From: Gretchen Miller Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 16:43:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 338, 7/12/95 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 338, July 12, 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: Gloves for dancing Red dyes for linen Victorian men's dancing pumps Question and answer: Costume museums in the Low Countries Victorian hairstyles Question and answers: Lack o'digests ISO: Little Woodhams 1642 shoe patterns Please keep excerpts to a minimum Woad Warriors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Monica Shen Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 12:12:23 -0700 Subject: Re: 1837-1847 dance outfit > Also, were gloves always used when dancing? > I've seen the following Victorian quote (paraphrased): "It is as vulgar to dance without gloves as it is to eat while wearing gloves." So, I learned TWO lessons out of that one. -Monica Shen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 13:11:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Heather Rose Jones Subject: Re: Red dye On Thu, 6 Jul 1995 BJHILL@STTHOMAS.EDU wrote: > Another red dye would be vermillion. I know of this to be a dye for body paint > > but also could be theoretically used for clothing. > > My dictionary describes it as "a bright red pigment consisting of mercuric > sulfide; broadly: any of various red pigments or a variable color averaging a vivid reddish orange." > Don't make the mistake of confusing dyes and pigments. For a dye to color cloth, it needs to be incorporated into the physical or chemical structure of the fibers in some fashion. Water-solubility is a key characteristic. Many (although not all) pigments used for paint are not soluble, they are simply suspensions of very finely ground particles. Vermillion is one of these. You could paint cloth with it, but I don't believe it would be possible to dye cloth with it. While I don't doubt that vermillion was used as body paint historically, this would be a VERY BAD IDEA. Like all mercury compounds, it can be absorbed through the skin and is extremely toxic. Heather Rose Jones ------------------------------ Date: 06 Jul 1995 16:24:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Library - Vineland Research Station Subject: 1837-1847 The reproduction shoe company Timefarer in Britain does a nifty looking c. 1800 men's dress pump, but they're pricey. If you are interested, I'll try to remember to get their address (at home right now). Sheridan Alder library@onrsvi.agr.ca ------------------------------ From: "Lassman, Linda" Subject: Re: Red dye Date: Thu, 06 Jul 95 10:07:00 PDT >Another red dye would be vermillion. I know of this to be a dye for body >paint but also could be theoretically used for clothing. > >I believe it comes from China, and would have been available in Europe as >early as the 14th C. I have seen references of it in North America as early >as the mid 1700's. > >My dictionary describes it as "a bright red pigment consisting of mercuric >sulfide; broadly: any of various red pigments or a variable color averaging >a vivid reddish orange." > >If someone has an OED maybe they could shed more light on this dye for us? > >brian hill bjhill@stthomas.edu My copy of the OED has almost 2 columns of information on vermillion. "Vermilion...A. sb. 1. Cinnabar or red crystalline mercuric sulphide, esp. in later use that obtained artificially, much valued on account of its brilliant scarlet colour, and largely used as a pigment or in the manufacture of red sealing-wax; also, any red earth resembling this and similarly used as a pigment." The earliest citation is 1296 "Acc. exch. K. R. 5/20 m. 4 In duabus libris de Vermelyon emptis." Definition 3.a is "Wool or yarn of a red or scarlet colour" with a citation dated 1388; definition 3.b is "A fabric dyed with vermilion" with a citation dated 1641. Both these usages are listed as being obscure. - Linda Lassman Winnipeg, Manitoba ------------------------------ From: Edward Wright Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 16:38:30 TZ Subject: Re: Red dye | Another red dye would be vermillion.... I believe it comes from China, and would | have been available in Europe as early as the 14th C. I have seen references of it in | North America as early as the mid 1700's.... My dictionary describes it as "a bright | red pigment consisting of mercuric sulfide; broadly: any of various red pigments | or a variable color averaging a vivid reddish orange." | | Elayne here again- | As far as I have seen in period dyers manuals and sources (pre-1600), | vermillion is not used as a dye. Vermillion comes from the vermiculus, which was the Latin word for kermes. Crimson comes from qermazi, which was the Arabic word for kermes. Vermillion and crimson did not then indicate the specific shades of red they do today. I