From: Gretchen Miller Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 18:29:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 286, 4/21/95 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 286, April 21, 1995 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: On capes and cape linings ISO: cheap reasonably authentic skirt fabrics Homespun definition Question: bodice style in Last of the Mohicans (movie) Keeping clothes clean in period Book recommendation: Tidings from the 18th Century Question and answer: Fustian and bombast Quote: On Bloomers ISO: Address for Medieval Textile and Dress Society ISO: Opinions on J. Peterman Co ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 11:01:55 -0500 (EST) From: andrea ruth leed Subject: Re: Cape Lining/cape making I've been reading through some tudor and elizabethan wardrobe accounts lately, and have found that the capes mentioned were lined in satin, velvet and taffeta, or what they called tapheta--I'm not sure ours is the same thing. Bear in mind, though, that this was royalty and high nobility we're talking about. Lower nobility and middle-class people would probably go for cheaper fabrics. One of the caps in Janet Arnold's book was line with silk, as I recall. For summer, I would go for a poly-cotton. It's not period, but it's cheap and cool. Or you could go without lining it at all, if you finished the wool seams off on the inside. The larger the pieces of the cape, the longer you should let it hang. If you used four quarter-pieces, there will be more bias to deal with than with eight eighth-pieces. I don's know the exact times on this, but 24 hours has been given for evening out dress skirts. when lining it, let both the lining and the cape hang separately before attating them. If you attatch the lining at the very bottom of the cape it might end up bagging and sagging; I sewed my lining in so that it hung down to an inch less than the outside edge. Drea On Thu, 13 Apr 1995, Gail DeCamp wrote: > > Greetings, all. I am about to make an elizabethan cape for someone playing a sea > captain. I have the brown book (Janet Winter/Carolyn Savoy's book), and was > going to follow the instructions therein for a 3/4 circle cape. Clear enough. My > questions are as follows: > > 1). With what material should I line it? The cape itself will be a slightly > felted black wool--thanks to listmembers for felting instructions! Most of the > SCA cloaks I've seen were lined with a poly silky, but I'm reluctant to do that, > as this cape will be used in the summertime. Also, silk is expensive; is there a > less-expensive fabric that's a good choice? > > 2). For how many days should I allow it to hang before hemming it? > > 3). Should I attach the bottom of the lining to the bottom of the cape, or allow > both layers to hang freely? > > 4). Should I interline the wool? > > Thanks for your help. > > Gail DeCamp > decampg@smtplink.ngc.com > ============================= aleed@ezmail.ucs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ From: "Heather L. Garvey" Subject: Re: Homespun? Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 11:23:17 -0500 (CDT) * I would really like to make a skirt that looks more * authentic than the ones that one can make cheaply with broadcloth. The * only problem is cost. I cannot afford $5/yard for wool. Anyone know of * how to get around this problem? Ooohhh. Anyone know how I can *get* this problem? Around here, wool is like, $10-15/yard! :) I'm dying to get 5 or 6 yards of plaid wool to use as an overwrap for my leine, but I'm going to have to save up for it, first. :) -- Maggie MacKenzie (SCA) ------------------------------ From: BPH3213@ACS.TAMU.EDU Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 11:29:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: homespun suggestions Hi, First of all I should say the answer to your question is somewhat dependent upon what period and geographic location you are talking about. I am assuming (for no particular reason) that you do American Revolutionary period... In that case, homespun is likely to be (for Virginia), in order of probability: 1. woolen fabric 2. linen fabric 3. cotton and linen or cotton and wool mixed fabric 4. (dare I suggest it?) cotton fabric. The most likely answer would be wool or flax material, as that was readily available for home use, which is what homespun denotes. Typically it was a coarser thread than found on imported textiles, but not necessarily so, it depended upon the expertise of the person doing the spinning and weaving, usually not the same person. Read for example in the