From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #58 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 Friday, March 8 1996 Volume 4, Number 58 Compilation copyright (C) 1996 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: Question Re: renfair costumes Re: RenFaire Costumes Re: Fabric Finishing Thanks Elizabeth's Outfit is complete Wedding Information Dharma silks Re: renfair costumes Re: renfair costumes Re: renfair costumes Re: H-Costume Digest V4 #56 Materials Picky....picky, was: renfair costumes Linen Thread Re: RenFair costumes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 08 Mar 96 10:22:00 GMT From: Mrs C S Yeldham Subject: Question I know I am risking being flamed about the following question, but I hope you will accept it in the genuine spirit of enquiry. It is something that has puzzled me on this list for some time. Every time the question of 'authenticity' comes up a number of people get very upset that anyone should be criticised on these grounds, or, in the current example, for behaviour/costume that could give an immodest/immoral message to the viewer. Now, I accept I don't like criticism, but when someone is trying to improve standards I grit my teeth and accept the message. In the cases raised on the list it isn't even personal (because, with some exceptions, none of us have ever seen the costumes made by the others) it relates to other people, or perhaps groups we are involved in. Why take it as a personal attack, in every example I've seen the concern has been to raise standards - why is this taken negatively? We don't know everything people did in the past, we don't know everything people do now (if someone had told me what was going on in Gloucester when I was growing up I would never have believed them (we have recently had a notorious sex/serial murder case in Gloucester, England, the town I grew up in)) so we go by the evidence available to us. Saying 'they didn't do that' is surely a short form of 'according to the evidence we have, as far as I am aware, they didn't do that and it would be sensible to stick to what we do know'. One of the things we do know about costume of any age, is that certain items give messages to the viewer (my father thinks any woman wearing white strappy sandals with painted toenails is no better than she should be!). If you want to give certain messages, then you dress certain ways - fine, but live with the consequences (and I know what the consequences would be in England, if you don't get that with a million (was that the figure?) drunken Americans, then I am very surprised!). One of those consequences is the disapproval of 'decent' people, it happened in the 16th century and it happens today. I cannot accept the 'they are poorly paid, provide their own costumes, live in tents, have no money and are learning on the job' argument. The group I am involved in is keen on authenticity, and we achieve varying standards, some of which we are proud of. All the conditions above apply (although some of us have some money from other jobs) except we receive _no_ payment at all. Its not the conditions you are working in that determine results, although good conditions and money make them easier - the crucial factor is what you are aiming to achieve. BTW why is a justification for poor standards, that people are just having fun - I rather resent the implication that I don't have fun whilst pursuing high standards! So, why are people so upset - unless they think they are being attacked personally? I really am puzzled by the vehemence of the response! Caroline (ducking and getting out the fire extinguishers!) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 05:54:00 -0500 From: Booboopies@aol.com Subject: Re: renfair costumes There is such a thing as taste and common sense as opposed to being just plain common. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 06:00:03 -0500 From: Booboopies@aol.com Subject: Re: RenFaire Costumes And then there was the woman at a Rev War event not too many years ago who walked around with a pickle between her breasts inviting the men to "take a bite" for $2 a pop. Everybody was offended, but nobody had the guts to do anything about it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 20:20:06 GMT From: dickie@bozzie.demon.co.uk (Paul C. Dickie) Subject: Re: Fabric Finishing In message aquazoo@dcez.com (Ed Safford & Carol Kocian) writes: > There is a good book called _The Final Steps_ by Beverly Gordon. > "Traditional Methods and Contemporary Applications for Finishing Cloth by > Hand." ISBN #0-934026-07-6, Library of Congress #82-81232... > > Traditionally, after the fulling the nap of the fabric was raised > by brushing. Then it was trimmed to a uniform height. In some cases, the > nap was raised & trimmed as many as three times. Trimming sounds like a > tedious and precise operation. On page 29, Gordon says: > "Cropping or shearing is probably the most difficult procedure for > handweavers or other clothmakers to carry out at home. The traditional hand > shears is, to my knowledge, no longer available anywhere. Most scissors are > too small to be helpful, and awkward to use horizontally. ... Cropping shears had offset bows (the parts one's fingers go through) to make them easier to use close to the surface of the cloth. However, though I know of no shears now made with offset bows, I can't help but wonder if large paperhangers' (decorators') shears might not be quite big enough... < Paul > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 07:50:51 EST From: "laura yungblut" Subject: Thanks Thank you to everyone on the list who replied to my query about short hair as a fashion for women before the twentieth century. I'm sure my student will be quite pleased. Laura Yungblut U. of Dayton yungblut@checkov.hm.udayton.edu ********************************************************************** The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. Nemo me impune lacessit. Veni, vidi, visa. Get a room. Barney is the Antichrist. Miao. ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:34:51 -0500 From: Ladnier@aol.com Subject: Elizabeth's Outfit is complete Thank you to all the people who responded to my questions on Queen Elizabeth in the past two weeks. The information was very helpful. My paper, Queen Elizabeth- Accessories Make the Dress, is complete. I came up with over twenty references. Anyone wanting a copy of my bibliography, Email me direct. But you will not get a response for about a week and a half for... I'm off tomorrow to London and Bath to do research. Keep up the good advise on the Mailing List, it's helping me carry an A in Costume History. The List does help people like me who are trying to learn. $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Pennies from Heaven, where it’s always reigning money Penny E. Ladnier, Virginia Commonwealth University s0peladn@cabell.vcu.edu $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:03:44 -0500 From: aquazoo@dcez.com (Ed Safford & Carol Kocian) Subject: Wedding Information Recently there was some talk about historic wedding information. For those in the Washington, DC area, this notice appeared in the March 7,1996 Washington Post, Home section, page 20: Tying the Knot: Courtship and Marriage in America, 1750-1860 symposium will explore courtship and marriage traditions, wedding gifts, decorations and attire. March 15, at George Mason University in Fairfax. Cost: $35. (703) 631-1429. I won't be able to go, but I would love to hear about it from someone who attends! -Carol *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* This account is shared by Carol Kocian and Ed Safford. Carol can also be e-mailed at ckocian@epe.org Ed can be reached at ecsaffor@ingr.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:34:04 -0600 (CST) From: Teresa Shannon Subject: Dharma silks > > PS. Anyone know the quality of Dhama silks? They carry china silk, chrepe > de chine, Crepe Back Silk Satin(charmuse) Raw Silk, Silk gauze, Silk > Chiffon, Silk Satin(12mm) and Silk Dupion....Just curious... Thanks! > If this is the place I remember, around Santa Rosa or up around the Bay? They are mainly an artist supply shop and not generally a "fabric shop" per se. Most of their fabrics are only offered in whites for silk painters. I highly recommend their quality silk and fabric paints and dyes. I think they even get much of their silk from Exotic/Thai silks. Not everyone can affort to import their own silk. If this isn't the place I am thinking of then ignore this post. A good place to go for silk enthusiasts and fabric painters. Teresa ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:41:33 -0600 (CST) From: "\"Randy Shipp\"" Subject: Re: renfair costumes On Thu, 7 Mar 1996 Morghana@aol.com wrote: > What I took issue with WAS the flavor of the post. What *I* saw was a > self-proclaimed member of the authenticity police "tsk-tsking" those > ill-informed RenFaire folk in the guise of a query that was worded to make > the point that unless you are blood-curdlingly "historically accurate", then > you are to be looked down at. IF that was not the original poster's intent, > I apologized once, and I will do so again. I don't have the original post handy, but I thought the original poster simply asked if anyone had documentation that the garb she saw was worn in period. She also said she didn't like the amount of cleavage, but the rest of what you saw may have been read between the lines, if my memory serves me. > My biggest objection is the waving of credentials then the proclaiming of > "This is OBVIOUSLY wrong" or "not in period" or the one that I love the most > "They never did such-and-so." How do we know they didn't? Did she say these things? Or are you venting at the Authenticity Police in general? > Yes, I'm aware that many writers have "documented" wardrobes and painters > have made hundreds of lovely depictions. BUT, remember the bias of the > painter, the writer and the memory. Weren't many of the painters in our period painting in very realistic, almost photo-like styles? If so, then the only "bias" likely is simply determining who the subject is, and why they're wearing what they are. Research into the painting might tell whether they are royalty or in a costume or whatever. I doubt the painter very frequently painted them in clothes other than what they were wearing at the sitting. > Yes, I may be exaggerating the point, but I think it should be remembered, > that all the documentation that we (and I include myself) cite actually > covers a small fraction of what was actually done and worn, and is subject to > the whims, interpretations and artistic license of the documenter (and any > bias