suspect that the vermillion pigment based on mercuric sulfide probably arose later and took its name from the color, while the vermillion used in China and Europe was probably kermes. Thus, it would seem, both of you are correct. ------------------------------ From: "Tobey, Pam" Subject: costume museums-Netherlands&Belgium? Date: Thu, 06 Jul 95 18:48:00 PDT I am going over to the Netherlands and Belgium at the end of August and wonder if anyone knows of any good costume/textile museums in either country worth a visit. I am going to base myself in several different cities over three weeks and use my rail pass to take day trips, so I can go just about anywhere. And I will definitely be buying lace in Belgium. Is there a good lace museum I shouldn't miss? (I spent hours sketching in the Burano lace museum and look forward to doing something similar this trip. ) Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Tobey -------------------------- Tobeypam@washpost.com rmadillo@clark.net Ptobey@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 19:43:10 PDT From: Allan Terry Subject: Victorian hairstyles Gail, Victorian hairstyles changed a lot over the years and in any given year a variety of styles were in fashion. How you achieve them depends on how much hair you already have. Many styles require false hair to supplement today's medium and short hairstyles. In fact, many styles required false hair then, sometimes several hairpieces at once. Today you can buy precurled side curls, back curls, and braids that can be wound into different styles or unbraided to use as switches. It's an advantage to have hair you can just clip on. You can also buy bun rings to augment and support "Gibson Girl" styles. And floral clips and combs (I've bought great ones at Macy's) are good for concealing joins and adding bulk. I imagine that when Victorian women removed their hats for photography, they fixed up their hair before being photographed. Richard Corson's _Fashions in Hair: The First Five Thousand Years_, published in 1980 by Peter Owen in London, gives _many_ front and back views of Victorian women's hairstyles, with dates and nationalities. The drawings are clear enough that you can see the structure of the hairstyles. This is a huge book--719 pages with many drawings on each hairstyle plate. It covers men's hair too. Georgine de Courtais's _Women's Headdress and Hairstyles: In England from AD 600 to the Present Day_, published in 1988 by Batsford in London, is also a good book, but not nearly as large. Fran Grimble ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 00:13:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Ben Bishop Subject: Re: costume museums-Netherlands&Belgium? On Thu, 6 Jul 1995, Tobey, Pam wrote: > I am going over to the Netherlands and Belgium at the end of August and > wonder if anyone knows of any good costume/textile museums in either country > worth a visit. In Brussels is "The Museum of Costume and Lace" (actually "Musee du Costume et de la Dentelle"). The address is: rue de la Violette 6 (Grand-Place) 1000 Bruxelles (or at least that's what's on the poster bought there in 1982). They have rotating exhibits of Costume and Lace; my wife enjoyed it immensly, but the hotel she was staying at had never heard of the place. She never got to the Netherlands. Have fun! She also strongly recommends going to Bruge for lace (it is also a gorgeous town). Ben Bishop, Atlantic Consultants, Inc. aci@shore.net Fooling some of the people all of the time is often enough. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 16:18:57 +0000 From: "GILLIAN RICHARDS (02) 716 3712" Subject: Victorian England Hair (At last - one I can reply to!) In the 1985 film "Little Dorrit", starring (among others) Derek (sigh!) Jacobi and Alec Guinness, Little Dorrit herself, a "good" but poor woman, wore a large fine-straw poke bonnet outside. When inside, she took off the bonnet to reveal (gasp) a fine frilled linen bonnet. Under that, her hair was smoothly tied back to a small, rounded bun. No snood. Considering the other lengths this film went to to get historical accuracy, and it is supposedly set approx. 