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

cote-hardie question

Expand Messages
  • e_walpole
    Hi all, I thought I d de-lurk quickly, to ask a question on the quickest, easiest method of creating a cotehardie. As some of you will know (although I ve
    Message 1 of 24 , Apr 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all,
      I thought I'd de-lurk quickly, to ask a question on the quickest,
      easiest method of creating a cotehardie. As some of you will know
      (although I've noticed a lot of new names I didn't see last time I
      was here about 3 months ago) I'm an Aussie, living in England for
      this year, working at a boarding school. This means I don't have much
      money or spare time, so unfortunately I may be forced to cheat on
      authenticity, no matter how much it hurts. I know I've asked this
      question before, but I can't seem to find the thread. I was forced to
      leave my entire garb collection (of 2 tunics *G*) at home so I'm
      going to have to start again here.

      BTW I saw this necklace in a shop recently,
      http://www.past-times.com/imagprod/large/54138.jpg
      it claims to be "inspired by what a medieval princess would wear to
      her wedding" it looks very pretty, but I doubt it's authenticity. If
      I'm wrong I'll be delighted, but somehow I think I'm not going to be
      that lucky.

      Thanks
      Elizabeth
    • demontsegur
      Greetings Elizabeth, When you say cotehardie, I m guessing you mean a close-fitting over- dress for a woman, circa 14th or 15th century... The term itself
      Message 2 of 24 , Apr 28, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Greetings Elizabeth,

        When you say cotehardie, I'm guessing you mean a close-fitting over-
        dress for a woman, circa 14th or 15th century... The term itself
        applies to men's button-down cotes, but has been adopted to mean
        women's as well. Depending on who you ask in the SCA, there are
        widely varying interpretations of the term. I believe that some folks
        conflate a fancy top-only layer (what I call a "cote") with a more
        versatile under-layer (what I call a "kirtle" or "under-dress"). The
        kirtle can be worn as a top layer by itself, but I call
        it "versatile" because it is also designed to fit comfortably with a
        more fancy top-layer, the cote.

        All of that said, I'd make a kirtle to cut costs and time, rather
        than a cote, because a cote requires a kirtle layer anyway.

        Here are some cheats you could consider:

        1) Make your kirtle out of 2 parts (or 4), but probably skip making 8-
        parts (which is documentable to the 15th century in the Agnes Sorel
        portrait, for instance).

        2) How tight do you require it? Making it out of 2 sections, -- one
        for the front and one for the back -- will mean that the fit can be
        nice, but probably not super-tailored and/or bust-supportive. If you
        don't plan to wear a self-supporting chemise but a bra instead, this
        is less an issue.

        3) For a kirtle, you can skip the button enclosures on the sleeves by
        making the sleeves loose enough to pass your hand through. The best
        way to get the tightest fit possible is to measure the circumference
        of your hand with your thumb folded tightly across your palm. There
        are plenty of period pictures depicting reasonably fitted long
        sleeves with no buttons.

        4) Depending on your build, personal tastes, and period, you can make
        the dress a little loose or rather tight, which will determine
        whether you need an enclosure down the front or not. For a kirtle, a
        front enclosure should be laced. The idea behind this is to allow for
        the possible addition of a fancier top layer, the cote. Buttons on
        the bottom layer will add an unsightly bulk as well as be
        uncomfortable as the top layer presses them into you. Lacing is much
        less obtrusive.

        In a number of effigies from the late 14th century you will see women
        wearing lace-up fronts and long sleeves with buttons. These dresses
        probably served a dual purpose: underdress or overdress. They could
        be worn with a chemise and a mantle and serve as the top layer. Or,
        if the ladies wanted to get really fancy, a sideless surcote or a
        proper cote could be worn over them. The cote layer would probably
        have buttons down the front (if it was tight-fitting) and short
        sleeves (with or without tippets), to show off the buttons on the
        bottom half of the kirtle sleeves. There are variations to this theme
        far and wide, but this is one of several general trends I've seen in
        the art of the time.

        5) If you have enough fabric, you could always cut your skirt wide,
        rather than adding gores for fullness. This is a true cheat, though,
        because the fabric widths in period wouldn't have allowed for it.
        But, you certainly cut down time in gore-sewing.

        As far as faster sewing techniques, you could choose to leave your
        seams unfinished on the inside, or you could serge them. Leaving
        seams unfinished is documented from extant pieces, but if you want
        your dress to last, hand stitching the seams down would certainly add
        to its life. Serging provides sturdiness, but... it's serging! <smile>

        I can't in good conscience recommend you use a synthetic fabric or
        cotton to save costs -- especially not on _this_ list! <grin>... You
        really can find reasonably priced wool tabbies and twills out there,
        if you're patient and beat the street for a while. You can find
        linens too. Silk would be most lovely, but possibly most expensive --
        still, it's worth pricing. Raw, slubby silk is a reasonable cheat and
        usually cheap, but we have a lot of reason to believe that slubs were
        undesirable in period. Still, if your choice is between "linen look"
        and some raw silk, my personal choice of lesser evil would be the
        silk. At least then you're not wearing something synthy.

        Anyway, that's probably way more than you were looking for, but I
        love the topic.