journal of John Harrower (indentured servant 1774-1776) where he comments on a woman coming to the plantation to spin flax for them (Oct 12, 1775 and another entry on Oct 16), as well as two women spinning wool and one flax on Oct 17, 1775). Then, in Feb 1776, Harrower delivers some cotton (fiber) to be spun by another family. Again on Feb 23, 1776 he mentions homespinning of both wool and cotton for later use (incidentally, they got 5 yards of thread per pound out of the cotton). Another source (Virginia Cloth, Early textiles in Virginia..) (Dorothy McCombs) states that Virginia Cloth, (a term which could be used to denote "homespun"), "was mainly made of cotton, or sometimes, west of the mountains, mixed with a little wool or linen" (McCombs 1976:24). This fits in with what Harrower wrote, although she probably overstates the cotton content in most "Virginia Cloth". That is, there was probably more wool and flax used even east of the mountains before the war, homespun cotton fabric only gaining more importance during and after the war. As for question 2, I would suggest sticking with a woolen if you can, but I have seen some original pieces like the skirt you want of printed cotton as well as striped linen and cotton (mixed, the cotton being the stripe material) Probably, for recreating the item, those fabrics would cost more, as the prints must be wood block and linen and cotton stipes are hard to come by. Anyway, I hope others will have better suggestions on this part of your question than I. Bryan H bph3213@acs.tamu.edu ------------------------------ From: cpecourt@mhv.net Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 12:43:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Bodice style question Hello I was watching my copy of Last of the Mohicans again last night for the zillionth time and thought of a question. Although I know that movie costumes are rarely accurate, I was wondering how closely the style of bodice and skirt in the movie matched history. I was also wondering how the style of bodice differed from those bodices of the 16th and 17th centuries in England and Europe. I rather liked the actresses bodices, the ones that were not part of a complete dress but more of a bodice/skirt combination and was also curious on how to adapt my current ones to look similar. Where did they put the boning. Well..those are my questions, I hope they are not silly ones. Chantal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 09:58:00 -0800 From: delarorm@sce.com (Ruby de la Rosa) Subject: just a comment! with all the conversations regarding cotton, wool & linen fabircs, i was just thinking how the people kept the clothes clean! I read about the under ruffle for the dust on the bottom of a skirt or dress, but what about the tops, like perspiration and stains! without a reputable cleaners how did they do it! I have problems with my cleaners, if I try to wash wool it shrinks to doll size, cotton shirks as well, not to mention linen! Try getting a coffee stain out of white cotten without bleach, they must have had coffee or tea then! I was just courious, I just dripped coffee on my cotton top, i'm in luck it is black.......!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 95 16:47:42 EST From: "KATHLEEN NORVELL" Subject: Re: just a comment! For Ruby who asked about keeping clothes clean. First of all, that's what chemises and shirts were for -- trapping the perspiration and sweat stains so they wouldn't stain the more expensive outer garments. Most good clothing was lined in linen which served to keep the garments clean, and the lining could be replaced (and was). Clothes were indeed washed with strong lye soap at various times, or in a river if you happened to live near one. Fuller's earth was used to sop up grease stains so you could brush them away with a brush (try it with a grease spot and lots of talcum powder). And at least in the Reanissance and later, people used a sort of dry cleaning fluid made of wine or vinegar (and I don't know what elase) to clean their outer garments. But mostly the underwear took the brunt of it. Hope this helps. Kathleen kathleen@anstec.com ------------------------------ From: Neysa@aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 19:18:44 -0400 Subject: Book recomendation I have been recently researching the Early American Colonial period and the clothing the people wore then. I have noticed that earlier periods are generally discussed here but would like to share a book title with you all. It is "Greetings from the 18th Century," and was written by Beth Gilgun. I understand that