From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #99 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 Tuesday, April 23 1996 Volume 4, Number 99 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: Shoes Re: Waist Sizes Re: Waist Sizes Re: Millia Davenport Award, CSA Re: Arthurian costume Re: Waist Sizes RE: circlets Some Comments Re: Waist sizes/corsets Re: Small Garment Hypothosis Arthur (Digest V4 #98) Re: Waist Sizes Re: Elizabethan Partlets Wool for Cloaks Re: Arthur (Digest V4 #98) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:40:51 -0500 From: corbie@radix.net (Corbie) Subject: Shoes Well, I'm making some leather shoes for my husband for the Beltaine event next weekend... Got his feet measured, made one shoe, had him try it on for fit -- perfect! So I merrily proceeded to sew up the next one. When I got finished, I looked at the shoes, side by side, and said, "Honey, this is the only time I'll ever wish you had two left feet!" Aaargh! Fortunately, I DO have enough leather to make him another shoe (the right one, this time). I'd intended to make myself a pair of currans from the leftover leather. Cheers, Corbie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:50:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Deborah Tarsiewicz - 3528981 Subject: Re: Waist Sizes On 22 Apr 1996, Stacey Weinberger at WADSWORTH wrote: > I heard anouther interesting theory. The corset size is not the actual waist > size because of the gap in the back where the corset doesn't meet. Therefore > the corset "size" could be a minimum of 2" smaller than the actual waist size. > > Has anybody else heard of this? > > Stacey > I too have read this. I have also read that a lady when asked her waist size would often give her corset size which could be from 2 to 4 inches smaller then her actual waist. So Scarlet's famous 18" waist could actually have been 20" or more. I will try to find the documentation for this if anyone is interested. Deborah Tarsiewicz dtarsiew@nunic.nu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 19:37:20 CDT From: bednarek@tidalwave.med.ge.com (Dennis Bednarek Mfg 4-6971 ~BHOSVWZ#097) Subject: Re: Waist Sizes :> From BBrisbane@aol.com Mon Apr 22 17:27:51 1996 :> :> The gap theory could have merit, since I know of many ladies wearing corsets :> of many eras and styles which no longer meet in the back, and sometimes by :> more than two inches. Brenda :> It definatly fits to a point. However with a majority at 20" even if we add two inches for the gap and another 2 for restriction, how many 24 inch waist woman do you know that out of there teens? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:41:56 -0400 From: Ladnier@aol.com Subject: Re: Millia Davenport Award, CSA From the Costume Society of America Membership Directory 1995-96 The following have received the Millia Davenport Publication Award: 1991: Kate C. Duncan Northern Athapasken Art: A Beadwork Tradition 1992: Elizabeth Barber Prehistoric Textiles 1993: Dale Carolyn Gluckman & Sharon Sadako Takeda When Art Becomes a Fashion Kosode in Edo-Period Japan 1994: Liza C. Dalby Kimono: Fashioning Culture $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Pennies from Heaven, where it’s always reigning money, or at least my kids think so. Penny E. Ladnier, Virginia Commonwealth University Member Costume Society of America s0peladn@cabell.vcu.edu $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:10:00 -0400 From: Gaelscot@aol.com Subject: Re: Arthurian costume In reply to Linda Carniano, searching for information on costuming for the Arthurian legends -- what time period are you actually asking about? Roman Britain (when Arthur, if there was one, was really around) or any of the times when the various legends were popular? Costume at the time of the Alliterative Morte would have been quite different from that of Chretien de Trois, for example. The people telling the legends, of course, always imagined the characters in the costume of their time. Gail Finke/gaelscot@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:03:54 -0700 From: gwjchris@ix.netcom.com (Bill and Glenna Christen) Subject: Re: Waist Sizes You wrote: >Then You come up with a 24 inch waist. But I still do not believe the >24 inch could be the norm unless the age of the norm was 16 or so. I don't know if I should be flattered or I'm just misreading this message, but I'm 43 years old, 5'7" tall and my waist is just under 26". I very comforably achieve a 24" waist in my 1860's corset. This is when it is loose enough to hook up the front without adjusting the laces. If I actually tightened the laces I could go down to 22" I'm sure, but I don't like being uncomfortable. Basically, I don't think 24" is such a small waist size. I won't tell you my hip measurements though! ;-) Glenna Jo Christen gwjchris@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 23:26:42 PDT From: Ches@mail.io.com Subject: RE: circlets On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:27:18 -0500 (CDT) The Espresso Pegasus! wrote: snip > >get two feet of copper grounding wire from your local hardware >store.