Bedspread.

[Dean Perdue]

After seeing these recent photo's and enlarging them I got to say I'm pretty impressed with the workmanship too.As a bonus the pattern is very pleasing to the eye,not to mention the history.
Great find

[waywardangler]

WOLFE, SARAH, widow ; P. 0. Perryville. Joseph Wolfe, her husband, was born in Beaver Co., Penn., Nov. 26, 1801 ; he was the youngest son of Adam and Rachel Wolfe.

WOLFE, JOHN, Jr., farmer; P. 0. Lucas. John Wolfe, Sr., was born in the State of Pennsylvania Aug. 13, 1794 ; he was a school teacher in early life, but he was by occupation a farmer ; in the spring of 1816, he came to the State of Ohio with his father, Adam Wolfe.

Hosman, the above is from your first source following Adam Wolf's info.  Adam Wolf(sic) had 10 children and if Joseph Wolfe and John Wolfe were the children of Adam Wolf(sic) , then Adam's last name (in your first source) was really Wolfe with the 'e' on the end.  The Adam Wolf in sapphire's sources is the correct Wolf (no 'e').  Just read all the info under Adam, Sarah, and John.

All I was saying is the Wolf in this source was really a Wolfe - misprinted last name.
WOLF (this should be WOLFE), ADAM (deceased); he was born in Beaver Co., Penn., Dec. 16, 1760; served in the Continental army during the war of the Revolution. He was mar- ried to Miss Rachel Oldham, of his native county, Jan. 16, 1790, by whom he had ten children, four sons and six daughters

[talesofthesevenseas]

Keep in mind that back in those days there was a lot more misspelling in the records than we are used to now. Census records, baptismal records etc. are awash in misspellings. It is not at all unusual to see the same person's name spelled in a variety of ways. It makes it difficult to know if you have the right person sometimes and you have to look at things like where they lived, name of a spouse, profession etc. if that info is available.

[waywardangler]

I concur, Talesof.  Original records were handwritten by someone, handwriting varies, some records are phonetic, at some later date the info is transcribed by someone into type or ?; the farther one gets from the actual record, the more errors can occur in dates, names, spellings, etc.  One person's 'e' looks like an 'a' or an 'o' and on and on.

My only real point was that the weaver, Adam Wolf, would not have misspelled his name in the coverlet (unless he erred in his weaving, of course) whereas, the records referred to could easily have the name misspelled.  Hosman was questioning whether the Adam in the first link was the same as sapphire's Adam and I believe after reading everything given, the first Adam was a Wolfe and not a Wolf.  He may have been a wolf in a coverlet but that is another story.

[wendy177]

Wayward you little devil  !!!!!

[talesofthesevenseas]

[hosman321]

Ohhh I see what you mean now wayward. I have read these dang links a thousand times and here is why I am confused.

In the first link, it states that Adam Wolf (born 1760) was the father of John Wolfe (born 1794). And that Adam removed to Richland county in 1816. At least I think that's what all that mumbo-jumbo translates into.

But in the second link, the one to the museum, it states that, "We believe that Daniel and Catherine Wolf's oldest son was Adam, born in 1816." Who the heck are Daniel and Catherine?? And Adam couldn't have been born in 1816 if his son John was.
Maybe I'm missing something totally obvious, it wouldn't be the first time.
One of the problems is that back then names were very common and not all fancy like today. John, Adam, Wolf and Wolfe were probably some of the most common, and things are getting lost in translation here. Or someone please tell me I'm blind as a bat!
By the way, cute wolf in sheep's clothing tales!

By the way, I think the Adam Wolf and the John Wolfe in the first link are completely different families. The story just kind of ran together.

[waywardangler]

"In the first link, it states that Adam Wolfe (born 1760) was the father of John Wolfe (born 1794). And that Adam removed to Richland county in 1816. At least I think that's what all that mumbo-jumbo translates into"

Hosman, you are getting me confused when I thought I had understood it.  I have gone back and read the first link again.  The first link is an Adam WOLFE born in 1760.  This would have made him 83 if he wove your coverlet. In 1843 terms, this guy was ancient and not similar to a present day 83 year old. This is not your Adam (all this is totally my opinion and I have been known to be wrong) in my opinion.

The second link (museum link) states "We believe that Daniel and Catherine Wolf's oldest son was Adam, born in 1816. In 1838, Adam married Mary Ann Zeiters here in Richland County. In 1840, Adam and Mary Ann were living in Blooming Grove Twp., with no family. In 1850 they are still living in the Blooming Grove Twp., area and Adam lists his occupation as coverlet weaver. Adam's known coverlets are dated from 1833 to 1852."  This, I believe is your weaver.  He would have been 27 when he wove your coverlet and they show an example dated 3 yrs later than yours.  I do not know why they show Adam Wolf/Wolfe in the paragraph heading when his coverlet has "WOLF" wove into it.  The weaver should know how to spell his own name if he was literate.  I previously referred to this Adam as "sapphire's Adam" for clarity.
Daniel and Catherine Wolf were the parents of 4 sons and 1 daughter; Adam b1860, William b1820, Daniel b?, Henry b1825, and the daughter b?.  Part of the problem lies in the museum link going back and forth between spellings of Wolf and Wolfe.  Phonetically they are the same and were probably spelled in various records both ways but if the name in their coverlets is "WOLF" they really must be Wolf with no 'e'.  I think with the museum using both spellings, the problem and confusion just continues.

[talesofthesevenseas]

Hey there Hosman, I thought you might want to see this Craigslist ad that just popped up for a similar coverlet with an asking price of $1500. Yours is older and nicer than this one is:

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/atq/2062391614.html

[hosman321]

Thanks for thinkin' of me tales! That one is pretty, but you're right, it is pretty faded and worn. I've been watching on ebay for coverlets like mine. They rarely go for $1,500 so they are asking a bit too much for that CL one. I see some other Wolf coverlets on ebay go for good money but I still haven't found another Adam Wolf. So I still would like to know if mine is worth a bit more. I'll go to ebay again right now. That museum never responded to me.

[hosman321]

This is closer to the price they go for, not $1,500. This one's actually a wee bit on the cheap side.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Coverlet-signed-W-Wolf-Shelby-Richland-C-Ohio-1853-/200462808466?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2eac83b592

[KC]

Not sure how I missed this one the first go round...but guess summertime was busier than I thought.

Concur with Waywards comments about a weaver knows how to spell his name!

Really like the coverlets!  Nice piece of history you have!

[KC]

http://www.prices4antiques.com/textiles-clothing/coverlets-jacquard/Coverlet-Jacquard-Pennsylvania-1835-Wolf-Adam-Medallion-Field-Bird-Rose-Border-4-Colors-D9761469.htm

[waywardangler]

Nice example, KC!  I wonder if hosman has seen this?  The pic does not enlarge so the blocks in the corner that would show the weaver's name are too fuzzy to compare with hosman's.  The subscription rate(s) are also up there for a one time use.

[hosman321]

Thanks for looking! I think this is the same one as above, got just over $500.
http://pookandpook.com/cat/2009-04-24/312?xfsid=u8gpl7s1kp1ft34cj8sjts8s42
I think it might have brought a wee bit more if it didn't have the pink it in. Personally, I don't like the ones with pink. I think it makes them look washed-out, like faded red and kinda girly. I like that mine is red, white and blue because a man or a woman might be interested in it. Well, a man might like the pink one just as much, but you know what I mean.