--- In SCA-Garb@yahoogroups.com
, Ann Catelli <elvestoorder@...> wrote:
> The reconstructions suggested by this archaeologist
> puts the expensive decorations in the small of the
> back only.
> That doesn't make sense from any fashion perspective,
> or even a logical one. ;)
Oh... How soon we forget. I've got several bias cut dresses from the
1930's that were worn by an elderly friend in her youth, all
perfectly plain in the front, the only decoration being a big
glittery dress clip right at the center of the deep V of the back
neckline. Puts the ornament right in the small of the back.
And those bustles of the mid 1880's. There were lots of perfectly
plain dresses except for big, elaborately draped poufs on the butt.
The emphasis of fashion tends to shift around a woman's body, and not
in any sort of logical order so I wouldn't judge the lady's theory on
Does make me wonder if the brooches were worn at a standard level or
followed the course of gravity as a woman aged...