that documentor has or wishes to espouse). ...and, since we were not there, we are best to disregard as biased and not trustworthy all that documentation? Or, as the Inauthenticity Police seem to want, we should choose to ignore what we are able to learn...after all, being authentic is SO much less fun. > The other point I'd like to raise is this: If you find the display of bosoms > unpleasant or tasteless, just say so. It was done by the original poster. > Please don't couch it in terms of > historical correctness. That seems a valid criteria given the topic of the list. > It neither lends respectability nor credibility to > the assertion, and involves scholarship in an arena it simply is out of place > in. What DOES add credibility is to basically say that since we can't, with 100% certainty, say that Klingons did not exist in period, that it's OK to show up as a Klingon. This argument has been had before, but I think it's the extreme end of what your reasoning about documentation leads to. > You are ALWAYS welcome to express your opinion on this, and I will > defend your right to do so, but leave historical correctness out of it. Paraphrase: "You are welcome to express your opinion, unless you intend to be scholarly and educated, in which case you will lessen my fun. Better that you agree with my peasant outfit and keep your documentation to yourself." Randy... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:55:46 -0600 (CST) From: The Espresso Pegasus! Subject: Re: renfair costumes > >For one.. most are theatre majors, and just don't care.. much less afford > >it. The costume-departments have the capability to be very period.. but > >for theatre.. it makes no diferance.. (lace over lame' looks like brocade > >from 50 paces) They make do with what is available to > >them... and If they so choose, they can go forward in period-ness. > > Don't be surprised if you find a few touchy responses to this snippet - most > theatre costumers strive for accuracy WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE. Historical I meant no offense to the theatre people.. I am speaking from the College level.. with students with one or less classes on the subject... They DO try, And I am by no means trying to put down thier efforts... My appologies, Sarahj ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:36:22 -0800 (PST) From: Tracy Miller Subject: Re: renfair costumes On Thu, 7 Mar 1996 Gaelscot@aol.com wrote: > prostitutes. Doesn't the Faire management care? Does it want its workers to > be classed with Hooters waitresses? Isn't the Faire encouraging a callous > attitude toward its workers, if not all women? I would certainly want to > know. And when I see such an outfit I always want to know what the wearer was > thinking -- even if I never ask. > Gail Finke/gaelscot@aol.com > I can only speak for one Faire - RPFN (Renaissance Pleasure Faire North, of Northern California) and it may relieve you to know that, yes, they do care. I was told, if I remember correctly, that no more than half of the bosom can appear over the bodice (not inc. shift which should cover another 2 inches or so) and absolutely NO nipples or "over the top" (you know, where you pull your breasts completely out of the bodice - seems rather painful to me, I can't imagine why anyone would WANT to do this). So, what happens is, some of the gals get in line for costume approval, demurely following all of the above rules, and pass with flying colors. And once they get the "OK" stamp, they then procede to do exactly as they please, secure in knowing that the "costume police" can't be everywhere at once. Tracy (who was a "boothie" for a very short period of time) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 11:47:45 -0500 From: Carol Bier Subject: Re: H-Costume Digest V4 #56 I wanted to bring to your attention a published work: G.M. Vogelsang-Eastwood, _Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing_, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1993. ISBN 9004097449, list $94.75. Gillian also has a book in preparation on _Costumes and Dress of Tutankhamun_ to be published by E.J. Brill. Carol Bier Curator, Eastern Hemisphere Collections The Textile Museum 2320 S Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20008 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:06:15 -0500 From: medieval@muskoka.com (Stephen & Krista Fraser) Subject: Materials Hi! Could someone please take the time to explain to me the difference (if any) between Jacquard and Brocade?? Confused Again, Krista medieval@muskoka.