1848, this would be accruate. The "Middle Class" women shown in it (and from what I remember from paintings of the time) had hair where the front 1/4 was in 2 long sausage curls on each side, and all the hair aft of that tied back in a smooth bun. The front curls were specifically to hang at the front of their frilled bonnets, which gave me the impression that they would have curls all the way back (until they took the bonnets off) - so that's probably the impression intended. The frilled bonnets were made of fine batiste or similar material, covering most if not all the hair, and the frill was about 1/2 inch of gathered batiste around the front. One woman wore what looked like a mob capwith strings. The sister (Fanny?), whose morals were questionable (she worked in the theatre), had huge curls. I could understand contemporary references to buying curls that didn't quite match your real hair, and pinning them to the front of your fringe - the rest of your hair would be hidden by your bonnet. Finally, at some English stately home years ago , on a small cusion in one of the "public rooms", there was a "Day Bonnet", which was one of these little lacy things that a woman would wear across her hair inside during the day. She would, of course, don a bonnet to go outside, and the frill at the front of the lacy one would peep temptingly from under the Poke or other bonnet. (Thank you to everyone who answered my Wild West hair query - at least I know my server is working!) Gillian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 16:37:31 +0000 From: "GILLIAN RICHARDS (02) 716 3712" Subject: Gloves whilst being Formal Short Anecdote. When my mother lent me a pair of her 1960's formal 3-wrist-buttoned pearl gloves for a formal dinner, I asked her how to get them off to eat. She explained that one unbuttons the wrist, removes the hand from the hand part of the glove, and tucks that hand part back down the wrist of the glove, thus leaving most of the arm still covered but the hands bare. I thought this was very silly, looked ugly, and was damned difficult to do (especially as she has much smaller hands than me). Last year I saw the Queen Mother at a formal dinner, with her long gloves' hand bits tucked back into her wrists during dinner . . . Remind me to apologise to my mother please someone! Gillian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 23:24 WET From: bach@lava.net (Terry A. Bach) Subject: no Mail! Hi all from Laura in Hawaii! I was just wondering if I was dropped from the list. I sure hope not! I really like this list, and all the great information. I sent a letter to the list on July 01, regarding body forms, and since that day, I haven't gotten a digest. But, I did recieve a few responses to my posting. Thanks to those who offered advice. Laura, not Terry, that's my husband! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 11:10:48 +0100 (BST) From: Dorothy Stein Subject: Re: red dye for linen In the 17th and 18th centuries, what made Indian cottons so wildly popular in Europe was that the Indians possessed the secret of red dyes that would survive washing. Once the secret was discovered (in France, I believe), it was only a matter of time before European cottons competed successfully with ( and eventually ruined) the Indian textile industry. On Thu, 6 Jul 1995, andrea ruth leed wrote: > To the best of my knowledge, the brightest, most colorful red of the time > came from cochineal (the exoskeloton of some tropical beetle or other) > that was colorfast on both vegetable and animal (wool and silk) fibers. > It was used in Turkey and the middle east a thousand years ago, if not > more. Linen is a hard fabric to dye. The only other common red dye I > know of is madder, which is a pain to use and usually results in a > pinkish red color, unless one uses a month's salary to create a > quadruple-strength dye solution. > > Drea > > On Wed, 5 Jul 1995 TheaG@aol.com wrote: > > > While having a rambling discussion the other day, the topic of dyeing linen > > red came 'round. One participant voiced the opinion that a bright red dye > > (such as we now have) was not possible with natural dyes and that when an > > historic source refers to cloth being "red", the actual color was more what > > we now would call brown. > > > > 1. Is there a natural dye that > > a. produces a bright red > > b. produces a bright red when applied to linen fabric > > c. was available in Europe (Italy?) in the 16th century > > d. was used in Europe (Italy?) in the 16th century > > > > 2. Would such a dye have been > > a. used on linen fabric > > b. colorfast (and to what degree) > > > > While I'm at it, would linen fabric have been used as the main outer fabric > > for a gown or doublet, etc.? > > > > Thea > > TheaG@aol.com > > > > > ============================= > aleed@ezmail.ucs.indiana.edu > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 10:56:08 +0100 (BST) From: Dorothy Stein Subject: Re: Hair - up and/or covered I once read that Queen Anne Boleyn was described as riding to her coronation 'sitting in her hair'. The fact that the writer thought this worthy of note indicates that this was not a usual way for women to appear in public. It may also carry a note of disapproval for Anne to appear so flamboyant on this occasion. (Note that Henry VIII did not accompany her; hence her display of hair might have seemed both provocative and defiant.) On 5 Jul 1995, Karen Lovejoy wrote: > Reply to: RE>Hair - up and/or covered C19th > > That is one of my pet peeves. I have been in the SCA for 15 years and