Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 07:09:03 -1000
From: wheeze@[204.101.212.2]
Subject: Re: H-COST: pattern making software

Ihaven't seen a response to where to find symmetry demo, so I went
searching this am and found it--eventually. I have yet to play with
it but if anyone is interested....................

http://www.wild-ginger.com/symmetry/demosite.htm

and sew on and sew on
Wheeze
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:33:07 -1000
From: Glenn & Shanda Grieb
Subject: Re: H-COST: pattern making software

-Poster: Glenn & Shanda Grieb

Here is a URL with several pattern drafting software companies mentioned
on it:

http://www.hk.super.net/~rlowe/sew.html

Ignore the comment about Fittingly Sew not being available any more, it is now, and the URL for the company is listed. This software looks like an excellent value for the quality, and you can download a "working" demo, unlike Symmetry, which just gives you a movie-like run through of it's features. But, Symmetry is definitely an awesome program, with several levels available to suit your particular needs. I was most immpressed with these two.

Hope this is useful.

Shanda
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:17:56 -1000
From: "Penny E. Ladnier"
Subject: H-COST: CSA Web Page, again

-Poster: "Penny E. Ladnier"

If you still can not get into the Costume Society of America....
Try this URL: http://www.culturenet.ca/CostumeSocietyAmerica/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Teceangl
Subject: Re: H-COST: folly bells
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:16:52 -1000
Status: RO
X-Status:

> With the jingle bell season almost upon us, a question came to
> mind--what kind of bells were folly bells? Although I've seen them in
> several paintings, none of them were close ups. I don't trust the
> drawings I've seen. No documentation or mention of a source or they were
> in books like the Iris Brooke or John Peacock series. Were they like our
> jingle bells? Bell-shaped? Both? Neither?

I've done some research on folly bells, almost all of it from paintings of
the 15th century, muchly German. Almost all of my research material were
books from the local library, so I have no documentation at hand, but can
get it if asked and given about a week to find everything.
That said, folly bells were usually round bells, much like our modern
"jingle" bells, for the most part. Occasionally, clapper bells were used,
but they were relatively rare. Brass and silver seemed to be the metals of
choice, likely for their sound. As fashion, they were popular especially in
Germany and the Low Countries in the mid-to-latter 15th century, with some
occurrances in Italy, Burgundia and England, that I've found.

> In paintings I've seen they appear to be sewn/woven onto a
> narrow strip of fabric or baldric and others where they look like they're
> attached to a chain or added at intervals to a string of beads. Is this
> accurate?

Frequently used on baldrics, sometimes on cloth yokes, sometimes on a chain
or heavy bead arrangement worn as a baldric, often on a belt. Sometimes they
were sewn onto hems and sleeves in small numbers.
Depending on how prominent the wearer wanted to appear, they could wear bells
spaced all across the decorated edge, few bells spaced widely, bells spaced
with other dangling decorations (such as beads - frequently this arrangement was on hems and belts), or most interestingly, a great many bells but only a
few which could jingle. The rest were dumb, something like a 4/1 or 5/1 ratio.
This was prevalent in society where constant noise was considered abrasive.

Men seemed to be the primary wearers of bells, but women did use them on belts
and sleeves, rarely on baldrics (I found only one such reference).

Hope this helps.

- Britt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Betty Braaksma"
Subject: H-COST: Elizabeth I effigy or: the wardrobe really unlock'd
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 14:23:08 -1000



A book crossed my desk yesterday and fell open to a page that I thought
would be of interest to both the corset-making crowd and the
Tudor/Elizabethan re-creators. The book is: 900 Years: The Restoration of
Westminster Abbey by Thomas Cocke. Published in 1995 as a commemorative
catalogue, the book covers mainly architectural details as you would expect.

However, on pages 122 & 123 you will find a description and photos of the
corset and underpants that clothed the effigy of Elizabeth I. As the text
states: "The recently completed conservation has revealed that...the
original armature survives, together with two under-garments, 'a paire of
straight bodies' (or stays) and a 'paire of drawers', which are some of the
earliest known examples of their kind."

The corset is front-laced, with the lacing holes tightly spaced. It looks
almost like corduroy in that it appears to be stitched lengthwise at close
intervals - (for the boning?) It extends to a u-shape in front, almost as
long as a stomacher and looks like it would give a pretty flat silhouette.
Underneath there appears to be a gathered chemise or lining. It does have an
overall hourglass shape, which surprised me, as I think of Elizabethan gowns
as tube-like.

