From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V3 #186 Reply-To: h-costume Errors-To: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk H-Costume Digest Friday, September 15 1995 Volume 3, Number 186 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: Re: An authenticity question.... Costuming Standards For Groups Twist on Periodicity Re: An authenticity question.... swords into ploughshares Re: Twist on Periodicity Re: Twist on Periodicity Re: Twist on Periodicity (fwd) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:54:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Heather Rose Jones Subject: Re: An authenticity question.... On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, Deirdre wrote: > While I know silks were used, is dupionni silk something that was available > during the English Renaissance? I don't care for my outfit, but don't know > much about the weaves of silk. Himself might want to wear his outfit as SCA > events however so cares more about this sort of stuff. I think the historic costuming world is crying out for a good analysis of the relation of currently available silk weaves to historic weaves. The only thing I know for sure is that it's very hard to find modern silk fabrics that have the most striking characteristic I have seen in medieval silks (the period I'm particularly interested in): the extremely small amount of twist in the thread -- which produces the wonderful sheen of silk that seems to have been one of its most valued properties. But getting back to dupionni in particular -- what makes me very suspicious of this fabric as far as medieval/Renaissance fabrics go is the deliberate slubbiness. Reeled silk is an incredibly smooth fiber; slubs have to be introduced. In a non-industrial society, the ideal tends to be a product that is as smooth, even, and fine as the available processes can make it. In our post-industrial society, such characteristics are seen as belonging to the "machine-made" norm, and it is irregular, rough, "hand-made" looks that are considered "interesting". So we get slubby silks and raw silks because it is this (false) "hand-made" quality that is prized. So the question becomes A) whether the basic weave is appropriate (leaving aside the "imperfections" in the thread); and B) what you choose to weight more heavily: fiber, thread character, or weave type. When it comes to silk, I've very rarely had the luxury of holding out for all three. (My one prize exception is a fine white twill silk made with a very loosely-spun thread. It's the best match I've ever seen for the type of fabric described (and seen) in many pieces of Opus Anglicanum -- so I bought the whole bolt.) Heather Rose Jones ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:11:19 -500 From: "Carol Kocian" Subject: Costuming Standards For Groups Between my current costuming interests, other conversations, and this note by Julie Adams: > At this point in my life, when I am making something special > and "authentic", as Sarah is trying to do, I do use only real silk, > linen, wool, available modern fabric equivalents, metal-based > bullions ( preferably gold and silver), etc., but I don't expect or > demand everyone else to (or be able to afford it), and I don't walk > around events declaring "period" vs. "non-period", except where it > concerns the Re-enactment group that I am Costume Director for. ...I wondered about other people's experience concerning costuming standards for groups. Military & civilian reenactment units, dance groups, etc. need to strive for everyone to be of good quality. I know that the SCA does not have any overall standards due to their wide range of time periods, but perhaps households or other sub- groups have developed some for themselves. Quality is important for any group doing a public, educational style display, particularly in competitions such as Jamestown's Military Through The Ages, or for units that are paid for their participation in events. How do the groups out there go about educating and directing their new members? Are new people expected to be dressed perfectly the first time out, even if in borrowed clothes? Or are they given a period of time to get their things together (a "recruit" stage), and encouraged to participate in incomplete outfits? Some groups "vote in" new members after this period of time. Are new members expected to do all their own research, or is a certain amount of information available to them from the group? (I know that units in uniform have to supply the information, for the sake of "uniformity".) Do the members make their clothing individually? Do they get together for sewing circles, to share patterns, fitting & techniques? Do they buy any of their clothing, and what is the quality offered by the vendors? Is someone available to steer them away from the "bad" stuff out there? And here's the sticky part - What do you do about someone who used to belong to a similar unit, but who's clothes are not to your group's standards? What happens when you want to upgrade your standards, and someone doesn't want to change because "it was fine for last year?" How much "outreach" has been