        Best luck,

        Marcele de Montsegur

        --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "e_walpole" <elizabethwalpole@h...> wrote:
        > I thought I'd de-lurk quickly, to ask a question on the quickest,
        > easiest method of creating a cotehardie.
      • alejandrademiera
        ... you ... this ... Okay...I just have to ask. What is a self-supporting chemise? I ve never found chemises of any period/style to be anything other than,
        Message 3 of 24 , May 4, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "demontsegur" <demontsegur@y...> wrote:
          > 2) How tight do you require it? Making it out of 2 sections, -- one
          > for the front and one for the back -- will mean that the fit can be
          > nice, but probably not super-tailored and/or bust-supportive. If
          you
          > don't plan to wear a self-supporting chemise but a bra instead,
          this
          > is less an issue.

          Okay...I just have to ask.

          What is a self-supporting chemise? I've never found chemises of
          any period/style to be anything other than, well, totally
          non-supporting for anyone with much there to support. For
          periods where I can't wear a boned bodice I've never had a
          good (comfortable, non-bouncy, non-saggy) alternative to
          just wearing a bra underneath.

          Solutions to this problem (cotehardie specific or otherwise) would be
          welcome, preferably ones that work for cup sizes significantly larger
          than "D".

          Alejandra
          (repressing thoughts of chemises which go out to earn a living
          daily...gee, if *all* my costumes could do that I'd be rich....)
        • demontsegur
          ... Aaah! I wanted to know if it was possible too, and was told that it is, probably on this list, or maybe SCA-Garb. I attempted one, and it worked. The key,
          Message 4 of 24 , May 5, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            > Okay...I just have to ask.
            >
            > What is a self-supporting chemise?

            Aaah! I wanted to know if it was possible too, and was told that it
            is, probably on this list, or maybe SCA-Garb. I attempted one, and it
            worked. The key, in a nutshell, is to get an EXACT, tight fit of your
            chest and torso (waist and up) using 4 panels. The way to get that
            perfect fit is to have someone pin-fit you, preferably lying down, so
            your bosum is lifted naturally out of the way and the ribcage just
            beneath can be fitted exactly. The finished chemise should lace down
            the front snugly in order to support a large bosum. For further
            support, make your kirtle and cote layers snug as well. With three
            well fitted layers, you will have no issue with runaway bosum.

            I am larger than a D and was able to make it work for me. Now, you're
            not going to get the look and feel of a modern bra, (the whole
            separation thing isn't gonna happen), but you will get a sense of
            being supported and it will LOOK that way too. In fact, you'll get
            something of the pillowy monoboob look you see in the 14th century
            illuminations. <Please forgive my silly descriptions!!>

            If you want to read more about the process, Robin Netherton's notes
            on the subject on the H-Costume Archive are extremely helpful:
            http://sca.uwaterloo.ca/~fashion/archives/

            Search on "Netherton" as a start. Happy reading,

            Marcele
          • Gwendoline Rosamond
            Actually, all of Robin s posts to H-Costume about her gothic fitted dresses (she tells me that cotehardie is not the correct term for these women s garments -
            Message 5 of 24 , May 5, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Actually, all of Robin's posts to H-Costume about her gothic fitted dresses
              (she tells me that cotehardie is not the correct term for these women's
              garments - it's one of her pet peeves) are on her proto-website, along with
              her handout from the seminar she ran on them...

              http://www.netherton.net/robin/

              Cheers,
              Gwendoline

              At 03:05 AM 5/6/2002 +0000, you wrote:
              > > Okay...I just have to ask.
              > >
              > > What is a self-supporting chemise?
              >
              >Aaah! I wanted to know if it was possible too, and was told that it
              >is, probably on this list, or maybe SCA-Garb. I attempted one, and it
              >worked. The key, in a nutshell, is to get an EXACT, tight fit of your
              >chest and torso (waist and up) using 4 panels. The way to get that
              >perfect fit is to have someone pin-fit you, preferably lying down, so
              >your bosum is lifted naturally out of the way and the ribcage just
              >beneath can be fitted exactly. The finished chemise should lace down
              >the front snugly in order to support a large bosum. For further
              >support, make your kirtle and cote layers snug as well. With three
              >well fitted layers, you will have no issue with runaway bosum.
              >
              >I am larger than a D and was able to make it work for me. Now, you're
              >not going to get the look and feel of a modern bra, (the whole
              >separation thing isn't gonna happen), but you will get a sense of
              >being supported and it will LOOK that way too. In fact, you'll get
              >something of the pillowy monoboob look you see in the 14th century
              >illuminations. <Please forgive my silly descriptions!!>
              >
              >If you want to read more about the process, Robin Netherton's notes
              >on the subject on the H-Costume Archive are extremely helpful:
              ><http://sca.uwaterloo.ca/~fashion/archives/>http://sca.uwaterloo.ca/~fashion/archives/
              >
              >Search on "Netherton" as a start. Happy reading,
              >
              >Marcele
            • demontsegur
              Hee hee... I went looking just after I posted, and found the site mentioned below... I thought, Oh goodie... , bookmarked it and promptly forgot to update my
              Message 6 of 24 , May 6, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Hee hee... I went looking just after I posted, and found the site
                mentioned below... I thought, "Oh goodie...", bookmarked it and
                promptly forgot to update my post. Thank you for doing it!

                I haven't had a chance to read through what she's collected to see if
                she comments extensively on the chemise layer, but I'm assuming she
                does. Her collected posts are equivalent to 22 pages of written text.

                As for the term 'cotehardie', I've tried phasing it out of use in my
                own discussion on the topic of female dress from this period. I
                prefer to substitute 'cote' as a reasonable widget-word. I also
                use 'kirtle' for the decorative underdress layer. To my thinking,
                these are slightly arbitrary monikers since there are no consistently
                applied names given in the contemporary accounts.

