From: Gretchen Miller Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:56:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 279, 4/13/95 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 279, April 13, 1995 Send items for the list to h-costume@andrew.cmu.edu (or reply to this message). Send subscription/deletion requests and inquiries to h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu Enjoy! ------------------------------ Topics: Cotton, period definitions and more Keeping hems clean in living history museum More on the Winter/Schultz book(s) Question and answers:Lace up boots with french heel Costume house for Shakespeare costumes Undying silk/rayon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BPH3213@ACS.TAMU.EDU Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 13:59:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Cotton ; a defense of the plant As the debate about cotton continues, I thought I would add some fodder to the fire. A recent posting (sorry, don't have the ref at hand) mentioned the use of the term "cotton" as meaning wool. I would like to suggest the use of the term "wool" may be more generic than cotton. To discuss what the 17th or 18th century person meant when he or she said "cotton", such as the Cromwellian clothing mentioned, I went through several dictionaies of the period. Here is what they said: 1. 1676 An English Dictionary (Elisha Coles) cotton: (coton) frize, bombasin. bombasin: bombasine, stuff made of Bombast or cotton. Bombast: an Asia plant a cubit high. In 1676 we have no indication of cotton meaning anything other than the plant fibre if we are to believe the meaning of the word as given in a roughly contemporaneous dictionary. 2. 1658 The New World of English Words (Edward Phillips) Cotton is defined exactly as the above 1676 entry. (the word "wool" does not appear in either dictionary other than in defining things related to the wool trade, which always referred exclusively to sheep). 3. 1708 Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum (John Kersey) cotton: a sort of Stuff contained in the Fruit of the Tree of the same Name. Also the wooly Down, or Mossines of some fruits. wool: again, not defined alone, but appears in relation to trades involving sheep. However, the term "wooly" used here and in some other dictionaries, suggests "wool" was applied to cotton (the plant) but there has yet to be a dictionary suggested use of the word "cotton" for wool. 4. 1757 Linguae Britannicae Vera Pronunciato (James Buchanan) cotton: 1. A sort of _wool_ that grows upon a tree of the same name. 2. A stuff made of it. wool: That soft hairy substance that grows upon the backs of sheep. So here, we see cotton called a sort of wool from a tree, but no mention of cotton as any sort of a (sheep derived) wool, nor having any meaning as to cheap cloth of diverse sorts. I'll spare you the rest of the dictionaries I perused, but all were as these. Thus, my question is, what etomolgical _proof_ can be offered that when we read "cotton" in the 17th and 18th century, it meant anything other than cotton? So far all I have seen suggests cotton was just that, a plant fibre. New sources of factual information would be welcome. Bryan P. Howard Dept. of Anthropology (Historical Archaeology) Texas A&M bph3213@acs.tamu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 12:10:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Tracy Miller Subject: Re: book question On Thu, 6 Apr 1995, Razmus the Innocent wrote in response to my post: Maybe things have changed. Does your flyer give a date or anything? We could all cross our fingers... > I don't have the flyer in front of me (and really doubt I could be > able to find it -if it fell into my fabric pile, it will never be seen > by man again...) but I do remember the flyer mentioning that the > book on Edwardian Costuming would come out first. And either the > Victorian or Elizabethan book (or both) would be rewritten. > > Sounds like you may have the more up-to-date info. Cool! Getting even more hopeful, Tracy ------------------------------ From: ejp@watson.ibm.com Subject: Re: 1870s costuming for a museum Date: Thu, 06 Apr 95 15:38:39 -0500 I know how I'd try to solve this one: velcro. It WILL be annoying, because even if you take a 1" strip and cut it in half the long way, it WILL provide some stiffness, but it'll make it easy to wash, and this increases the chances that it will GET washed. Put the scratchy hook side on the garment, so that the fuzzy loop side is the part that gets washed. Machine-overcast the cut edge of the velcro before you attach it, too. If you can, make the washable lining look like an under-ruffle. Get something that looks good enough with the fashion fabric that it won't hurt horribly for it to show. It'd be a nice touch if you could incorporate the washable lining fabric elsewhere in the garment, too, and, heaven only knows, in an 1870s dress you'll surely have the opportunity. :) cheers, ejp -------- Elizabeth Poole Yorktown Heights, NY ejp@watson.