From: Gretchen Miller Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:32:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 181, 11/15/94 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 181, November 15, 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 Enjoy! --------------------------------------------------------------- Topics: The origin of hooks and eyes Period costumes in the movies ISO Information about italian costume, 1400-1650 Piecework address and rickrack citation What farthingales are made of Men's cloak patterns Making your own rickrack Pins and Elizabethan sumptuary laws Question and answer:What's a camlet? ---------------------------- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 1994 13:46:59 -0800 (PST) From: PATSY DUNHAM Subject: Re: hooks and eyes My husband has repeatedly stated, and while I can't document, it seems plausible, that the _Romans_ had superior wire making technology to anything seen in the Middle Ages, till the Renaissance. Like I say, I can't document it at this moment. It seems to me that anyone who could make good quality, relatively cheap wire, and understood the concept of the fish-hook, would eventually invent the hook-and-eye. Also, in Gail Owen Crocker's _Anglo-Saxon Dress_ (a WONDERFUL book), she mentions a wrist closure that uses a similar principle to the hook and eye, but with sheet stock instead of wire. I'm at work, wish I could be more specific; there's a good clear drawing of it. (sorry to be so squishy about the documentation) prd Patricia R. Dunham, Gary Walker e-mail:dunham%euglib@MRED.LANE.EDU Eugene OR USA home, machine: 503-683-2220 SCA: --Mistress Chimene des CinqTours, OP, An Tir --Meistari Gerekr fjarsjandi Rognvaldsson, the Farseeing, OP, OL, An Tir +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 10:45:58 -0500 (EST) From: Elizabeth McMahon Subject: re: movie costumes On Tue, 1 Nov 1994, Lassman, Linda wrote: > >>Nobody has yet mentioned the Gerard Depardieu film from a couple of years > >>ago--Toutes les matins du monde--about violists da gamba Ste. Colombe and > >> *cut* I can't stands it no more! In I jump to the movie discussion... I had wanted to see the Gerard Depardieu/Sigourney Weaver "1492" (Columbus redux) on a big screen, but never got around to it. How were the costumes? It looked like some of them might be pretty good, but the designer had a concept about "Isabella at home", so he/she took a bunch of liberties with the scenes where Sigourney Weaver was dealing with Depardieu in private. > Victorian--as well as a fabulously campy movie! And so far as "Bram Stoker's > Dracula" is concerned, I _knew_ it would win the Oscar for best costume > because they were so awful! While I was awed by the horribleness of the > wedding dress, my very favourite was Renfrew's dryer-hose costume from the > madhouse.... I have to admit that I really loved this movie. I've never read the original book, but this movie struck me as being gloriously visually delicious. It seemed to capture the whole grandiose "Gothick" feeling, complete with really great ghoulie demon types. Yeah, it was way over the top, but that seems to me to be exactly what the whole Victorian-Late-Romantic-Gothick genre was about, not to mention Hollywood. There was nothing restrained, or authentic about it, and looking back, a lot of it was *very* silly! Does this fit this movie, or what? I expected the costumes to be pretty silly, but I thought (once you rearrange your expectations not to expect authenticity) they were suitably sumptious and colorful. My favorites were the red "gown" thingy Gary Oldham wears in his castle, and Lucy's ridiculous wedding dress is one of the few things that I could point to and know what sort of costumes the designer had been looking at. It was a really splendid example of Victorian fancy dress, I thought. Not apprpriate as a well to do young lady's wedding gown maybe (but perfect in a Gothick movie!), but a really good version of the pseudo-historical fancy dress costumes that were so popular for the theme parties of the very rich. On this note, there's an interesting topic: Fancy dress. What are people's favorite outrageously interpreted historic costumes? The Victorians did some of my favorite really silly misinterpretations. The Victorian exhibit at the Met a few years back had some wonderful "Elizabethan" and "Jacobean" gowns done for a party held by the Astors, here in New York. As far as movies go, though, I love the Zefferelli version of "Taming of the Shrew" with Elizabeth Taylor. If you ignore her dresses, the film is wonderful in its exqusite details. And I love the way Zefferelli blends in all of the many bits of the Shakespeare so that all the transitions and characters blend seamlessly. ;*) Of course, I also adore the knock-off version done on the TV show "Moonlighting" (witty comedy with Cybil Shepard and BRuce Willis) about 8 years ago! It had a better ending! My $1.00/worth or so! Beth McMahon, on a bad phone day at the office ---------------------------- Date: 02 Nov 94 12:16:30 EST From: PAT HOUSE <71114.106@compuserve.com> Subject: Request for information Hello: I was given this address as a source for information on historic costuming. I am specifically interested in European (Italian especially) from 1400-1650. Can you give me more info on your service? Thank you. ---------------------------- From: CharlesbE@aol.com Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 12:34:13 -0500 Subject: Re: re: movie costumes Has anyone seen The Leopard with Burt Lancaster? I can"t seem to get it on video tape.I heard it had fine period costumes. ---------------------------- From: pedersee@ccmail.orst.edu Date: Wed, 02 Nov 