                Marcele

                --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Gwendoline Rosamond <dameg@a...> wrote:
                > Actually, all of Robin's posts to H-Costume about her gothic fitted
                dresses
                > (she tells me that cotehardie is not the correct term for these
                women's
                > garments - it's one of her pet peeves) are on her proto-website,
                along with
                > her handout from the seminar she ran on them...
                >
                > http://www.netherton.net/robin/
                >
                > Cheers,
                > Gwendoline
              • E House
                Hehe, this touches on MY pet peeve: I hate it when terms get defined far more strictly by modern people than they were defined in period. I really, really
                Message 7 of 24 , May 6, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hehe, this touches on MY pet peeve:
                  I hate it when terms get 'defined' far more strictly by modern people than they were defined in period.  I really, really do understand how handy it is for recreators to have super specific terms, really I do.  I just wish that rather than redefining (and when the term is made more specific than it really is, it's redefining) the term, people would come up with a new term.  (Like calling it a Gothic fitted dress.  That? Fine.)
                   
                  Hmph.  Hmph, I say. 10 years from now, people are going to redefine 'dress' to mean '4 panel pieced front-laced overgown with slightly flared sleeves in c1495 Dutch style, generally looser than its counterpart in France, made in wool twill and bound at the neck and sleeves in gold,' and my head is going to explode, hopefully getting the ickiest bits up their collective noses.
                  E
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 7:18 AM
                  Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Re: cote-hardie question

                  Hee hee... I went looking just after I posted, and found the site
                  mentioned below... I thought, "Oh goodie...", bookmarked it and
                  promptly forgot to update my post. Thank you for doing it!

                  I haven't had a chance to read through what she's collected to see if
                  she comments extensively on the chemise layer, but I'm assuming she
                  does. Her collected posts are equivalent to 22 pages of written text.

                  As for the term 'cotehardie', I've tried phasing it out of use in my
                  own discussion on the topic of female dress from this period. I
                  prefer to substitute 'cote' as a reasonable widget-word. I also
                  use 'kirtle' for the decorative underdress layer. To my thinking,
                  these are slightly arbitrary monikers since there are no consistently
                  applied names given in the contemporary accounts.

                  Marcele

                • demontsegur
                  ... people than they were defined in period. I really, really do understand how handy it is for recreators to have super specific terms, really I do. I just
                  Message 8 of 24 , May 6, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "E House" <sig-sauer@c...> wrote:
                    > Hehe, this touches on MY pet peeve:
                    > I hate it when terms get 'defined' far more strictly by modern
                    people than they were defined in period. I really, really do
                    understand how handy it is for recreators to have super specific
                    terms, really I do. I just wish that rather than redefining (and
                    when the term is made more specific than it really is, it's
                    redefining) the term, people would come up with a new term. (Like
                    calling it a Gothic fitted dress. That? Fine.)

                    Hmm. I'm not quite sure what you mean here... Do you mean that the
                    term 'kirtle' and 'cote' are redefined terms for other, original
                    meanings? If so, please let me know more about the terms -- I'm
                    always looking for such information. I'd also welcome further ideas
                    on the two dresses -- because they are distinctly different and serve
                    different purposes. When you are describing an outfit that consists
                    of a chemise layer, an underdress layer, and an overdress layer, how
                    would one 'name' those layers? "Gothic Fitted dress" is a great
                    descriptor for the look in general, but it doesn't help people figure
                    out which layers to wear together -- does one wear one G.F.D. and be
                    done with any further detail? Or, does one wear two G.F.Ds, of style
                    A and B together?

                    I can well imagine that in period folks had no need to be specific
                    due to the fact that everyone just "knew" how the dresses went or
                    didn't go together. However, as you've pointed out, recreators need
                    to be able to define the pieces of the 'roba' (entire outfit). I'm
                    completely open to suggestions on this, as I haven't comfortably
                    settled down with any set words yet. I've been using kirtle and cote
                    for lack of anything else concrete yet. Ideas?

                    Marcele de Montsegur
                  • Marilyn Hillvic
                    Alejandra, ... mean ... super-tailored and/or bust-supportive. A lady in my shire, who is a coathardie expert, helped me fit the under-gown for my coathardie.
                    Message 9 of 24 , May 6, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Alejandra,

                      > 2) How tight do you require it? Making it out of 2
                      > sections,one for the front and one for the back will
                      mean
                      > that the fit can be nice, but probably not
                      super-tailored and/or bust-supportive.

                      A lady in my shire, who is a coathardie expert,
                      helped me fit the under-gown for my coathardie. The
                      under layer is made of 3.5 oz linen (because of its
                      stretchy quality) and *must* be fitted by *someone
                      else* so "tightly" that it becomes the equivalent of a
                      linen bathing suit. She did the first one on me so I
                      could experience the feel of it when it is done
                      correctly. Then I did one on her. I am an average
                      figure sized 10-12 mundanely. She makes Mae West look
                      flat-chested and wears about an 18-20.
                      The process involved 4 parts of linen fabric with
                      the front seam pinned in place straight down the
                      front, the back seam fitted to the curve in your spine
                      (I thought it looked like the dorsal fin of a fish as
                      it was pinned and the selvages stood up), then the
                      side seams and shoulders were "hauled up", along with
                      the pair of bodies, and pinned with industrial-strengh
                      pins, until the fabric became the shape of a shelf for
                      the pair of bodies to rest on. This is not a 1-step
                      process, but a fine-tuning of pinning, wiggling
                      around, and taking in what stretches out. The
                      under-gown ultimately laces up the front with spiral
                      lacing for bulk-free support, and a fitted over-gown
                      (a coathardie with all those lovely buttons) will be
                      put on, resting on this wonderful support under
                      garment to create that Duc-du-Barry look.
                      I can't believe how well the linen supports--so
                      beautifully and comfortably that it feels like cotton
                      and lycra! But the secret to success is to have an
                      expert fit you first so you can learn and then
                      exchange fitting services with her in the future.
                      Hope this helps. After being fitted, I truly feel
                      that they got the technique down right 700 year ago
                      and I can't do better than it by shortcutting the
                      method with the luxury of having 45" or 60" fabrics,
                      instead of the 20" ones they had to deal with.
                      --Marilyn


