Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 19:18:44 -1000
�
From: "I. Marc Carlson"
Subject: H-COST: Honorable Company of Cordwainers site
For those who are interested in shoemaking, there is a (unofficial as
yet) web site for the Honorable Company of Cordwainers at
"http://www.bootmaker.com/hcc.htm". Also there is the Chrispin
Coloquy, a web-based forum for those who want to discuss things about
shoemaking.
-----------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Mundane patterns/princess seams
> If it isn't a cotehardie, than what is it called? It's obviously a 6 or 8 panel gown with seams that go into the armscye, which is essentially what a modern princess seam gown is. If I'm calling all my cotehardies made like this by the wrong name, I want to learn the correct
name.
>
> Thanks!
> Eleanor
Well, here you have summed up an eternal difficulty for the historian in many subjects. As fashions in clothing, calligraphy etc change, they usually didn't do so overnight. For one thing, news traveled a lot slower. Do you have a reference of some kind that you are basing the princess seam on? I haven't seen much evidence for that kind of seam for the 14th century at all.
This isn't just my opinion, but also the opinion of several costume laurels here in Trimaris. But I also haven't seen every picture or statue made then, either. There is at least one late cotehardie (worn by Queen Anne) that has an eight piece bodice, and a separate skirt. The bodice seams are straight, however
(they don't curve into the armpit). See Houston page 75. The Fouquet painting from 1490 is much too late to be used as documentation for the 14th century. It may also be depicting fantasy garb (as per my other letter). Then there is the pourpoint of Charles of Blois. It is extremely
well- fitted; considered a masterpiece of tailoring. But it still has only four vertical seams, with a small gusset added on the lower half of the sides (the back is cut in two horizontal parts). It was made to be worn under
armor, and to be as functional as possible. The 10-gore Greenland dress is from
such a different culture that I don't consider it a cotehardie (although
most costume books do). I feel that what the costume books aren't taking into
account is this distance factor: it sometimes took years for fashion to travel
from
France to England, let alone as far as Greenland. It is quite
technical in
it's tailoring, but how could it have been based on contemporary
costumes in
France?
My point is that it is an example of parallel evolution: if it was
based on
the cotehardie then it would date from the 15th century, not the
14th.
As always, these are just my opinions, not "facts".
Judith
-----------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:04:24 -1000
From: Julie Adams
Subject: Re: H-COST: help with men's and women's German Ren
>-Poster: [email protected]
>I'd like these to be reasonably accurate and would like to use
velveteen since I've got a ton of black velveteen. But is cotton
velveteen the right thing to use? Or is nylon/rayon velvet more
appropriate? (silk's outta price range)
I don't think the modern nylon/rayon or even the silk/acetate velvets
are
thick enough to replicate 16th c velvet. IMHO, the most appropriate
velvets are ones that are so thick in the pile that they have no nap.
Many of the heavy cotton velvets are pretty good, but my favorite is
a 100% cotton velvet that I get a yardage city. Its very plush. A
matinee' velvet can also be good (cotton/sythetic blend).
I personally don't like velveteen because the nap wears off easier
than the
velvets over time, but its better IMHO than the rayon or silk velvets
with
the thin pile.
>Any tips on the best way to slash velvet?
If I'm going to slash velvet, I prefer to use a heavy cotton
upholstery velvet with a rubberized backing. But I'll only use that
for slashed banding or small areas because the rubberized backing
makes it too hot.
Some velvet takes pinking well (slashes less than 1" or so), but most
won't
take slashes longer than that without looking cheap. The backing is
usually not strong enough and the slashes won't hold out in nice
period looking arcs, but will crumple. I don't like to do bonded
interfacings/backings because even then they tend to roll over a bit
and you can see the interfacing. If you want slashes longer than 1"
of velvet, I recommend biting the bullet and sewing them into lined
panes (sew them into tubes or bag line each pane) and attaching them
individually. If you don't want to go through the work, then use the
velvet as base fabric and apply slashed bands of wool or leather over
the top.