(30cents a foot) >and take a propane torch, a bit of solder (with flux) (or seperately) >and a bucket of cold water. Go to a pawn shop and look for a few good >files, and punches/taps. (these are basically 'hammer extensions' that >occasionally have a little circle tip/pointy end on them) And a cement >brick, and a pliers, and a hammer. > snip There are "can" torches you can get at some craft places. Check them out if you do not have a torch or a friend with one. Either way it is expensive. Ciao @}\ Ches @}----`--,-- http://www.io.com/~ches/ @}/ ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 96 10:53:00 GMT From: Mrs C S Yeldham Subject: Some Comments Just a quick response to some of the recent questions which stray into my area (and some that don't!). Re Garb Question I assume Mergriet means late medieval men's hose when she says "late period men's tights". By coincidence I am just making a pair of late 15th century English men's long hose (with feet). What you need is woven wool, a plain weave but one with lots of stretch on the bias (ie 45 degrees to warp and weft). They are then cut on the bias. does this answer the question? Elizabethan Chemise A side note on terminology - I have always been taught that the term for the women's inner garment is "smock" with "shift" coming in as a euphemism in the mid to late 16th century. I don't know when chemise comes in, but I think its later. A smock is quite full and goes down to mid-calf. A square neck is used early in the period, but is often (increasingly later in the century) gathered to a neck band (the cuffs are also gathered) which fits neatly around the neck - illustrated in the middle-class pictures around. The neck band (and cuff bands) also have ruffles, or pin gathers. This does not affect the ruff worn, if you are wearing a closed ruff it just sits inside, protecting your neck, and would certainly not affect the size of ruff worn. If you want to wear an open ruff of the later style, then a square necked smock below the line of the gown (and a separate partlet) would be appropriate. Part of this is how modest you want to be - the closed ruff does not give much opportunity for showing off cleavage - but the open ruff with a fine silk partlett (see below) can be very effective! A partlett is a neat idea for low-necked fashions where you want to protect your skin. It first appears in firm material (1510s?), usually black (I use medium weight linen often) and fits over gown over the shoulders down to about armpit level on front and back, tying under the armpits. In the latter part of the 16th century it moves inside the gown and becomes very fine - I've used silk gauze for this. They have round necklines to the neck, often with a little button (pearl?) holding the two sides together at the front. I don't know what a partlet shirt would be, except I have seen someone put a partlet into a smock (ie taking off the top of the smock and putting in a fine silk partlet), to stop the partlet riding up under the gown. I think this was a modern adaptation. I hope this helps (BTW round-cheeked faces look lovely in the white coif of the mid-Tudor period - think Holbein! If the gown and kirtle/forepart are spectacular enough, no-one will look at the smock! Quick Comment on War Recruits (tho' its not my period) It was my understanding that conscription in WW1 and WW2 were effectively the first UK national surveys of mens health, because all conscripts were checked for such diseases as rickets, tuberculosis, pneumenocosis (sp?) and STDs, and it was the shocking results of that, as well as height, weight etc, that drew people's attention to the appalling conditions in the UK, esp in the industrial cities. The end result of that, (not forgetting as political campaigning, was the National Health Service and Social Welfare (as well as an Agricultural policy emphasising cheap food) Free School Meals, free school milk, all of which were passed by Parliament on virtually cross-party agreement. Prior to that, England had congratulated herself on the quality of her fighting men, on the basis of the height and strength of volunteers, particularly for the prestige regiments (which had height restrictions). Most of these recruits came from agricultural areas, not the industrial cities. There