done to other groups with similar interests? Is help offered, as opposed to grumbling about the farbs next door? What's the best way to approach someone in another group? ( I have one friend who felt that the unit "next door" was a bad reflection on his group.) Julie Adams also wrote: > ....Most people don't bother. The general costuming population > copies other costumers. At best this is flattering, at worst it is > embarassing. I know because I have seen my own costumes and research > warped into some real off-the-wall bizarities that used my research > "word of mouth" for their documentation. Yes, this runs rampant through all eras of reenacting. I call it Duck-On-The-Head syndrome, as in, "Julie Adams could wear a duck on her head and everybody would be doing it at the next event." But seriously, everyone who researches & makes a costume is taking it one step away from the original source. If I make a dress out of the "exact" print of fabric only it's blue instead of the original green, someone who sees me may decide to use blue fabric with a different print. That's why movies aren't always that good for basing costumes, the movie costume designers are most likely taking even more liberties. If anyone has any comments on standards & new people, I would like to know. If it's a touchy story you prefer not to post, feel free to e-mail me privately. I'm mainly interested in actual experience with handling these situations. Thanks! -Carol Kocian ckocian@epe.org P.S. to Ed - Do you know where I could find that winged turtle fabric? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:57:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "Hope A. Greenberg" Subject: Twist on Periodicity A new twist on the periodicity/authenticity discussion: An interest in the clothing of times past is not limited to this century. The Victorians, in their Tudor-nostalgia fits, have many paintings, engravings, or prints of people in Tudor dress. What is fascinating is how they get details like gable headdress or French hood, etc. right but adapt the dress to the figure of a corsetted Victorian--sloping shoulders, rounded bosom, narrow waist and bell-like skirt. (For someone who's a bit of a grouch when it comes to getting the foundation right this can set my teeth on edge--or make me laugh!) Another example is Worth & friends and their nod to the 17th century Cavaliers with dresses made with broad lace collars, slashed sleeves, etc. Or how about the craze, brought on by a character from a Dickens tale, for the 18th cent. pastoral drawn-up skirt, tilted hat look (and wouldn't you know it I can't remember the name of the character now...Betsy something, Dolly somebody...help!) And of course the pre-Raphaelites spawned their own fashion fads. So, a question: can anyone tell me of any other periods that consciously sought to emulate an earlier period in dress? or elements thereof? That is in "normal" clothing, not necessarily clothing made only for fancy dress. - ----------------- Hope Greenberg Hope.Greenberg@uvm.edu Academic Computing http://moose.uvm.edu/~hag Univ. of Vermont Come visit The Hall's latest addition: Burlington, VT 05405 Godey's Lady's Book ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:01:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Teresa Shannon Subject: Re: An authenticity question.... Oh wonderful, I concur, in someways it is a matter of just sitting down and doing it. I have the extensive experience and pretty good knowledge of modern silk, have a steadily growing pile of research on the the historic silk road trade, have the archaological evidence from a variety of finds all over Europe of the weave breakdown, and have some good weavers handy that I could start feeding silk samples to and asking is this an s-twist or z-twist and start matching proper weaves to modern silks. I am also thinking of researching the period equivalent chinese and indian samples to see what they can say. My period silk production was mostly coming from Syria, and Alexandria, spanish silk generally stayed in spain, the french centers were doing on the smallest stuff. But I really don't have time.:-( and I don't belong to any recreation group! But I do help people with other research. Regarding slubby silk. Slubs in the duppioni and the raw silk aren't really put in, so to speak. The indian duppioni in Thai silk is hand made, though the silk noil isnt. Silk noil is made from the short broken silk fibers that couldn't be reeled off the coccon. It is like trying to put together lots of small pieces of fibers instead of working with mile long pieces. These are generally poorer quality or the sebum has not been completely taken off and they tend to yield duller silks with a much lower tensile strength. The indian duppioni is also woven from broken cocoons but aren't given too much twist and then using and unbroken warp [?] (the shorter one) thread of high quality to give the shot-silk and irridescent look. Tussah silk and the very burlap sack looking types are from moths who feed wild, or on oak leaves, not nearly so smooth and nice as mulberry-fed ones. Some of the lighter silk weights, like the