>Brocade is often mentioned as being used in the plastron, but
none of the illustrations I've seen are very clear on what this
brocade looks like, any hints on the types of modern brocades that
might work for this?
If you are making a Cranach-style with an open front, then the
plastron (or placket) is usually, but not always white and there is a
band of brocade with pearl embroidery along the top which is about
3"-5" wide. I suggest having it scale to the size of your bustline
(wider the larger busted you are). The pearl embroidery is done over
the top of gold brocade, but the pearled pattern never matches the
brocade pattern. Be sure your lacing doesn't go over the decorated
band. The lacing is always zig-zag or straight across lacing, never
cross-lacing. The lacing holes, or loops are placed inside the edge
of the bodice so they are invisible. Many German bodices do not have
plackets and I suggest that you try one of those before going for a
placket-front style. Hooks and eyes should be used to attach the
bodice to the decorated band of the plastron to keep it tight. I
suggest color on color damask brocades as Maggie described.
>I'm assuming the puffs/undersleeves should be a light weight
white cotton fabric, like batiste, is this right? I've got an
Elizabethan corset (a la hunniset) will this work for German Ren? Or
do I even need one...?
Puffs at the elbow and armscye are often the shift puffed through,
but other puffing in the sleeve is usually applied false puffing. The
higher class you are, the less likely your puffing will be the shift.
In lower class women, most of the puffing is the shift puffed
through.
If you are a large woman, I highly recommend some kind of corselet or
support built into the bodice. It should not be cone-shaped like
Elizabethan, but preferably keeps your natural curves. The placket
front bodice will look really bad if you are a woman of substance and
do not use support. The plastron should have some support as well.
I've seen Victorian corsets used and they actually look much better
than Elizabethan ones.
The tricky part of the Cranach dress is that the skirt is always done
as organ-pipe pleating, knife pleating or box pleating. Don't
cartridge pleat it. The opening of the skirt should be in the side
front along one side of the bodice edge. The skirt is attached to a
band or ribbon then basted inside the bodice and placket. The placket
must have some hooks and eyes near the skirt as well.
I'll look for some hat instructions in some of my private posts
later.
Gotta go. Check out my web site:
http://www.znet.com/~savaskan/germans
-----------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:09:04 -1000
From: Laurel Wilson
Subject: Re: H-COST:Yellow/prostitutes/Jews etc
I'm sorry that I don't remember the exact uses of the different
colors and patterns, but there is information on the Italian
sumptuary laws about prostitutes, including the colors which they
were forced to wear, and also on those which applied to Jews, in:
Diane Owen Hughes
"Sumptuary Laws and Social Relations in Renaissance Italy." In a book
called
*Disputes and Settlements*, ed. by John Bossy Cambridge University
Press, 1983
Diane Owen Hughes
"Distinguishing Signs: Ear Rings, Jews and Franciscan Rhetoric in the
Italian Renaissance City." In the journal *Past and Present*, no.
112, 1986.
This is mostly about distinguishing signs for Jews, concentrating on
jewelry but mentioning other things as well.
James Brundage
"Sumptuary Laws and Prostitution in Late Medieval Italy"
Journal of Medieval History, vol. 13 no. 4 (1987)
-----------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] (LYN M PARKINSON)
Subject: Re: Mundane patterns adapted for SCA??
Judith is right: >> The date on this painting would make it
about 90
years too old to be a
cotehardie. << although Fouquet may have been trying for an
earlier style to imply the antiquity of the painting's subject. There
are quite a lot of these gowns, having the sleevecap as the side edge
of the neckline. I don't know what other picture she means, though,
if she isn't referring to this one. I've been looking at several
sources this afternoon. Mila Contini has a full page photo of the 3
Italian girls that St. Nicholas save, from a painting in the Correr
Museum, in Venice.. Each one is wearing the gown with the sleevecap
as neckline.
There may be a scoop to the bottom of the armsceye; the one in red,
in front looks a little like that, but most of these gowns seem to
have a straight, diagonal seam from neckline down under the arm.