There are shoulder straps which are built up and triangular in shape at the
front, then are sewn to the back to form shoulders. The back view looks just
like a man's doublet. There are flaps which extend down the lower back,
which are square - not a dagged edge, exactly. There also appear to be gores
set into the flaps, with lace-holes above so I guess you could let it in or
out, and I suspect the flaps would help the back to lie flatter over the
hips. The seaming in the back is a tapered princess-style. No garter-type
attachments that are visible. The whole corset is quite attractive, IMHO.

The drawers are less visible as the photos show only a 3/4 length view of
the effigy. They appear to be long, pull-on, split at the front and gathered
roomily around the hips in the back. There appears to be curved seaming down
the front of the legs which reminds me of riding pants.

The materials for both has yellowed, but judging from the drape of the
pants, I'd guess they were linen, while the corset looks like something
heavier - canvas, perhaps, or a very heavy broadcloth?

The other surprise for me was the "hippiness" of the effigy. I'd always
envisioned Elizabeth I as very slender. Perhaps that's why the farthingale
was invented??? ;)

Cheers,
Betty Braaksma
aka Elizabeth de Brabant y Fryslan
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Henk 't Jong"
Subject: Re: H-COST: folly bells
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:18:53 -1000

Lisa wrote:
> With the jingle bell season almost upon us, a question came to
> mind--what kind of bells were folly bells? Although I've seen them in
> several paintings, none of them were close ups. I don't trust the
> drawings I've seen. No documentation or mention of a source or they were
> in books like the Iris Brooke or John Peacock series. Were they like our
> jingle bells? Bell-shaped? Both? Neither?
>
Yes, yes, yes and no. For general shapes see 'Dress Accessories' the
wonderful book by the Museum of London.

> In paintings I've seen they appear to be sewn/woven onto a
> narrow strip of fabric or baldric and others where they look like they're
> attached to a chain or added at intervals to a string of beads. Is this
> accurate?

Yes, the wearing of bells of all kind was fashionable during the very late
14th and early 15th c by, especially, rich or noble young men and women.
See the Tres Riches Heures du Duc de Berry. Fools also have worn them since
their start in the early 14th c.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 18:19:01 -1000
Subject: Re: H-COST: Ren. clothing definitions

-Poster: [email protected]

>Can someone give me 'technical' definitions of the following:
> Breeches
Any piece of man's clothing worn below the waist and over the stockings.

> Venetians
A type of breeches commonly associated by Englishmen with the Italies.
They come to roughly knee level and tend to be quite full thru their
length giving an upside-down pear impression when first in style with the
fullness then becoming like the plus-fours of our century( or even
fuller). They seem to be associated with military men, but this is not an
absolute.

> Trunk hose
These are the mid-thigh length breeches commonly worn in England during
the Elizabethan era. They could be solid, or more fashionably cut into
panes with the fine silk lining showing in which case they were called
'pansied'. They were genenrally quite full with much pleating at waist
and leg-band.

> Slops
> Panised Slops
Other terms for trunk-hose. Pansied slops were frequently quite short,
barely covering the equipment, in which case they were often worn with
> Canions
which are snugly fitting breeches which come down to knee length and are
frequently made of brocade to contrast with the pansied slops.


Karen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:47:39 -1000
From: Ninni M Pettersson
Subject: Re: H-COST: Wale-less courduroy

-Poster: Ninni M Pettersson

At 00.45 +0100 97-12-08, Kerri Canepa wrote:
>Damasks are a form of brocade but not all brocades are damasks. Most
>jacquard woven single color brocades are damasks, in fact, true damask is
>one color with the pattern reversed on the back side. Brocades use at
>least two of the three weaves in the pattern (the weaves being plain, twill,
>and satin) and I think damasks use only two but if the back and front sides
>are not reverse images, it is a brocade but not a damask. Damasks can be
>of two colors maximum (one color for warp and one for weft) with true
>damask being one color. Brocades can have many colors which also
>distinguishes it from damask.

These are some definitions from _Nordisk Textilteknisk Terminologi_ Geijer
et al ('Scandinavian textile technical terminology'):

Damask: Fabric were the ground and pattern is made by different sides of
the same binding (weft-faced and warp-faced). Usually satin binding is
used, but twill binding can also occur. (The name by the way is from the
Syrian city Damaskus.)