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 07:53:08 PST From: ches@tristero.io.com Subject: Picky....picky, was: renfair costumes On Thu, 7 Mar 1996 23:26:13 -0500 (EST) Judy Gerjuoy wrote: >I, on the other hand, think that entertainment groups *do* have an >obligation to try and do a good job. If they are billing themselves as a >Rennaissance Fair they *should* try and do it accurately. > >If they are billing themselves as a fantasy fair, that is something >different. Then they can do whatever they please. Picky, Picky, picky..... I will pick next. Fantasy fair means sci-fi and a multitude of others. Ren fair means that which the organizers FEEL is of the days gone by before 1600. If you don't want to see it, be entertained by it then by all means do not go. I will go. I want to buy nifty gifts for christmas and such. Maybe if I am in the mood I will take out my washable finery and walk through the ever present mud and be a part of an amalgam of culture and time. Ciao @}\ Ches @}----`--,-- http://www.io.com/~ches/ @}/ Ciao @}\ Ches @}----`--,-- http://www.io.com/~ches/ @}/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 11:00:14 -0600 (CST) From: "SHERYL J. NANCE" Subject: Linen Thread Since there's been so much discussion lately about linen, I thought that I would share the brochure that came in the mail this week. It is from a company called Royalwood Ltd. and is for several weights of Irish waxed linen thread. It's a bit pricey for me, but someone else may like it. The company is: Royalwood Ltd. 517 Woodville Rd Mansfield, Ohio 44907 1-800-526-1630 The brochure shows 4 weights of thread: 2-ply and 3-ply in 50 gram spools. (comes in 17 colors) 4-ply in 50 gram spools. (comes in 30 colors) 7-ply in 125 gram spools. (comes in 17 colors) 2,3 & 4-ply sell for $7.50 per spool (cheaper if you buy in bulk) 7-ply is $17.30 per spool (also cheaper if you buy in bulk) The brochure says that they will supply a color card for $2.00. (The usual disclaimer: I don't have any affiliation with the company, I just thought someone on this list might be interested.) Sheryl J. Nance ...one of the secret masters of Kansas City MO Public Library the world: a librarian. They p_sheryl@kcpl.lib.mo.us control information. Don't ever p**s one off. - Spider Robinson, _The Callahan Touch_ (Opinions expressed in this message do not reflect the viewpoint of the Kansas City MO Public Library.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:26:20 EST From: "laura yungblut" Subject: Re: RenFair costumes Fellow subscribers to H-Costume: I've been reading this thread and trying not to comment, but I can't resist -- I've been sucked in. I can speak on this issue from a variety of perspectives (in no particular order): I am a Ph.D. in Elizabethan History at the Univ. of Dayton; I play Queen Elizabeth I at the Ohio Renaissance Festival and am on the production staff; and I am a member of and peer in the SCA. By my interests in and obligations to all of these (as well as due to my own inclinations), I try to sew costumes that are as **reasonably** accurate as my skill and wallet will permit. **However,** my years as historical advisor to the ORF have given me an interesting "take" on the accuracy issue in Festival costuming (among other things). At the ORF, we try to be as historically accurate as possible in materials, colors and cuts of clothing for the various classes, once again allowing (as mentioned in an earlier post) for the fact that budgets are limited and people have to pay for their own. [The two I have made so far cost @ $500 for the first and $900 for the second, accessories included.] Regarding the cleavage issue, we do not get as extreme as some of the examples cited in this discussion, but there are come chesty ladies in our cast (peasant class) who would be hard-pressed to limit themselves to a two-inch display. Even if they covered 'em with fabric, they'd be impossible to miss anyway. These factors being as they may, there is a much bigger issue that seems to have somewhat overlooked. I am historical advisor on the ORF production staff, and as such, am on the committee which oversees costuming. In my position as historical advisor, many times there have been conflicts between "what is historically accurate?" and "what is entertaining? what does the public expect to see?" Guess which virtually always wins in a commercial, for-profit enterprise?? There are -- fortunately for my sanity -- many occasions where I have had the opportunity to insert authentic re-creation into the ORF, but the anachronisms are still plentiful. Frankly, we still use electricity for cooking and providing cold beverages; we opted not to have authentic filth, poverty and disease; and I walk all over the site (I'm still trying to get that sedan chair!) once I have ridden in during the opening parade. We also have Shakespeare, although we portray 1572 **because the public expects and wants him to be there.** [Our Student Days during the week tend to be much more inclined toward historical accuracy and educational utility.] All I'm saying is to try to bear in mind that RenFaires are for- profit entertainment, and have to balance a great number of considerations, most importantly what brings in patrons and what they want to see once they are there. If you want near-absolute historical accuracy, **there are other venues.** Please do not impose your strict judgments (term chosen intentionally) in a blanket manner on any and all period-esque endeavors. As in all spheres of human enterprise, there are many variations, interpretations, and room for all of them. Laura Hunt Yungblut, Ph.D Univ. of Dayton Queen Elizabeth I, Ohio Renaissance Festival Mistress Rosamund Beauvisage (OL), Society for Creative Anachronism yungblut@checkov.hm.udayton.edu ********************************************************************** The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. Nemo me impune lacessit. Veni, vidi, visa. Get a room. Barney is the Antichrist. Miao. ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #58 ****************************** 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!