Perhaps that's what Timothy's built-in gusset looks like when it's
on? I haven't made that seam, and wondered what it would be like to
wear.
Many of the French equivalents seem to have more 'scoop' to the
neckline, rather than a squared off look. Houston lists a portrait of
St. Dorothy, and the cut for her 8-pc bodice under 14th C.
construction, but the date on the painting is 1490. There's a photo
of it in Herald's Renaissance Dress, p. 95. Again, it's a saint--does
the artist mean to portray an 'antique' figure?
Her Fig. 124 is one of the ones I was thinking of when I said the
over-bust seam goes into the shoulder. A lot of examples of
cotehardies we have are from brasses and tomb sculptures, and those
artists, unlike painters, seem to leave out the seams.
Judith, can you get a close fitting cotehardie with only 4 bodice
pieces? I've heard or read that men laced, too, but haven't seen
that, yet. The thin, young ones have very close fitting coteharies,
and it seems to me you would need the 8-piece for that unlaced curve.
I've only done the 8-pc. for myself. I wish I remembered more of the
sources I used to use, back when I had a cotehardie type figure!
-----------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Larsdatter, Karen )
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:21:04 -1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: HNW - RE: Even more info needed now...
Lady Galla wrote:
Just curious as to if anyone had or knew where I could find any good
embroidery/beadwork pattern combos online or such?? I am interested
in working with the beads, but was unsure as to the patterns that
were used. Perhaps I shall just have to look a bit more. Thanks
all..sorry for the width on this one..
"Lady Grizel's Medieval Beadwork"
http://www.dnaco.net/~scababe/medievalbead/
And if you're interested in other links relating to medieval and
renaissance-era beadwork, check out the links at
http://moas.atlantia.sca.org/topics/bead.htm
As to books ... well ... there are LOTS! Here are two from my
collection which have pieces with medieval beaded embroidery in 'em
...
Mayer-Thurman, Christa C. "Textiles in the Art Institute of Chicago."
Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 1992.
Staniland, Kay. "Medieval Craftsmen: Embroiderers." London: British
Museum Press, 1992.
-----------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:03:35 -1000
Subject: Re: H-COST:Yellow/prostitutes
Bill asked: Have you got any ref.s for this? I have been trying to
track
down this association of yellow headdress and prostitution in the
13th cent
Someone has finally asked a question that I can help answer! The
following
references not only have the information about colors, but also
explain all
the restrictions prostitutes were governed by. The references are
fully
documented from primary sources (laws and ordinances within
various
countries and cities).
Bassermann, Lujo. _The Oldest Profession: A History of
Prostitution_.
trans. from German by James Cleugh. New York: Dorset Press, 1993.
(ISBN:
0-88029-248-2)
Goldberg, P. J. P. _Women, Work, and Life Cycle in a Medieval
Economy:
Women in York and Yorkshire c.1300-1520_. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1992.
Rossiaud, Jacques. _Medieval Prostitution_. trans. by Lydia G.
Cochrane.
New York: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1988. (ISBN: 0-631-15141-9)
Wiesner, Merry E. _Working Women in Renaissance Germany_. New
Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers U. Press, 1986. (ISBN: 0-8135-1138-0)
-----------------------------------------------
From: "Griggs, Margaret (SHEP)"
Subject: RE: H-COST: Sources for 16th c. make-up info
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 07:44:09 -1000
Here are a couple of links to start with:
Avriel - Beauty products from the Dead Sea -
http://www.37.cyberhost.net/avriel/beuatyhis.html
Beauty in the 17th Century,
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/ei/fact/beauty.html.
I don't know how accurate they are but I seem to recall some bib info
on one
of these sites that may help as well.
-----------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 07:26:16 -1000
From: Cynthia Virtue
Subject: H-COST: Circle Houppelande (picture update)
This summer we discussed the idea that one method of making the
houppelande
was as a quarter circle with the point of the circle above the
shoulder. I
finally found one of my pictures of the dress, although not from the
front,
and it's up on my website. Comments welcome.
http://www.virtue.to/virtue/articles/circle_houp.html
-----------------------------------------------
From: LYN M PARKINSON
Subject: Re: Buttons
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:48:55 -1000
Cotehardie buttons were usually of metal, sometimes jeweled. They
were
decorative as well as useful. Some, actually, were not fasteners,
just
decoration. Heraldic crests in the metal were popular, too.