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: ehp648c@crusher.dukepower.com Subject: Re: costuming for a museum Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 15:43:41 -0400 (EDT) > > Greetings, > I have a question I'm hoping someone out there can answer, or at least > offer some advice on. I'm making two 1870's gowns out of Janet Arnold's > Patterns of Fashion 2 for Strawbery Banke museum in Portsmouth, NH and > I've been asked to come up with a way to keep the hems as clean as > possible. Basically, the museum can't afford to have the dresses cleaned > often and they're going to be worn both inside a historic house and > outside in a garden. Both dresses touch the ground and have slight > trains. I've been trying to come up with some sort of easily-removable > lining for the hems, something that can be pulled off and tossed into a > washing machine and re-attached without great fuss. The period solution is "brush braid", which was sewn around the inside of a hem to collect dust. You then spent some time with a stiff clothes brush removing the dirt after each wearing. See Gwen Raverat's fascinating memoir PERIOD PIECE. What fabric are you making the gowns out of? If it's a stiff, heavy fabric, lining the hem with some modern equivalent of brush braid (velveteen? decorative upholstery braiding?), and asking the staff to vacuum it after each wearing might be a very workable solution. Betsy Perry betsyp@vnet.net PERIOD PIECE is delightful reading in its own right; Gwen Raverat was a Darwin niece, and her thoughts about her famous uncles are great fun. ------------------------------ From: BPH3213@ACS.TAMU.EDU Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 15:19:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Cotton, the thread continues Having given some dictionary evidence concerning the cotton debate in my last post, I will now add some more fuel in the hopes of encouraging more productive debate. Having defended cotton as a plant, here is some evidence to suggest the use of the word cotton not as a noun, but as a process. In _Textile manufacturers in early modern England_ (Eric Kerridge 1985. ISBN 0-7190-1767-x), there is a *process* called "cottoning" mentioned which does occur to woolen cloth. "A cotton or frize seche had a soft, fluffy nap raised on it by half or dry-frizzing on a cottoning board.." (p. 19). "Plains [a woolen in this context], had been cottoned in this way for centuries". Thus, if the material mentioned in the Cromwellian clothing were *cottoned* rather than "cotton", there is evidence to argue for a woolen cloth rather than cotton fibre. However, the post mentioned linen and cotton shirts if I recall, and there is yet another suggestion that this elsewhere was a reference to a material like fustian, of linen and cotton, (one cloth). In _The Textile Industries of the United States_ William Bagnall (1971 ISBN 0-678-00735-7) states that as early as 1643 cotton (the plant fibre) was imported from the West Indies for use in cloth manufacture together with linen. Other references, however, from the 1640s refer to cotton woolens, either suggesting a) cotton cloth being referred to as woolens, thus "woolens" being the generic term for some cloths, or b) wollen cloth that had been cottoned as a manufacturing process. So, we have dictionary references which suggest the use of the word cotton as confined to the plant, but records from Mass. suggesting a more universal use of the word. As for the availability of cotton, according to Andrew Watson (The Rise and Spread of Old World Cotton, 1977 in Studies in Textile History), it was well established by Muslim influence in lower Europe, the Mediterranean, and Africa by about AD 1500 (out of India and Eygpt). Thus, due to trade and colonial activity, it was available in the 17th century, only having the barrier of trade regulations on cloth. We also see cotton plantations spring up in the West Indies and Virginia by the mid 17th century, with the 1st North American cotton "mill" said to be in 1643 in Rowley, MA. To end with (for now), here's just a tad more to think on as we continue the cotton debate. Cromwell, as I understand it, was himself a fuller of woolen cloth, and during his rule, banned the export of sheep, yarn, or raw wool to the colonies. This in iteself would possibly encourage cotton use in the colonies... Perhaps we need to limit out timeframe and geographic scope more to really get at the root of the cotton dilema.. Apologies for the length of my cotton posts, but I'm writing a dissertation on related matters... Bryan P. Howard bph3213@acs.tamyu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 13:53:35 -0700 From: Alison Kondo Subject: Book question I think the first blurb I saw for the proposed Winter/Schulz medieval book was "coming in 1987". I think I saw one or two dates after that, then just "coming soon". I asked because other "coming soon" publications from differnt author had appeared, while this one hadn't & I'd liked the other two books for "quick" (like "hi, we're having a costume party next weekend") costumes & hoped to see more of them. Alison ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 14:12:09 +0800 From: Linda.McAllister@Eng.Sun.COM (Linda McAllister) Subject: Re: 1870s costuming for a museum How did people in the 1870's solve this problem? I seem to remember reading somewhere that women sewed a strip of stiff braid (horsehair?) to the hem of their dresses. This would catch the mud, dust and worse in the streets. The braid could be removed for cleaning as needed. linda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 16:53:14 -0600 From: dockstad@stolaf.edu Subject: lace up boots with french heels I am costuming a production set in the 1890's and am in need of size 9 and 10 lace up black boots with french heels. I need a source to purchase them. Does anyone know of a source???? Thanks Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 16:46:44 -0500 (CDT) From: NAME Subject: Protective hem ruffle I seem to remember reading _somewhere_ that often a "horsehair" braid