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

Re: cote-hardie question

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , May 4 6:45 PM
    • 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 2 of 24 , May 5 8:05 PM
      • 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 3 of 24 , May 5 8:29 PM
        • 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 4 of 24 , May 6 5:18 AM
          • 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 5 of 24 , May 6 7:07 AM
            • 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 6 of 24 , May 6 7:22 AM
              • 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 7 of 24 , May 6 7:27 AM
                • 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 8 of 24 , May 6 7:48 AM
                  • 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 9 of 24 , May 6 8:26 AM
                    • 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 10 of 24 , May 6 12:38 PM
                      • 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 11 of 24 , May 6 3:05 PM
                        • 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 12 of 24 , May 6 3:19 PM
                          • 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 13 of 24 , May 6 8:30 PM
                            • 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 14 of 24 , May 7 5:48 AM
                              • 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 15 of 24 , May 7 7:16 AM
                                • 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 16 of 24 , May 7 7:32 AM
                                  • 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 17 of 24 , May 7 7:32 AM
                                    • 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 18 of 24 , May 7 8:28 AM
                                      • 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 19 of 24 , May 8 5:19 AM
                                        • 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 20 of 24 , May 8 4:42 PM
                                          • 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 21 of 24 , May 9 7:10 AM
                                            • 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 22 of 24 , May 11 6:07 PM
                                              • 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.