From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V3 #183 Reply-To: h-costume Errors-To: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk H-Costume Digest Thursday, September 14 1995 Volume 3, Number 183 Compilation copyright (C) 1995 Diane Barlow Close and Gretchen Miller Use in whole prohibited. Individual articles are the property of the author. Seek permission from that author before reprinting or quoting elsewhere. Important Addresses: Send submissions to: h-costume@lunch.engr.sgi.com (or reply to this message). Adds/drops/archives: majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com Real, live person: h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu Topics: Misc comments; Re: Duct tape bodies... 1530's Gown Mini Ice Age Re: handsewing vs. Machine sewing Re: 1530's Gown Handsewing vs. Machine Sewing Re: 1530's Gown Re: 1530's Gown RE: Boning for 1530's Bodices & Corset RE: Handsewing RE: 1530's Gown Re: Seam allowances Re: portraits and photos ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 00:07:37 CDT From: bednarek@tidalwave.med.ge.com (Dennis Bednarek Mfg 4-6971 ~BHOSVWZ#097) Subject: Misc comments; Photographs, was Tugor boning? The thing I have to keep in mind is that when someone goes to pose for a photograph they usually put on there sunday bests. So if we look at the average woman today in her leisure is probably wearing jeans and a tee shirt. Yet when she goes for a formal portriat she puts on her most expensive gown. I think it it would be safe to assume the Tudor lady also did this. Perhaps the difference from her leisure dress to her portriat out fit was not as drastic as today, but I'm sure there was some differences. So if we limit outselves to considering what photographs, and paintings are showing us I believe we are probably missing a major portion of the every day dress style back then. Dennis mleather@tbdmil.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 22:47:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Gwen Carnegi Subject: Re: Duct tape bodies... Take a good look at the greenland dress (don't have references handy). It has 5 or 6 separate pieces to a side. The shaping is not over the bust but well over to the side and underarm areas. The "mono-bosom" effect is acheived by pulled the tape snug over the bustline and pulling out the curves as you fit a second muslin. For the particulars in shaping this garment, I'm sure there is volumes available in old digests for anyone unclear on this technique. I just find using the taping method easier for that first pattern than flat patterning for that particular garment type (didn't like it in school, don't like it now;-) Gwyn Carnegie "Unexpected changes in travel plans are dancing lessons from God". On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Heather Rose Jones wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Gwen Carnegi wrote: > > The lovely thing about that method is the ability to acturately grade > > curves and dificult slopes (coathardies, late 11th century normans, and > > the like). Highly preferable over the flat pattern method for speed and > > custom fit. > > On the other hand, extant garments from the cotehardie era suggest that > accurately graded curves were not a part of their design. The garments, > while flaring greatly from the waist to the hem, are not particularly > fitted in the torso. So perhaps we should say that the duct-tape > method is ideal for drafting a modern princess-line pattern. > > Heather Rose Jones > ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 95 10:02:00 BST From: Mrs C S Yeldham Subject: 1530's Gown Just to establish my credentials, I have spent the last 9 years making clothes for 16th century England, with a group that prides itself on its accuracy and authenticity. I'm afraid I have to disagree with Julie on a few points, although I agree with her on others - naturally I am going to talk about the differences! *Starting point* - I find the easiest way to start is with the toile method - - which has been amply discussed on the list before if you want details (or email me privately). Essentially you make a 'body' out of calico (UK term - - it is a stiff cotton which does not stretch on the diagonal - I think the US term is muslin). The women's clothes in the 16th century evolve over the century. Through to the 1530's women were wearing two items of clothing from neck to floor, the kirtle and the gown, usually using different fabrics. The kirtle was the inner one. The picture of the More girls shows the two ways of wearing them, either with a side fastening kirtle and a centre fastening gown, or a centre fastening kirtle and a side fastening gown. In either case the seams are just in front of the armhole. The fastening techniques are either lacing or hook and eye (combining the two, ie lace the kirtle and hook and eye the gown, is effective). Julie - have you got references to back fastening kirtle or gown at this stage? The only picture I've seen of the back of one of these outfits is the Holbein drawing (in Ashelford) which does not appear to show that gown fastening there, the list has discussed that drawing before in relation to keeping the sleeve heads in place because of the low back! In the late 1530's and 1540's the top half of the kirtle disappears and