I think I recall seeing fabric buttons--rounds or squares of fabric
balled around a bit of stuffing--used in late period. There are some
examples in Janet Arnold's Patterns of Fashion.
Linthicum has this to say: " Buttons were in use in England by the
twelfth century, though only for ornament; ...Buttons of silk and
gold are listed in the wardrobe accounts, Edward VI established the
button and buttonhole mode in England; he had buttons of jewels,
gold, thread and silks, embroidered, and adorned in every possible
way, with silk buttonholes opften in colour contrasting with that of
his garments.
Stowe wrote that buttons of silk and thread were unknown to the
'generality' until after 1568; ...The generality used buttons of the
same material as their costume,...
this, though, is 16th C.
_Textiles and Clothing_, Crowfoot, Pritchard and Staniland, shows
some fabric buttons on 14th C. clothing from the digs in London. They
are too small, perhaps, to have any decorative stitching. Again, they
are ball shaped.
If you really wanted the stitching, you might put a tiny cross, or
starburst in the center of the fabric with a metallic thread, to make
it show.
-----------------------------------------------
From: Eloise Beltz-Decker
Subject: Buttons
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:57:10 -1000
Cast-metal ones are also nice, if you can get some that look right.
Metalcasting was getting almost cheap (ha, ha - well, MORE cheap) in
England in high cotehardie period. If you want fabric ones, the
easiest way to get 'em is to make self-fabric buttons. Herewith, an
explanation. Experimentation will of course be needed to optimize for
your particular fabric and situation.
1. Take a piece of paper. Put a quarter on it. Draw around the
quarter. Then draw another circle about 1/4 inch outside that. Cut it
out on the outer line.
2. Cut the same size circle out of your fabric (centering a
decorative motif if you like). Run a gathering stitch around the
circle, at about the quarter-sized line.
3. Pull tight, stuffing the outsides into the insides as you do,
until you have a, well, buttonshaped lump with threads coming off the
point in back. Sew to dress securely.
They look really cool! My Guildmistress recently showed me the way of
them. I'm going to put them all down my lord's new black velveteen
cotehardie. Haven't decided whether to make the buttons velveteen or
this black-and-silver to-die-for silk brocade I have (with motifs
just big enough to put on the buttons :->
-----------------------------------------------
From: Eloise Beltz-Decker
Subject: Lacing
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:40:12 -1000
Sorry to take out the entire rest of the post, but this is the only
bit I can speak to (since my Guildmistress gave a big talk a couple
weeks ago). Well, sort of. Since what I'm talking about isn't
non-lacing closures, but how one does lacing. If you're lacing
yourself like a shoe, it'll never look quite right - or support you
correctly, even assuming you cut your bodice to be braless. The
method of lacing you see in all the portraits, with the mysterious
single lines running perpendicular to the opening in little bars up
the front of the cotehardie or whatever, is called spiral lacing. And
it's not hard, and it looks GORGEOUS and works better. Herewith, a
how-to.
Single Spiral: Run the end of the lace (black round shoelaces work
great, you can get them up to 72' in the right places - they're
called 'dress' laces for a reason, y'know :-) through the bottom two
holes. Tie off the end securely, so you've got a loop through the
holes, and one long end. The long end should be towards the inside if
you want a vertical stripe of bars, to the outside if you want a
vertical stripe of diagonals, showing. Take said long end and go
around and around and around (looked at down from the top it's a
spiral), never going between the two pieces as you do for a shoelace.
So you pass the lace to the outside, go into the next hole, so it's
inside, go into the next empty hole, so it's outside, and repeat.
When you get to the top go through the top holes several times (like
a bar-tack on a pocket, kind of) and tie it off to itself.
