From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #60 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, March 9 1996 Volume 4, Number 60 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: need opinion on book Re: Fabric Finishing Re: Materials Thank you's for Ren Faire answers Exhibit catalog The Costume Page short hair for women Re: Short Hair for Women Re: Short hair for women? Re: Materials Re: Ren fair costumes Re: Where did the man's tie come from? Re: Question RenFaire Costumes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 19:58 CST From: vbetts@gower.net (Vicki Betts) Subject: need opinion on book Has anyone seen Kristina Harris' _Victorian & Edwardian Fashions for Women, 1840 to 1919_, published in 1995? What do you think of it? I am particularly interested in the 1840-1865 time period. Thanks, Vicki Betts vbetts@gower.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 18:13:33 -0800 (PST) From: Heather Rose Jones Subject: Re: Fabric Finishing On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, Paul C. Dickie wrote: > > "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... Hmm, I've seen grass clippers made this way. If you got a brand new (clean) pair, and had them specially sharpened ... Might work. Heather Rose Jones ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 18:34:13 -0800 (PST) From: Heather Rose Jones Subject: Re: Materials On Fri, 8 Mar 1996, Stephen & Krista Fraser wrote: > Could someone please take the time to explain to me the difference (if any) > between Jacquard and Brocade?? "Brocade" is any fabric involving a ground fabric with pattern wefts that usually "float" for their visible portion (i.e., pass over a relatively large number of warp ends). This was a popular way of incorporating metallic threads in weaving. Brocades developed as a hand-weaving technique -- although they can obviously be woven by machine too. "Jacquard" is a weaving process involving a Jacquard automated loom (or modern fabrics that resemble the products of Jacquard looms). The Jacquard loom worked by having a series of "punch-cards" that determined the nature of each shed. Each card had a set of holes indicating which heddles would be raised (or perhaps lowered -- I'm not sure). The cards were linked in a belt-like loop that would feed through the "reading" mechanism repetitively. The result was a process equivalent to the manual draw-loom (often used for complex damask patterns), but with the choice of threads automated. The Jacquard loom could, theoretically, be used to produce a great variety of types of weave, but it was particularly useful for complex, repeating, "diaper"-type patterns. So today, Jacquard tends to refer to a fabric with a woven-in, pictorial (rather than geometric) pattern, either done all in the same color with the pattern in texture only, or with different colored warp and weft, with the pattern created by differences in the amount of each showing (as in damask weaves). I saw an original Jacquard loom set up at the Deutsches Museum in Munich - -- very impressive! Some differences that result from (rather than defining) the differences between Jacquards and brocades is that brocades tend to have relatively large motifs that are bilaterally symmetric, while Jacquards tend to have relatively smaller motifs that are frequently asymmetric. This is all off the top of my head, so I may have slipped up in the details somewhere -- in which case, I hope someone will correct me. Heather Rose Jones ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 21:07:52 -0600 (CST) From: "I. Marc Carlson" Subject: Thank you's for Ren Faire answers My apologies to all on this list for taking so long to get back to you. I have to rely on my husband's account, and cannot respond as speedily as in former days. Thank you to those who read my post and answered, or tried to answer, my questions: Sarah Goodman Fran Grimble Elizabeth Fox Caroline Yeldham Deb Baddorf Meg Penrose Karen (sorry, I didn't catch your last name) Heather Housman Sincerely, Jennifer Carlson Tulsa, OK Posting from her husband's account Authenticity Police, Department of Internal Affairs "Sir Knowitall, we're investigating allegations that you're telling people medieval footwear is uncomfortable. We've checked and found out you've never tried a pair. I'm afraid you'll have to come with us." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 19:24:36 -0800 (PST) From: Allan Terry Subject: Exhibit catalog Sorry, I messed up when posting the address of the Prague Museum of Decorative Arts. The museum name is Umeleckoprumyslove, not Kuntsgewerbe Museum. I was reading from stationery that has the museum name in several languages. I know the difference between Czech and German, but it was past my bedtime. Fran ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 22:45:03 -0600 From: milieux@digital.net (Lauren Podolak) Subject: The Costume Page I have had an extensive costume web site up and running for the last 6 months at: http://ddi.digital.net/~milieux/costume.html On it you'll find museums, exhibits, pictures, armour, how-to's, and tons of sources of interest to costumers for fabrics, notions, supplies, and accessories. Check it out! _____ .__.__ .__ / \ |__| | |__| ____ __ _____ ___ / \ / \| | | | |/ __ \| | \ \/ / / Y \ | |_| \ ___/| | /> < \____|____/__|____/__|\____> ____//__/\__\ **Costumes for the Historically Hip** milieux@digital.net http://ddi.digital.net/~milieux ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 22:37 CST From: tallison@mcs.com (Tim Allison) Subject: short hair for women During the Regency period there were times when short hair was the fashion-carefully cropped curls is one description I have read. It seems to have gone along with no corsets, soft fabrics, and sensible footwear, adding up to one of the most comfortable periods for female fashion until this century. Carol Mitchell ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 20:45:18 -0800 (PST) From: "Sarah E. Goodman" Subject: Re: Short Hair for Women The mention of hair cut short for mourning (which is fairly common world round) reminded me of another instance of short hair. Orthodox Jewish cut their hair short when they marry (although you'd never know