Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## Re: [Authentic_SCA] resend: re: Sorquenie and Cotehardie directions

Expand Messages
• ... I got the first sending, but only after receiving this one. Go figure! ... We come at this from different angles. While I am VERY comfortable with the
Message 1 of 17 , Apr 30 10:55 AM
Regarding my earlier post, the lady Marcele wrote:

>This message appears to have been lost in the ether, so here's try
>number two:

I got the first sending, but only after receiving this one. Go figure!

>I used to use a flat pattern-drafting method (what you've described)
>for making bust-supportive gowns of this period, until I discovered
>that a more reliable method (IMO, anyway) for fitting these gowns was
>the draping method -- whereby four rectangular pieces are pinned and
>basted around your body on the four vertical seam points (sides,
>back, and front). This method gives proof, right there and then, that
>the fit is *exactly* as you want, before going to all the trouble of
>the basic math and drafting required of the flat pattern method.
>Also, and this is purely my personal observation, I am pretty 'good'
>at creating flat patterns for myself and others based on
>measurements, but even I got an infinitely better result for bust
>supportive gowns when I switched to the draping method.

We come at this from different angles. While I am VERY comfortable with the simple
math involved in graphing out a pattern, I have seen people (ended up helping) do the
draping method, and my reaction was horror at the "hack and slash" (which remarkably
ended up pretty good, at least for most of them!). I prefer to get almost there using
simple math, then pin to the desired fit based on the give of that piece of material and
how well my body wants to be moulded into shape today. Whether or not our medieval
ancestresses used a string or other measuring device to start from scratch and go by
the numbers, or whether perhaps they took a RELATIVELY inexpensive piece of cloth
and pinned that together until they had the fit they wanted, I see my method as a
variation of the well-used "take something you know fits about right, copy it, and alter as
necessary" method. My "something you know fits about right" is just a big sheet of
paper, that's all. If it weren't that I'd rather skip the added inconvenience of using a
rather full and heavy earlier cotehardie as my pattern, I could copy it in the same way.
I'd just have to re-enlarge the seam allowances.

<snip paragraph about why the lady Marcele feels more historically comfortable with
draping>

>I love linen too but due to much stronger evidence in favor of wool
>and silk for this time period, I'm shifting my personal wardrobe in
>that direction. Alas, my linen gowns will languish in the closet over
>time, but I'll never get rid of them... as I continue to hold out
>hope that some triumphantly irrefutable extant example of a linen
>gown will surface, dating to the time of the late 14th or early 15th
>century, preferably in northwestern Europe. :^) There is enough
>evidence for using linen as a lining fabric, IMO, and I'll happily
>continue to do that...

Lucky you! If I tried to wear a wool gown without something under it EVERYWHERE, I'd
be terribly itchy! And here in Trimaris, few can believe I'm comfortable in two or three
thick layers of fabric in the hot weather. _I_ can't believe I could double that and still be
comfortable! So I'll continue wearing my "vegetable wool", and just be glad we've
developed non-transient dyes, so I have the variety of colours I'd have if I really were
wearing wool.

>The closer together you place your eyelets for
>lacing (and I put my lacing up the front, as there's enough pictorial
>evidence to convince me this was widely done), the more you can
>reduce the chances for such indents, and you will increase the
>strength of the gown's bust support.

I put my lacings between an inch and an inch and a half apart for the same reason.
However, I put my lacings up the back, since all the pictorial evidence I've found for
front lacing was on English pieces, and I'm re-creating the French version of the
fashion. Excluding the pieces that were just too small to make out any details, all the
French art I've found showed an utterly smooth front, with no sign of lacings. That
leaves the sides (which don't work well) and the back. I go with the back.