Brocade: Originally a fabric made with an extra pattern weft. (That is the
pattern is made with a special floating thread not included in the ground
weave binding but only used in the pattern itself.) Today usually used to
mean any kind of richly patterned fabric, especially with gold- or silver
thread. Can not be used as a technical term in any language according to
Geijer. :-)

>I think the manufacturing name for damasks these days includes the word
>jacquard somewhere in it. Most of what you see in the fancy dress section
>of JoAnn Fabrics with a pattern woven into it is damask. Jacquard refers
>to a type of loom developed in the 18th c (help me on this one somebody
>please!) which mechanized the drawing of the threads which creates the
>pattern. I know I'm not explaining that very well and hopefully someone
>else will dive in with a better one.

The jacquard loom is the invention of the French masterweaver Jacquard
building on earlier efforts in the 18th century. The first "real" jacquard
loom is supposed to have seen the light in 1804. In it part of the drawloom
figure harness has been replaced by a chain of punched cards that
mechanically control the leash. An early kind of computer controlled
manufacture, really!

/Ninni Pettersson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chandler, Sally"
Subject: RE: H-COST: Organ Pipe Pleats
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 22:46:35 -1000

-Poster: "Chandler, Sally"

Yes, this helps - so if I cut a normal shaped dress front with a big wedge
of pie at the centre front seam I'll have plenty of fabric to pleat and a
nice full skirt with a slight risk of looking pregnant which I'll have to
put up with. (I know it's fashionable but not quite the impression I want
to give when trying to impress good looking young men. Never mind! And
would you pad the pleats as you do with cartridge pleats?

Thanks,

Sally Ann

-----Original Message----- From: BPack55294 [SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 3:31 AM
To: Chandler, Sally
Subject: Re: H-COST: Organ Pipe Pleats

It has been my impression that the organ pipe pleats evolved out of the
earlier houpelands, in which the "pleats" (which were not as structured at
first) were created, as you surmised, by the cut. You are dealing with a
"wedge" of a circle. The bigger your "wedge" (piece of a pie), the more
fabric for pleating, and that can take the form of either more little pleats
or fewer larger pleats. (Just to clarify, the narrow end of the pie piece
goes at the top, and the wider end at the hem.) If you use a fabric with more
"body" it will be easier to arrange it into the organ pipe pleats. I have
found that the easiest way to do this is on a "body" (i.e. "dress form" for
the lay person).
I hope this helps!
Grace & Peace
bets
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:59:15 -1000
Subject: Re: HNW - embroidery books

Here is just a VERY partial list of books available on embroidery. Even if
you don't specifically want blackwork, some of the patterns are suitable for
other embroidery, and blackwork- style embroidery does not HAVE to be black.

Ashelford, Jane, Dress in the Age of Elizabeth. Holmes and Meyer Publishers,
Inc. 1988

Campbell, Etta, Linen Embroidery. London: B.T. Batsford, 1957.

Cunnington, C.Willet. & Phyllis, Handbook of English Costume in the 16th
Century. London: Faber and Faber Limited, mcmliv

Dye, Daniel Sheets, Chinese Lattice Designs. New York: Dover, 1974.
(originally published as A Grammar of Chinese Lattice by Harvard University
Press, 1937)

Geddes, Elisabeth, and Moyra McNeill, Blackwork Embroidery.
New York: Dover Publications, 1985

Gostelow, Mary, Blackwork. London: B.T. Batsford, 1976

Gostelow, Mary, The Complete International Book of Embroidery. New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1977.

Guild, Vera P., Good Housekeeping New Complete Book of Needlecraft. New York:
Good Housekeeping Books,

Harris, Karen, 16th and 17th Century Coifs. online,
http://www.dnaco.net/~aleed/corsets/headwear/coifpics.html

Kendrick, A.F., English Needlework. 2nd Edition. London:
Adam and Charles Black, 1933, 1967.

Marmor, Paula Katherine, Elizabethan Blackwork, The Blackwork Embroidery
Archives. online,
http://www.pacificnet.net/~pmarmor/bwarch.html

Pascoe, Margaret, Blackwork Embroidery, Design and Technique. London: B.T.
Batsford, (date unknown)

Petersen, Grete, Stitches and Decorative Seams. trans. by
Carol Schroeder. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1956.

Snook, Barbara, The Creative Art of Embroidery. New York: Hamlyn, 1969.

