- ... ... stuff ... to ... never ... from ... Greetings! Please pardon me for jumping into his discussion before reading every message in it, butMessage 1 of 112 , Mar 1 4:44 AMView Source--- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "kass1013" <historian@r...> wrote:
> --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "Amy L. Hornburg Heilveil"<aheilvei@u...>
> > >What's THAT all about, I wonder... I know I will find this book
> > >frustrating if it doesn't give me references for why it does
> > >never seen before. =(
> > According to the reviews, it does just that. I think I'm going
> pass on it.never
> Well, in its defense (I can't believe I'm defending a book I've
> seen), there is some kind of weird piecing going on on the front offrom
> the kirtle on Mary Magdelene in Rogier van der Weyden's "Descent
> the Cross". Unfortunately, I don't have a clear enough print of itGreetings!
> to see the seams, but there is definitely piecework involved.
> I wouldn't call it a "ruffle" but maybe that's where the author got
> her idea...
Please pardon me for jumping into his discussion before reading every
message in it, but since I recommend the book I feel I need to
I might become a persona non grata for saying this, but
these "ruffles" _are_ period for 15th c flemish/french/burgundian
lower class/working women kirtles. And that's what the kirtle pattern
in question is for. I wouldn't call them ruffles, though. It's more
like a slightly gathered/pleated strip of fabric sewn to the hem to
extend the kirtle.
The example Kass spoke of might be a fur lining that has been turned
up. Here's a picture of it:
and the piecing in the skirt:
These are other examples of this fur thing:
Example of this extending the skirt with another color fabric:
Some examples of extending the skirt with same color fabric I put
into Files because at quick search I couldn't find where I got them.
On another note here's an example of shortening the skirt:
My working theory about these ruffles/flounces/things is that maybe
a) The hem got so damaged as to be beyond repare but the kirtle was
still wearable. So the damaged part was cut off and a new strip
b) The kirtle was a hand-me-down and too short for the wearer or too
long and needed adjustment.
The book _is_ a good one! Certainly better than Knowne World
Handbook. It is not a MOL book, true, but it's much better than the
majority of costume books out there.
The only question I had about the flat fronted kirtle has been
answered. The three panel front was inspired by the Fouquet Madonna
(Agnes Sorel) gown. I still wouldn't make a sleevless kirtle from
this pattern, though...
I'm sorry, this is my opinion, YMMW.
Anneke van deme Boerne
- ... of ... angle. ... that ... how ... a ... Ok, I ll add my 2 cents, also. I don t really want to argue about whether or not this is a flounce, because weMessage 112 of 112 , Mar 6 7:38 PMView Source--- 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.