From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #13 Reply-To: h-costume Sender: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Errors-To: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk H-Costume Digest Saturday, January 13 1996 Volume 4, Number 13 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: Authenticity Standards COSTUME: Silks & fakes Re: Stupid Questions?...maybe Fire Hazard re: libraries Re: Sidesaddle Habits Sidesaddle Habits Back boards Searching for Shakespeare renactments Re: Searching for Shakespeare renactments Re: nit-picking ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 16:22:35 -0800 From: gwjchris@ix.netcom.com (Bill and Glenna Christen ) Subject: Re: Authenticity Standards You wrote: >It sounds like the biggest complaints about costume authenticity >are really about the Costume Police types. We should not be throwing >out the "baby" of standards for groups with the "bathwater" of the >Costume Police. Amen!! >As for getting paid...Different types of events call for different standards. Civil War reenactors do not get paid for most events, especially the big battle events when all and sundry show up, the accurate, the so-so and those with "Scarlett Fever". As a matter of fact we pay to attend most of the major events. We do this to off-set the costs so that more money that is raised can go to historic preservation or at least to make more opportunities to "play" on a grand scale possible. If groups are paid to portray people and activities of their chosen era they had better be good at what they do or they don't get any more offers. None of us is in this for the money that's for sure. We are only half joking when many of us say we work to support our hobby! > >Back to the Costume Police. Erin Harvey Moody pointed out the >problems with historic fashion shows. Generally they are not very >well planned. I also have learned from experience with fashion shows. I was not made fun of or critisized, but I was surrounded by prom dresses and other wildly inaccurate "costumes". This program was a great disservice to the public and the reenacting community as well as it was described as a presentation of what women actually wore at the time! The Gone With The Wind" Curtain rod dress even was in it!! I have since designed a "History Through Clothing" program taking one imaginary woman (and some of the men in her life) of the mid-19th Century through the transitions from short skirts of adolescence through courtship, wedding, married life, child bearing and widowhood. It is a well planned, informative as well as entertaining program that is constantly being updated as I learn new information (and find new bodies to dress or who have appropriate clothes) >...provided >costume evaluation sessions. It was strictly voluntary. A committee >member went through a checklist of elements with each individual... >The evaluators gave tips on how to improve and also heaped much praise >on each participant. I learned a lot from the evaluator at the event, >as well as from other reenactors there. I feel we need more of this happening. It is non-threatening as it is optional, and it is full of information and positive reenforcement for future improvement. If I know Juanita (Yes, I do :-)), she and the rest of the committee also encouraged the participants to do further research on their own as well. >Group standards are also a matter of sharing research. There are >those reenactors who look down on those less authentic than >themselves, but don't make any effort to share their vast knowledge. >Researching, sharing, and setting group standards assures that each >new person does not have to re-invent the wheel. Another Amen! Living History Society of Minnesota & Ladies Soldier's Friend Society (and many others I'm sure) have established clothing guidelines for the group to work toward. LHS also is developing a "Lending Library" of period clothing for those who are just starting and can't dress themselves immediately. We also have children's clothing since they grow out of them so fast. We don't dictate, but we lead by example, encourage and assist those who need it and support all efforts to improve. It is a never ending process. Nothing is set in stone because the standards are going up all the time as our research continues and more knowledge is gained and shared. No Fashion Police is needed within our groups, only Fashion Assistance. My $.02 worth (for now!) Glenna Jo Christen LHS, LSFS, MSAS & HSP gwjchris@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 16:33:22 -0800 From: ccary@tiara (Christina Cary) Subject: COSTUME: Silks & fakes Hello Costumers, Carol wrote: > (I still mourn the loss of the Natural Fiber Fabric Club) Yeah, me too--they took 54 of my dollars with them when they skipped town. They also cheated Vogue Patterns Magazine out of tens of thousands of dollars of advertising fees. Their attorney never answered my letters. Ah well, it's true they were a great source for fabric basics while they lasted. > Some synthetics resemble the original fabric more