From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #19 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 Thursday, January 18 1996 Volume 4, Number 19 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: who sends mail? Re: Sidesaddle Habits Re: Austen costumes Daguerrotypes online Re: re: Bloomers Primary Sources SEW: But taker care of yourself! Cote-armure Re: Primary and Secondary Sources Re: Primary and Secondary Sources Channel pumps Re: Austen outfits RE: SEW: But taker care of yourself! Re: Channel pumps Re: Exotic Silks Various ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Jan 96 09:56:28 EST From: AWILSON%abrscbr.ANCA@roris.erin.gov.au (Wilson, Annette) Subject: who sends mail? Hi everyone May I please make a general request that everybody who posts to the list includes their name (real name not SCA or other group persona name) at the beginning or end of the post. Personal email addresses would also be useful so that other people can contact a writer off the list if required. My email system does not tell me who is the author of a posting (it used to but alas no longer). It just tells me that it is from the H-costume list. I'm sure other have email systems with similar shortcomings. It can be very frustrating sometimes, especially when the content of the post suggests that I know the writer. Thanks Annette Wilson ********************************************* Australian Biological Resources Study GPO Box 636, Canberra, ACT, 2601 Australia Phone: (06) 250 9417 Fax: (06) 250 9448 Email: awilson@anca.gov.au ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 18:07:00 -0500 From: LBowlby@aol.com Subject: Re: Sidesaddle Habits Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with the resources you mentioned. You might add to your list The World Sidesaddle Federation, Inc., P. O. Box 1104, Bucyrus, Ohio 44820. The have an excellent reference book titled, Fair Lady Aside, which covers historical or period riding attire and the types of sidesaddles used. It costs $15.00 plus $1.50 s&h. It is softcover and is about 50 pages long. It includes drawings and photos. They also have a new book titled Sidesaddle Legacy. It covers more on riding sidesaddle, selecting a sidesaddle and modern show attire. It costs $21.95 plus $3.00 s&h. It is hardbound and is about 100 pages long. It has drawings only. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 10:45:17 +1100 (EST) From: Fiona Thorne Subject: Re: Austen costumes On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Cynthia Becht wrote: > Interesting point. Perhaps it stands out that way because often the > heroines of Austen novels are the least rich amongst their set and the > awful characters are richer. So, theatrical distinctions are inherent > in the novels. However, when Emma comes out later this year, wherein > the reverse is true, it will be interesting to see if the costumer > decides to stick richer colors on the "awful" characters or on the > richer heroine. It'll be fun looking out for this. Ah yes, but Emma has taste, whereas some of the others (eg Mrs Elton) don't (according to Austen). Austen's parting shot on the issue is the comment (paraphrased) is that Emma's wedding dress was simple but effective, not covered in frill, fancies and beads that those with less taste deem necessary. After reading Emma specifically to look for dress references, I had noticed the Austen only used dress to illustrate a point about her characters, not as background detail. I love the comment that Harriet after being frightened by the gypsys was a white as the gown she was having made. I would have thought that Harriet would have had to have made all her own clothes - that having a gown made for her (as referred to in the book) would have been beyond her limited means. Would someone in Harriet's position have paid for someone else to make a gown. Compare with Bennet sisters reworking their gowns in P&P, although they are reworking, not making from scratch. The Bennets would have had more money than Harriet. I always assumed that the new dress for the neighbour (Elizabeth's friend - the name escapes me at present) was bought, not made at home, so I guess the Bennet girls gowns would have been made professionally as well? Alternatively it could just be a plot device to give Harriet somewhere to go. Thirdly, it could signify something about Harriet getting above her station - that is, she should have been making her own gowns, not paying somebody else to do it. As a personal aside - to me this is a very important question. Contrast to comments made about Elizabeth Macarthur who was probably one of the richest women in the early Australian colony of NSW (I'm thinking 1805 - 1820 era). Her husband had been a Captain in the marine corp, and her "wealth" was a very large property and probably the best sheep herd (merino) in the colony. I have heard that she made many of the clothes for her family although she should have been able to get domestic help (convict labour). Of dear, time