because their hair is also always covered). BTW, cutting your hair when widowed makes immense emotional sense. It's an action in your control (at a time when nothing seems to be), it's dramatic, and it's a visable sign of what's going on in side. My hair's pretty short, but I had a tremedous urge to hack what's there shorter when my husband died (and that not being really practical, I seriously considered dying it purple--there is a reason they tell the recently berieved not to do ANYTHING for a couple of months!) *************************************************************************** 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: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 23:51:21 -0700 From: savaskan@electriciti.com (Julie Adams) Subject: Re: Short hair for women? > Does anyone know of any examples/references? In "Who Wore What, Women's wear 1861-1865" by Juanita Leisch there are several pictures of women with a very distinct short hairstyle. This only seems to be in the late teens/early 20's age group. I have seen pictures of women in the 16th century (Italy, Germany and perhaps even England) with short hair, but it is not obvious whether health reasons were responsible. Julie Adams ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 23:51:18 -0700 From: savaskan@electriciti.com (Julie Adams) Subject: Re: Materials >On Fri, 8 Mar 1996, Kevin Richard-Morrow wrote: > >> By my copy of the OED, the jacquard loom was a 19th century invention. So >> pre 1800's brocade can't be a jacquard can it? > >As I understand it, the "jacquard loom" just mechanized what had already >been being done -- tediously and by hand -- for centuries. > > Catherine Heather Rose Jones provided a good explanation. Most references to "brocade" seem to assume a metalic thread in the weave. Some of the other references I have seen to "brocade" usually imply more of a relief in the weave than you would see in a standard Jacquard or damask. There some very specific patterns that are usually associated with Jacquards which were not normally seen prior to the invention of the Jacquard loom. In addition to Heather's comments, I have noticed that Jacquards often have stripes in the warp which creates almost a colored stripe which can run right through a pattern. While this is only a matter of warping a loom differently (and certainly doesn't require mechanization), it seems to be more prevalent in jacquard patterns than earlier patterns. It is always important to compare the pattern, weave and color of brocades and damasks to your sources. I know in the 16th century, the fashionable colors and types of patterns vary by country and change subtly every few decades. Julie Adams ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 08:28:37 -0500 From: NeaDods@aol.com Subject: Re: Ren fair costumes I can't resist jumping into this... which probably means that I'll draw fire from both sides... :> As many people have pointed out, Renfaires are business ventures, not teaching events. Furthermore, I've never been to a Faire that didn't throw elements of real history (how researchers see the middle ages), historical history (how people from a different era - namely Victorian - saw the middle ages), fantasy (unicorns), and blatent commercial endeavors ("Hey, let's call the turkey drumsticks 'dragon legs' & sell 'em anyway!") all together into a cultural blender. What you come up with is a homogenized look that is neither flesh nor fowl - not accurate history, but not quite pure fantasy either. It is, for lack of a better term "The Renfaire Look" -- unique unto itself, but universal in renaissance festivals. And busty wenches falling out of their tightly laced bodices seems to be a well-established part of that look; certainly they show up in every Faire I've ever been to. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of non-historians who go to Renfaires expect the women to look like the St. Pauli Girl. *We* know it's not accurate to the historical time period, but it IS accurate to the look of a C20 Renfaire. Nea neadods@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 05:51:23 GMT From: Bambi Dingman Subject: Re: Where did the man's tie come from? In article <+cmu.andrew.internet.other.h-costume+slDmYWa00UfAM105Vz@andrew.cmu.edu>, CSRT29A@prodigy.com (MR A R CRAIG) wrote: > Hello folks: > > I've trying to locate information on where tie's come from. Can anyone > tell me? > Thanks, A. Craig. > Upper Marlboro, Maryland. There is a good reference to this in the book "The Mode in Hats and Headdress" by R. Turner Wilcox. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1945. On pages 141-42 in a section on wigs in the eighteenth century, it says, "In the 'tye' or 'tie wig,' the hair was simply drawn back and tied with a black silk ribbon. The bagwig worn first by soldiers before 1700, had the hair encased in a bag of gummed black taffeta drawn tight by a string and covered by a rosette or bowknot of the same material. It is said that this style originated among the servants who thus covered their hair while at work but another source tells us that it originated in the stables where the horses' tails were covered when in the stalls. By the 'thirties, gentlemen had also adopted what was at first considered too negligee and disrespectful for the social world. The bag which increased in size to the 'forties, served as a protection to the coat from the grease and powder of the wig. The ribbon end of the tie wig and the bagwig were brought around to the front of the neck and tied in a bow. This was the solitaire and the beginning of the man's black silk tie. A jeweled barette or diamond pin sometimes fastened the solitaire." Hope this helps! Bambi ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 09:47:29 -0500 From: deirdre@sover.net (Deirdre) Subject: Re: Question At 5:22 AM 3/8/96, Mrs C S Yeldham wrote: >So, why are people so upset - unless they think they are being attacked >personally? I really am puzzled by the vehemence of the response! The answer, so far as I can see, is that this becomes a heated argument every couple of months and the threads go on. Frankly, I just delete 'em without reading them. I'm just wondering what they'll say in the future about what's historically accurate about THIS decade. _Deirdre http://www.sover.net/~deirdre "The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." -- Harlan Ellison ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 21:21:10 -0600 (CST) From: "I. Marc Carlson" Subject: RenFaire Costumes Dear Morghana, I accept your apologies, as in both cases you did misunderstand me. I am sorry that your past experiences have left you cynical and contentious. I assure you I am indeed gentle with those I am teaching, and if any RenFair folk do ask me for assistance, they will be treated with respect. Rather than go through your two postings line by line, let me encapsulate how I think you have misunderstood me. 1. Please read what I wrote, not what you thought I wrote. 