From: Gretchen Miller Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 19:00:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 84, 3/29/94 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 84, March 29, 1994 Send items for the list to h-costume@andrew.cmu.edu (or reply to this message). Send subscription/deletion requests and inquiries to h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu For archives of this digest, send mail to close@lunch.asd.sgi.com Thanks and Enjoy! --------------------------------------------------------------- Topics: Punnishment Getting Tudor sleeves to stay up Houppalande definitions Question: British color numbering system "White" meats Thank you on Turkish Costumes Singlets ---------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 18:08:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bryan J. Maloney" Subject: Re: Costumes and Fashion serie > --- Greetings to all goode Gentiles who read this missive, Uh, what about any Jews on the mailing list? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) ---------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 18:38:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Sheryl Nance Subject: Re: Colours On 28 Mar 1994 wtmp18185@ggr.co.uk wrote: Caroline wrote: > I am surprised Susannah Richardson says English gowns of the 1520s and 30s > didn't have an armhole - Jean Hunnisett shows it in her book. I am looking > at a Holbein drawing now (admittedly of the unknown Netherlands woman) and > she has a piece of fabric running around the top of the sleeve joining the > back to the square neckline, although it is not easy to see because of the > turned back trumpet sleeves. It is a very narrow piece of fabric but > definately there, and necessary. I have made such a gown, using the only > back view we have (another Holbein sketch) which shows quite deep V's in > both the gown and the kirtle. This makes it difficult to keep the sleeves > in place on the shoulder, particularly with heavy trumpet sleeves, and > without an armhole it would be impossible. The fashionable gowns of the > period show a remarkably wide neckline - Jane Seymour's shows the curve of > her shoulder - and as the gown and kirtle stretch the sleeve head falls off > the shoulder. They must have had some trick to keep them on! A friend > suggests cords (non-stretch) running from the neckline through the armhole > and connected to the back. Of course, less fashionable women wore narrower > necklines. My reply: I have had experience making up a Tudor gown like you've described. The sleeves around the upper arms should be rather snug. This helps support the weight of the large bell sleeves. It also explains why all those Tudor women had their arms in the same position - arms bent, hands at the waist. You really can't move them very much with those sleeves and that arm position is the most comfortable! Sheryl Nance ---------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 18:55:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Sheryl Nance Subject: Re: Houppelande definition On Fri, 25 Mar 1994, Robin Colleen Moore wrote: >....It sounds as if what's > being described is not what I've always known as a houppelande, but rather > a surcot/surcote/whatever spelling you use. A houppelande, as I know it, > is a long, rather loose garment with long sleeves (sometimes gathered into a > cuff at the wrist, but usually left open and flowing, belted under the > breasts and at or slightly below the natural waistline for men (the basic ... stuff deleted ... > What I call a surcote sounds basically like the garment being described > here, which has a fairly (but not too) low rounded neckline and *very* > deep armseyes, cut all the way down to hip level and thus exposing the > underdress beneath, with a very long and full skirt. Reply: That's what I thought too so I went to the library and looked in The Dictionary of Costume and that's what they said as well. I looked because I didn't know what a houppelande was but what they were talking about sounded like a surcoate. According to this book, Robin's definitions are correct. ---------------------------- From: DGC3%RatesComm%FAR@bangate.pge.com Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 18:04:43 PST Subject: re: British Color Numbering System May I second Cindy Barnes' plea for info on the British system for numbering and categorizing clothing colors. It is used in the back of the Cunnington's 19th Century English Women's Clothing book recently reprinted by Dover, I believe, and looks very helpful, but we State-siders lack the necessary Rosetta Stone. Hope one of our English readers can supply this info! Danine Cozzens Internet dgc3@pge.com ---------------------------- From: rcarnegie@aol.com To: h-costume@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 21:16:48 EST Subject: Re: H-Costume Digest, Volume ... In reference to the "white meats" mentioned in the Sumptuary Laws letter, they are dairy products and not pork. I imagine such laws are only as effective as their enforcement, just like any laws. Nancy Kiel ---------------------------- From: Gary Link Subject: Jane Seymour's sleeves Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 23:28:42 -0500 (EST) > From: wtmp18185@ggr.co.uk Caroline comments on my last post: > Jane Seymour > > I am surprised Susannah Richardson says English gowns of the 1520s and > 30s didn't have an armhole - Jean Hunnisett shows it in her book. Well, I do surprise a lot of people whenever I open my mouth, so that's nothing new. I went back to the review of Norris that prompted this comment, and noted that I specifically referred to 'dresses like Jane Seymour' not the blanket statement of above. I have found over the years to my chagrin, and sometimes to my pleasure that blanket statements work like a blanket, they may cover most of