chiffons, are woven in China with the looms underwater to give the fibers a better chance of not-breaking and keeping in line with things. That would be cool to see. The owner of Thai Silks once described it to me as she does all the contract work personally in China with the individual mills. The Thai silks, have a brilliant shine, and the heavy charmeuses also, lets face it, taffeta was very popular and never has that "silky shine." When I was in India last year of course I looked at their silk industry. They don't export to the U.S. like China because 1) we haven't had an Indian ambassador there for four years, 2)U.S.A. has consistantly posed trade sanctions on India because of its political "non-aligned status" [if you're not with us you're against us] 3)it doesn't have most favored nation trade status like China, quite the opposite, its almost like Iran. However, the silk quality was as high as the Thai silk, but more delicate and finer. The shine was there, the luminescence and you could get the same brilliant colors, shot and all, but it flowed better. Better for the kirtle or veil, I should say. And cheaper too. About 3:00-5:00/meter, U.S. when I was there. I wish I would have had time to go fabric shopping there, I went sari and jewel shopping instead, but I don't regret it. Someone mentioned she bought her silk in New York, and I requested information on it as an exchange, but no answer yet. If you don't buy from Thai silk, please list where you do buy from (Thank you in advance Edward for the Oriental Silk place in Los Angeles), I would love to compare silks, especially any european stuff and compare them. I can probably approximate the weight myself. Any information you have would be wonderful. Talk more? Teresa ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 95 03:31:00 From: "Gina Balestracci" Subject: swords into ploughshares There's a review of the "Swords into Ploughshares" exhibit at the Met in today's New York Times (15 Sept C23). Sounds like a good exhibit, and the review itself is informative. gina balestracci@saturn.montclair.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:30:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Teresa Shannon Subject: Re: Twist on Periodicity Wait, heres a fun one, in medieval england is was not unusual to do "events" where everyone dressed up as a Roman, and did roman "tournaments and pageants" and of course every other tournament [exaggeration] everyone dressed as various characters in arthurs romance and took sides, they also had allegorical dress up and biblical. Teresa ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:32:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Teresa Shannon Subject: Re: Twist on Periodicity Oh, I forgot, solidly documentable, Charlemagne was crazy about 2-4th century A.D. Rome. He even called himself Augustine, one of his friends/teachers Pliny, even his cook had the roman name. They tried to reteach roman architecture and culture. I didn't work well outside of his palace, but it was a total and very serious dress-up. Teresa ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 15:03:48 -0500 (CDT) From: Teresa Shannon Subject: Re: Twist on Periodicity (fwd) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:48:21 -0500 (EST) From: Betsy Perry Subject: Re: Twist on Periodicity > > know it I can't remember the name of the character now...Betsy something, > > Dolly somebody...help!) And of course the pre-Raphaelites spawned their Dolly Varden. I still think the hat is adorable. > > So, a question: can anyone tell me of any other periods that consciously > > sought to emulate an earlier period in dress? or elements thereof? That > > is in "normal" clothing, not necessarily clothing made only for fancy dress. Everybody from the Renaissance onward had classical revival fads. One of the most obvious was French/English fashion ca. 1800, which was supposedly neo-Greek: cameos all over the place, cotton and silk gauzes on ladies, "Brutus" hairdos for men, Napoleon posing in a laurel wreath, and on and on. The Neoclassical doesn't look nearly so Greek to us as it did to its contemporaries, the fate of all historical revivals alas. I _think_ ca. 1910 there was a neo-Neoclassic look popular, which had ladies trying to look like ladies trying to look Greek. The revival dresses were long and pillar-shaped, but had a knee-length overtunic. I won't swear to this one, though. The 1830s saw a "Gothic" revival in English dress, including one of my favorite pieces of jewelry, the "ferroniere", a pendant worn on the forehead. So named after a da Vinci painting then called "La Belle Ferroniere" (the beautiful blacksmith's wife), which showed a similar ornament. Queen Victoria was painted in a ferroniere. And the movies have done wonderful things for us. Remember "the Gatsby look" of the early '70s? or the "Eugenie hat" of the 1940s? Or the various "Gone With The Wind" looks of 1939? The past isn't what it was, and then again, never has been. Betsy Perry ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V3 #186 ******************************* 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!