for the history books again. btw - the marine corp referred to was not the sort of crack troops the US marines are today, but that's another topic... Fiona - ------------------------------------------------------------- Fiona Thorne Masters Student, University of Technology, Sydney (Australia) fthorne@socs.uts.edu.au or Fiona_E._Thorne@aapda.com.au http://linus.socs.uts.edu.au/~fthorne ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 16:02:51 -0800 From: cynthia@caere.com Subject: Daguerrotypes online The Library of Congress has several photographic portfolios available thru their website. http://www.loc.gov/coll/print/guide I'm particularly fond of Portfolio 1, the 3rd image. It's "Anonymous, A Seamstress", 1853 posing with her sewing machine. --cin cynthia@caere.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 19:53:39 -0500 From: LBowlby@aol.com Subject: Re: re: Bloomers It is obvious that the term "bloomers" referred to outerwear. Sidesaddle riders are using the term as underwear. Thanks for the information. Is there similar information about "pantaloons" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 16:55:12 -0800 From: erin1@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Erin Harvey Moody) Subject: Primary Sources This has been an interesting ongoing thread of different perspectives relating to what is a primary vs secondary source (referring to the original question posed by Sharron Fina). I have been contacted by many off the list to help clarify, it seems that our posts only made people MORE confused. There seems to be two schools of thought on this based on the various responses to the list. To respond further at the current level would be reduced to a "yes it is, no it isn't" argument IMHO. Therefore, I will attempt to take this to another level. (By the way, this is NOT a flame of those who are of the "opposing" opinion. ) I thought it necessary at this point to bring in "outside" commentary. For those of you who are interested, I solicited the opinions/standards from the following professional organizations to which I am a member: The American Historical Association Phi Alpha Theta International Historical Honour Society The Costume Society of America I spoke with the following professional historians who are tenured faculty here at the University of California, Berkeley: Prof. Jan deVries, PhD Yale Univ, 1970 Prof. Thomas A. Brady, PhD Univ of Chicago, 1968 Prof. Robert Brentano, D.Phil Oxford Univ, 1952 All of the above confirmed my original interpretation of what a primary and secondary source is. Some of the difference of opinion about what is a primary vs secondary source may stem from different fields of study. I can only give you current professional standards from the disipline of academic HISTORY. The disipline of ANTHROPOLOGY for example, might have very different standards. That is to say, if you are writing a research paper for a professional and/or academic historical publication or instiution you would use the standards that I wrote in the first post, and that Nikki Weston, Laura Yungblut, and Loren Dearborn elaborated/agreed upon: Primary sources are from the contemporary period studied (however flawed the depiction may be) such as paintings, written text, sculpture, drawings, photographs, etc. This includes but is not limited to artifacts/archaeological evidence. Secondary sources are from any source out of the period studied. Dr. deVries made some interesting comments which I will share with you. He cautioned that not all primary sources are "created equal". For documentation purposes, all contemporary sources are primary. However, he mentioned *mediated* sources (Laura Yungblut described the same thing as "determining the value of the source"). For example: an artifact would be a *preferred* primary source over a painting of the same subject when studying the actual composition of an object, but both the artifact AND the painting would still be considered a primary source. The painting would be considered a mediated primary source (of lesser value). It would be the responsibility of the researcher to interpret their analysis using whatever sources are available to them and to evaluate the analysis based on the mediation of sources. Dr. Brady emphasises the importance of comparative research when using mediated sources. I would be happy to discuss further clarification to those of you who are still confused by this, or who come from different fields of study and have different standards than academic and professional history. Erin Moody ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 12:15:25 +1100 From: "Gillian Richards (02) 716 3712" Subject: SEW: But taker care of yourself! Greetings, listmembers, Before I start, I apologise to those who are getting more than one copy of this as I have posted to three different lists. But if you sew that much, perhaps you should take three times as much notice? :-) Helpful Hints to avoid "Sewing Stiffness" i.e. Strain Injury, and to minimise mistakes made due to tiredness/sewing burnout. 