the kirtle becomes a contrasting petticoat (still called kirtle) shown beneth the open inverted V of the front of the gown. The 'false' lower sleeves (wrist to elbow) shown beneth the turned back trumpet sleeves of the gown are another remnent of the kirtle and are often (?always) in the same fabric as the kirtle - see Jane Seymour pictures. The kirtle and sleeves are often ornate brocade with a plain coloured gown. You can cartridge pleat the back (the front is always smooth) but its not necessary (unless your waist is very small). Deep pleats will take sufficient fabric and give a smoother line. The amount of fabric used in skirts increases through the century, so you need to cartridge pleat then, which gives the sharp edge needed for the coffee table look! The gown is *one* garment. Contrasting bodies and skirts (kirtles) start emerging in the second half of the century. *Fabric* I have to strongly disagree with Edward about fabric. I think other people have shown we have plenty of evidence on the fabrics worn - although there is often disagreement about how modern fabrics measure up to period ones. I would like to mention that the Victoria & Albert Museum in London has an extensive collection of fabrics, including this period, English and continental, as well as embroidery. There are some covetable fabrics, including some cut ground silk velvets with small motifs which I loved, but have never seen a modern equivalent. Wool was the most common fibre, and some of it superb quality. I have seen an outfit made from (discounted) #35 a yard wool, which was beautiful stuff. Our group, which covers the social range from high gentry to scum, has regular discussions on whether the gentry should always wear what was essentially Court gear. The problem is, if they dress down they will be wearing middle-class gear, and how do you then distinguish between them and the middle-class? Quality of wool is probably the best way, but top quality wool is expensive, as quoted above. I don't know about the oyster pattern (though it strikes me as unlikely) but perhaps it could be used as the kirtle, and a plain dark wool as the gown? *Handsewing* I hand sew everything, not out of authenticity, but because sewing machines produce hysteria (in me - happens every time!). I don't think it is that difficult to build up speed in handsewing, (although after 9 years I may have forgotten) and would argue that the only bits that a machine is definately quicker on are the long seams. I was very impressed by a friend with 20 years experience of making costumes on machines, who made a corset by hand for various reasons, and admitted it was easier and quicker by hand! So why not try handsewing, perfect for long winter evenings (the fabric keeps your legs warm!). Just to give you an idea, I think the most I ever made was six complete outfits between March and June. I have made a bodice and skirt (1590s working class) for someone in two weeks. All of this is weekends and evenings - I work full time. Caroline Apologies for any offence - I do tend to state things dogmatically! ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 95 10:19:00 BST From: Mrs C S Yeldham Subject: Mini Ice Age Just a quick comment on a side comment! Julie mentioned the theory that 16th and early 17th century England/Europe suffered a mini ice age. One of the main pieces of evidence for this was that the Thames froze periodically during this time - there's that wonderful picture of a fair on the Thames in the early 17th century (name of painter eludes me, but I think he was Dutch). I recently read an article in the paper (Guardian) which says that modern meterologists are now moving away from this idea. There may have been hard winters (as we have just had a 'wonderful' hot summer) but that doesn't prove a mini ice age. They are now postulating that the Thames froze then, whereas it does not now for several reasons, including that it flowed more slowly then (the Thames was more blocked by bridges etc). A second factor was that now there are factories pumping hot water into it upstream (tho less pollution than in the last 50 years!). Caroline ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 07:36:04 +0000 From: "Jennifer Kubenka" Subject: Re: handsewing vs. Machine sewing On 13 Sep 95 at 19:13, BBrisbane@aol.com wrote: > My advice is to enjoy the slowed > experience of sewing and delayed gratification. Also, you may find > it easier to perform some operations, and control the fabric better > for smoother seams, necklines, etc. Don't rush, and the fantastic > results and people goggling at it will be well worth the time. > Brenda > I agree completely. I am currently doing Spanish monochrome embroidery on ivory linen, with the end result being a chemise for a 16th century gown (early-mid 1500's Italian), and I intend to handsew the whole chemise. I have been doing some practice work on the scraps of linen, and I must say that while it might take a much longer time to get to the end product, I am going to enjoy watching it take shape. It gives me time to think, and to be introspective about what it is I am actually making here, a chemise...it gives me time to think about what people might have actually done in those times, how they ordered their lives, etc... Jennifer D. Kubenka Fondren Library Southern Methodist University Dallas, Tex. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 09:38:18 -0400 From: eliz@world.std.com (Elizabeth Lear) Subject: Re: 1530's Gown Subject: Handsewing vs. Machine Sewing I also believed that interior seams of period clothing were OK to machine sew, as long as all stitches that would be "seen" were hand sewn. Until someone pointed out that he could tell a seam was machine sewn. The garment was an 1770's caraco (a type of gown) made of a thin, tightly woven silk. My friend said that he could see the even stitches because of the wide stitch length used. My solution in future garments was to shorten the stitch length, instead of using the length I learned in home ec classes. Of course, the stitches probably would not have been noticeable that way in wool. -Carol Kocian ckocian@epe.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 09:17:25 -0500 From: aboleyn@wichita.fn.net (Anne of Foxmoor and/or Thomas) Subject: Re: 1530's Gown Please Everyone! Oyster pattern? > >I don't know about the oyster pattern (though it strikes me as unlikely) >but perhaps it could be used as the kirtle, and a plain dark wool as the >gown? > I must have written in a way that everyone misunderstood. . .the "oyster-shell" is a COLOR, not a pattern of fabric. . .I am sorry for writing this way so that everyone misunderstood my wording!! My gown is of a oyster-shell color (light ivory with silver touches) and the pattern is a brocade pattern. . . Hope this helps!!!! Sarah Anne Russell ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 09:21:14 -0500 From: aboleyn@wichita.fn.net (Anne of Foxmoor and/or Thomas) Subject: Re: 1530's Gown > >I keep seeing people assuming the gown has an oyster shell pattern on >it. I believe the original quote was "oyster shell upholstery >fabric", which I took to mean the fabric was the solid color of an >oyster shell. Perhaps the original poster can clarify? > > ...eliz > > > Thank You!! You got it! Whew. . . Sarah Anne Russell Original Poster of this Oyster Shell Color Thread!!! :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 09:46:53 -0500 (CDT) From: Teresa Shannon Subject: RE: Boning for 1530's Bodices & Corset > I was wondering: what is the difference, in drape, weight and texture, > between modern satin and period silk satin? I've heard legendary tales > of the latter, but don't know if it's the fabric or its $30 a yard price > tag that makes people swoon over it. > Drea > > I don't know about the 1530's silk satin, but lets say in medieval times, say 10th to 14th century, silk satin was the most common material used to make those luxurious tents out of, because of the tensile strength and the abuse and that wonderful shine. You read samite being used for outergarments in literature and in rolls and wills, I have never seen a reference to it used as an undergarment (anyone want to correct me on that, I'll recheck), so I am assuming silk satin was woven very tight, heavy, and stiff, samite satin for clothing equivalent may have been lighter, but I'll assume for arguments sake it was the same stuff. Thai silks satin is stiff enough to stand up on its own, and strong enough for corsets, thats all I can say, the weave is identical as satin is the term for a weave and not a type of cloth. Its only 20.00 a yard, unless ordered wholesale, last I checked around 13.50 or so. Anywas, as I haven't seen actual samples of medieval satin and felt them in my hand I cant say. I did work for Thai silks and had to learn differentiation of silk weaves, weights and contents by touch though, so their silks I know very well. Teresa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 10:13:57 PDT From: julie_adams@corp.Cubic.COM Subject: RE: Handsewing I concur that you need to account for the type of fabric that you are sewing by machine, and you need to adjust the stitch length accordingly. For heavier fabrics a more standard stitch would be used, but on lightweight fabrics, I use a very very tiny stitch length when sewing a light weight fabric. I spent 5 months in a bedridden pregnancy and I handsewed the whole time. I will always treasure the smocked (multi-puffed sleeves) German Renaissance shirt I made. I consider myself a reasonably good handsewer/embroideress, so I decided to mimic the tiny french seams that I see in my vintage Victorian examples. I found that I couldn't get my stitches as small, no matter how hard I tried (I think I would have needed a magnifying glass). Even then my stitches came out much smaller than most of us would normally think to sew (about 1/4 the length of my standard machine stitch). I also found that when I finished the seams (using a french seam), the tension was taken off the main seam and the primary seam did not "wave" as much. I ended up with a tendon pain, but a beautiful shirt to remember my confinement. I think that to do this kind of tiny stitching during a normal full-time work schedule would have taken me at least a year to make. Normally I do a lot of handsewing while I sew, because certain things as mentioned in previous posts (armscyes, tacking, easing, etc.) come out nicer. I feel more comfortable doing some delicate things with my machine after taking a "French Heirloom Sewing by Machine" course. Julie Adams ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 