Swain, Margaret, The Needlework of Mary Queen of Scots. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1973.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Susan Carroll-Clark"
Subject: H-COST: Re: pet peeves
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 19:35:36 -1000

-Poster: "Susan Carroll-Clark"

Anyone wearing a wimple must be a nun. (In fact, wimples were fashionable
in the 13th century and into the 14th, and became a standard style for older
women later).

Medieval people knew nothing about fit or tailoring. (No, they didn't have
curved armsyes or curved patterning, but they used other techniques to
achieve fit--other techniques which end up making the clothes look much like
illumination or statuary, but you'll still get people saying "those clothes
fit funny." They don't fit funny--they fit differently than you're used
to...:-)

The Germanic peoples who migrated to/invaded Roman territories all wore furs
and skins. (Nope, most wore clothing styles similar to Roman ones--they'd
had a lot of contact).

Same thing about Vikings. Oh, and Vikings didn't have interesting fabrics
because they lived in Iceland....(Not only were the Norse good weavers, they
also had extensive trade connections).

Everyone in Byzantium dressed like the Emperor and Empress. Oh, and only
the emperor could wear purple. (Not true--it is very true that only the
emperor could wear certain purple items--like shoes--and that wearing of
royal purple was regulated.)

"Purple" in the above refers to an eggplantish, modern "royal purple" shade.
(Nope, it's a reddish-purple, more of a wine shade. Gorgeous colour, though).

Sumptuary laws were obeyed to the letter. (Nope, we have plenty of evidence
of people breaking/flouting them).

You could spot different ranks of people by the way they dressed. (Well, in
a general sense, yes, but there was rarely a special "king outfit." And
that sideless surcote=queen thing isn't true early, and becomes an artistic
convention later).

No one will ever know--or care--if you're not wearing the right
underpinnings. (To the contrary--dress does not look right without them.
Even in the medieval period where underpinnings meant mainly a
shift/shirt/chemise.....)

"The Church" enforced a lot of rules about dress, like requiring married wom
en to cover their hair. (Seems to be more of a cultural thing.)....which
leads to...

People who put a ton of effort into their dress, and then justify not
wearing the correct headgear with "Well, no one will notice" or "They didn't wear those things all the time" or worse, "Well, veils/caps/hats are just
symbols of male oppression, so I'm not going to wear them."

Cheers--
Susan Carroll-Clark
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 04:43:50 -1000
From: aleed
Subject: Re: H-COST: French hoods

-Poster: aleed

I've experimented with different ways of making french hoods, and the
easiest way (for me) is this:

Make the pattern you want by cutting out cardboard/heavy paper and trying
various shapes until you get something that looks right.

Take some plastic canvas and cut it in this shape. Cut two more shapes out
of buckram, sandwich the plastic canvas between the two layers of buckram,
and whipstitch the three layers around the edges. (The plastic canvas makes the hood sturdier; the buckram makes it smooth and slightly stiffer, too.)

Whipstitch millinary wire around the edges of the hood, and shape it
approximately as you'll want it.

I tried sewing a "pocket" of the decorative top fabric and the lining and
slipping the buckram hood into it, but it never fit quite smoothly enough.
Instead, I did this:

cut a piece of fabric for the outside of the hood by tracing around the
hood pattern and cutting @ 3/4 of an inch outside this line. trace the
hood shape on the lining fabric, and cut @ 1/2 an inch outside the pattern
line.

Take the outer fabric, smooth it over the upper part of the hood, and turn
the edges over to the back.using a needle and strong thread, zig-zag back
and forth between the top and bottom edges, pulling it tight and smooth.
When the outside is covered, take the lining fabric and hand-stitch it
over the back side with the edges folded under, covering all the messy
zig-zagging thread. Add the hood of your choice.

I know these instructions are confusing--if you have trouble visualizing
the above method, email me and I'll try to explain it better. When I make
hoods like the above one, I found that when you tighten the fabric
correctly it automatically curves like it should.

As for keeping them on--I tie the laces at the back of my head instead of
underneath my chin, and it usually stays on fine. Wearing your hair in a
high bun does help keep the hood on, too.