2. I did not claim that the SCA has superior costuming to RenFairs. I loudly criticize the SCA's "anything goes" attitude towards costuming, and many other things besides. The accounts of authenticity requirements for some of the RenFairs that I have read on this list have roused my admiration, not my disdain. I wish the SCA had such. I mentioned being behind a push for a higher level of authenticity in my SCA region: does that sound like I'm satisfied with the SCA's status quo? As regards your suggestion of directing my efforts, my husband and I have been working diligently and with some success to get the sweatpants and sneakers off the list field, and to get the fighters into metal and leather armor. 3. I never claimed to be an expert on RenFairs. The only one I have ever attended is the Texas Renaissance Festival, where for four years I was in the SCA volunteer contingent - there was no friction between the "SCAers" and the "Rennies", by the way. I never saw such a bosom treatment at TRF as I described here. It has also been some years since I attended a RenFair, and did not know if things had changed. That is why I asked. I am uniformed where RenFairs are concerned. 4. Except for the bustlines, I had no questions about their outfits. Please read my post again. I complimented every aspect of their clothing that I saw, save for their busts, because every aspect of their clothing, save for their busts, was deserving of compliments. The public, however, has reason to expect that these ladies were accurately representing how a renaissance woman dressed - this fair billed itself as a renaissance festival, not a fantasy fair. I was asking if they had any basis for showing their breasts like this. As I said in my first paragraph, "but do those [fair costume] standard permit women's outfits that try to display as much of the breasts as possible, in an inauthentic manner?" 5. In your posting of March 7 you jumped your argument sideways and started discussing how my account of the event would be considered by historians in 400 years. This is known in rhetoric as setting up a straw man. It is an attempt to distract from the actual topic. My account can only be taken for what it was: a question about someone else's interpretation of an historical treatment of a woman's chest. 6. I am not hurt by your accusations of "tsk-tsking" and tongue- clucking. I am not an authenticity extremist, but I did make it clear in my post that I am a costuming snob. I also went to some length to explain why I feel myself qualified to make a judgement on the appearance and dubious authenticity of the decolletage. I hold myself to a particular standard for recreation: is this a bad thing? I cannot, and will not MAKE other people hold to the same standard, but I can encourage them to try it. Berating me for my personal standards is not going to make me hang my head in shame. I never, by word or thought, ever insinuated that I will look down on anyone who is not "blood curdlingly 'historically accurate'" - whatever you mean by that term. You apologized if that was not my intent, and indeed, it was not, so your apology is accepted. 7. I deplore the habit of shredding someone's work just to prove that you can do it, or just to get your kicks. If your self- image is that low, you need serious help. Reread my sig.line, please. The gentle guidance towards more authenticity, and leading toward that goal by example, are the methods that I use. Authenticity police, if there must be such (and since human society is made up of bell curves, it seems there must be) should be like cops directing traffic, not pulling people over and roughing them up. They should give direction, not orders. I was not shredding the young ladies' costuming attempts. I had a serious problem with ONE ELEMENT of their clothing. Go back and reread, please, what I wrote in describing their dresses (not their bustlines, their dresses). I have sent my thanks to all on this list who have responded to what I actually wrote, who answered the questions I had asked. Yes, I was blunt. Before sending my post, I must have spent a hour or more going over it, editing it, trying to make it as genteel as possible. But to handle it as "delicately" as some here would seem to have preferred would have required such pussyfooting around that the post would have been twice as long, and it was too long as I did send it. I tried not to be rude. I tried to mind my manners. I'm still upset with myself for staring like a codfish, as I was raised better than that. Sometimes, when a person writes, they do not put anything between the lines. I had no hidden message against renaissance fairs or for my own group. I am not out on some mission to discredit everyone who does not think like I do. If that were the case, I would have dumped the SCA years ago, and would not have gone to the Texas Renaissance Festival four years running. Jennifer Carlson Tulsa, OK Posting from my husband's account Authenticity Police, Department of Internal Affairs "You tell one more group of Boy Scouts that pepper was used to cover the flavor of rotten meat, Master Picky, and you're going to be introduced to the concept of the pillory!" For the humor impaired, my sig.lines reflect my disdain for those who are self-proclaimed "experts" who proffer known myths for fact to an unsuspecting public. ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #60 ****************************** 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!