the book is actually reprints of Ms Gilguns articles in Muzzleloader magazine. The author discusses clothing for men, women and children during the period. She also tells about the day to day life of the early American pioneer and farmer. She provides her readers with sources and each chapter is well illustrated. If you are interested in the colonial period of the US I think this book is a must have. The publisher is Rebel Press and I purchased my copy from the Colonial Williamburg Bookstore Well this is just my 2 cents >From generally a lurker Neysa aka Rici Tegarden in WV ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 95 18:45:49 PDT From: aterry@neon.Teknowledge.COM (Allan Terry) Subject: Before Modern Cleaning, etc. Ruby, The question of "how did people keep clothes clean before allover dry cleaning and modern laundry products" depends on what era you are talking about. Both technology and standards of cleanliness vary over time. However, there are certainly good spot-removal techniques for many eras. To remove tea and black coffee stains from washable fabrics, I can recommend the following recipe: Mix 1 quart water with 1 teaspoon liquid laundry detergent (I use Woolite) and one tablespoon white vinegar. If more than 1 quart of water is needed to immerse the garment, increase detergent and vinegar proportionately. Soak for 15 minutes, than wash, adding more detergent if necessary. This presoak works much better than Biz bleach for tea stains (I never use chlorine bleach). I also once used it very successfully for cherry juice stains after sitting on someone's bunch of cherries at a picnic--it is intended for glucose and tannin stains in general. I use it on both vintage and modern garments, washing the vintage ones by hand of course. If you preshrink dry-cleanable fabrics (by steam pressing them several times) and washable ones (by machine washing and drying, or alternatively soaking in hot water for at least an hour, partially drip drying, then pressing on the wrong side till completely dry), they should not shrink when cleaned. However, an increasing number of ready-to-wear manufacturers seem to be cutting corners by not preshrinking their fabrics--this is why garments made from washable fabrics get labeled "Dry Clean Only." There's not much I can recommend other than ceasing to buy that brand of garments after you discover they have chronic cleaning problems. Hope this helps. David--I'm curious, what book are you writing (or illustrating)? Fran Grimble ------------------------------ From: Title-L@smtpgw.nctsw.navy.mil Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 08:25:36 -0400 Subject: Re: Book recomendation I'll bet you're thinking about _Tidings from the 18th Century_ by Beth Gilgun. A great book, written in the style of a series of letters; it's where I first learned about packed-thread corsets (boned with lengths of cord or rope rather than steel/whalebone, and worn by children or farm- laboring women). It's available as a large-format paperback; I got my copy at Colonial Williamsburg. Lynn ------------------------------ From: Mrs C S Yeldham Date: 19 Apr 95 15:19:00 BST Subject: Cotton (Again?) Changing the subject slightly, I am puzzled by the terminology applied (no, not whether the fabric was made of cotton yarn or wool yarn - I think I am perfectly clear on that (and if you'll believe that you'll believe anything!). No, what puzzles me is the use of such terms as 'fustian' or 'bombast' in relation to cotton. As I understand it, in the 16th century (sorry, limited time period interest), cotton was expensive, imported, whether from India or Egypt or wherever, it wasn't grown in England (unlike tobacco). But the terms used, fustian and bombast, are perjorative terms, not just now, but in the 16th century. Bombast was the stuff used to pad out clothes in bumrolls etc (I use old tights, Cunningham talks about wool, cotton and hair) and it fairly soon came to be applied to bombastic people. Fustian also a perjorative meaning. These are odd terms to be applied to something valuable! Any thoughts? BTW, Shakespear is such a good poet he is an unreliable guide as to how people spoke or used the language. He invented a remarkable number of terms (at least he is the first recorded use of them) and the second recorded use is probably a better guide as to when terms came into popular usage. Secondly, even in 'prose' he packs in the meanings, using poetic techniques eg 'the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red' - the meaning is fairly obvious (its from Macbeth) but try putting that in ordinary prose!. I'm