Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Medieval Tailoring book?

Expand Messages
  • xina007eu
    ... for ... them ... false ... stuff ... you ... matters, ... pictures ... intentional ... real ... than ... Queene To my naive and un-expert-like mind, it
    Message 1 of 112 , Mar 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Kirrily Robert <skud@i...> wrote:
      > Anneke wrote:
      > > Kass, you brought tears into my eyes and made my day. Thank you
      > > believing me! There are people in my group who believe that
      > > everything I say is an unsubstantiated opinion even when I give
      > > quotes or show pictures. They believe "experts" who feed them
      > > information instead... <sigh> They don't give a d**n about
      > > authenticity or research and when I try to show them some real
      > > I'm told 'Shush! Don't bother me!'.
      > >
      > > Sometimes it does feel that my opinion _is_ a pipedream. :( Thank
      > > for putting things into perspective again. :) Authenticity
      > > their opinion doesn't.
      > Yay Kass, yay Anneke :)
      > Now, I still have a question about these "ruffles". To me, the
      > Anneke showed didn't look ruffled. In the cases where there was any
      > texture along the seam at all it didn't look so much like an
      > gather as an artifact of piecing together two fabrics of different
      > weight and perhaps not fitting together perfectly.
      > So, does this Medieval Tailor book show it as more-or-less a
      > straightforward ungathered band of fabric, or does it show it as a
      > ruffle? To me, "ruffle" brings to mind a 2:1 gathered band no more
      > about 6" deep, most commonly seen on Victorian skirts.
      > Yours,
      > Katherine
      > --
      > Lady Katherine Rowberd (mka Kirrily "Skud" Robert)
      > katherine@i... http://infotrope.net/sca/
      > Caldrithig, Skraeling Althing, Ealdormere
      > "The rose is red, the leaves are grene, God save Elizabeth our

      To my naive and un-expert-like mind, it looks like the pieced strip
      was stiffened in some way to make the skirt stand away from your legs
      a bit so that it has a nice shape and doesn't get between your legs
      too much when you walk ....

      Best regards,

    • unclrashid
      ... 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 we
      Message 112 of 112 , Mar 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 how
        > the "flounce" or band doesn't stand away from the skirt at an
        > It looks like this:
        > | | 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, and
        > the folds of the skirt can continue straight into a flounce. Even
        > allowing for artistic license and non-naturalistic depiction, it is
        > bit odd.
        > Just my 2 cents ...

        Ok, I'll add my 2 cents, also. I don't really want to argue about
        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.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.