94 09:34:40 PST Subject: Re: rickrack and Pieceworks Magazine Piecework, Interweave Press, Inc., 201 East Fourth Street, Loveland, CO 80537. (303) 669-7672. It was in the May/June 1994 issue. (rickrack) Elaine Pedersen pedesee@ccmail.orst.edu ---------------------------- From: "Lassman, Linda" Subject: Re: hooks and eyes Date: Wed, 02 Nov 94 11:54:00 PST >From: PATSY DUNHAM >Subject: Re: hooks and eyes > >My husband has repeatedly stated, and while I can't document, it seems >plausible, that the _Romans_ had superior wire making technology to anything >seen in the Middle Ages, till the Renaissance. Like I say, I can't >document it at this moment. It seems to me that anyone who could make good >quality, relatively cheap wire, and understood the concept of the fish-hook, >would eventually invent the hook-and-eye. Isn't invention driven by need? From my knowledge of Roman clothing (which, I grant, isn't as comprehensive as it could be), I don't think hooks and eyes would have been particularly useful to them in clothing. I know they used pins and brooches to hold things together, but I'm not sure that hooks and eyes would have made their lives easier. Particularly when considering a culture where ability to arrange and handle a toga was a sign of civilization /style! >Also, in Gail Owen Crocker's _Anglo-Saxon Dress_ (a WONDERFUL book), she >mentions a wrist closure that uses a similar principle to the hook and eye, >but with sheet stock instead of wire. I'm at work, wish I could be more >specific; there's a good clear drawing of it. > >(sorry to be so squishy about the documentation) >prd That sounds really interesting. If you have a chance to provide the documentation, I for one would be interested in it. > Patricia R. Dunham, Gary Walker e-mail:dunham%euglib@MRED.LANE.EDU > > Eugene OR USA home, machine: 503-683-2220 >SCA: >--Mistress Chimene des CinqTours, OP, An Tir >--Meistari Gerekr fjarsjandi Rognvaldsson, the Farseeing, OP, OL, An Tir >+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ - Linda Lassman Winnipeg, Manitoba ---------------------------- From: DCROSS@bentley.edu Date: Wed, 02 Nov 1994 16:33:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: hooks and eyes > > On Fri, 28 Oct 1994, erin k. gault wrote: > > > Also, does anybody know of any really good references on corsets or any > > other undergarments (hoops, chemises, etc.)? I have corsets & crinolines > > and it doesn't have all that I want in it. At least in the crinoline > > department. Thanks for any help! > > What exactly are you looking for with respect to hoops? If you are > looking for 16th century references (I see by your .sig that you are a > SCAdian), Janet Arnold (dum dah dum!) refers to a period pattern for one > that is *very* cloth economical that comes from the Tailor's Pattern Book > by Juan de Alcega, c. 1589. In _Patterns of Fashion: 1560-1620(?)_ she > shows a drawing of it made up, alongside the pattern layout copied from > the Alcega book. > > Note that to make this, the instructions are given (I > think - its been a while since I've made this up) for cloth that is 22" > wide. Also note that this pattern gives a really appropriate and nice > looking modest width of hoop for use with garments dated about 1540 to > about 1565?. After that fashionable court garments tended to get wider > and wider. Note also that the pattern is particularly nifty in that it > sews straight grains to bias grains, thus preventing the bias grain > "dip" that happens after a while. > > She also discusses this garment in _Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd_ > under the section about "The Queen's Artificers". One interesting thing > here is that it seems that a common hoop stuff was rope or scrap fabric > rolled into ropes. I have seen this done, and it provides a very nice > shape, and a lot more flexibility for wear, particularly at large events > where hoopskirted women are a doubloon a dozen. > > Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, Lady Gendy, OL > Beth McMahon, avoiding work this morning A wordrobe account for Queen Mary I lists the farthingale as red, made out of silk, guarded with red velvet (the bottom section is made of velvet-I used about 6" around the bottom and put the bottom hoop in its hem). It's really functional-the nap on the velvet helps prevent massive shifting ans holds the fabric laying on top of it down. I have the full citation at home, I'll try to remeber to bring it into work one of these days. If you'd like to get it quicker than my memory is likely to be, send me an email reminder! -Mistress Elayne Courtenay Denise Cross ---------------------------- From: "Sarah Randles" Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 08:22:07 EST Subject: Re: hooks and eyes On Tue, 01 Nov 1994 13:46:59 -0800 (PS, PATSY DUNHAM wrote: It seems to me that anyone who could make good >quality, relatively cheap wire, and understood the concept of the fish-hook, >would eventually invent the hook-and-eye. I think there is a danger with this type of "they would have if they could have" documentation. While it is always interesting to speculate what might have been with the technology available, the problem arises when people start using things for which there is no evidence, particularly if there are more documentable alternatives. An example is darts. There is no reason why darts could not have been used in costume of the middle ages and renaissance, but (apart from a couple of possible anomalies) it appears that they were not. Sarah ********************************************************************** Sarah Randles E-mail: S.Randles@uts.edu.au Research Office Phone: (02) 330 1252 University of