From: Gretchen Miller Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 18:56:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 351, 7/27/95 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 351, July 27, 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: Fixing corset stays Thompsons water seal and oilcloth Corset patterns Shoulders and sleeves (was Tudor Bodice) Cleaning question "Irish Dress" back in print Question: Appropriate weights of leather Question: What is a lucet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 8:58:49 -0500 (CDT) From: Deb Subject: RE: Corset stays >Has anyone tried using acrylic spray paint to rust-proof their stays? >Seems like it would be quick and economical, but I haven't tried it. I routinely use nail polish, after I've cut and then ground-smooth my stays. I wash the corset infrequently, but it has never rusted. The Rit dye has run, but it never rusted! Gotta rinse my Rit dyes more carefully. <============================================================> < Deb Baddorf baddorf@fnal.gov Costumer, RevWar re-enactor ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 9:52:52 -0500 (CDT) From: Deb Subject: RE: Oil cloth >re: Thompsons water seal > How does this change the substance of the fabric? Does it smell? >(It is for a garment...) > Catriona It leaves some smell, which goes away with sufficient airing -- you could hang the coat (in your case) on the back porch for a few weeks between events. It might leave the fabric a tad stiffer, but I really can't notice it. However, I don't handle my tent very much, and it started with a real stiff canvas. Then again, a friend has a really thin muslin tent, and has treated it this way, and it still seems really thin and breeze catching (it moves). So I think it doesn't change the fabric much. For both questions: yes, yours is for a garment, but not one that you wear ALL the time. The only time I've noticed any smell on the tent was the first few uses (before sufficient airing), on a day when the hot sun was beating down on the tent. You are less likely to wear a rain-coat on such a day! You could test it on a scrap of the fabric ... Deb Baddorf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 10:10:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Deb Subject: RE: Another corset question re: 1730's corset Pattern? What pattern? I thought one had to make all this stuff from scratch. (Ok, so maybe somebody else will respond with a pattern source, but I haven't seen one.) In lieu of a pattern, find a book with the basic pattern shape drawn on a grid. That may be as close as you come to a pattern. The Arnold books have gowns; there might be a corset gridded too. You may also find some in books by Jean Hunnisett "PERIOD COSTUMES FOR STAGE AND SCREEN" and now a recent one which includes the 18th century (1700's). My library couldn't find that one, so I just bought my own copy at an event. "The Evolution of Fashion" by Hill & Bucknell definitely has gridded patterns, and includes the pointed front (and back) corsets. If you want it to be a one piece corset (closed in front) you take your test-fit muslin and add an inch or two to the front (where the laces had been) and sew a seam there instead. Remember that the front laces didn't actually meet, so you need to add a bit of fabric. Test Fit!!! The gridded pattern fits one size, and it probably isn't you. The bows on the shoulder are merely the strings/ribbons holding the shoulder strap in place. Boning patterns: the above books may be using more theatrical boning placement. I like the placement shown in Corsets & Crinolines (orig source is Diderot). They also show the early 1700's corset vs. the later 1700's corset: the early ones had a few more seams. So take your gridded pattern, and cut it in the shapes you see. <============================================================> < Deb Baddorf baddorf@fnal.gov Costumer, RevWar re-enactor ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 09:34:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Heather Rose Jones Subject: Re: Sleeves and Shoulders If I recall correctly, the original question had to do with a Renaissance-era gown with a neckline that was cut low and square both in the front and the back. And then there was this problem with the sleeves falling down. But I wonder if all the attention to "cheats" to keep the sleeves up isn't, perhaps, missing the point. One useful question is: _did_ these gowns have the neckline described? We know what the front looks like from many portraits, but people seem to assume