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                      http://health.yahoo.com
                    • E House
                      (In case it didn t come through, I wasn t referring to you, or to anyone specifically on this list.) Let s take the term kirtle for example; it had different
                      Message 10 of 24 , May 6, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        (In case it didn't come through, I wasn't referring to you, or to anyone specifically on this list.)
                         
                        Let's take the term 'kirtle' for example; it had different meanings at different times (and sometimes different meanings at the same time).  I've seen one person define 'kirtle' as the fitted A-line dress you see on Drea's site, and ONLY that type of dress, and another person define 'kirtle' as any underdress, and another person define 'kirtle' as an Elizabethan underskirt, and another person define 'kirtle' as a general term, synonymous with gown, and another person defines it as a men's knee-length tunic or cote, and another person defines it as a coat of any sort (eg "kirtle of paint"), and another person defines it as an early 18th century short jacket, and so on and so on and so on. (I'll stop now.  I could fill several pages.)  And ALL of these definitions are accurate in that they were used that way at various times in period; what is not accurate is saying that kirtle can SOLELY mean whatever their pet definition says it means.
                         
                        One just cannot make kirtle mean only one thing.   One cannot even say that there is a sole definition in each era and area. It can't be done, not with any respect for historical accuracy.  It was not used as a specific term by the people we try to emulate, and we should not try to force it to become a specific term now as a part of our attempt to emulate them.
                         
                        But I'm not really here to offer a solution, I'm just here to bitch about the problem.  Plus, I'm up so far past my bedtime that I'm thinking I should just stay up, so my brain isn't working well enough right now.  Good thing I'm self-employed.
                         
                        E
                         
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 9:22 AM
                        Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Re: cote-hardie question

                        --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "E House" <sig-sauer@c...> wrote:
                        > Hehe, this touches on MY pet peeve:
                        > I hate it when terms get 'defined' far more strictly by modern
                        people than they were defined in period.  I really, really do
                        understand how handy it is for recreators to have super specific
                        terms, really I do.  I just wish that rather than redefining (and
                        when the term is made more specific than it really is, it's
                        redefining) the term, people would come up with a new term.  (Like
                        calling it a Gothic fitted dress.  That? Fine.)

                        Hmm. I'm not quite sure what you mean here... Do you mean that the
                        term 'kirtle' and 'cote' are redefined terms for other, original
                        meanings? If so, please let me know more about the terms -- I'm
                        always looking for such information. I'd also welcome further ideas
                        on the two dresses -- because they are distinctly different and serve
                        different purposes. When you are describing an outfit that consists
                        of a chemise layer, an underdress layer, and an overdress layer, how
                        would one 'name' those layers? "Gothic Fitted dress" is a great
                        descriptor for the look in general, but it doesn't help people figure
                        out which layers to wear together -- does one wear one G.F.D. and be
                        done with any further detail? Or, does one wear two G.F.Ds, of style
                        A and B together?

                        I can well imagine that in period folks had no need to be specific
                        due to the fact that everyone just "knew" how the dresses went or
                        didn't go together. However, as you've pointed out, recreators need
                        to be able to define the pieces of the 'roba' (entire outfit). I'm
                        completely open to suggestions on this, as I haven't comfortably
                        settled down with any set words yet. I've been using kirtle and cote
                        for lack of anything else concrete yet. Ideas?

                        Marcele de Montsegur



                        ----------------------------------------------------
                        This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        authentic_SCA-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      • marshamclean@rogers.com
                        I can only speak for Elizabethan, but in my experience there are, indeed, a number of garments referred to as kirtles . There is the A-line garment worn
                        Message 11 of 24 , May 6, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          (In case it didn't come through, I wasn't referring to you, or to anyone specifically on this list.)
                           
                          Let's take the term 'kirtle' for example; it had different meanings at different times (and sometimes different meanings at the same time).  I've seen one person define 'kirtle' as the fitted A-line dress you see on Drea's site, and ONLY that type of dress, and another person define 'kirtle' as any underdress, and another person define 'kirtle' as an Elizabethan underskirt, and another person define 'kirtle' as a general term, synonymous with gown, and another person defines it as a men's knee-length tunic or cote, and another person defines it as a coat of any sort (eg "kirtle of paint"), and another person defines it as an early 18th century short jacket, and so on and so on and so on. (I'll stop now.  I could fill several pages.)  And ALL of these definitions are accurate in that they were used that way at various times in period; what is not accurate is saying that kirtle can SOLELY mean whatever their pet definition says it means.
                           
                          One just cannot make kirtle mean only one thing.   One cannot even say that there is a sole definition in each era and area. It can't be done, not with any respect for historical accuracy.  It was not used as a specific term by the people we try to emulate, and we should not try to force it to become a specific term now as a part of our attempt to emulate them.
                           