as a > 16th cent Elizabethan noble woman, my hair is always up in a coif or > escoffion. I have tried for years to persuade others that a) wearing your > hair up is the more period way to wear it, and b) at camping events it stays > much cleaner and neater that way. I also hate it in movies when the clothes > aren't to far off period but the hair is flying every which way. Drives me > crazy. Oh well, maybe if more like minded folk get on the band wagon we can > make a change here. > > -------------------------------------- > Date: 7/5/95 0:46 > To: Karen Lovejoy > From: GILLIAN RICHARDS (02) 716 3712 > Greetings, > > I have recently been reading a lot of US 19C frontier Women's Autobiographies > > (and watching the Wild West series on our Government channel) and one thing > that > struck me was the difference in hairstyles between what was written/shown as > documentary and ANYTHING done as fiction/historical fiction/movie/series. > > THe "genuine" sources all stated that once a girl started wearing corsets and > > her dress was full-length, then her hair was up anywhere in public, and at > the > very least in plaits or otherwise confined at other times (like when at home > with the family - and even then only while doing extremely hard work or in > very > isolated areas) > > I cannot recall any movie or series where at least one of the "women's" hair > was > loose around her shoulders or back in a normal situation (like doing the > shopping or visiting neighbours). Would this not be considered extremely > uncouth? > > As a long-hair myself, my hair only comes out at exceptional parties - and > even > then it's held back with combs. It would get far too grubby otherwise, nit to > > mention knotted. > > (I also wonder if my messages are getting on - I certainly get them back, but > I > have never seen a reply to any of them - we have a weird server here and > there > are suspicions that it may be being "censored" - could someone just privately > > e-mail me to let me know they've seen this? sorry to let my insecurities get > in > the way). > > Yours > > Gillian > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 07:34:38 +0500 From: artg@nchgr.nih.gov (Art Glatfelter) Subject: Mercury I would strongly discourage the use of Vermillion or another mercuric compound, Orpiment, in body paints. Orpiment was used in wax writing tablets to give the wax opacity and colour. Both are toxic, increasing the risk of poisoning with successive exposures. ------------------------------ From: Cpt11Miss@aol.com Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 23:49:53 -0400 Subject: Re: 1837-1847 dance outfit Dear Jeffery: My name is Karen Chartrand and I am dance mistress of the Royal Lancers Vintage Dance Troupe. We specialize in dance 1820-1865. Timefarers out of Inverness Scotland has the best reproduce dancing pumps for men, however they run around $200.00 depending on the pound/dollar exchange. They are as accurate as you will find. Due to the cost some Vintage Dance Troupes opt to use ballet slippers. However they do not accurately portray the look of the dancing slipper of the time; yet, they will allow your men to execute the proper foot positions, deportment and grace during the dance. Gloves should be worn by both ladies and gentlemen and they should be of white or 'yellow' (ecru) kid leather. Men were to carry an extra pair in their coat breast pocket just in case one pair becomes soiled, they have another to replace them with. For both sexes they should fit like a second skin. Ladies should also carry a hankerchief " as snowy and fine as a spider web." (If I can answer questions concerning attire, E-mail me your specific questions and I'll answer) I have written a book on ballroom etiquette 1850-1865 which may help. Although a little past your time period some etiquette applies to your era. Also the book From the Ballroom to Hell will give you many quotes and references for the period you are portraying. (FYI: have held numerous historic dance dance workshops (large and small groups), lectures on ballroom etiquette and attire, hosted Grand Balls (1860s) and make period ballroom attire if you are desiring help in any of those areas of dance. If I can answer any questions or whatever, do not hesitate to E-mail me privately or write/ call! Karen Chartrand, Dance Mistress Royal Lancers Vintage Dance Troupe (c. 1820-1865) 1133 Dietrich Rd Foristell, MO 63348 314-463-1122 E-mail arisaid@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 07:56:23 +0000 From: carncare@aladdin.co.uk (Roland Carn) Subject: Little Woodhams 1642 shoe patterns I am looking for authentic patterns of shoes worn by country villagers in 1642. Can anyone help please? Little Woodhams is a re-enactment "village" in Gosport, Hampshire, UK. If it had existed in 1642, it would have been a very small hamlet burried in the forest