Drea
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:00:30 -1000
Subject: german page url

Here's the URL:
http://www.st-mike.org/groups/german/homepage.html
http://www.st-mike.org/groups/german/homepage.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 13:01:22 -1000
From: Maggie Percival
Subject: H-COST: French Hoods

-Poster: Maggie Percival

Hi everyone,

Just my two pennies worth on this one
>
><< In some paintings I see what looks
> like chin straps, in others I don't see anything at all. >>
>
> All too often in these old portraits, certain features which would be
>unflattering were purposely omitted by the artist, such as a wrinkle one the
>front of the bodice at the armpit. It is entirely possible that most of the
>hoods had a tie for under the chin, but that it was omitted in the painting.
>(I think we all have heard the story of how the Introductory Picture was
>"helped out" when presenting Henry VIII with a likeness of Anne of Cleeves!)
> Hope this helps!

Whilst you have a point with some of this there is certainly one portrait by Holbein (and I've only come across one reproduction of it in
a book I got from a second hand shop; the book was on Holbein and not on
costume) which shows that these ties were sometimes detachable. There
is a portrait, dated around 1543, thought to be of Princess Mary
(daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragorn) and unusually she is
portrayed in profile. The french hood is quite clearly shown to lie
flat on the head and ties are also shown, but the ties are pinned (the
pin is quite visible) to the coif. I have done a french hood (it took
me several weeks to work it out looking at a large number of sketches
and portraits by Holbein) and I wrote up my findings. The resulting
headdress stayed on my head quite securely without the use of ties. The
main problem, I think, is caused mainly by today's hairstyles. Do not
forget that in Tudor times ladies grew their hair long, and headdresses
took that into account, they had to. If you look at some of those
french hoods, they are positioned an awfully long way back on the head,
but if you arrange long hair in a coronal at the top of the back of the
head you can extend the platform on which the french hood sits. This
also leaves the back of the neck clear of any hair which allows the coif
to hug the neck closely. What is more, ladies did not wash their long
tresses anything like as frequently as the vast majority of people do
today. In the past I have found that if I put any type of headdress
onto my hair (which is longish, although it doesn't reach my waist) when
it had been washed in the previous forty eight hours I was asking for
trouble, my hair was much too slippery, and I know of plenty of people
who have had exactly the same experience. But as I said, those Tudor
ladies did not wash their hair anything like as frequently as we do now.

Incidentally the book with the Princess Mary Tudor portrait is in is:

The Paintings of Hans Holbein: First Complete Edition: by Paul Ganz
Publ. The Phaidon Press Ltd. 1950

(the plate number for the portrait is 170).

Hope this helps.
--
Maggie Percival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:25:25 -1000
From: KATE M BUNTING
Subject: H-COST: Buttons

-Poster: KATE M BUNTING

A re-enactor friend of mine makes thread buttons using a card disc with notches round the edge. She stretches threads diametrically across the circle between the notches and then, starting from the centre, uses a needle to weave round and round, making a loop over each radial thread. When the disc is covered, the woven circle is slipped off the notches, some stuffing put in and the loose end pulled to gather the circle into a sphere. (Hope this makes sense!) I've not yet tried it myself, but the resulting buttons are very
attractive and are said to be in period (for the mid-17th century).

Kate Bunting
King's Lifeguard of Foote, Sealed Knot
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:47:04 -1000
From: Asia Poppers
Subject: Re: H-COST: Buttons

-Poster: Asia Poppers

I knew a guy once who made buttons for his Landsknecht outfits by taking
decorative cord, about 1/2 inch in diameter, that was made of a
braided/woven cover around a cord or cotton core, and removing the core.

This left him with a sort of tube of braided strands. He would then take
an oblong wooden bead a bit thicker than the tube, cut a piece of tube
about twice as long as the bead, and push the bead into the tube, then put
glue into either side of the bead's hole and stuff the ends of the tube
into the hole at either end.

This gave a button that looked like it had been made by needle-weaving or
braiding the cover around the bead, but which required less handwork. Not
something to submit as an A&S entry, but a pretty good down-and-dirty way
to get fairly nifty looking buttons.

Kate, your friend's way of making stuffed buttons sounds really cool! I'm
getting excited about all of these button ideas; perhaps I'll make a button
sampler! I don't know what a button sampler is, but it looks like I'm going
to have to make one up to try out all of these button-making methods
without drowning in unfinished outfits that I started just to use new
buttons on.

--Asia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 05:15:16 -1000
From: TEDDY
Subject: Re: H-COST: linen & 15th cent.

-Poster: TEDDY

> From: Dave Key

> I'm a bit confused here ... 4x45 degrees is not the same as 4
> quarters = of a circle ... it's half that.