than the natural > fiber fabrics available. One example is changeable silk, which has the warp > of one color and the weft of another. As the fabric drapes & folds and the > light hits it, it flashes between the two colors. Silk made this way now > usually has slubs in it--thick spots in the yarns that are suposed to make > it look "handmade". Hmmm, have you see the Thai silk available from Thai Silks in Los Altos, CA? It has no slubs in it... or very few. I made a bridesmaid's dress out of it recently--we looked at all their colors and I don't recall any slubs. It is woven with different warp and weft colors for that irridescent look. I'm sure the number has been posted many times on this list, but anyway, 415/948-8611. As for the polyester mislabelled as silk that burned someone--many polyesters are labelled "silky," which I have always found misleading. I believe it's a crime to mislabel fabric fiber content. *I* know "silky" means "polyester," but I think many people don't. I also think the difference between silk and polyester is obvious even without the burn test, but it takes some time to develop the skill to judge this, so the person in question may have been a beginning sew-er. Christina - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christina M. Cary Editor, Technical Publications E-mail address: ccary@tiara.engr.sgi.com Ask me about the SGI lunchtime Needlework Club! Come join us! ____________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 16:51:41 -0800 From: gwjchris@ix.netcom.com (Bill and Glenna Christen ) Subject: Re: Stupid Questions?...maybe You wrote: >I live in a VERY small town where the reference section in the library is >miserable for any kind of costuming research...and I haven't got a car to >get to the city and go to a real library :) FYI, Check and see if the library has access to Interlibrary Loan services. It will widen your range of resources incredibly if they do. >I come to this list seeking advice that I'm confident I can >trust...not so I can be accused of asking stupid questions. Maybe I >do ask stupid questions, but if you don't feel like responding, don't. I was always told, and I firmly believe* the only stupid question is an unasked question. Remember, none of us were born knowing all the answers, I'm not too sure about some of the questions even! :_) I don't know what prompted this post, but I hope it doesn't happen to me when I have a "stupid" question either. I find myself learning more when I try to answer others questions just as I learn when people reply to mine. Glenna Jo Christen LHS, LSFS, MSAS & HSP gwjchris@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 17:25:55 -0800 From: cynthia@caere.com Subject: Fire Hazard Heather, Welcome to the group (and Cyberspace). > I'm very new to the internet and to this list, so if >I do something very wrong, please forgive me and let >me know *gently*. I just wanted to comment on what Julie >Adams had to say about wool and fires. What you missed in the discussion was the original question. It was mine. I asked does anyone have any ORIGINAL citations for using wool as a fire retardant. Yes, it's clear to me (I do a fair amount of 19th outdoor cooking) that wool is a clever thing for 20th century re-enactors to use in aprons & petticoats. The question is: did the women of the 19th century think/know so? Did they act upon this information or is it like some of the other foolish choices, a bow to fashion at the expense of safety? Why cant I in any of a dozen Household management books and tens of cookbooks find a reference? It this so incredibly obvious that no-one wrote it down? Surely not. Would love to know if your group (or anyone elses) has primary documentation for this. I'd be equally thrilled to see earlier primary documentation. --cin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 17:44:50 -0800 (PST) From: Kimberly Smay Subject: re: libraries Another suggestion for you folks out in the boondocks. This list is chock full of suggested reading material. Present a list of ones that look interesting to you to your library. Librarians are often eager to have suggestions on new books to purchase. I think that having recommendations made to them on books outside their particular area of expertise is very helpful. Kimberly Smay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 18:04:03 -0800 From: gwjchris@ix.netcom.com (Bill and Glenna Christen ) Subject: Re: Sidesaddle Habits You wrote: > >Has anyone found any reference to sidesaddle riding habits that would >indicate that women rode with pantaloons and petticoats...from any >time period, but mostly from the last half of the 1800's? At least in the latter half of the 19th Century, a riding habit was very specifically worn for riding only and for no other reason. Habits were made of heavy material with a train to the left side to drape well over the woman's legs and not fly about if she should ride at a pace faster than a walk. Habits were rather difficult to walk in because of these features. I would guess they wore some type of