between Portsmouth and Southampton. For a few weeks in each year we try to re-anact the life of a typical Hampshire village in 1642 just before the Civil War - the UK Civil War, Oliver Cromwell and all that. Gosport Living History Society runs the village. It used to be financed by Gosport Council but this year the GLHS took full responsibility for managing the village and its enactments. We staff and run the village for only a few weeks in the summer. We have several thousand visitors each year, mainly children on school visits. Each of us plays and researches our own role. The main families and characters are predefined and played by the more established members of the Society. The other characters, itinerants, woodsmen and soldiers are more flexible. I usually play a wench (woman of easy virtue) or a dairymaid. I have made my main costume. The "itinerant" shoemaker has agreed to make me some shoes but he needs a pattern to work from. We aim for reasonable to good historical accuracy in our clothes, language, behaviour and knowledge of the events of 1642. Susann Carn Carn Consultants 10 Laburnum Grove Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9DJ UK Tel: +44 (0) 1703 363232 Fax: +44 (0) 1703 363233 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 08:51:18 -0700 From: Alison Kondo Subject: Formal Gloves I had also heard about the custom of folding gloves back to eat & noticed it in "Age of Innocence". A more modern comment on the custom turned up in (I think) "What We Wore"; mentioning that the girls at proms in the 1950's & 60's had to turn back their gloves the same way when they snuck out for a smoke, to avoid nicotine stains on the white gloves. (I don't smoke, so I don't know how much this would really stain...). Alison ------------------------------ From: close@lunch.engr.sgi.com (Diane Barlow Close) Subject: Re: no Mail! Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 08:26:52 -0700 (PDT) > ... I was just wondering if I was dropped from the > list. ... I sent a letter to the list on July 01, regarding body forms, > and since that day, I haven't gotten a digest. This list is run by hand, not by an automatic server, so the digests are produced when the admin (Gretchen) has time to do them. That usually means you can expect to receive a couple digests delivered once a week. Sending the commands: index h-costume to the archiver server (which IS an automatic program): majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com will send you back a list of all previous digests (and other available files). From that you should be able to see if you missed any recent ones. -- Diane Close close@lunch.engr.sgi.com I'm at lunch all day. :-) ------------------------------ From: close@lunch.engr.sgi.com (Diane Barlow Close) Subject: Watch that included text, please! Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 08:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Please watch how much included text you have in your articles when doing followups, people. I've noticed that some of you are typing a couple lines and then including the entire 80+ line original message! That's quite excessive and there's no need to include the ENTIRE ORIGINAL ARTICLE when commenting on a post! It's bad for the digest and not nice for those who have to pay for e-mail by the byte. It's also considered bad net manners too. So please delete excessive text from your posts when doing follow-ups. Just include enough of the original text so that people know what the article is about and/or to whom you are replying. Thanks! -- Diane Close close@lunch.engr.sgi.com I'm at lunch all day. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 95 16:55:57 BST From: Alan Braggins Subject: Woad (Re: H-Costume Digest, Volume 333, 7/7/95) > > > I'm curious on what basis you believe this is "correct to a degree". Are > > there historical refernces to Wallace's men painting their faces blue? > > > No documentation, so I probably shouldn't even fan the fire, but I > always heard, (before this movie came out) That they stripped naked & > painted their whole bodies blue. I may be victim of a legend. > > ------------------------------ > Subject: Braveheart/Woad > > The use of woad as facial paint is an an anachronism in Braveheart. The > Picts painted their faces with woad, wore tattoos, and went naked into > battle, but this was documented over 1000 years before > William Wallace. Anachronistic or not, I did enjoy the movie! > Well, there's an obvious answer here. Clearly, Wallace's army included historical reenactors, but they weren't dedicated enough to strip naked for battle (not having this list for inspiration). Doesn't that make more sense than some film director making it up because he thought it looked cool? Then again, maybe not... ------------------------------ End of Volume 338 -----------------------