I always have to stop and think about this one - I've always confused 45 and 90 degrees, perhaps that's what happened. I know I read it and *pictured* four quarter circles (but then I'm making a houpellande of that sort (for a 3 year old) at the moment.

> From the c15th gowns I have made (both male & female) the angle
> depends on the hem size... each panel is cut with the Centre seams
> running down the selvage & with a wide enough angle to match the
> hem size.

By hem size, do you mean the hem size as dictated by the *width of the fabric* ???

> The trick is to make sure the shoulder fits & to turn the neck,
> shoulder & armholes slightly away from the centre (making the
> shoulder seam almost 90 degrees to the selvage) to, effectively,
> make the excess cloth all come from the centre of the gown rather
> than the sides, without wasting cloth. This forces the folds to
> fall into the centre giving the characteristic look.

I had to stop and sketch this out to picture it, but I think i have it now - That's what I love about this list, sometimes you get a neat little gem from someone else's experience.

I've been experimenting with different ways to get the fullness inot the middle rather than at the sides and the most successful ones have involved taking angling the CF line away from the selvege, so that the bodice/shoulder end of the piece is closer to the middle of the width of fabric. It gets the desired effect in the finished piece but is not ideal if you were hoping to cut big sleeves out of the wedge-shaped bits to the side of the body, as you end up with two smaller wedges (one either side) rather than one big one.

I shall try Dave's method on my next houpellande and see if it works
as well as it looks on paper...thanks Dave.

> Sorry, I'm showing my ignorance of terminology here (that's what
> you get for self-taught!) ... what is Raglan-type ?

Raglan sleeves connect to the body by means of a seam from the armpit to the neckline - the top of the leeve forms the shoulder of the garment. (I hope this is correct, I've sometimes found my understanding of terminology is at odds with just about everyone else's....)

> Alot of lining seems to have been in finer material than the outer,
> often using sarsynet (silk) under woollen gowns in the
> higher social levels. However 'lining' fabric (often black)
> is often mentioned & this may be linen (in this instance black
> probably means cheap oak gall dyed ... which could be
> cheaper than bleached linen). If you do avoid a heavy lining be
> aware that this will affect the overall weight & appearance
> of the gown, taking away much of the body & roundness of the
> folds.

I've seen the rounded filds shaped rather nicely putting a strip of fur behind just the part where the pleats/folds are held togehter and look their most rounded. That was how you did it, wasn't it Caroline...?


> It is possible that it is the kirtle sleeve showing through, but
> the richness of the cloth & the loose fit make me think this is
> more likely to be a pinned on sleeve than the kirtle sleeve.

If you're not intending to wear the kirtle without the over-garment, however, there's nothing to stop you from sewing the fancy/full sleeves onto the kirtle instead of having them as an extra layer. It's a "cheat" but I can't see any reason not to. I'd prefer to have them seperate so I could have several different pairs of sleeves to wear with it, and would only need the one Kirtle to pin/lace/fasten them to.... several costume variations for very little extra cost or work.

Teddy

[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:54:22 -1000
From: Julie Adams
Subject: Re: H-COST: linen & 15th cent.

-Poster: Julie Adams

>-Poster: Dave Key
>
>Dear Hope,
>
>I'm afraid I may be about to add a dilemma to your decisions by suggesting an
>alternative interpretation to some of Julie's recommendations for your gown
>(that's not to say I'm any more likely to be correct!) although I agree that 6 yards is cutting it fine (literally) so some careful attention to positioning may well be required esp with the sleeves in this type of gown..
>
>> It should be cut as a circle. Each quarter of the gown is like a quarter
>> circle. The folds fall naturally from there. Your side and center seams
>> should be at 45 degree angles and will be on the bias. You don't need to
>> cut the gown on the bias.
>
>I'm a bit confused here ... 4x45 degrees is not the same as 4 quarters of a
>circle ... it's half that.
>
>>From the c15th gowns I have made (both male & female) the angle depends
>>on the hem size ... each panel is cut with the Centre seams running down the selvage & with a wide enough angle to match the hem size. The trick is to make sure the shoulder fits & to turn the neck, shoulder & armholes slightly away from the centre (making the shoulder seam almost 90 degrees to the selvage) to, effectively, make the excess cloth all come from the centre of the gown rather than the sides, without wasting cloth. This forces the
>folds to fall into the centre giving the characteristic look.
>

I think Dave and I are saying the same thing, but we lay out our patterns
differently. Mine are a 45' angle at center and side, giving a total of 90
degrees. Same thing, slightly different way of looking at the problem.
Either way the fullness drapes naturally into those pleats. The pleats can
be stabilized with tapes on the underside of the fabric. Because I am
short, I can lay out my gown with the pattern selvage to selvage and then
alternate directions to conserve fabric. I'm not sure its clear, but
anyway, I keep the selvage to selvage grain on the center of the pattern
piece. Each pattern piece is 1/4 of the gown body.