1) Have your machine, chair and table set at heights that mean your neck isn't bent over at an odd angle, or you're not trying to sew around a corner. Even if you think you are only going to be sewing for five minutes, take 30 seconds to make sure you are comfortable - how often have we sat down for 5 minutes and gotten up 3 hours later? 2) Light - and plenty of it. A small reading lamp in addition to the overhead lights. Unless you really enjoy unpicking black thread from black jersey by touch? 3) Set a small alarm clock or kitchen timer to go off every hour. Then, when it goes off, put down what you are doing (or finish just that small bit then put it down). Stand up. Stretch. Focus your eyes out the window at some distant object then back into your room about three times. Shake your hands. Do any of those exercises you may know for word processors/typists/machinists. Then go back to your work. Once every three hours (at least) have a real break - get a snack, a cup of tea or a glass of water - and you'll probably suddenly find you need a "comfort stop" as well. Take about 10 minutes at least - and preferably 20. Go for a short walk - even if it is only to the front gate and back (or if you're snowbound, just to the kitchen is fine!) Do NOT use the excuse "But I've got a deadline to meet" or "This will only take a minute to do three more seams/pin two more pieces/cut one more sleeve". The one minute and ten minutes you take doing these things will refresh you and give your muscles back some flexibility. If you don't, then you will find yourself getting slower, clumsier, making stupid mistakes - all that stuff. I constantly tell people in this office that the regulation 30 minutes for lunch is there for their benefit, and that trying to work 8 hours without a break leads to tiredness-based stupidities. Like the one where the submission for more English Classes somehow asked for better kitchens instead - but we're not supposed to talk about that one. Well, I seem to have rambled. These will not stop all mistakes, and if you WILL insist in sewing at 3am for the 8am start, well, what can I say? Except for "Been There, Done that, ended up wearing the T-shirt!" Sew On! Gillian + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | Gillian Richards - Multicultural Ed Unit |\__/| | | aka: gillian.richards@tafensw.edu.au / \ | | Official TAFE bit - did you knowGood Friday /_.~ ~,_\ | | is a Public Holiday? TAFE NSW - (02) 716 3712 \ / | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - @ - - - - - - + ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 21:25:41 -0500 From: kl94ag@badger.ac.BrockU.CA (Kathleen Leggat) Subject: Cote-armure Oops! The Gawain manuscript is actually thought to be 1400. That's what I get for not having the book in front of me to check details. Kathleen (Catriona) "Teehee," quod she, and clapte the windowe to. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 23:32:05 -0500 From: Carol Bier Subject: Re: Primary and Secondary Sources A photograph is itself a reproduction of reality and selective in what it reproduces; it is therefore a secondary source. Carol Bier Curator, Eastern Hemisphere Collections The Textile Museum ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:40:07 -0500 (EST) From: Drea Leed Subject: Re: Primary and Secondary Sources > A photograph is itself a reproduction of reality and selective in what it > reproduces; it is therefore a secondary source. So using janet arnold's book as documentation would be...let me see...tertiary? Quaternary? Tch. And here I thought she was a good reference. Drea ******************************************* We've secretly replaced their dilithium crystals with new Folger's Crystals. Now let's watch them go to warp. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 0:29:44 -0600 (CST) From: BPH3213@ACS.TAMU.EDU Subject: Channel pumps Can anyone describe for me what channel pumps might look like, circa 1770s? How did they differ from other pump shoes? Know of any contemporary references to them, or perhaps drawings, engravings, paintings, etc? Thanks, Bryan H bph3213@acs.tamu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 23:10:37 GMT From: dickie@bozzie.demon.co.uk (Paul C. Dickie) Subject: Re: Austen outfits Greetings! In message Astrida E B Schaeffer writes: > I'm no expert on empire-style, but I think the "blouse" you referred to > in your post was actually a spencer, which is a short jacket invented to > cope with the realities of wearing flimsy little short-sleeved dresses in > a cold, damp climate. So the color contrasts are those of outer-wear vs. > dress. If you look closely at the "curry-colored spencer" -- worn by Lizzy in quite a few of the scenes -- you may see that it was cut in a sort of sidebody style or, in other words, it was made up from five pieces of cloth. Mind you, unless you were *looking* for its cut, you'd probably not notice this; I only saw it when I had a chance to examine