Double Spiral, for those who need Extra Strength, or just want to
make a row of x's up the front of their dress :-> You need a
longer lace for this; I've found 60' works ok for up to 12 pairs of
holes, possibly more. Run the lace through the two bottom holes, and
even up the ends, so the holes are in the middle of the lace. The
loose ends should be towards the inside if you want bars to show,
towards the outside if you want x's. Now you do the same thing as
before, but with two ends. Which makes no sense when you're just told
it. :-> So here we go. Keep in mind throughout that it's a
round-and-round-and-round thing, again unlike the
in-between-out-between thing a shoe does. Cross the long ends and put
them through the next holes up. Now go through the same holes again,
with the other lace. It's kind of a 'make an x, now go 'round once'
thing, if that helps. It's a lot easier to show. Each hole ends up
with two thicknesses of lace in it. It's got a rhythm - just try it
until it ends up consistent, remembering to x-then-bar,
x-then-bar.
-----------------------------------------------
From: "Hope H. Dunlap"
Subject: H-COST: Elizabethan Gloves
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:26:47 -1000
There's no one cookbook method for making Elizabethan gloves, as the
geographical region of their origin, social class, purpose for wear,
and gender of the wearer must be specified, in order to narrow down
the multitude of choices. There is no substitute for looking at
Elizabethan gloves in
portraits, and I trust you have access to such materials on the Web
or in books. If you don't let the List know, and we can direct you to
those references. Gloves were decorated in a variety of ways,
including embroidery. If you need references to embroidery patterns
of the period, also please
write back.
Regarding construction, start with these two WebPages:
1000 ~GLOVES
HOW TO MAKE A PAIR OF GLOVES, ONE PAIR AT A TIME Book list,
According to ed. Leonid Tarassuk and Claude Blair: Under
"Gauntlets" Plate gauntlets replaced chain mail gauntlets
worn over leather gloves. "In fact the oldest ...
http://www.io.com/~ches/gloves.html
500 ~Stefan's Florilegium: Gloves, making gloves.
Edited by Mark S. Harris gloves-msg ...)gloves-msg - 6/29/98
Gloves. making gloves. NOTICE - This file is a collection of
various messages having a common theme that I have collected
from my reading of the various computer networks. Some
messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent ...
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/rialto/gloves-msg.html
-----------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: H-COST: H-COST - Bronzino's "Lady with a Puppy
-Poster: Scott Hulett
Carolyn,
I've seen and made this sort of shirt. It is very simple to make
though
not easy and looks beautiful when finished. There is a similar shirt
on a
woman by Bronzino on pg 53 of Lives of the Courtesan by Lynne
Lawner
"Protrait of Laura Battiferri". She wears this same sort of shirt
though with
less embroidery. I will attempt to explain though if you would like,
I will
diagram and fax or mail instructions to you.
Seven yards is plenty and your fabric weight sounds right. The shirt
is basically a cylinder that is gather/smocked into a neck band. I
used a
beautiful white trim 'cause I don't have patience for embroidery, but
smocking would work great.
First, you will need to decide on your measurements. Here are
mine:
1.5" for ruffle
1.5" for neck band
5" for shoulder
13" for arm hole(remember, when you cut the arm hole, it will really
be 26
inches)
34" for length.
Mark this on pattern paper going down the long side. If you fabric is
45"
wide it will be less full, if it is 54" or 60" it will be really full
'cause
your going to add all these together and that is the length of your
tube
which will be gathered/smocked into the neck.
Finish the top edge of your fabric,after you cut the length, with
lace or a
rolled edge. I like bobbin lace, it looks very rennaisance.
Lay the fabric out with the selvedges together in the middle, and the
edges
should be folds.
This will look like a long tube with lace at the top.
Now get your measurements out and start marking on the outside
edge/fold.
>From the top of the ruffle to the top of the neck
band/smocking
>From the top of the neckband to the bottom of the
neckband/smocking
>From the bottom of the neck band/smocking to the point of the
shoulder
>From the point of the soulder to the bottom of the arm
hole*
*1/2 of the arm hole, should be around 13 inches on average*
>From the bottom of the arm hole to the length you
desire
(for smocking)(may by substituted with trim)
Mark the fabric where you are going to smock at your measurement for
the neck
band.
