Re: Medieval Tailoring book?
- --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "kass1013" <historian@r...> wrote:
> > Kass, I've got van der Weyden's "Descent from the Cross" open inskirt.
> > another window (doncha just *love* computers?), and if the
> > is the woman in the green dress standing behind the Virgin, which
> > assuming she is, that appears to be the same dress van der Weyden
> > painted in the "Magdalene Reading A Book." If that is the case,
> > that's not a ruffle; she has her dress kilted up nearly to her
> > and what looks like it might be piecing are the folds of her
> > If you look beneath the Virgin's left arm, you can see part ofthe
> > Magdalene's gold and black underdress. It looks to be the sameor
> > van der Weyden painted in the other picture (could it be a prop
> > costume?).
> Sorry, Maud. I think I mislead you. This site calls
> it "Disposition":
> She's the figure in the far right in greyish. Her gown
> isn't "kilted". She's got a cloak on her hips (as many of van der
> Weyden's Magdelene's do for some reason, and somehow they never
> off!). You can tell it's a cloak because you can see the collar on*****
> her left hip.
Oops! My mistake. Shows how much I know about religious paintings.
> Anyway, look all the way at the bottom of the painting. There is a
> bright blue piece at the bottom of her dress. Looking at it now,
> really does look like a ruffle... =(see
> A friend of mine saw it in person in the Prada. I'd asked her to
> if she could see small (approximately 4" wide) gores in the skirt,skirt
> because I thougth I saw them in a print I have since mislaid. She
> said not only could she see those gores, the whole front of the
> appeared to be pieced in a manner she'd never seen anywhere else.this
> I can't see it on my computer, or in any of the photos I have of
> painting. But she assures me that in person, there are all kindsof
> funky seams on that dress...*****
You're right--that dress seems a little on the weird side. OTOH, I
just spent several minutes flipping back and forth between the MR and
Disposition paintings, and I'm now positive that van der Weyden
painted the same dress (the green one) twice, right down to the gold
lacing; the only difference seems to be the belt.
> > I've stared at this dress so many times I can see it in my sleep.
> > just finished putting the hem in a wool version of the greendress,
> > and I have bronze linen to make the black/gold underdress.However,
> > like the headdress in "Descent from the Cross" better than
> > in "Magdalene Reading A Book." Now it's going to be too warm to
> > the blasted thing until next winter. 8-(
> By "Magdalene Reading a Book" do you mean the Bracque Triptych by
> chance? I'm just trying to look at what you're looking at...
I'm pasting a link to the picture here:
All the information says is that it was sawn out of a larger
alterpiece, so it might be from the Bracque Triptych. The write-up
for it doesn't specify.
I got a decorative plate that is a copy of the Magdalene and the
book, but she's in a garden, reading under a flowering apple tree.
(whose true area of expertise is in architecture, not paintings)
- --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "xina007eu" <Christina_Lemke@h...> wrote:
> none of these look like a proper flounce to me. Look how the folds
> the skirt continue straight into the "flounce" part. Also look howangle.
> the "flounce" or band doesn't stand away from the skirt at an
> It looks like this:that
> | | skirt
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | | "flounce" or band
> I'd expect a silhouette like
> | | skirt
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> / \
> / \ flounce
> I don't see how one can achieve the first silhouette with a flounce
> that is 1.4 or 1.5 times the circumference of the hem, assuming
> the flounce is of the same or a similar fabric as the skirt, andhow
> the folds of the skirt can continue straight into a flounce. Evena
> allowing for artistic license and non-naturalistic depiction, it is
> bit odd.Ok, I'll add my 2 cents, also. I don't really want to argue about
> Just my 2 cents ...
whether or not this is a flounce, because we may just be arguing
semantics here. I do however believe that it is very defintitely a
piece of fabric gathered or pleated onto the bottom of the kirtle.
Also, I sew Victorian and Edwardian gowns for a local dance company
so I know a lot about how gathered fabric hangs on a skirt. Just
because the fabric is gathered does not automatically mean the
flounce must flair out. That is dependent on many factors, including
the ratio of the gathering, the weight, the drape, and the stiffness
of the fabric. While any flounce will flair when you walk or spin,
wool gathered at a ratio of 1.5 usually is too heavy to flair out
like your second drawing without a lot of support underneath. If all
gathered fabric automatically flaired out just because it was
gathered, Edwardian dressmakers would not have need to use all the
types of petticoats they invented with ruffles and flounces of
horsehair and organdy and crinoline to support the flounced skirts
My guess would be that this was a way of repairing an old, muddy,
worn-out hem. You may notice in the pictures that they frequently
pull up the outer skirt when tramping about outside. I beleive they
wore the "best" kirtle on the outside and the underlayer may have
been an older kirtle in poor condition. I bet the hem got really
worn out and soiled. They might cut off the bottom few inches to
reomove the soiled fabric and then need to add more fabric on to
lengthen it. I know that when you sew a straight piece of fabric
onto the bottom of a flared skirt, it destroys the original line of
the skirt, and may even not be wide enough to walk in. Slightly
gathering the added strip of fabric would solve this problem.
I thought at one time that these slight gathers were the result of
the dress being hemmed inside out, with a fairly deep hem, but
the "flounces" in these new pictures posted are definitely too deep
to be just the hem.