11:04:35 PDT From: julie_adams@corp.Cubic.COM Subject: RE: 1530's Gown Catherine, I don't think you were even really disagreeing with me for the most part, but amplifying details (which I know I didn't express properly). I am 100% sold on using wool for this period. It comes in a variety of weights and just looks Wonderful. I always look for spring sales and stock up. My cedar chest is full. My best buy ever was a slashable "billiard" cloth (a napped-felted wool) for $3 a yard, sold in 60" wide 1-2 yard pieces (normally up to $60 a yd.) The only wool velvet I have found is a super heavy napless apholstery, with which I made organpipe-pleated basecoats for my husband to wear under his armor. (works great, looks great, but is VERY heavy and hard to sew). The cartridge-pleating in the back I was talking about is only for about 4 inches in the center back. There is at least one other back shot Holbein and an anonymous painting I've seen. I know, not much, but all seem to agree with the multitude of Flemish and German examples available. I'll have to get back to you on sources for the back closure. It may have been an assumption on my part from seeing pictures with full frontals, and from doing cross-country, and cross gender comparisons (i.e. flemish, german, italian where we do have examples....). I agree, most are closed just in front of the side (which is what I meant to describe. I have a childs portrait on a postcard which shows some overlap like the double-breasted effect I did describe. I see this in men's clothes of the period a lot. I thought about describing the lace and hook and eye combo, but short-cutted *sorry*. The key is that lacings did not seem to be "commonly" visible on outerwear. Sounds like a neat goup! I bet you get to play in castles and manors that we would just drool over. We play early 16th Century Landsknechts in our small re-enactment group. But most of the time I just research to research. Burning minds need to know! Julie Adams ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 14:35:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "Katherine L. Rodman" Subject: Re: Seam allowances Jennifer: I have found that if you leave 1/2 inch SA in a bodice and 3/4 to 1 inch SA in skirts and pants this leaves you plenty of alteration room. However, I build all of my costumes for the theatre and our costumes have to be alterable, if you were building for yourself and thought you would not be changing size any time soon, a smaller seam allowance might be preferable. If you are making a tight bodice, leave plenty of SA until you get through your final fitting and then remove any extra you feel gets in your way. I hope I haven't thoroughly confused you. Kat Katherine L. Rodman Gainesville, FL afn25136@freenet.ufl.edu "Historical accuracy and costume design do not neccessarily go hand in hand" John Conklin On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Jennifer Reymes wrote: > I am in the process of producing a pattern for someone other than myself. I > would like to know what is the _prefered_ seam allowance on patterns for an > Historical costume. I know some who prefer _no_ seam allowance on > historical patterns. Any that I use, I draft for myself, or grade from > blocks in books, and therefore do not have to worry about how alterations > will affect a pattern that has seam allowances (especially if it had been on > a mult-size pattern where only the cutting line was given, and I can cut > them (the seam allowances) 5cm if desired for fitting (or future middle-age > alterations), etc. > > > Jennifer Reymes > > jreymes@eagle.ca > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 11:35:53 PDT From: julie_adams@corp.Cubic.COM Subject: Re: portraits and photos Dennis, A while ago I think a lot of us did feel that everyone was dressing up for portraits and photos, but I am not so sure that everyone would agree on that any more. There are enough examples of non-dressup during this period (and most Victorians) to give us a decent idea of what casual clothes people wore compared to fancy dress. There are a lot of comparitive drawings and paintings, and preliminary sketches, that artists like Holbein and Durer have provided us (i.e. lady in church clothes, same lady goes to market, same lady at home, lady goes w....I won't say it). There are also a LOT of photographs of everyday people in the Victorian eras. They just don't usually show up in costume books. Portraiture is a good start, but definitely not the end. Comparitive research is certainly subjective, but it can help us to find both differences and similarities. I am constantly relooking at the same pictures and learning new things. Unfortunately not all eras have this wealth of material. For example, for early periods, I often need to look at illuminations or law manuscripts showing average people at their daily labors. Sometimes there are items or people in the backgrounds that really shed some lights as well. ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V3 #183 ******************************* A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, send the command lines: unsubscribe h-costume-digest subscribe h-costume end in the body of a message to majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com. Thanks and enjoy the list!