that the back was cut identically. The very few back-views of gowns of this type that I can dredge up appear to have a v-shaped neckline in back. This would certainly help pull the sleeves _in_ rather than _out_. Other front or 3/4 views suggest (my personal interpretation) either this or a fairly high round line in back. Heather Rose Jones ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 12:36:58 -0600 From: Catherine Kinsey Subject: Cleaning Question I have a question for all the theatrical costumes, or anyone with a helpful suggestion; I have heard of a method for cleaning costumes using either grain or rubbing alchol. It is either spritzed on and allowed to evaporate or spritzed heavier and then soaked up. Is this for real? I have a couple of costumes I would like get through several weekends of midwest heat and humidity at a local renfair. The gentleman who will be wearing them sweats a lot, to put it mildly. It is a 1530's era Tudor costume of brocades which have been lined with cotton whenever possible. I would like to avoid dry-cleaning as much as possible because of the embellishements. Any helpful hints would be greatly appreciated. Cat' ckinsey@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu ------------------------------ From: DGC3%Rates%FAR@bangate.pge.com Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 10:43:19 PDT Subject: re:Re: Sleeves and Shoulders Heather, Thanks for making this point. Low-backed gowns seem to be a 20th century notion that we unwittingly impose on the past. I remember Victoria Ridenour pointing this out years ago in regard to Tudors, that ties holding the back straps together is not correct, although you may see "professional" theater costumes done this way. The Elizabethan back does not repeat the low-cut bosom. Re: the "cheats" and velcro to hold up lingerie straps: the earlier 20th c fix is a tiny bit of ribbon on a safety pin, with snaps on the ends. They used to be available in notions departments. They pin into your dress, and the ends snap around your lingerie straps. I have sewn them into the shoulders of the currently fashionable loose dresses that tend to shift about on me. Re: proper underwear-- the closer one can get to dressing from the skin out, the better the effect. I fudge on some outfits, but I really enjoy layering on the ones where I have all the right body shapers. It's like I am already in costume before I put on the outer layer. Danine ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Danine Cozzens Internet: dgc3@pge.com Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------[Reply - Original Message]---------------------- Sent by:Heather Rose Jones If I recall correctly, the original question had to do with a Renaissance-era gown with a neckline that was cut low and square both in the front and the back. And then there was this problem with the sleeves falling down. But I wonder if all the attention to "cheats" to keep the sleeves up isn't, perhaps, missing the point. One useful question is: _did_ these gowns have the neckline described? We know what the front looks like from many portraits, but people seem to assume that the back was cut identically. The very few back-views of gowns of this type that I can dredge up appear to have a v-shaped neckline in back. This would certainly help pull the sleeves _in_ rather than _out_. Other front or 3/4 views suggest (my personal interpretation) either this or a fairly high round line in back. Heather Rose Jones ===================================================================== ------------------------------ From: Edward Wright Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 17:22:54 TZ Subject: RE: oilcloth | >From memory, oilcloth is treated with boiled linseed oil - | that's how you make a Drizabone (sound cool - use | the real word for those coats). No, no. Drizabone is not "the real word" for an oilskin coat -- it's just a trademark for one particular brand. ------------------------------ From: KATHLEEN@ANSTEC.COM Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 13:56:11 EST Subject: Re[2]: Sleeves and Shoulders I definitely agree with Heather Rose Jones about necklines of the backs of gowns. There is a rare rear view of a Holbein sketch that shows the back of a gown (and the back of a gable headdress to boot). The neckline is high and cut in a V. I made a Tudor-era gown (actually c. 1525, copied from a portrait of Isabel of Portugal by Titian) with the low squared front. The back is a high, normal neckline. The sleeves are heavy velveteen lined with antique