edged ruffle was sewn under skirts to protect the hem. As to how to do it without all the sewing, I am at a loss unless you are able to use the velcro idea. The number of buttons, hooks or snaps involved to keep the thing from gapping boggles the mind! (To say nothing of the fact you would probably be sewing them back on constantly as a foot caught in the hem and pulled it loose.) Unfortunately, I don't think you would do much better at keeping the velcro in place and you certainly don't want it to show if the ruffle pulls loose. What about a wide strip inside the hem with snaps or hooks to fasten a petticoat(with a protective ruffle) to the hem. It would keep the ruffle under the hem of the skirt, the petticoat could be washed regularly, and the ruffle replaced as needed. No problem with gapping if one hook or snap came loose, as the whole thing is supported at the waist! Just an idea. Bunny Moore KC Public Library me_bunny@kcpl.lib.mo.us ------------------------------ From: KATHLEEN@ANSTEC.COM Date: Thu, 06 Apr 95 17:30:40 EST Subject: Re: lace up boots with french heels PayLess was selling something similar last winter for about $15 or $20. I got a pair of white ones, which can be dyed. Good luck Kathleen kathleen@anstec.com ------------------------------ From: Razmus the Innocent Subject: Re: book question Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 18:44:05 -0400 (EDT) Tracy Miller asked: > > Maybe things have changed. Does your flyer give a date or anything? We could > all cross our fingers... [my previous iteration snipped] > Sounds like you may have the more up-to-date info. Cool! Well, I did find the flyer and my invoice for the book. The invoice (directly from Other Times Productions), is dated 2/23/95. The following is the flyer (forgive any typo's). --- Other Times Productions 361-60th Street Oakland, CA 94618 _Who_we_are_ OtherTimes Productions is a company that beleives a historical costume is simply clothing of another time period, which should be made and worn as such. Too many people look on historical costumes as something foreign to them, rather than their ancestors' everyday wear. In our books, we try to foster the idea that clothes of earlier time periods were worn by ordinary people who lived and worked in them just as we do today. We show how people dressed, from the skin out, in order to conform to the fashions of their times, and by doing, we think we help our readers make their own adaptations of historical fashions that will meet their needs better than simply copying the look of a paiting or fashion plater. Our books do not claim to be the last word in authentic historical detailing, but are written as guides for people who need to or want to dress in historical clothing, whether for work (such as stage play), or for thier own pleasure. Directions have been simplified so any competent home sewer should be able to tackle all but the most complicated projects. We include /Tricks of the Trade/ for readers who may have little theatrical background, and historical notes so there will be some sense of time period being covered. We think this gives a better, more rounded presenation than a mere listing of what was worn when, along with a few pictures to illustrate the text. _What_we've_done_so_far_ Our first book, /Elizabethan Costuming/, now in a second edition, was originally written as a costume guide for participants and attendees of the Renaissance Pleasure Faire, which is put on by Living History Centre in California twice a year. The Faire is set in an imaginary Elizabethan village and is constantly striving for that fine balance between theatricality and historical authenticity. We had both worked for several years as actresses at the Faire and had made many costumes both for ourselves and out fellow actors, when we decided to try our hand at writing a guide for other people who wanted to make their own costumes. This effort was so successful that we decided to write another book, this one aimed at participants and attendees of the Dickens Christmas Faire, also put on by the Living History Centre, in the San Francisco Bay Area every Christmas. This second book was called /Victorian Costuming, Volume I (1840-1865)/, and covered the period of voluminous bell-shaped skirts and the hoops which supported them. This second book is due to be revised and expanded sometime in the future. _What_we're_doing_next_ After preliminary work on the second volume of the Victorian Costuming series (1865-1890), we have had to stop work on it for several reasons. First and foremost has been the need to make a living while we establish ourselves. Once we have more books out there, they should generate enough income so we can put more time into producing them. In the meantime, we have to keep food on the table and squeeze time for writing as we can. With apologies to all out loyal readers who have asked for the second Victorian book, we must announce the following changes to our publishing schedule. We are currently trying to complete the first volume of the Medieval Costuming series (1000-1300). It might be followed immediately by a second volume covering 1300-1400. This will partly depend on finances at that time. Then we will get back to work on the second Victorian volume and try to crank it out as quickly as possible, perhaps closely followed by a book on Edwardian Costuming (1890-1910) or one on Regency Costuming (1790-1820). Somewhere in there, we want to rework the first Victorian volume so it is up to the standards of the others. After that, we want to cover