(MCA) I have seen 70x1/120x2 shirtings that blow away many 160 2x2s and beyond.
Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that a 70/1 weft thread is going to blow away much of anything, your conceptual thesis is correct. Thicker yarns are quite often used in the texturing process. 80/2 is commonly used as one component of very fine oxfords, for example. However, when you cite a single-ply yarn as "blowing away" a two-ply yarn, your premise is false. Although the single ply yarn may have the two qualities you cite (resiliance and depth of color) ... and may even be serviceable for quite a number of washings ... it will certainly begin to pill at some point in its life ... and that point will be way short of the 2-ply yarn's life. That extreme detriment can be overcome only by plying the yarns. From what I read of this Cutter/Lisapop exchange, their disagreement has nothing to do with yarn numbers, but has to do with the definition of plying. Toward this end and in all
of the textile trades, plying is the process of twisting multiple yarns together. What the marketing division does with this simple fact seems to vary all over the lot, and I believe that this was the correction Cutter was making to Lisapop and Holland & Sherry. By tradition, using two, two-ply yarns does not yield a cloth meant to be called "4-ply" even though there are technically 4 plies if you sum the number of individual yarns. There are also some very, very expensive 4 ply yarns which are proplerly called 4-ply. What should one call the resultant fabric made from a weft and warp of these 4-ply yarns? Eight ply? I think not.