are different views on the extent to which these conditions were the result of industrialisation, as well as the depression of the 30's, or whether they were the persistence of medieval conditions. My personal view is that conditions in England in the medieval/early modern period and the health of most people (outside famine and war conditions, the latter certainly affecting England much less than continental Europe) were a great deal better, and that there was a decline in living conditions and therefore health in the 19th and early 20th centuries with the growth of cities and the decline in the ability of people to grow food for themselves in the overcrowded cities. OK, off the soapbox! Caroline ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:25:13 +2510 From: "David M. Mitchell" Subject: Re: Waist sizes/corsets There's another factor to the waist size debate that needs to be considered, which, delicately put, has to do with the skeletal abnormalities of someone whose youth was spent in tight corsets. "Moden 1890-1920" by Cock-Clausen includes a very graphic sketch illustrating the difference between a "normal" ribcage and pelvis and a "corsetted" ribcage and pelvis--the corsetted ribcage is one heck of a lot narrower at the bottom! Someone who'd worn tight corsets through their youth could not wind up with a bone structure that would lend itself to a normal waistline, as the corset would have prevented the normal growth of their ribcages and limited it to much narrower confines (not to mention encouraging the fainting these ladies were prone to--never mind the tightness of their corsets, even their ribcages may have been too small to allow them to take in enough air!) A 19" or even 17" waistline--a "teenager's" waist measurement--seems a whole lot more believable when considered in the light of a waist not permitted to grow past the teens, or even earlier. $.02 Cheryl Blachuta ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:50:26 -0400 From: HMHousman@aol.com Subject: Re: Small Garment Hypothosis My two cent..... WWII uniforms are certainly not my area of expertise; however, my grandfather was 24 when he enlisted after Pearl Harbor. He was also 6'3'' and slender, but well built. Also, I have a number of friends who do WWII reenactments; and none of them who are over 5'10"" or over 200 lbs. have had any problems finding well fitting original uniforms (US, British, and German mostly.) Have a great day! Heather Housman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:30:01 -0700 From: Susan Fatemi Subject: Arthur (Digest V4 #98) As no one else seems to have suggested this yet, I would like to mention that if Arthur was in fact a British-Roman "Dux Bellorum" (per Geoffrey Ashe) that some approximation of 5th c. Roman garb might be appropriate. I think there must be plenty of sources for this, and would also suggest looking at Byzantine clothing of the period. (cf the mosaics at Ravenna) I'm not SCA, but just out of curiosity, why is the lady who is having trouble with her veil, using a *cotton* fabric? Wouldn't it have been silk in the period mentioned? (ca 12th c. as I recall) If not silk, what else would have been used? A really fine wool or linen?? (don't yell at me, I'm here to learn, too) Susan Fatemi susanf@eerc.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 18:39:15 PST From: Kat@grendal.rain.com (June Russell) Subject: Re: Waist Sizes :Yes that is true. Actually you can take the "norm" of 20 inches and add :the 2" for the gap. Add another 2 inches for amount it is pulling in the :individual from there natural waist size. Then You come up with a 24 inch :waist. But I still do not believe the 24 inch could be the norm unless the :age of the norm was 16 or so. Why do you think that? There are still many normal people who at age 42 still have waists which are in the 22-26 range. Americans are much bigger than they used to be, so it is not all that hard to believe that they had small waist norms. Kat Kat ( June Russell ) pacifier.com!grendal!kat kat@grendal.rain.com Heu! Tintinnuntius meus Sonat! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:55:43 -0400 From: HMHousman@aol.com Subject: Re: Elizabethan Partlets I don't have oodles of time to go into great detail about partlets so forgive me for being short. The easiest type of partlet to make is: 1. Take a comfortable fitting ladies long sleeve dress shirt pattern (yokeless) 2. Increase the sleeve and cuff widths 3. Add a two inch or so standing collar (draping the collar rather than using a straight two inches is more comfortable) 4. Box pleat little ruffs into the neck and cuffs 5. Add tie ribbons at the neck and wrists (or little shanked pearl buttons with loops) 6. Hem each side of the of the opening (where the button/button holes normally go) Use a finer natural fabric like a batist or silk. I've always had very good luck with great results using this technique. This look best _opened_ under a French style Elizabethan bodice (low cut square neck). This means you pull open the front of the partlet to show more cleavage. You can take it all the way to the corners of the square neck or only part way. I have been told, but have never seen any documentation, that unmarried ladies wear their partlets open and married ladies wear them closed. If anyone has documentation supporting or denying that I would love to get copies. I personnally wear mine opened or closed depending on the weather. Variations on partlets include making it yoked with excess fabric gathered into the neck. I find this looks best if you decorate the yoke (jewels, embriodery, smocking, etc.) and keep it closed to show off your handiwork. I don't recommend yoking/gathering open partlets as it makes simply to much bulk around the neck and shoulders. When you look at Elizabethan portraits and you see a lady's chemise that has a standing collar, wheither opened or closed, it is usually a partlet. I have not seen any portraits from Elizabeth's early reign where the women wore ruffs and did not wear a partlet (versus the opened neck of regular chemises.) I believe there are a few late reign portraits of Maids of Honor wearing opened necked chemises with the _really_ big ruffs and drum-barrel farthengales; however, I could be wrong. I don't have any books with me at the moment; and, it's been a while since I've studied late reign portraits. By far the majority of portraits show _white_ partlets, although there are a few black and red ones (this is also true of men's shirts.) Black partlets are seen more frequently in Italian Renaissance portraits. I'm sure others can add. If you have more questions about construction feel free to e-mail me privately. Hope this helps! Have a great day!! Heather Housman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 13:04:58 -0400 From: HMHousman@aol.com Subject: Wool for Cloaks I don't have the numbers with me at the moment. Try calling 213 information for Michael Levine's (they ship) and Jack & Daughter (great prices, weights, and bulk amounts, don't know if they ship.) Both are in Los Angles, CA on Maple St. You can check the archives. I've raved about them before. Heather Housman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:11:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Gwyndlyn J Ferguson Subject: Re: Arthur (Digest V4 #98) On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Susan Fatemi wrote: > I'm not SCA, but just out of curiosity, why is the lady who is having > trouble with her veil, using a *cotton* fabric? Wouldn't it have been silk > in the period mentioned? (ca 12th c. as I recall) If not silk, what else > would have been used? A really fine wool or linen?? (don't yell at me, I'm > here to learn, too) > No yelling. :) I have both cotton and silk veils. My early ones were cotton because I simply couldn't _afford_ silk. Between the increasing availability of silk in the midwest, the lowering prices of said silk, and my improving income, I can now afford silk veils. What I've found, however, is that cotton slips off the hair far less often than slippery silk. My favorite veil, however, is the one I use with my late-Saxon/early-Norman garb. It's raw silk, wich clings to hair better than anything else I've used. What I would dearly love to find (and then afford) is a fine linen, suitable for veiling -- even a fine wool! If they're out there, they're not in the midwest. All I've seen in either one is suit-weight, far too heavy for veils. The light weight linen I've managed to find is all in the most hideous neon colors I've ever seen. Any sources or suggestions? There has also been an extended discussion on just what medieval (for lack of a better term) silks actually looked like. Just another consideration when looking for veiling. I've started to get really picky about my appearance -- ok, my friends call me a garb-snob (in the nicest way) -- and I would to finally achieve the "look" with "the materials." Gwyn *Gwyn Ferguson******************************Ly. Gwyndlyn Caer Vyrddin *Dept. of History*********************************March of Lochmorrow *Western Illinois University***********************SCA-Middle Kingdom *Internet: GJ-Ferguson@wiu.edu***********************************MoAS But it's Eaaaasy! --gf ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #99 ****************************** 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!