the costumes at a few inches distance, when they were displayed at one of the houses used for the outdoor scenes. Of more interest to me are the lapels on the mens' clothing, all of which seem to have been cut with a V notch rather than the M notch that one might more readily associate with that period. Odder still is the greatcoat (the costumiers called it a "duster coat") worn by Darcy in the final episode; the edges were left raw, with only a row of stitching to prevent them from coming apart altogether. I'd have expected that Darcy's tailor would have done a more workmanlike job of his overcoat! < Paul > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 08:53:00 CST From: "Lassman, Linda" Subject: RE: SEW: But taker care of yourself! A friend of mine went to her Chiropractor for treatment of an injury suffered in a minor automobile accident, and in her discussions with him, she mentioned that she did a great deal of sewing. He recommended that she put a piece of 2x4 under the back legs of her sewing chair; this would shift her posture enough to straighten her neck and spine and thereby reduce the occurrence of Sew-er's Neck. She reports that it really has made a noticeable improvement. - Linda Lassman Winnipeg, Manitoba ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 11:13:50 EST From: "Stephen Davis" Subject: Re: Channel pumps A channel pump is not going to be apparant in appearance since it refers only to the method of attaching the sole using a channel seam. My understanding of this seam is garnered from 18th-century shoe manuals and it reads as a rather complicated or at least complex method of stitching the sole to the upper from the inside of the shoe. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Channel pumps Author: BPH3213@ACS.TAMU.EDU at INTERNET Date: 1/18/96 1:37 AM Can anyone describe for me what channel pumps might look like, circa 1770s? How did they differ from other pump shoes? Know of any contemporary references to them, or perhaps drawings, engravings, paintings, etc? Thanks, Bryan H bph3213@acs.tamu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 10:15:31 -0600 (CST) From: "Rachel E. Mast" Subject: Re: Exotic Silks On 17 Jan 1996, Carole Newson-Smith wrote: > 1/17/96 11:27 AM > Exotic Silks > > Exotic Silks or Thai Silks has a non-800 phone number for > those who are not in the U.S. > It is 415-948-8611 > When you talk to them, ask them for a sampler of the colors, > and find out about what may be on sale currently. Okay....I would like the number for those who do live in the US.... If you have it that is.... And do they charge for thier catalog??? > > Carole Newson-Smith > Thank you Rachel Mast rmast@risc.usi.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 96 09:39:00 GMT From: Mrs C S Yeldham Subject: Various The reason white was so popular for empire-line dresses was that they thought they were recreating the fashions of the classical Greek period - hence the high waists and 'drapery' look. The fashion came from France, is closely tied in with the French revolution and contemporary French pictures show good examples - David is a good example. The original Greek dresses were coloured but they were going on surviving statutes, which had lost their pigment. The original dresses were also made from finely woven wool, not cotton muslin - shows the problems of recreation! I thought the big divider in P&P amongst which women looked good was who was wearing an appropriate bodice underneath the gowns! Elizabeth and Jane (BTW the actress was pregnant during the filming, which accounts for some of the shots in the bedroom!) looked good, Mrs Bennett and the younger girls looked droopy! A more interesting point made by clothes turns up in the recent BBC film of Persuasion (well worth a look at). A much more hard-hitting version of the book than P&P, and strong sense of showing social class, circumstance and status through clothes (Anne spends most of the film in deary 'cast-offs', when she joins her snobbish father and sister in Bath her wardrobe improves, evidently so she won't shame them). The book, and the film, are very clear on the status of an 'elderly' (she is 26 or 27) unwanted spinster. The point I liked related to Anne's sister Mary's mother-in-law (sorry, can't remember her name). Her daughters are fashionably dressed (one of them is the one who breaks her ankle at Lyme), as is Mary and to a certain extent Anne, she wears the clothes of the previous generation. Boned bodice with natural waistline, split front overskirt showing contrasting underskirt - you can almost hear her say that these flimsy new fashions may be well enough for young girls but she is going to stay in the clothes she is comfortable in! A useful reminder that not everyone embraced new fashions immediately! (Medieval/Renaissence influence? - I'll have to take another look!) Caroline ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #19 ****************************** 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!