If the selveges look good enough to be your opening, just leave them,
or if
not, finish the selvedges, but only enough to make the shirt opening,
say 9
inches including the ruffle, neckband and opening.
Smock it.
Cut the 13" arm slit.(cut it straight down the fold)
Cut a small triangular piece to sew into the top of the arm hole to
make it
easier to gather into, 2x2x2".
Sew in triangular piece.(Bottom will be a straight side, two points
sew into
the top corner of the sleeve)
Gather a rectanglar sleeve into the arm hole (arm length by twice
total arm
hole)
Gather wrists into band or smock or drawstring.
Sew the tube up the front from the bottom to the finished
opening.
Have someone mark a nice hem for you.
Hem.
Croche on some ties or sew on some gross grain at the collar for
ties.
Hope this helps. If I've missed a step, I'm sure one of you will
catch and
refine it.
Cheers, jd
-----------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 06:53:29 -1000
From: Carole Frick
Subject: H-COST: Bronzino "shirt"
Dear All,
I am new to the listserv, and am fascinated by the details of
costume-making you discuss. Having never posted before, I thought
I'd
contribute an historical clothing note on the Bronzino "shirt". This
is a very fancy (16th-c.) version of the Italian "camicia," which was
the washable undergarment worn by men, women and children alike
underneath their more constructed overgarments. In the backgrounds of
15th-c. paintings, you can often see wet undershirts hanging out to
dry on wooden rods attached to the sides of Florentine palazze below
the windows. (Masaccio, in his Brancacci Chapel frescoes)
A "camicia," made by a female undergarment specialist known as a
"camiciaia," (oddly enough), was of linen, cotton, or occasionally a
thin silk. The rich used fine linen "rensa" from Rheims. It was
rather long,
reaching to just about knee length, had amply-cut sleeves (which
often were
poufed out of sleeve slashings), and formed the major part of a
person's
personal linens, which the Italians called "biancheria". The
Renaissance
Italians also had special "camicie" for winter, called "camicie da
verno,"
which presumably were made of a heavier fabric. Cheers!
-----------------------------------------------
From: "Hope H. Dunlap"
Subject: RE: H-COST: Fabric width?
There were shifting standards for the "ell" as a unit of measurement,
and to make it worse, there was a different "ell" in each country. At
one time the English ell was about 2 yards, ie finger tip to
fingertip. Then it was
shrunk to about 1.5 yards. The actual yard was established during the
time of Henry I in 12th Century England, as 36 inches or three feet.
In 1406, a group of weavers protested to the King to get the ell
established at 5 quarters, ie 5 quarter yards, or 45." Hence the
typical 45" fabric width today. This doesn't answer your question
exactly, but see F.W. Maitland's *Domesday Book and Beyond* for more
info like this. By the way, a "nail" is a sixteenth of a yard or 4.5
inches, though it has been many moons since a fabric store would sell
you that minimum cut length, before my time, but within this
century.
-----------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:15:07 -1000
From: Carole Frick
Subject: H-COST: cotehardie
Dear Colleen,
About the "cotehardies" you are looking at in the late medieval
Sienese
Good Government frescoes....I would call these tight-sleeved,
close-fitted
long-skirted garments on the young women "gamurre" (singular
"gamurra"). A
"gamurra" was just a woman's basic dress, and up until about 1450
had
attached sleeves, but later the sleeves were usually detachable. The
term
"gamurra" is most often seen in 14th and 15th-c. Tuscan sources, but
the
Venetians had the word "zimarra," and up in Milan, you see "camora;
again,
the same word with regional differences.