functional petticoat under this, but nothing fancy and certainly not a hoop or bustle. >I have also found that the term pantaloons discribed trousers made of >wool or chamise and were constructed like today's stirrup pants. Most >sidesaddle riders, today, refer to pantaloons as bloomers, usually >white, with lace or ruffled bottoms. Pantaloons were first used to describe men's long trousers (usually stirrup styled when the term was first used) as opposed to breeches or "Knee Breeches" which had been the standard dress before. The term was briefly attached to the undergarments some women "borrowed" for under their dresses. It was considered rather racy at the time for a woman to wear pantaloons. I understand that wearing chamois underwear is very useful when trying to keep you seat on a side saddle and it was an important part of the riding habit. "Bloomers" are historically not underwear, but a loose fitting trouser generally gathered at the ankle to be worn under a roughly midcalf length skirt as part of a "reform dress" costume first introduced about 1850. They are named for Amelia Bloomer who did not invent this style, but only tried to promote it in her magazine, "The Lily". A number of other women's rights advocates such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony wore it at least for a while as well. It was a fashion flop, but many women continued to wear this style at least on a limited basis. One recent source is "Dressed for the Photographer" by Joan Severa which has been discussed here before for photographs and more info on this garment. The term I've encountered most frequently in period sources to refer (not that they refered to them often of course!) to the white cotton undergarment was most commonly "drawers" (because you draw them on?) the other term I have less frequently encountered in period sources is "pantaletts". (see the next paragraph but one.) My knowledge on riding habits is admittedly second hand, but I learned it from a very reliable researcher who rides period side saddle. Her habit is the only one I've seen that looks like the prints, photos and rare fashion plates of habits. She copied hers from an original. My 19th century dictionaries (4 different ones from 1856 thru 1867) define drawers as " garment worn under trowsers." Pantaloons are defined as "a kind of long trowser," and pantalette as "a kind of loose drawer worn by women." What can I say? Drawers was slang perhaps? At any rate, "Bloomers" were not underwear back then, that is for certain, nor IMHO are they underwear today. My high school gym class was one of the last one of the unfortunates who had to wear "bloomers" as part of our gym uniform. Ugh!!! I wish I could give you better sources for the riding habit info. Second hand info is all I have since I don't ride, but I have other "hobby horses" to ride instead. Glenna Jo "Who Has Her Own Bloomer Costume" Christen gwjchris@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 18:08:07 -0800 From: cynthia@caere.com Subject: Sidesaddle Habits Subject: Sidesaddle Habits Has anyone found any reference to sidesaddle riding habits that would indicate that women rode with pantaloons and petticoats...from any time period, but mostly from the last half of the 1800's? What references can I use to document the correct wear? Linda, There are original patterns in the ladies magazine "Journal de Demoiselles" particularly for the year 1873 and the 1880s. Perhaps you could borrow issues via interlibrary loan. Do so, if you can! The patterns are human-sized (usually 42-46 cm bust) rather than the reduced to fit on one page like Godey's & Petersens. They are in French, but the instructions are so minimal that you wont miss them if you dont speak the language. As I recall, the fabrics recommended were wool and "drap". "Drap" as far as I can figure just means heavy cloth. Perhaps coatweight? For 1873 color choices recommended were dark green, deep blue and black. ("Toute la robe est en drap amazone vert, bleu fonc=E9 ou noir.") Both patterns that I copied were petticoat-free. Neither had the= pants-like garment given in the Past Patterns model. --cin Should you choose to make up any of their patterns, note that they do not give seam allowances. The feathered arrow marks the straight grain. Pieces are assembled by matching the letters. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 96 00:02:56 CST From: bednarek@tidalwave.med.ge.com (Dennis Bednarek Mfg 4-6971 ~BHOSVWZ#097) Subject: Back boards A recient mention of back boards here has raised some quirosity in my mind. A long time ago I remember seeing a picture of a triangular board with a waist strap and shoulder straps. Initially I thaught it was some form of a front or breast piece since there was little or no discription with it. Could someone post or send me some added info on these so called back boards? Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 14:49:35 -0500 From: SyRilla@aol.com Subject: Searching for Shakespeare renactments Hello my friends, I need help in find a phone number or computer / snail mail address for any shakespearean renactment. General information is fine, but a costuming number would be most helpful. Please e-mail me. Thank you. Kimberly SyRilla@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 16:11:06 -0800 (PST) From: "Sarah E. Goodman" Subject: Re: Searching for Shakespeare renactments > I need help in find a phone number or computer / snail mail address for any > shakespearean renactment. General information is fine, but a costuming > number would be most helpful. Kimberly, I'm not sure what you are asking for here. Do you want theater groups or living history groups? Are you interested in Elizabethan recreation, or shows, or what. Will see if I can dig up an address for the Globe in London (which they are rebuilding more or less as per Shakespears day based on the archeological record of the orginal), but before I go beyond that I'd like to know that I'm looking for what you want. *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 20:20:25 -0700 From: savaskan@electriciti.com (Julie Adams) Subject: Re: nit-picking Kathleen wrote: >In response to: >>julie adams, who is in a nit-picky mood tonight :-) > >>No Tapestry fabric! Gack! Pltue! No Corduroy! > > What's wrong with tapestry fabric? I'm very proud of my >almost-pomegranite(sp?)-looking tapestries. I think you may be talking about a damasque (which is ok for nobles or middle class. Tapestry is woven differently. One key is that a damasque is usually either the same color for pattern and ground or has the pattern in one color and the ground in another. The patterns tend to repeat in some fashion. If you find a picture wall-hanging, you can often find them in antique stores or home decorator stores) and then compare it to fabric seen in aphostery stores you may be able to see the difference. The tapestries I am talking about usually have some type of semi-realistic floral in many colors. Usually there are 4 or more colors in a tapestry. This is purposefully written to simplify a concept with is difficult to describe without pictures. 16th cent. damasques in England also sometimes have a different colored outline around the pattern, but do not usually have more colors than that. If you are doing the first 1/2 of the 16th cent, then damasques tend to follow heraldic rules. What I mean by this is that if the pattern and ground are different colors, then one of the two is a fur or metal color (i.e. gold and black, gold and red, red and black). I am using black as a fur in this discussion. What you tend not to see is combinations such as blue and red. This is still pretty standard and safe if you look at pictures of the later half as well, though there is certainly more documentation of 3 colors together and the use of two colors. Please note that I am talking trends, not absolutes, which is more appropriate to getting the "look and feel" of the period. > And I thought that fine-waled corduroy was close to a period fabric? >I got this second-hand though, so it may be incorrect. (I just don't like >the look, so never bothered researching it for myself.) No one I know has documented waled corduroy for the 16th century. Some no-wale corduroys may well look like some period fabrics. I also don't recommend it because in tears easily. It is actually more fragile that it appears. We have allowed people to use corduroy INSIDE OUT, which gives a good _theatrical_ reading for a plain weave cloth. >>White caps for women only. > > What do you mean? That only women can wear white caps? I haven't seen men of this period in a white cap, but we would allow it with documentation. >Or that >women's caps should be white only? And why? And what do you mean by a cap? >Obviously not a French hood or flat cap. I'm assuming you mean the optional >cap worn under a hood, that was often worked with blackwork. In which case, >I understand that they should be only in white. Yes, the latter. I would suggest that while hats and hoods may be of colored cloth, small caps and womens head cloths (like the starched linen kind) should be white or white decorated with blackwork/embroidery based on the social class of the overall costume. The white women's head cap or cloths seemed to be very common for many periods for middle and lower class women. I am not talking about the decorated court cauls or snoods as caps though. >> >>Tell them to read "Elizabethan Costuming" by Janet Winter and Caroline >>Schultz, or better yet, some of the Janet Arnold books....A MUST for >>nobility. > > There are accuracy problems with the Winter & Schultz book, IMHO. >It's great for beginners, though. Yup, that was the point. Beginning faire workers would be better suited to the Winter and Schultz book, where advanced costumers and actors portraying nobility would be better suited to use a combo (as there are still some good descriptions in the Winter and Schultz book for things such as cartridge pleating. Julie Adams ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #13 ****************************** 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!