depth of that closet; from door to back wall, was 2 feet 4 inches. Actually, I was using a ruler with pica points, 12 picas equals one foot, like 12 inches equals a foot, but, this would be like dollhouse scale, 1 inch equals a foot. I know, confusing, but, trust me.

Anyhoo, the length of the closet in the elder Borden's room came to be 3 feet 8 inches, which would also be the length of Lizzie's closet. The depth of Lizzie's closet came to 1 foot 2 inches. Mind you this was measuring on my computer screen, not a very accurate measurement, but, approximate. So, if the closet by the fireplace corresponded measurement-wise with Lizzie's, it was 1' 2" X 3' 8". And a thought did come to mind, coat hangers as we know them weren't readily in use in Lizzie's day, so the coats may have been hung on pegs or nails in the back of the closet. The first coat hanger was patented in 1869. It was patented again by Albert J. Parkhouse in 1903 and went into production.

Parkhouse's first wire hanger:

From this site:
http://www.designboom.com/history/wirehangers.html

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:46 am

Susan @ Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:32 am wrote: Anyhoo, the length of the closet in the elder Borden's room came to be 3 feet 8 inches, which would also be the length of Lizzie's closet.

Can I ask which closet it is you refer to?