Technology, Sydney Fax: (02) 330 1244 ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 20:04:47 -0500 (EST) From: Astrida E B Schaeffer Subject: Re: rickrack and Pieceworks Magazine PieceWork seems to be a relatively new magazine, and I'm an even newer subscriber to it, but I do have the info you wished. The issue you want is the May/June 1994 issue, though the Sept/Oct issue has a letter in it regarding the rick-rack article, too. To subscribe, write to: PieceWork Interweave Press, 201 E. 4th St., Dept. I-WP Loveland, CO 80537 Or call (800)645-3675 or fax (303)667-8317. A year, which is 6 issues, costs $21. I've been intrigued by it; not all articles are of interest to me, but there's an interesting spread of info. Good luck! Astrida Schaeffer ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 94 19:11:48 CST From: Chris Borchert Subject: Re: man's cloak Hi, I saw your post about a man's cloak and was wondering if you received any replies. I remember a few years back getting a pattern catalog from Olde Worlde Patterns (I think that this is their name.) that had two cloak patterns in it. One was of a short cape and the other was a long (floor length) cloak. If you would like, I will see if I can find anything out about this catalog. David ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 02 Nov 94 14:13:06 PST From: "cynthia" Subject: rick-rack >In order to try to date some clothing, I am trying to find out when rick- >rack was first used. I called Wright Co. and they have no history as to its >inception. I am looking for manufactured rick-rack that was sold to the >public. Any information would be helpful. hist_ps@vax1.utulsa.edu I just xerox all of the tatting patterns in my 1871 Petersen's magazines for a tatting friend. The home sewer (or rather lacemaker) would purchase "wavy braid" then do a tatted thing around it. Some of the designs begin to look a little like Battenberg (with waves instead of tapes). Cant help with a "first", tho'. --cin ---------------------------- From: HIST_PS@vax1.utulsa.edu Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 7:24:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: Rickrack question I want to thank everyone for sending me the information on Piecework magazine. Paula ---------------------------- From: SLNZC@cc.usu.edu Date: Thu, 03 Nov 1994 09:22:04 -0600 (MDT) Subject: dressing in the 1590s I'm curious about the recent reference to pin manufacture in England (by Beth McMahon)--I am writing my thesis on Elizabethan sumptuary laws and one of the issues I am dealing with is economic reasons for sumpt. laws. Many of them were made to protect certain home industries, such as hat making or the wool industry. All the research I have done on the English economy suggests that foreign pins were allowed in England (at least in the 16th century), though heavily taxed. I would be curious about the legislation against foriegn pins, for it might prove useful for my thesis. I deleted the original post, so if you could repeat the reference for me, I would be grateful. Sorry for the tangent... Theresa slnzc@cc.usu.edu ---------------------------- From: "Mary Wood" Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 11:04:43 CST Subject: 18th cent. clothing terminology I am reading the trial transcript of a 1767 case involving the apprentice to a midwife in London. In it, the dress of the young girl victim is described (it's pertinent to the case), but I am not familiar with the terms. One garment is called a 'camblet'. I looked this up, and it talks about fabric made from camels hair, or a mixture of wool and silk, or a garment made from these materials. It seems odd to me that a girl of that social status would have clothes of camels hair or silk, so I wondered if the term might refer to a type of dress. There was also reference to a 'boy's waistcoat'. She is described as 'dressed' when wearing only this, but it seems, to my vision of a waistcoat, that it would be too short for a girl to be considered 'dressed' if that's all she had on. Can someone help me clear up my 'mental vision'? Mary Wood MPW@gml.lib.uwm.edu ---------------------------- From: Zach Subject: Re: dressing in the 1590s Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 13:42:51 -0500 (EST) > > I'm curious about the recent reference to pin manufacture in England > (by Beth McMahon)--I am writing my thesis on Elizabethan sumptuary laws and > one of the issues I am dealing with is economic reasons for sumpt. laws. > Many of them were made to protect certain home industries, such as hat > making or the wool industry. All the research I have done on the English > economy suggests that foreign pins were allowed in England (at least in the > 16th century), though heavily taxed. I would be curious about the > legislation against foriegn pins, for it might prove useful for my thesis. > I deleted the original post, so if you could repeat the reference for me, I > would be grateful. Sorry for the tangent... It was my understanding that the sumptuary laws were in general passed because people were doing whatever it was that the law was agenst. Men wearing tunics that were too short etc. Zach SCA: Guiliam > > Theresa > slnzc@cc.usu.edu > ---------------------------- From: WALTER@tandem.physics.upenn.edu Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 14:54 EDT Subject: 18th c. clothing terminology In reference to the camlet, it's my impression that a brisk trade in used clothing existed right up until the time when cheap, mass-produced goods becamed widely available (i.e., this century). This seems like a good possibility here. Karen Walter ---------------------------- End of Volume 181 -----------------------