                          But I'm not really here to offer a solution, I'm just here to bitch about the problem.  Plus, I'm up so far past my bedtime that I'm thinking I should just stay up, so my brain isn't working well enough right now.  Good thing I'm self-employed.
                           
                          E
                           
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 9:22 AM
                          Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Re: cote-hardie question

                          --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "E House" <sig-sauer@c...> wrote:
                          > Hehe, this touches on MY pet peeve:
                          > I hate it when terms get 'defined' far more strictly by modern
                          people than they were defined in period.  I really, really do
                          understand how handy it is for recreators to have super specific
                          terms, really I do.  I just wish that rather than redefining (and
                          when the term is made more specific than it really is, it's
                          redefining) the term, people would come up with a new term.  (Like
                          calling it a Gothic fitted dress.  That? Fine.)

                          Hmm. I'm not quite sure what you mean here... Do you mean that the
                          term 'kirtle' and 'cote' are redefined terms for other, original
                          meanings? If so, please let me know more about the terms -- I'm
                          always looking for such information. I'd also welcome further ideas
                          on the two dresses -- because they are distinctly different and serve
                          different purposes. When you are describing an outfit that consists
                          of a chemise layer, an underdress layer, and an overdress layer, how
                          would one 'name' those layers? "Gothic Fitted dress" is a great
                          descriptor for the look in general, but it doesn't help people figure
                          out which layers to wear together -- does one wear one G.F.D. and be
                          done with any further detail? Or, does one wear two G.F.Ds, of style
                          A and B together?

                          I can well imagine that in period folks had no need to be specific
                          due to the fact that everyone just "knew" how the dresses went or
                          didn't go together. However, as you've pointed out, recreators need
                          to be able to define the pieces of the 'roba' (entire outfit). I'm
                          completely open to suggestions on this, as I haven't comfortably
                          settled down with any set words yet. I've been using kirtle and cote
                          for lack of anything else concrete yet. Ideas?

                          Marcele de Montsegur



                          ----------------------------------------------------
                          This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          authentic_SCA-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                          ----------------------------------------------------
                          This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          authentic_SCA-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                        • Cilean_69
                          No, Cotehardie is a Middle French name, literally meaning Bold Tunic. The cotehardie was a medieval European garment for both men and women. For men, it was
                          Message 12 of 24 , May 6, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            No,

                            Cotehardie is a Middle French name, literally meaning Bold Tunic.
                            The cotehardie was a medieval European garment for both men and
                            women. For men, it was generally a long sleeved, thigh length,
                            belted garment. For women, it was usually full length. The
                            cotehardie was designed to fit closely to the curves of the body and
                            closed by buttoning or lacing it shut.


                            Okay so If you would like to make a cotehardie, I can give you some
                            mundane (normal) patterns in which to construct these. The sleeve
                            will not be a period sleeve, as yet I have not found a sleeve pattern
                            on the regular market to make one, however if you make the usual arm
                            you are still 'okay' find a Laurel in your area or if you give me
                            some time I will scan in my arm and show you why it is different.

                            McCall's has had this pattern for the past 10 years it has changed
                            numbers all the time it was 7957, 2885 but it is an 8 looks in one
                            pattern. You can also use 3129,

                            Vogue has one as well for the people who are smaller chested or size
                            challenged!! I would not give this to a curvy person or an hour glass
                            shaped person. It is 8696

                            Simplicty does have a 'costume' pattern you can adapt for a good
                            cotehardie, it is 9891, when we made this one I am pretty chesty and
                            I had to bring up the neckline by 3 inches or risk having my chest
                            pop out of the top!

                            Okay, stepping up on soapbox,

                            1. Cut 2 for the front, do not use it as it says with the folds, it
                            makes it easier to adjust when you do this.

                            2. Do not use the fabric guides on the patterns, I know I should not
                            have to say this but....

                            3. You will need to add 3 yards (depending how tall you are) to make
                            this lovely dress as voluminous as it should be. If you take a yard
                            stick and extend your pattern guideline, kind of make each side a
                            triangle....so the extra fabric will be eaten up with that.

                            4. Make sure to remember to check the legnth of the pattern to your
                            hieght, I am 5 10 so I sometimes have to add 7 inches to a dress.

                            Link to a great informational cotehardie page.
                            http://www.geocities.com/ariedin/index.html

                            I hope this helps!!

                            Cilean
                          • wodeford
                            ... pattern ... arm ... That would be because modern sleeves have the seam running from mid armpit to the inside of the wrist. This allows you to do a
                            Message 13 of 24 , May 6, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "Cilean_69" <aubergine_dreams@y...> wrote:
                              > Okay so If you would like to make a cotehardie, I can give you some
                              > mundane (normal) patterns in which to construct these. The sleeve
                              > will not be a period sleeve, as yet I have not found a sleeve
                              pattern
                              > on the regular market to make one, however if you make the usual
                              arm
                              > you are still 'okay' find a Laurel in your area or if you give me
                              > some time I will scan in my arm and show you why it is different.

                              That would be because modern sleeves have the seam running from mid
                              armpit to the inside of the wrist. This allows you to do a
                              symmetrical cut on a fold to make a sleeve shape. (Hmmm, wonder if
                              this is a development of mass produced clothing?)
                              The "cotehardie", or fitted Gothic gown as Netherton calls it, has
                              the sleeve seam running down the outside edge of the arm. This
                              requires an asymmetrical cut and some fitting. (As soon as I get
                              Gaius' new surcote finished, I have to cut and fit sleeves for the
                              dress I've been working on on-and-off since before I moved. And
                              buttonholes. And stuffed buttons.....)