>There are later patterns which show bagged sleeves of similar shape which use
>very dramatic shaping by using the seam, I would expect the same here ... the fullness at the elbow & tightness at the wrist both being achieved by expanding & contracting the pattern as appropriate without the need for gathering. From similar Van Der Weyden pics I would expect that the cuff was
>'just' big enough to squeeze the hand through without a fastening ... which
>would be present on the kirtle underneath.

Thats how I did mine, but the examples I used did not have visible pleats
and a cuff like this one did. This one looks like it tapers to some degree
and then the final excess is pleated into the cuff. I agree with your
statement and many examples show the sleeve you describe.

>>>5) The undersleeve is red. Can I assume this is an entire underdress and
>>>not just a false sleeve?
>
>>Yes.
>
>No ... have a look at
>http://sunserv.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/w/weyden/crucifix/descent.jpg
>
>Pinned on sleeves are quite a common feature of women's clothing at this time, often made in a finer material than the kirtle beneath (which were often short sleeved anyway so without the over sleeve the smock would be visible).
>
>It is possible that it is the kirtle sleeve showing through, but the richness
>of the cloth & the loose fit make me think this is more likely to be a pinned on sleeve than the kirtle sleeve.

I'm sure it could go either way here. If you want a cooler costume, you
might want to use Dave's suggestion. If you use my suggestion there are two
underdresses, a white or off-white kirtle, and underdress and the
overgown/robe, which would make it a warmer gown.

Dave,

Raglan sleeves are cut so that the top of the sleeve goes up over the
shoulder and becomes part of the neckline in one smooth piece. There is a
seam from the armpit to the neckline. I haven't noticed any men's costumes
cut like this, but there are several examples of women's gowns of this
period with this cut, such as the wife's green dress in "Jan Arnolfini and
his Wife" by van Eyke (you can see the seam in a good copy) and numerous
Madonnas... Usually they are round-necked gowns without high collars. In
the houpelande that I made I used inset sleeves, because the picture I used
as an example did not look like raglan sleeves, but this one she wants to
make looks more similar to the van Eyke gown to me.

Julie Adams
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 11:02:37 -1000
From: Julie Adams
Subject: Re: H-COST: linen & 15th cent.

-Poster: Julie Adams

>> It should be cut as a circle. Each quarter of the gown is like a quarter
>> circle. The folds fall naturally from there. Your side and center seams
>> should be at 45 degree angles and will be on the bias. You don't need to
>> cut the gown on the bias.
>
>I'm cutting in here because I don't understand. 45 degrees in relation
>to what? the center front? If so then the CF is on the straight if the
>sides are bias and you end up with most of your fabric in the back. Or
>are you saying that CF, sides, and CB are all bias and the straight
>falls over the bust points and shoulder blades? When I've made this
>type of garment for stage I've always put CF, CB, and sides on the
>straight grain. What is the advantage of rotating 45 degrees? Will it
>hang and fold better? Or did I misunderstand you entirely (which I
>often do)?

There is no benefit either way, the angle is so severe with a full circle
cut that some of the gown will lie on the bias and some will not. I place the center of my pattern piece on the straight grain. Often selvage to
selvage to save fabric, but it really can be laid out either way. The
general pattern piece for a raglan body would look (sort of) like this:

                                ---

                               /   \

                              /     \

                             /       \

                            /         \

                               :   :



But with the sides at 45 degree angles. Now you can either lay one side on

the grain or you can lay out the center of the fabric itself on the center

grain. Either way, it won't matter to this garment.



PS: the raglan sleeve would look (sort of) like this :

                -------------------

               |                 _| cuff

                \              /

                 \           /

                   \_______/
But with matching extreme angles to match the body. Hard to do with ASCII.
Hope this makes sense.

Julie Adams

back

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1