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

[Authentic_SCA] Re: cote-hardie question

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , May 6, 2002
      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 2 of 24 , May 6, 2002
        --- 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 3 of 24 , May 6, 2002
          --- 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 4 of 24 , May 6, 2002
            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 5 of 24 , May 7, 2002
              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 6 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                --- 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 7 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                  --- 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 8 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                    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 9 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                      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 10 of 24 , May 8, 2002
                        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 11 of 24 , May 8, 2002
                          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 12 of 24 , May 9, 2002
                            --- 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 13 of 24 , May 11, 2002
                              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.