                              Jehanne
                            • wodeford
                              ... Hi, Marilyn. Who fit you? Jenne or Isabeau? ;- ... Did you try the lying-down back and front seam fitting? Brynn did mine for the muslin I used for my
                              Message 14 of 24 , May 6, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Marilyn Hillvic <hillvicus@y...> wrote:
                                > A lady in my shire, who is a coathardie expert,
                                > helped me fit the under-gown for my coathardie.
                                Hi, Marilyn. Who fit you? Jenne or Isabeau? ;->

                                > The process involved 4 parts of linen fabric with
                                > the front seam pinned in place straight down the
                                > front, the back seam fitted to the curve in your spine
                                > (I thought it looked like the dorsal fin of a fish as
                                > it was pinned and the selvages stood up), then the
                                > side seams and shoulders were "hauled up", along with
                                > the pair of bodies, and pinned with industrial-strengh
                                > pins, until the fabric became the shape of a shelf for
                                > the pair of bodies to rest on. This is not a 1-step
                                > process, but a fine-tuning of pinning, wiggling
                                > around, and taking in what stretches out. The
                                > under-gown ultimately laces up the front with spiral
                                > lacing for bulk-free support, and a fitted over-gown
                                > (a coathardie with all those lovely buttons) will be
                                > put on, resting on this wonderful support under
                                > garment to create that Duc-du-Barry look.
                                Did you try the lying-down back and front seam fitting? Brynn did
                                mine for the muslin I used for my Irish dress and for the as-yet-
                                unfinished cote I've been fiddling with. It really works.

                                My Italian is finished (except for sleeves). Must get pictures. I
                                amazed myself with what a good fit I got with a commercial pattern. I
                                decided to bone the edges of the bodice, simply because it gave a
                                sturdier platform for the eyehooks to be attached to. Vittoria,
                                thanks again for the Campi painting links. I think I came up with
                                something that looks pretty close - but could be easily dressed up
                                with fancier sleeves.

                                Jehanne
                              • Gwendoline Rosamond
                                Just to point out, Robin calls the garment a gown - which in her research she has found is the correct name for the garment. However, gown was used in many
                                Message 15 of 24 , May 6, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Just to point out, Robin calls the garment a gown - which in her research
                                  she has found is the correct name for the garment. However, gown was used
                                  in many periods for completely different styles and she uses "Gothic Fitted
                                  Dress" as an explanatory name for her classes or subject lines in emails -
                                  rather than thinking that is the actual name of the garment. If you have
                                  issues with her stuff, I would be happy to forward them to her.

                                  Cheers,
                                  Gwendoline

                                  At 09:07 AM 5/6/2002 -0500, you wrote:
                                  >Hehe, this touches on MY pet peeve:
                                  >I hate it when terms get 'defined' far more strictly by modern people than
                                  >they were defined in period. I really, really do understand how handy it
                                  >is for recreators to have super specific terms, really I do. I just wish
                                  >that rather than redefining (and when the term is made more specific than
                                  >it really is, it's redefining) the term, people would come up with a new
                                  >term. (Like calling it a Gothic fitted dress. That? Fine.)
                                  >
                                  >Hmph. Hmph, I say. 10 years from now, people are going to redefine
                                  >'dress' to mean '4 panel pieced front-laced overgown with slightly flared
                                  >sleeves in c1495 Dutch style, generally looser than its counterpart in
                                  >France, made in wool twill and bound at the neck and sleeves in gold,' and
                                  >my head is going to explode, hopefully getting the ickiest bits up their
                                  >collective noses.
                                  >E
                                • Steven Proctor
                                  Ummmm, if I may take exception, ma cher Jehanne... The cotehardie *may* have the seam running down the outside of the arm. I have seen at least one
                                  Message 16 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Ummmm, if I may take exception, ma cher Jehanne...

                                    The cotehardie *may* have the seam running down the outside of the arm.
                                    I have seen at least one illumination where the seams runs to the
                                    armpit...

                                    Ta

                                    Morgan


                                    wodeford wrote:

                                    > That would be because modern sleeves have the seam running from mid
                                    > armpit to the inside of the wrist.

                                    > The "cotehardie", or fitted Gothic gown as Netherton calls it, has
                                    > the sleeve seam running down the outside edge of the arm.
                                    >
                                    > Jehanne

                                    --
                                    It's 6:15, she thought, and the newspaper should be here by now, then
                                    she opened her door and realized with disgust that the paper boy was
                                    still in her bedroom.
                                  • wodeford
                                    ... Go for it, cher Baron. I m still learning... Jehanne de Too Many Books Too Little Time Wodeford
                                    Message 17 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Steven Proctor <sproctor@b...> wrote:
                                      > Ummmm, if I may take exception, ma cher Jehanne...

                                      Go for it, cher Baron. I'm still learning...

