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

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: cote-hardie question

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.