the later Middle Ages with Renaissance Costuming (1400-1485), and Tudor Costuming (1485-1550), perhaps in two volumes, then continuing forward through the Stuarts and the Georges. By that time, we should be more independent of the workaday world and be able to publish more regularly than we have before. Eventually, we plan to do books on all historical periods from the Ancient World up to the Twentieth Century. We expect this will take many years, but we've got lots of time. There are other projects in the works, related to our interest in historical costuming, but they will happen as time allows. Janet Winter Carolyn Savoy ----------------------------------------------------- That's what they sent me... it's not dated though - I have a telephone number listed - (510)655-7168 - If anyone finds out anything more current, please let me know... (My main persona is (1375-1425) and would love to get ahold of some of those volumes.) My apologies to anyone who didn't want all this info... -- Razmus the [Innocent | Pure] of Norwode AKA: Rich Weissler [azrael@access.digex.com] "Victim of a Random Shooting on the Infobahn." Ethernet (n): something used to catch the etherbunny ------------------------------ From: OWirght@aol.com Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 19:11:17 -0400 Subject: Re: Shakespeare costumes HI Gail, It is nice to meet someone else who designs builds and dresses, not to mention the maintainence et al. I have used Malabar of Toronto, Ontario, Canada for a number of productions. The have built for Tanya Moishewicz (sp?) and other known designers, and primarily dress opera and classic theatre. (Stratford). They are very helpful, and , I think, reasonable. Call 4l6-598-2581. Anne ------------------------------ Date: 06 Apr 95 19:16:40 EDT From: Eddie Broneske <100527.1074@compuserve.com> Subject: Lace up boots with french heels This reply is to Sandy, who posted a question on 4/6/95 regarding lace up boots: Have you tried Amazon Drygoods 2218 E. 11th St. Davenport, IA 52803 Phone #: (319) 322-6800 Fax #: (319 322-4003 Orders Only: 1-800-798-7979 Hope this helps! Joan Broneske 100527.1074@Compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: OWirght@aol.com Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 19:29:30 -0400 Subject: Re: 1870s costuming for a museum re: dust catcher for long skirts. You would line the train in a removable lining ie: muslin . In antique clothing I have had the good fortune to examine, there was a 3" velveteen ribbon sewn (basted) to the bottom. This was a silk dress in which the hem was faced in heavy linen (12") which was sewn to the lining, and the edge had a 2" horsehair braid. The lining was a cotton sateen, and the velveteen was basted from just over the edge of the skirt, and folded up over the edge to the inside. This gave a very sturdy hem area, and the skirt never buckled. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 19:14:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Heather Rose Jones Subject: Re: Undying On Thu, 6 Apr 1995, Sarah Randles wrote: > I left a cream silk garment in a pile of clothes for handwashing. The pile > somehow got wet, and dye from another non-colour fast garment has migrated > to the silk in blotches, where it appears to be colour-fast. I have tried a > pre-wash stain remover,soap and soaking, but with no success. I will > eventually give bleach a go, but I would like to hear some less drastic > ideas first. Are the commercially available products (the one I can think > of is called Run-Away) bleaches or not? What will they do to silk? My suggestion: seriously consider dying the cream silk garment some color that will cover the stain. If your experience is anything like mine NOTHING YOU CAN DO will get the stain out. Bleach is an absolute no-no! If it doesn't simply dissolve the silk (one distinct possibility) it will discolor it even further and turn it a yucky yellow. I don't know about non-bleach stain removal products. Try taking it to a _good_ dry cleaner, explaining the problem thoroughly and throwing yourself on their mercy. (They'll probably make you sign a statement in blood saying you won't hold them responsible for the results.) Heather Rose Jones ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Apr 1995 23:15:09 -0400 From: longwave@mail.north.net (E. Cheung) Subject: Re: Dave R. ...no subject... >Hello Ed, > >I've seen your last two messages and thought I'd contact you directly. I am >interested in costume of the West as well. My best source on how clothing >was worn in any particular era has always been genre pictures and >photographs. Original source descriptions are also invaluable. Hello Dave; Sounds like what you know is what I would like to know also. My interest is in social change and how they are related to fashion. Being able to recognize fashion periods, it may be possible to relate them to social conditions of the period. I was hoping to avoid having to sit for days in the library going through many sources of photographs. Then there is the part of collection. It is not easy collecting copies of photographs from library books for personal reference. Even the photo copier is still a poor duplicator of photos. At least library copiers are. Keep in touch, I may have to draw on your resources in the future. Ed. ps. My mail server has a limited number of addresses on it and would not send this message to your computer so I had to post it here. I think I need a need internet provider. ------------------------------ End of Volume 279 -----------------------