you, but usually leave youwith cold feet or other bits. Never say never when doing research. Well, I like Hunnisett, but she's certainly not a good source for historical reproductions, nor did I ever say so.. Hence her title _Period Costume for the Stage and Screen_ What works for an actress is not always the same as a reconstruction. I believe, like Roy Strong, that the Seymour dress and others of that ilk use the sleevehead as the front of the neckline. This is an English dress... so the following really won't obtain, as each area had vastly differing gown construction styles. > I am > looking at a Holbein drawing now (admittedly of the unknown Netherlands > woman) and she has a piece of fabric running around the top of the > sleeve joining the back to the square neckline, although it is not easy > to see because of the turned back trumpet sleeves. It is a very narrow > piece of fabric but definately there, and necessary. I have made such a > gown, using the only back view we have (another Holbein sketch) which > shows quite deep V's in both the gown and the kirtle. Well, again, one sketch does not make a firm clothing practice. And if the Netherlandish women drawing you are referring to is the one from the series he did in 1526, they are not even equivalent to an English gown in construction, style or cut. This is indeed apples and oranges. There is a lot of evidence for the construction theory I presented on the sleevehead, including a number of portraits of Elizabeth, Mary, Jane Grey and others. There is a discussion by Strong of the three existing versions of the Seymour portrait, showing alterations in the appearance of the left sleevehead/neckline, if memory serves right he postulated that they were done at different stages of Seymour's health, but I am sure that someone will correct my failing memory if I am wrong. This makes it > difficult to keep the sleeves in place on the shoulder, particularly > with heavy trumpet sleeves, and without an armhole it would be > impossible. You misinterpret my statement, to not have an armhole is to not be able to get your arm in the sleeve... what I did say was that there was no front shoulder piece of the bodice, the front of the sleevehead makes up the neckline. It works beautifully, I have three gowns to prove it, one of which is a copy of the Seymour, compete with couched cordwork and all. And, my sleeves stayed right on the point of the shoulder where they were supposed to. The sleeves you refer to as 'trumpet' are also more of a funnel, with a normal diameter upper sleeve, and a lower sleeve of a tube shape, more than likely. To get the turn-back shape seen in the portraits, a trumpet or cone shape will not fold back nicely on itself. Hunnisett's use of the word 'trumpet' is a descriptive phrase, not an historical one, to my knowledge. But, then I am frequently shown new knowledge daily... > The fashionable gowns of the > period show a remarkably wide neckline - Jane Seymour's shows the curve > of her shoulder - and as the gown and kirtle stretch the sleeve head > falls off the shoulder. As I say, mine stay put. The trick is having the back of the back bodice neckline in the right place, the angle keeps everything right where it should be. I have never had problems with the sleeve head stretching, and I have made this gown in corduroy, linen, shot taffeta and satin and velvet. > They must have had some trick to keep them on! Well, barring spirit gum, correct construction helps a bit. > A friend suggests cords (non-stretch) running from the neckline through > the armhole and connected to the back. Of course, less fashionable > women wore narrower necklines. I can't do this in ASCII, or I would show you, but feel free to drop me a line at home, and I will send a sketch. Susanna Richardson P.O. Box 5741 Bloomington IN 47407 > White Meats > Sorry, not pork, but butter, cheese and milk were white meats and > forbidden during Lent. I suppose I should have put in the smileys, but I thought the bit about vacabondes would give it away.... And, no, I don't know of cases of actual enforcement, but I could go look in the basement of the law library, except for the fact that I really only posted all those bits for a little comic relief. > Caroline > -Susanna Richardson courtesy of Gary Link for the present Please sprinkle this post liberally with smileys, wherever deemed appropriate. ---------------------------- From: ritchiek@sage.cc.purdue.edu (unknown) Subject: Thank-You Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 11:28:20 EST This is a big Thank-you to everyone who reposted or sent me by email the article on Turkish Women's Costume. Thanks alot! I managed to get it saved and my landlady helped me get it printed. Thanks-Isabeau Pferdebandiger or Karen Ritchie depending on what time you are. ---------------------------- From: jsargent@hmg.com Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 08:22:08 Subject: Re: singlet (was: Heraldic Houpplandes) Note from an american male, In men's underwear, it is called a singlet. I have always wondered what they're good for, other than to keep chest hair from weaving dark shadows under sheer shirts. My 2 cents... Cheers! -jef _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: singlet (was: Heraldic Houpplandes) Author: ,zdlmail.ziff.com!aepler@zdlmail.ziff.com (Epler, Anita) Date: 3/24/94 9:18 PM >>Now for the tough question... What is a singlet. My Webster's dictionary >>briefly describes it as an " athletic jersey..have only one thickness of >>cloth." >It's like a t-shirt with the >arms cut out, rather than off. If you made a big circle around the >armholes and a deep neck front and back you'd have it. Like the runners in >the olympics. I think what you're referring to is known the US as a "tank top". - Anita ---------------------------- End of Volume 84 -----------------------