In the 15th-c. usually a "gamurra" was unlined, and was worn over
a
"camicia," (the washable linen underblouse). In the art of
earlier
centuries however, sometimes it looks as though the "gamurra" is
being worn
alone, although I tend to doubt it.....as the "camicia" was the
late-medieval version of a woman's underwear, and in fact was ALL she
wore
under her dress....panties being considered risque. (pants were ONLY
for men)
About the backlacing, I doubt it. I DO know that these garments were
made
of a wide range of fabric, from linen, to silk and the same
stretchable
"perpignano" cloth (a wool jersey) that hose were fashioned from.
Plus
that, backlacing would have required assistance from another person,
and
it just doesn't sound right for the historical time-period, place,
and
range of social classes that wore this sort of garment. Hope this
helps.
-----------------------------------------------
From: Merouda the True
Subject: Re: Buttons a possible solution?
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:23:12 -1000
Those I know who have tried this method, including myself, have found
that the instructions as drawn out in the Museum of London Textiles
and Clothing (MLTC) are grossly inaccurate. For one thing, there is
nothing inside the button to make it hard. A soft button does not go
through a button hole. Especially one on such a tight sleeve. There
is no fabric shank on the extant buttons themselves either that we
could see. At least not the ones included in the book. If you look at
the flattened buttons on the next page you will see that the raw
edges are tucked inside the button. This is not what the result would
have been if using the drawn instructions.
This Sunday several of us were making cloth buttons. And
demonstrating how,
after experimentation and several prototypes, we make them
differently than
described in MLTC. We all make them the same! And thought we had
been
clever! I figure if so many of us came to the same conclusion
separately,
there must be something to it. :) So now that I've opened my big
mouth, I
guess I have to try to explain how we *do* make them.
Okay, here goes.
You need many many little 1 - 1.25" circles of fabric, a sturdy
needle
threaded double.
1. Take small running stitches around the edge of the circle of
fabric.
2. Pull thread tightly forming a pouch.
3. Flatten pouch so that all raw edges are facing towards the center
of a
small flat round circle
(this is the hardest part to explain) They look similar to
quilting
yo-yo's you find in craft stores.
4. Take small running stitches around the perimeter (the very edge of
the
fabric)
5. Pull thread tightly while holding your pinky finger in the center.
You
should have a little raspberry type cup with all the raw edges
inside. The
tighter you pull the thread the harder and tighter the little cup
gets until
it's a ball.
6. Run the thread back and forth through the opening, securely
closing the
cup into a ball.
7. Take a length of thread (I use button hold twist) and make the
shaft. I
take a bamboo skewer or other thin stick and sew several atimes
around
through the button and over the stick. This leaves a very loose and
sturdy
shank.
8. Sew the button onto the garment running thread through the shank
loop
not the button. Once the button is secure, wrap the leftover thread
around
and around forming a tight raised shank.
9. Tie off.
-----------------------------------------------
From: "Suzanne Berry"
Subject: Re: Late 14 century hats/transparent fabric source
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:08:16 -1000
If there are a bunch of you ordering or you need other fabrics as
well, Rupert Gibbon and Spider's price for silk gauze goes as low as
$1.70 a yard; their highest price is $2.23 a yard if your order's
under $70. This stuff takes dye like a dream, and is
transparent...
go to dharma tradings website-dharmatrading.com iirc. they sell silk
and rayon and cotton gauze 'sarongs' that are 30x60 inches and very
transparent. they all take dye beautifully!
margali
-----------------------------------------------
From: "Hope H. Dunlap"
Subject: RE: H-COST: Figuring out Elizabethan (long)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:28:06 -1000
It's my understanding that the modern style self-fabric waistband
dates from about 1630 or 1640, a generation after Elizabeth I. In the
Elizabethan period, re: tapes, I think we are talking about an
anchoring device for pleats, a way of dealing with the top of a
petticoat or an apron, no?
>My understanding of the "waistband" used for a women's
skirt/kirtle/petticoat is more of a bias type strip running along the
top, anchoring the pleats. More than likely this was not a bias cut
strip of self fabric, but a tape, woven on a little tape loom.
Stronger, no stretch, and less wasteful of material. Sometimes folded
over the top of the gathers and sometimes just used flat.