From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V3 #196 Reply-To: h-costume Errors-To: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk H-Costume Digest Thursday, September 21 1995 Volume 3, Number 196 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: Civil War Re: ermine Marriage Age in Ren. Germany Re: Authenticity Re: Authenticity Cotton Again RE: Authenticity Re: Cotton Again RE: Authenticity RE: Authenticity RE: butted seams? Re: help with Tudor Authenticity Re: Maltreating Expensive Clothes Re: Authenticity Re: Fabric Questions/Musings Re: ermine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 14:38:23 -0500 (CDT) From: VICKI@lib.uttyl.edu Subject: Civil War Oops, now I've forgotten what I said! I know that I've mentioned cw-reenactors which is a list for Civil War reenactors. If you want to subscribe to that, the address is listproc@gmu.edu. Skip the subject line and then, in the body, just type subscribe cw-reenactors (your name). There are quite a few women there, and we sometimes talk about clothing or patterns, or wedding customs, or etiquette, or balls, or how to portray poor women, or upcoming events. I also belong to what might be called a scholarly Civil War list--mostly professors, archivists, librarians, and such, moderated by a professor at the University of North Texas--is that the one you mean? It has once or twice talked about the Southern homefront, and there is a thread right now about Sanitary Fair newspapers, but I've never seen clothing discussed at all. Hope Greenberg has a www site up of pre-1860 Godey's information and illustra- tions, which she is still working on. The address for that is http://www. uvm.edu/~hag/godey. I've gotten into other things while just wandering out on the web, usually by starting with Yahoo. Duke University has a bibliography of archival materials on women in the Civil War. H-CivWar has a bibliography on life on the homefront. I have a clothing bibliography for 1840-1865 which is supposed to be accessible through H-Costume somehow. Someone has the full text of a journal kept by a girl in Atlanta. If I'm somehow not hitting the mark about what I said before, please let me know and I'll try to figure out something else. Vicki Betts vicki@lib.uttyl.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1995 14:59:41 U From: "Carole Newson-Smith" Subject: Re: ermine Reply to: RE>ermine I've heard that it's weasel in his winter clothes- white coat with black feet - remember the heraldic pattern? I admit that the person who told me this was someone I trust to give out accurate information, so I've never double checked it. Carole Newson-Smith (SCA and Faire: Cordelia Toser) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 14:10:28 PDT From: julie_adams@corp.Cubic.COM Subject: Marriage Age in Ren. Germany In the books: "Magdalena and Balthazar" and "Three Behaim Boys" by Steven Osment (Osmant? Ozmant?), there is some discussion of appropriate ages to marry. Both Magdalena and a female relative of one of the Behaims, had to wait until they were over 25 to marry, as under that was considered too young for either a man or a woman to marry. I think Magdalena ended up married at 27 or so. (Its been awhile since I read the books.) I believe she lived very long (late 80s or early 90s), but her only son died of worms, and in the letters between her and her husband, people die in almost every letter, many from things we would cure with an antibiotic, such as a bladder infection, and in terrible pain. These were upper middle class townspeople, and I would not be surprised if the marriage ages were different for farmers. These are really cool books to read for anyone costuming or developing a persona/character for the 16th cent. - --julie adams ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 15:16:50 -0700 (PDT) From: "Sarah E. Goodman" Subject: Re: Authenticity > In one article it was mentioned that re-enactors/interpreters should > dress as if they wore there clothes on a daily basis. This would mean > not worrying about wearing the clothes, not worrying about a little > spilt beer or hem stepped on, etc., as one lady mentioned. As a > matter of fact, there should be some of that if one is to look > authentic. It is not just the question of hand-sewing, proper > patterns, proper material, etc., it is the entire picture. One of my very favorite ever set of re-enactor garb belonged to a couple of kids who were doing Confederate, American Civil War. ALL their stuff was hand-me-down, none of it fit all that well, and one of the tunics was actually a Union tunic which had the ensignia removed, been bleached and then redied to (more or less) butternut. (The other tunic was Confederate issue but had obviously had other ensignia picked off and new added--oh, and a bullet hole in the sleeve with very old stains!) They were "being" a couple of peidmont yoemen farmer's sons towards the end of the War and it's the most acurrate set of re-enactment uniforms I've ever seen! *******************************************************************q******** Sarah E. Goodman goodston@well.sf.ca.us goodston@netcom.com goodston@river.org Senior Designer & Chief Cat Herder, Wee Cottage, Daly City, California, USA *************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 15:27:26 -0700 (PDT) From: "Sarah E. Goodman" Subject: Re: Authenticity > I'm really good at justification, and I figure that when in costume, > we are clothing a persona. My persona is younger than I am. Let's face it, > if it were really me in the 16th century I would be toothless (no dental > work available back then) and blind (I had a couple of retina operations). :) I'd be dead at least three times over! (Let's hear it for modern antibiotics!) My point was that it is perhaps MORE accurate to costume (and in persona claim) a younger age for exactly this reason, since one would not have seen a women my age who looked like me, but might have seen a younger woman who did so. But I have had people call me on it: "that's not an authentic dress for a woman of 46!". (Response: "La, it would be a wonderous world indeed if I were to retain at such an age the looks I own at 5 and 30; would that I might live to see such mircles!") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 16:14:47 -0700 (MST) From: RAC@NAUVAX.UCC.NAU.EDU Subject: Cotton Again It is not my desire to start the cotton and wool controversy all over again, but I am wondering if there is a summary of the entire discussion and conclusions. I am fighting a small cotton and wool war here, the archivist claims cotton was being used for paper in the 16th century of Europe in the form of rags. Iwas under the impression it was linen and not cotton. Oh well. If there is a summary of the discussion available, thanks. Robert Coody ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 16:07:59 PDT From: julie_adams@corp.Cubic.COM Subject: RE: Authenticity >This would mean not worrying about wearing the clothes, not >worrying about a little spilt beer or hem stepped on, etc., as one >lady mentioned. This reminded me of a great scene from the book "Tyrant Lo Blanc", which was written in the 1300's, and partially by a knight. Tyrant and the wimpy Dauphin of France are following the Dauphin's betrothed, the Princess of Sicily, on cantering horses. She and her horse wade through a creek, getting wet and muddy to her thighs, much to the Dauphin's chagrin. He starts whining about his clothes getting wet and ruined. Tyrant looks down his nose and says something along the lines of "Gentlemen don't worry about their clothes, they just buy new ones". Theatrically, I think its fine for us military scum to look rather tattered, but it also seems appropriate that someone playing a noble lady should concern herself with being too travelworn, because in reality, a lady *of the court* would have bought new clothes before wearing stained ones to court. And not everyone (now) can just go get another gown out of the closet. Wasn't Elizabeth I known to have a rather cutting tongue, too? I know if I were back then, I would have been totally embarrassed if the Queen called me on the carpet for being sloppy. Lived in looks fine, but I think stained or torn would detract from the show unless the courtier in question was supposed to be a slob or drunkard. PS: "Tyrant Lo Blanc" is on my highly recommended for reading list. Excellent discriptions of Knighting, UnKnighting, Tourneys, battles, lots of action, but unfortunately, marginal costume descriptions at best. --julie adams ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 09:49:49 +1000 (EST) From: Carolyn Fraser Subject: Re: Cotton Again On Thu, 21 Sep 1995 RAC@NAUVAX.UCC.NAU.EDU wrote: > > It is not my desire to start the cotton and wool controversy all over > again, but I am wondering if there is a summary of the entire discussion > and conclusions. I am fighting a small cotton and wool war here, the > archivist claims cotton was being used for paper in the 16th century > of Europe in the form of rags. Iwas under the impression it was linen > and not cotton. Oh well. If there is a summary of the discussion available, > thanks. > > Robert Coody I'm sure someone will tell you how to access the archives of this list (I have to hire expedition guides to do so myself!), but I would suggest you also have a look at "The Italian Cotton Industry in the Later Middle Ages 1100-1600", Mazzaoui, Maureen F, ISBN# 0-521-23095-0 , Cambridge Uni Press, 1981. Carolyn Fraser Brisbane, Australia> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 17:15:54 -0700 From: erin1@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Erin Harvey Moody) Subject: RE: Authenticity Julie said: >Theatrically, I think its fine for us military scum to look rather >tattered, but it also seems appropriate that someone playing a >noble lady should concern herself with being too travelworn, >because in reality, a lady *of the court* would have bought new >clothes before wearing stained ones to court. And not everyone >(now) can just go get another gown out of the closet. Wasn't >Elizabeth I known to have a rather cutting tongue, too? I know if I >were back then, I would have been totally embarrassed if the >Queen called me on the carpet for being sloppy. Lived in looks >fine, but I think stained or torn would detract from the show unless >the courtier in question was supposed to be a slob or drunkard. The expense of being a 16thC courtier is directly attached to the expense of maintaining the wardrobe (and other expenses), and is well documented for that period. In fact, many nobles during Elizabeth's reign tried to stay away from court and out of her eye in order to save their money and maintain their estates in the country. Elizabeth in turn, took her entire entourage "On Progress" to the country and descended upon the nobles who had stayed away from court and made them feed and house her household during their stay. End result: dress a courtier or feed a courtier. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 17:15:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "Sarah E. Goodman" Subject: RE: Authenticity > tattered, but it also seems appropriate that someone playing a > noble lady should concern herself with being too travelworn, > because in reality, a lady *of the court* would have bought new > clothes before wearing stained ones to court. But first, she would have done her damnedest to clean it, change the over-skirt, hide things with embroidery, etc. People just did not go in for owning the kind of wardrobes we do now, at any level of society. Clothing was too bloody expensive! Of course, standards of cleanlyness were different, too, and things we wouldn't be willing to put back on as too gungy for words would have been perfectly acceptable.) And while Elizabeth I would probably have something to say about a slutty (as in neat, not as in moral) lady in her court, she also came down pretty hard on people who out-did her, clothing wise, so one would never wish to have more gowns than the queen. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 16:25:39 TZ From: Edward Wright Subject: RE: butted seams? | Does anyone have any suggestions on how to manage, reinforce or | otherwise treat the raw edges for butted seams so they don't fray | or fall apart? Always using selvage edges doesn't seem practical... I won't address the question of butted seams, which has already been answered by other people, but I will offer some general comments on handling raw edges. Here are some period techniques for that: 1) Overcasting with thread -- used instead of hemming on many doublets, especially at the wrist opening of the sleeve 2) Use of leather instead of fabric -- doesn't ravel 3) Use of felted wool or other, tightly woven material -- little or no ravelling 4) Treating the edges with beeswax -- period equivalent of FrayCheck; traces can still be found on many garments 5) Just let it ravel -- Although unacceptable to modern eyes, this was not always considered a disaster in period garments. In some cases, such as slashed garments, it may even have been considered desirable. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:35:18 -0400 From: margritt@mindspring.com (Margritte) Subject: Re: help with Tudor At 1:41 PM 9/21/95, Kathleen Leggat wrote: > Hello to the list! > > I am about to embark on a Tudor gown. (stuff deleted) >6. I may not have time to make a French Hood for the emsemble. Does >anyone have any suggestions for quick alternate headgear? > I hesitate to answer this, as I have only made one attempt at Tudor dressing. My usual garb is far simpler-- Norman gowns that can be completed in just a few hours. However, I did want to share my solution to the headgear question: I took a plastic visor (such as those sold by many craft shops) and turned it so that the bill of the visor formed the upright part of the hood. I then glued on velvet, and then attached the drape, also with glue. I covered any unsightly seams with a contrasting braid. If I had it to do over again, I would try to cut down the bill of the visor a bit. It stood up just a little too high. I think a hacksaw might work for this. Good luck! - -Margritte - ------------------------------------------------------------ Gryphon's Moon - Request our free catalog of Celtic jewelry. email margritt@mindspring.com or check out our web page at http://www.mindspring.com/~maclain/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 21:42:06 CDT From: TOMBGUARD Subject: Authenticity Okay so the Aristocrats and Royalty (depending upon the time period) would look better and dress better, however I have to disagree with the thought that they would just buy an new garment or put a new one on. Speaking from the point of view of a lace maker/merchant of the time, no person in their right mind would take clothing that non chalantly. There were nobles who sold large portions of their estate for lace yardage that was required to be worn if they were to show their status in society. You didn't just throw that away and buy new. So I believe, and I would have trouble documenting this, that a garment and the lace on it would be worn until it was just not possible to wear. Woman of some eras were given a wedding dress as their dowry. The dress had so much lace on it that it was worth a fortune and although some of it was sold, some was used on other pieces of clothing. This leads me to believe that my assumtions are correct. Any thoughts? Robert Robert H. Neidlinger NEIDLRH@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU "The Tomb Guard" Robert.Neidlinger@BGAMUG.COM "If I knew what I was getting into, I wouldn't have been born at all." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:47:16 -0400 From: NeaDods@aol.com Subject: Re: Maltreating Expensive Clothes Gail writes: >*While buckram would probably be a more authentic choice for a hat framework, I use steamed plastic needlepoint canvas. I swear by this stuff. It's highly inauthentic, yes, but perfect for costumes for stage or costume parties or non-teaching historic-themed gatherings. (My position on authenticity varies with the venue.) I have a pattern for a "tudor in a week" that uses plastic canvas reinforced with rigilene for the bodice boning. Cheap, easy to sew, and WASHABLE! The perfect starter material for a novice sewer or the costumer in a hurry. Nea neadods@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 16:41:12 TZ From: Edward Wright Subject: Re: Authenticity | >The age question (and related pregnancy/childbirth issues) brings up | >another interesting area of authenticity--how "old" should you dress. I | >am a woman of forty and six years. Based on what I can tell from | >portraiture, if I were to time-machine back to the Regency (my personal | >favorite period--flat shoes and very light coresetry at best!) I would be | >taken for a woman of about thirty. (And an upper or middle class one at | >that--a country farm wife of 30 would probably look a fair bit older). | >So, do I dress in the period garb correct for my age and marital status | >(I'm a grandmother and a dowager), do I dress as the period woman I look | >like (a young matron) or do I decide that since I'm still wearing jeans | >and turtlenecks as I did in college mundanely, I can do the same | >historically and dress as a girl in her first season? I think this is a lot more complicated than people have suggested. Yes, you might lose your teeth at an early age, due to decay, but toothpaste existed at least as far back as the 16th Century (though they used a cloth rather than a brush), so you might keep your teeth if you cleaned them regularly *and* you were very lucky (i.e., had good genetics). Genetics also play a large part in determining how "old" a person looks at a given chronological age. On the other hand, if you did lose your teeth, there's a good chance you would not survive to an old age. You *can* die from a toothache, in the absence of good (which is to say, modern) dental care. Also, not all modern trends work in the direction of keeping a youthful appearance. The modern ideal may be to look "fit and tan," but skin tanning is, in fact, the number one cause of premature wrinkling and aging of the skin (not to mention skin cancer). In many periods, however, fair skin was the ideal, and no one spent an excessive amount of time in the sun if he could afford not to. (Granted, the number of people who could afford not to was rather small, agricultural labor being the number one occupation up until very recent times.) Similarly, I have known men and women in their thirties who already have arthritis from modern sports such as weighlifting. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 16:55:36 TZ From: Edward Wright Subject: Re: Fabric Questions/Musings | Very off the cuff: I believe there were a variety of stamping | techniques, I think some are mentioned in Elizabeth's wardrobe | unlocked, by Janet Arnold, using hot irons to impress a pattern, | usually used to burn the velvet nap off, or impress a pattern into | it. I am not aware of this technique being used on velvet, but I do know of at least one case (a surviving doublet) where hot metal stamps were used to impress a pattern onto satin. The impression would probably be destroyed if you ironed the fabric afterwards, but aside from that, it's rather permanent. (As I said, it's still surviving today, and the impressions are still clearly visible.) If anyone wants to try to this technique, I would suggest leatherworking stores, such as Tandy Leather, as a source for stamps, some of which may have suitable designs. The earliest examples I know of actual printing on cloth are from the late 16th Century, but these prints were intended as patterns to be embroidered over, not worn as is. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 20:17:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Heather Rose Jones Subject: Re: ermine On Thu, 21 Sep 1995, Kathleen Leggat wrote: > Does anyone know what real ermine feels like? > > I picked up an ermine-looking fur piece (two little guys attached to > each other with a clip in the mouth...you know the type) and I'll wear it > whether it's real ermine or rabbit in ermine shape and colour. But I'd > still like to know. Ermine is a winter coat for an animal...which one? > Mink? Weasel? Stoat? Well, for a strict answer, none of the above, although two are partially correct. "Weasel" is a general name for the genus of which the ermine is a member. "Stoat" is usually applied to the summer phase (brown color) of the ermine. The mink is a significantly larger cousin. Strictly speaking, "ermine" is the winter coat of the ermine. A true ermine skin will be surprisingly small -- perhaps an inch and a half wide by 8-12 inches long. The hair is quite short, but fairly dense, and the tail has a black tip. Heather Rose Jones ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V3 #196 ******************************* 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!