not saying anyone is wrong about transitions between adjectives and nouns (although there is a gramatical convention about an unspoken noun to which an adjective refers), just that Shakespear should not be taken as typical of his age. Second BTW - whoever it was said that 'grammar' only referred to Latin in the 16th century. Well, strictly speaking I suppose you're right. However, every educated person was educated in Latin - lectures at the Universities were given in Latin still, and you can see the influence of a sophisticated understanding of grammar in English writing of the period. How many people have said that being taught the grammar of a foreign languague, French or Latin for example, has illuminated the grammar of their native tongue! Caroline Opinionated, Moi! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 11:10:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Deb Subject: Fustian & Bombast >But the terms used, fustian and bombast, are perjorative terms, not just >now, but in the 16th century. Bombast was the stuff used to pad out >clothes in bumrolls etc (I use old tights, Cunningham talks about wool, >cotton and hair) and it fairly soon came to be applied to bombastic people. >Fustian also a perjorative meaning. These are odd terms to be applied to >something valuable! Any thoughts? Interesting questions! I wonder if the cotton FABRIC was expensive, since it required finding a long-fiber cotton, which was harder to come by. Cotton fabric made from short-fiber plants would be shoddy stuff. Anyway, taking that "shoddy" thought, here is the Collins English Dictionary definition of FUSTIAN: ENTRY: fustian POS: n SENSE: 1 SENSE: 1a TEXT: a hard-wearing fabric of cotton mixed with flax or wool with a slight nap. SENSE: 1b POS: modifier EXAM: a fustian jacket SENSE: 2 TEXT: pompous or pretentious talk or writing. TILDE-P: POS: adj SENSE: 3 TEXT: cheap; worthless. SENSE: 4 TEXT: pompous; bombastic. The inclusion of "cheap; worthless" is interesting. *Was* the cotton fiber expensive, or was it a cheap, worthless "filler" (for stuffing bum-rolls) up until the point when long-fiber types of cotton were developed? This would be when it became useful as a fabric in its own right (an all cotton fabric). Bombast also is defined as Caroline tells us: ENTRY: bombast POS: n SENSE: 1 TEXT: pompous and grandiloquent language. SENSE: 2 LABEL: Obsolete TEXT: material used for padding. <=====================================> < Deb Baddorf Baddorf@fnal.gov ------------------------------ From: Gordon Monson Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 18:13:08 -0700 To: grm+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Cotton vs. Wool Bryan wrote that the definition of "frieze" was a "sort of coarse warm cloth," saying that this does not specify the fiber. Just to complicate the discussion further, I would like to point out that right up into the 19th century, the word "cloth" generally referred to *wool* fabric. I have been enjoying this thread very much - lots of interesting information. Shelley Monson monsons@hooked.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 95 11:48:55 PST From: "Barnes, Cynthia" Subject: Bloomers/ Calif women >From the Dame Shirley letters written in the Calif mining camps to her sister Molly in Massachusetts between Sept 1851 and Nov 1852 (Louisa Amelia Knapp Smith Clapp) (excerpted from Letter 10th) One of the deceased, was the husband of an American lady-lecturess of the most intense description, and a strong-minded "Bloomer" on the broadest principles. Apropos, how _can_ women -- many of whom, I am told, are really interesting and intellegent, how _can_ they spoil their pretty mouths and ruin their beautiful complexions, by demanding with Xantippian _fervor_, in the presence often, of a vulgar, irreverent mob, what the gentle creatures are pleased to call their "rights"? How _can_ they wish to soil the delicate texture of their airy fancies, by pondering over the wearying stupidities of Presidential elections or the bewildering mystifications of rabid metaphysicians? And, above all, how _can_ they so far forget the sweet, shy coquetries of shrinking womanhood, as to don those horrid "Bloomers?" As for me, although a _wife_, I never wear the ______, well you know what they call them, when when they wish to quiz henpecked husbands -- even in the strictest privacy of life. I confess to an almost religious veneration for trailing drapery, and I pin my vestural faith with unflinching obstinacy to sweeping petticoats. --cin Cynthia Barnes internet: Cynthia@caere.com ------------------------------ From: Edward Wright Date: Wed, 19 Apr 95 14:40:26 TZ Subject: RE: Cotton (Again?) | But the terms used, fustian and bombast, are perjorative terms, not just | now, but in the 16th century. Bombast was the stuff used to pad out | clothes in bumrolls etc (I use old tights, Cunningham talks about wool, | cotton and hair) and it fairly soon came to be applied to bombastic people. | Fustian also a perjorative meaning. These are odd terms to be applied to | something valuable! Any thoughts? Not all fustians were made from cotton -- some were a blend of wool and linen, which was no doubt cheaper than the cotton fustian. Fustian was used as a sort of mock velvet. In that respect, even cotton fustian would be far less expensive than silk velvet. Thus, a "fustian lord" was someone trying to give the appearance of wealth but without the real substance. | BTW, Shakespear is such a good poet he is an unreliable guide as to how | people spoke or used the language. He invented a remarkable number of | terms So did many others. The numer of words in the English language increased greatly during this period. Shakespeare is responsible for many of them, but by no means all. The silly notion that something "isn't a word" unless it's in the dictionary did not exist at this time. If someone lacked a word for something, he was more likely to make one up than consult a dictionary (which most people did not own). | Second BTW - whoever it was said that 'grammar' only referred to Latin in | the 16th century. Well, strictly speaking I suppose you're right. | However, every educated person was educated in Latin - lectures at the | Universities were given in Latin still, and you can see the influence of a | sophisticated understanding of grammar in English writing of the period. | How many people have said that being taught the grammar of a foreign | languague, French or Latin for example, has illuminated the grammar of | their native tongue! But how many, having learned a foreign language, then begin to apply its rules of grammar to their native tongue? True, English scholars did attempt to apply many of the rules of Latin to the English language, which is how we ended up with silly rules like not splitting infinitives, but those were scholars of a later age. ------------------------------ From: RCarnegie@aol.com Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 02:35:32 -0400 Subject: Re: #1(2) H-Costume Digest, V... >Linthicum calls fustian "a velure of cotton, or flax mixed with wool, >so silky looking that it substituted for velvet." Linthicum documents >the use of fustian for vestments, socks, waistcoats, aprons, doublets, I am some what confused by this quote, as no fustian that I have seen would pass for velvet. It has already been mentioned that in the 16 and 17 centuries "fustian" may be made of linen and cotton or linen and wool. In the later periods these fabrics would be known as Fustian or Linsey Woolsey/Jean cloth, or so I understand it. I have seen both original and reproductions of these fabrics, and cannot understand how they could be described as looking like velvet. Ron Carnegie ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 07:29:06 -0600 From: sschmidt@moe.coe.uga.edu (Stacia Schmidt) Subject: Re: H-Costume Digest, Volume 280, 4/14/95 >Sounds wonderful, doesn't it! Anyway, my next project is to get in >touch with the Medieval Dress and Textile Society. > Caroline, Do you have an address for the Medieval Dress and Textile Society? Thank you. Stacia ------------------------------ From: KTRuby@aol.com Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:51:22 -0400 To: h-costume@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Experience w/J. Peterman? Has anyone purchased items from The J. Peterman Company (Lexington Kentucky)? I have received a couple catalogs, which includes some incredible items, many of which can be used for costuming, or to be worn daily if you like historical classic or ethnic classic clothing. They have copies of dresses & hats from 30's to the 60's, men's jackets & coats from 30's & 40's and before, incredible long, wide gored skirts, natural fabrics, even a belt with a pewter Texas star buckle from 1865. There are shoes, jewelry, luggage, and interesting items from all over the world. The illustrations in the catalog are watercolor, and I have not purchased anything yet myself. Has anyone had experience with this company, and if so, was the quality worth the seemingly high prices? How was the service? Kathleen in California ------------------------------ End of Volume 286 -----------------------