satin, slashed, triangular shaped. They do not fall off. Now, can anyone tell me how those darned German "Cranach" gowns stay up? I have books that show the backs of the dresses and they are cut as low as the fronts! They have virtually no shoulders. Some structural engineering is in order, I guess. Kathleen kathleen@anstec.com ------------------------------ From: Edward Wright Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 10:44:36 TZ Subject: Re: Oil cloth | > How does this change the substance of the fabric? Does it smell? | > (It is for a garment...) | | Yeah, it smells, and it makes the fabric rather stiff if you use more | than a little brush-on. It works fairly nicely for tents, but _I_ | wouldn't advise using it on clothing. The smell will go away if you hang the garment to air out. It will have a slightly oily feel when you start to wear it, but this too will go away. If it comes out stiff, you are doing something wrong. ------------------------------ From: KATHLEEN@ANSTEC.COM Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 14:03:05 EST Subject: book in print FYI to all on this list: I just picked up a copy of "Dress in Ireland" by Mairead Dunleavy ($60). It is either still in print or back in print. In any case, it is once again obtainable.Check your local bookstore. Kathleen kathleen@anstec.com ------------------------------ From: DCROSS@bentley.edu Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 17:31:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Sleeves and Shoulders > From: Heather Rose Jones > Subject: Re: Sleeves and Shoulders > > If I recall correctly, the original question had to do with a > Renaissance-era gown with a neckline that was cut low and square both in > the front and the back. And then there was this problem with the sleeves > falling down. But I wonder if all the attention to "cheats" to keep the > sleeves up isn't, perhaps, missing the point. One useful question is: > _did_ these gowns have the neckline described? We know what the front > looks like from many portraits, but people seem to assume that the back > was cut identically. The very few back-views of gowns of this type that I > can dredge up appear to have a v-shaped neckline in back. This would > certainly help pull the sleeves _in_ rather than _out_. Other front or > 3/4 views suggest (my personal interpretation) either this or a fairly > high round line in back. > > Heather Rose Jones I was thinking about this over the weekend (the subject head dredged up a lot of tangental questions for me), and came to the conclusion that I was in conflict on the issue. Heather points out that the few back views show higher cut v-necks. Many of the front views show the chemise peeking out, often with a lace or blackworked edge. A row of jewels in between the "top edge" of the gown and chemise. One would assume that as the 2-3 layers of edges disappear over the shoulder, they continue around the back of the neckline. Here's my conflict though, I have never seen an extant low, open necked chemise that did not have a square cut in the front and back (the back is a bit higher, but not quite enough to completely get rid of the slipping sleeve problem. Since I won't stray too far from extant evidence, I have never explored the higher v-neck in the back. The few depictions I have seen are earlier tudor and I seem to like late tudor/elizabethan. So, I stick with reengineering the square back and front, hoping to "get it right" each time. I have found raising the bottom of the square in the back to be a big help, but not completely solve the problem. I plan to check Alcega tonight (haven't looked at it in a while) to verify my fuzzy recollection that his patterns have front and back square necklines. When I first approached the problem my sources were Janet Arnold, Alcega, and various 16th c. portraits. I'm pretty sure I would have drawn a different conclusion on squares front and back had *any* v-neck variation been evident. Anybody out there have sources with extant chemise info? clear back neckline views that show a chemise following a v-shape? Sure would make my life easier! -Denise Cross (s.k.a., Dame Elayne Courtenay) p.s. for the heavily jeweled square neckines, the weight of the jewels does keep the sleeves in place. I have 2 gowns of the identical pattern, one jeweled with a heavy row of large-ish "gems" and pearls. The jeweled sleeves stay put under the weight, the other does not. It seems that the most open of the square necklines (the ones right to the shoulder points) are also the most jewel encrusted. Coincidence? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 17:00:41 -0500 (CDT) From: Kerri Potratz Subject: leather Hi... this is my first post after lurking for a long time.. I'm in my final year working on my BFA in Theatre Costuming at University of South Dakota. (RE I'll be job hunting in 6 months) I am really interested in cutting (thanks Fran for the Cutter's Research Journal info..) but anyway...why I am writing... I am interested in starting to work with leather both for garment and for making armor out of, but I am clueless as to what thicknesses are approperate for each...especially when it comes to armor. If anyone has any knowledge that would help me decipher leather charts (and figure how much this is going to cost me) I would be greatly appriciative. Thanks! Kerri / \/ \ *Kerri Potratz**University of South Dakota* / /\ \ 201 Hight St Vermillion SD 57069 (605)624-8705 *Kpotratz@sunfish.usd.edu \ \/ / *Lady Hrosvitha die Liedweberin in the SCA < \/ > \/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 17:30:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Kerri Potratz Subject: Re: Costume: Baltic Fabric? I'm interested in buying some material...especially if the cost is resonable and there is some way I could get swatches (that white linen sounds wonderful --:)) WRITE Me! / \/ \ *Kerri Potratz**University of South Dakota* / /\ \ *Kpotratz@sunfish.usd.edu \ \/ / \/ ==If I be waspish, best beware my sting!== Shrew, II.i ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 17:33:03 -0500 (CDT) From: Kerri Potratz Subject: Re: Lucet What is Lucet Cording? (blush) and are those looms you gave prices of? / \/ \ *Kerri Potratz**University of South Dakota* / /\ \ *Lady Hrosvitha die Liedweberin < \/ > *The Proto-incipient Colligum of Svathy Sebestia \ /\ / *Kpotratz@sunfish.usd.edu \ \/ / \/ On Tue, 11 Jul 1995, dbrowne wrote: > I have not given up hope on finding my information on Lucet cord > and sending it out to those of you who requested it, I still have your > addressess. > Last weekend I found someone who sells lucet made of various > hardwoods, they seem to be well finished and are of a good size to fit > the hand. He will mail order them and send instructions. > Rainbow Pegasas > Kathy Shaw > 624 Osage > Valparaiso, IN 46383 > 1-219-759-2601 > > I will list woods and prices: Maple-6$&7$, Oak-7$&8$, > Walnut-8$&9$, Amaranth-7$&8$, Koa-9$&10$, Teal-8$&9$, Vermillian-7$&8$, > Zebra-8$&9$, Rose wood-9$&10$. > > I thought this might help those of you on the eternail search for lacing:). > > Katrinn > Kathy B > ------------------------------ From: "Hicks, Melissa" Subject: Re: Sleeves and Shoulders Date: Tue, 25 Jul 95 09:37:00 EST Heather, I was the person who asked the original question. The gown was based on the 1536 Holbein portrait of Jane Seymour. My adaption was based on a pattern provided from Jean Hunnisett's "Period Costumes for Stage and Screen". It originally had a low V down the back, but we could not get that shape to fit snugly against my shape so we cut the sides of the V out until it did. This unfortunately left me with more of a scooped neckline at the back. I am considering going to Hunnisett's stated source, Arnold, to see how she got around this problem. Thank you all for your suggestions. I don't think there is a cheat to help fix my problem. I am going to have to bite the bullet and redo the back panel with a higher neckline. Regards Melissa Hicks SCA Meliora de Curci E-Mail: mah@amsa.gov.au "Only in our dreams are we free ...... the rest of the time we need wages" ---------- >From: grm+ >To: Dorothy Stein >Cc: historic costume >Subject: Re: Sleeves and Shoulders >Date: Monday, 24 July 1995 09:34 If I recall correctly, the original question had to do with a Renaissance-era gown with a neckline that was cut low and square both in the front and the back. And then there was this problem with the sleeves falling down. But I wonder if all the attention to "cheats" to keep the sleeves up isn't, perhaps, missing the point. One useful question is: _did_ these gowns have the neckline described? We know what the front looks like from many portraits, but people seem to assume that the back was cut identically. The very few back-views of gowns of this type that I can dredge up appear to have a v-shaped neckline in back. This would certainly help pull the sleeves _in_ rather than _out_. Other front or 3/4 views suggest (my personal interpretation) either this or a fairly high round line in back. Heather Rose Jones ------------------------------ End of Volume 351 -----------------------