                                      Jehanne de Too Many Books Too Little Time Wodeford
                                    • demontsegur
                                      ... their pet definition says it means. ... say that there is a sole definition in each era and area. It can t be done, not with any respect for historical
                                      Message 18 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "E House" <sig-sauer@c...> wrote:
                                        > what is not accurate is saying that kirtle can SOLELY mean whatever
                                        their pet definition says it means.
                                        >
                                        > One just cannot make kirtle mean only one thing. One cannot even
                                        say that there is a sole definition in each era and area. It can't be
                                        done, not with any respect for historical accuracy. It was not used
                                        as a specific term by the people we try to emulate, and we should not
                                        try to force it to become a specific term now as a part of our
                                        attempt to emulate them.
                                        ___________________________________________

                                        Greetings,

                                        <disclaimer -- I didn't think you were picking on me -- I'm
                                        interested in the topic, so I'm happy to continue the dialogue.>

                                        I've read your argument and I understand your issue. I was not aware
                                        that the term was being used by others to mean "only X-type of
                                        dress". That said, I don't think that using the term 'kirtle' in
                                        reference to the Gothic Fitted Dress (nod to Robin Netherton) is an
                                        implicit statement that it's the only meaning of the word. I've
                                        personally never assumed it was, and have also heard of the term
                                        being used for different garments in other periods. The one thing all
                                        these versions seem to have in common is that the kirtle layer is
                                        versatile -- because it can be worn as an underlayer and as the top
                                        layer. Feeling casual? Wear it over a chemise and it's your top
                                        layer. Feeling dressy? Put on a fancier layer over it.

                                        What we all seem to agree on is that there is no concrete term for
                                        the decorative underdress that shows up in wardrobe accounts and in
                                        in the paintings of the 14th and 15th centuries. We know it's there,
                                        we know it takes several forms, and we know it can be worn alone or
                                        with another dress on top of it. Another common denominator appears
                                        to be that this versatile layer has long sleeves, with or without
                                        buttons. These dresses were worn all over -- England, France,
                                        Germany, Italy, etc. Each culture had any number of names for them.
                                        For these reasons, we modern-day folks are left with little option
                                        for an obviously definitive name. We could be more generic and call
                                        these dresses "decorative underdresses", but that verges on the rest
                                        of your complaint -- getting overly descriptive with the name. In the
                                        midst of a conversation about 14th-15th century dress, it seems
                                        reasonable to me to use the term 'kirtle' and still be clear. It
                                        helps to define your terms at the beginning of the conversation, of
                                        course.

                                        All of this argument applies to the word 'cote' as well -- it's a
                                        term used in period, and it's safer than using 'cotehardie' which is
                                        a term that I've only ever read about as a reference to male clothing
                                        of the period. In addition, the term 'cote' as used in period implies
                                        a top layer -- something _always_ worn as a top layer. Judging from
                                        our limited information of the jargon used in period and the art of
                                        that time, I've come to the conclusion that it is necessary to
                                        distinguish between the two layers and to use a reasonable and
                                        simple 'name' for each layer for the purpose of communication and
                                        instruction. I've settled on 'cote' (for now, anyway). Again, if
                                        anyone has contrary information or suggestions for better names,
                                        please share. As I've stated before, I do not assume that I've
                                        figured out everything there is to know on the subject and I do
                                        welcome new angles.

                                        Cheers,
                                        Marcele de Montsegur
                                      • Nessaofthelox
                                        Wow! There is an Illumination that shows seams, where did you find it? Always in search of documentation, Agnes
                                        Message 19 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Wow! There is an Illumination that shows seams, where did you find it?

                                          Always in search of documentation, Agnes




                                          --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Steven Proctor <sproctor@b...> wrote:
                                          > Ummmm, if I may take exception, ma cher Jehanne...
                                          > The cotehardie *may* have the seam running down the outside of the arm.
                                          > I have seen at least one illumination where the seams runs to the
                                          > armpit...
                                          > Ta
                                          > Morgan
                                        • Steven Proctor
                                          Hmmm. Thought I could find it on line, but apparently I can t. It s from the Belles Heures of Jean de Berri, one of the executioners is wearing a cote, and as
                                          Message 20 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hmmm. Thought I could find it on line, but apparently I can't. It's from
                                            the Belles Heures of Jean de Berri, one of the executioners is wearing a
                                            cote, and as his arm is raised for the beheading stroke toy can see his
                                            armpit clearly...

                                            I may have a scan of it at home, if I do I'll upload it and let people
                                            know...

                                            Ta

                                            Morgan



                                            Nessaofthelox wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Wow! There is an Illumination that shows seams, where did you find it?
                                            >
                                            > Always in search of documentation, Agnes
                                            >
                                            > --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Steven Proctor <sproctor@b...> wrote:
                                            > > Ummmm, if I may take exception, ma cher Jehanne...
                                            > > The cotehardie *may* have the seam running down the outside of the
                                            > arm.
                                            > > I have seen at least one illumination where the seams runs to the
                                            > > armpit...
                                            > > Ta
                                            > > Morgan
                                            >
                                            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                            > ADVERTISEMENT
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ----------------------------------------------------
                                            > This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
                                            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                            > authentic_SCA-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                                            >
                                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                                            --
                                            It's 6:15, she thought, and the newspaper should be here by now, then
                                            she opened her door and realized with disgust that the paper boy was
                                            still in her bedroom.
                                          • arhylda@aol.com
                                            In a message dated 5/7/02 11:14:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com writes:
                                            Message 21 of 24 , May 8, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              In a message dated 5/7/02 11:14:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                                              Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com writes:

                                              << Wow! There is an Illumination that shows seams, where did you find it?

