Yes I was talking about the okumi. Thank you! The information you provided
has helped me tremendously. What exactly is the pouch in the back of the
garment used for? Is there a standard depth for this?
] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: [SCA-JML] Hoeki no ho construction
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:54 AM, maistressealysia <attiyam@...
<mailto:attiyam%40bellsouth.net> > wrote:
> This is the first time posting to the list and I'm extremely new to making
Japanese clothing. I am in the process of making a Hoeki no ho for my fiance
and I have a couple of questions on the construction.
> 1. Is the ran (wing like piece) only attached to the back of the garment?
The ran actually goes around the entire bottom hem, so the garment
actually flares out with the ran being the actual hem.
This may help (hopefully). This is the early version of the garment:
If you look at the piece attached to the bottom (the ran) you will see
that there is an area at the side seam that is pleated. The later
"wings" are basically this pleat extended out to the sides:
Here are some noushi that we've made. Noushi are the same as the
houeki no hou, but they have ties on the sides and the "pouch" at the
back is actually sewn inside the garment, rather than outside:
Here is one that we bought in Japan. I believe it is technically an
"ikan" in that it is made with houeki-no-hou fabric, but in the
pattern of a noushi:
I tried to take lots of pictures of each, so you can get a good idea.
> 2. On the pattern provided by Edward of Effingham it doesn't state if the
10 inch width of the front band is measured at the top or the bottom of the
piece. It looks like the 10 inches is at the bottom but then how wide is it
suppose to be at the top of the piece?
Are you talking about the "okumi" (the two vertical pieces that attach
on the front and form the overlap)? If so, you can use the pieces
I've shown for reference, but generally the top of the okumi is
probably going to be about half the width of the bottom, so 5" at the
top to 10" at the bottom wouldn't be amiss.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]