                                              Always in search of documentation, Agnes >>

                                              I'm wondering...what kind of evidence other than pictorial are you all using
                                              to devise your patterns? I personally was disappointed with Ms. Netherton's
                                              presentation at Known World Costume Symposium last year. While her theories
                                              were interesting, they were entirely based on pictorial sources. Convince me
                                              that they would have actually done that extreme amount of pattern draping in
                                              that period! ; )

                                              Doubting Mairi (hey, I always annoyed my mother, too..."But why? But how? But
                                              why? But how?")
                                            • Gwendoline Rosamond
                                              ... ... You make excellent points. Now, personally I would call the layers smock, kirtle, and gown but I am working from an English perspective. Oh,
                                              Message 22 of 24 , May 8, 2002
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                At 02:22 PM 5/6/2002 +0000, you wrote:
                                                >--- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "E House" <sig-sauer@c...> wrote:

                                                <snip>

                                                >Hmm. I'm not quite sure what you mean here... Do you mean that the
                                                >term 'kirtle' and 'cote' are redefined terms for other, original
                                                >meanings? If so, please let me know more about the terms -- I'm
                                                >always looking for such information. I'd also welcome further ideas
                                                >on the two dresses -- because they are distinctly different and serve
                                                >different purposes. When you are describing an outfit that consists
                                                >of a chemise layer, an underdress layer, and an overdress layer, how
                                                >would one 'name' those layers? "Gothic Fitted dress" is a great
                                                >descriptor for the look in general, but it doesn't help people figure
                                                >out which layers to wear together -- does one wear one G.F.D. and be
                                                >done with any further detail? Or, does one wear two G.F.Ds, of style
                                                >A and B together?
                                                >
                                                >I can well imagine that in period folks had no need to be specific
                                                >due to the fact that everyone just "knew" how the dresses went or
                                                >didn't go together. However, as you've pointed out, recreators need
                                                >to be able to define the pieces of the 'roba' (entire outfit). I'm
                                                >completely open to suggestions on this, as I haven't comfortably
                                                >settled down with any set words yet. I've been using kirtle and cote
                                                >for lack of anything else concrete yet. Ideas?
                                                >
                                                >Marcele de Montsegur

                                                You make excellent points. Now, personally I would call the layers smock,
                                                kirtle, and gown but I am working from an English perspective. Oh, and
                                                I've been lately looking at wills that are very late 14th century and early
                                                15th century and kirtle and gown have both been mentioned. However, the
                                                most bizarre thing I've found is a "pourpoint" left to a woman...

                                                Cheers,
                                                Gwendoline
                                              • demontsegur
                                                ... and early ... However, the ... Fascinating! How did you find the wills? And do you think that the pourpoint being left to a woman might indicate that the
                                                Message 23 of 24 , May 9, 2002
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Gwendoline Rosamond <dameg@a...> wrote:
                                                  > I've been lately looking at wills that are very late 14th century
                                                  and early
                                                  > 15th century and kirtle and gown have both been mentioned.
                                                  However, the
                                                  > most bizarre thing I've found is a "pourpoint" left to a woman...
                                                  >
                                                  > Cheers,
                                                  > Gwendoline

                                                  Fascinating! How did you find the wills? And do you think that the
                                                  pourpoint being left to a woman might indicate that the word might
                                                  have been used for women's gowns/outer layers? Or possibly something
                                                  was left to a woman for recycling purposes, for their offspring's
                                                  use, or maybe because this lady was one of those cross-dressing
                                                  tournament-attenders I've read about in _Fashion in the Age of the
                                                  Black Prince_!

                                                  Apparently, cadres of upper-class ladies liked to get together, dress
                                                  in masculine fashions, and then attend tournaments and generally
                                                  raise a ruckus. Contemporary writings describe them as independent
                                                  and heartless, if I remember correctly, though those exact words were
                                                  probably not used. I'll have to go home and look this up..

                                                  Marcele de Montsegur
                                                • Gwendoline Rosamond
                                                  ... I get them in book form. I have no idea why it was left to the woman, I m only just getting into the 15th century stuff - I usually work with 16th
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , May 11, 2002
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    At 02:10 PM 5/9/2002 +0000, you wrote:
                                                    >--- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Gwendoline Rosamond <dameg@a...> wrote:
                                                    > > I've been lately looking at wills that are very late 14th century
                                                    >and early
                                                    > > 15th century and kirtle and gown have both been mentioned.
                                                    >However, the
                                                    > > most bizarre thing I've found is a "pourpoint" left to a woman...
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Cheers,
                                                    > > Gwendoline
                                                    >
                                                    >Fascinating! How did you find the wills? And do you think that the
                                                    >pourpoint being left to a woman might indicate that the word might
                                                    >have been used for women's gowns/outer layers? Or possibly something
                                                    >was left to a woman for recycling purposes, for their offspring's
                                                    >use, or maybe because this lady was one of those cross-dressing
                                                    >tournament-attenders I've read about in _Fashion in the Age of the
                                                    >Black Prince_!

                                                    I get them in book form. I have no idea why it was left to the woman, I'm
                                                    only just getting into the 15th century stuff - I usually work with 16th
                                                    century. From everything I've read however, I don't think that women would
                                                    normally wear such a garment. These are mainly merchant class wills so its
                                                    really hard to tell....

                                                    >Apparently, cadres of upper-class ladies liked to get together, dress
                                                    >in masculine fashions, and then attend tournaments and generally
                                                    >raise a ruckus. Contemporary writings describe them as independent
                                                    >and heartless, if I remember correctly, though those exact words were
                                                    >probably not used. I'll have to go home and look this up..
                                                    >
                                                    >Marcele de Montsegur

                                                    Well, the reference says "to Edith, their servant (servienti), one white
                                                    "parpyne"" so it is most like a case of recycling...

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