>I'd agree with fiber content consisting of wool and silk for an outer-
>most fashion layer, but any synthetic or cotton brocade or velveteen
>isn't really going to do justice to this style as it should drape and
>as it was done in period. A full silk brocode, available for dear
>money but yet findable, would do nicely, as would full-silk velvet,
>or even half-silk velvet with a linen warp (extant examples of such
>found in London, I believe?), but again, very dear and somewhat rare
>for purchase. Silk with real gold or silver thread woven into it
>would also do quite nicely but we're all sensing a pattern here --
>hard-to-find or exceedingly expensive, or both. A reasonable
>substitute is silk gabardine/2-2 twill, and it's more affordable and
>available than the other fabrics mentioned above. I would even use a
>simple but tightly-woven silk broadcloth for an outer layer before
>I'd use a cotton brocade or a cotton velvet. Drape and fiber content
>get me closer to feeling like I've succeeded in recreating clothing
>as it was truly made.

Your fabric suggestions make me drool, and are appropriate to the era, but they're
making my pocketbook try to hide! And I don't think I've gotten to the point where I can
casually drag more than two square yards of even a "cheap" silk fabric through the dirt!
But I can do woolen fabrics, cotton velveteens, and cotton brocades. Given a to-die-for
period pattern, appropriate weight and drape, and a very good price, I can even do
synthetic fabrics. I've found that cotton velveteen and cotton brocade achieve the right
hand after a time or two through the laundry, and I can afford a spiffy new gown every
reign instead of maybe being able to afford one once in my life!

>> Fit it close, but not snug like the sorquenie, since this isn't
>supposed to be tight enough
>> to look supportive -- after all, the bust is NATURALLY in that
>position, didn't you know
>> that?
>
><smile> One can argue for a slightly looser fit on the outer layer,
>and also for an exceedingly snug one. There are quite a few examples
>of outer layers worn over kirtles/cotes that are buttoned down the
>center-front and that appear to fit like a glove. Still, the point to
>take from all of this is that it's the first fashion layer, what I
>like to call a 'versatile' gown, that will give you bust support, if
>any is to be given. If the layer on top of it is fitted snuggly as
>well, all the more support, but it's not necessary, depending on the
>geographic location/time period you're depicting.

With all the weight we're talking about hanging from it, a close-fitting cotehardie will
LOOK like it fits like a glove, or at least that's what I've found. Not that it's Italian-loose,
just a TOTAL of about 1/2" less fitted all around. I first tried this because I was terribly
afraid of getting underbust wrinkles where the French cotehardies are shown as being
incredibly smooth, but since this works so well, I prefer to stick to this method. As I said,
the cotehardie looks glove-tight, even though it really isn't.

>Tippets are certainly an option, but not a requirement for the French
>style. If you take a broad survey of French art from the period,
>you'll see that there are a number of different sleeve styles.

I did say "some sort" <grin>. I've seen two main styles, the "cuff and tippet" and the
"integral tippet lined in white (fur?)". The integral tippets, when detailed, appear to be
lined in something thick and furry, but some of the cuff variety ones are painted in a
style that really makes them look like silk bands catching the light. Very pretty!

>> The sorquenie should have 6 - 12" of train,
>
>It all depends on the geographical region/time period/class you are
>portraying. There's lots of evidence for fitted gowns that did not
>trail on the ground -- especially for women who had to do any sort of
>labor.

Granted, but women who had to do any sort of physical labour were not likely to be
members of the nobility, whose clothing we are trying to recreate. Of all the artwork I
have seen of this period, with the high percentage of ladies who were holding up their
cotehardies / outer gowns, none showed more than the tips of the ladies' shoes. If the
front of the undergown is this long, the back must be at least as long if it isn't going to
look odd. If the back is that long, it will get underfoot unless it is long enough to trail out.
Six inches is the minimum extra length I've found to work well for a relatively heavy
fabric, while twelve inches is the maximum I've found to work well on an undergown.
Hence the suggested train length.

Your Servant,
Lady Arianne de Chateaumichel

Shire of Starhaven,
Kingdom of Trimaris

On the web at <http://www.chateau-michel.org>
• ... If you read in some of the books on medieval excavations, like the MOL books (I know, you certainly don t have extra time right now!), you ll find that
Message 2 of 17 , Apr 30 3:25 PM
Carolin wrote:

>I don't get it... (sorry I am a bit grumpy these days... PhD is
>eating away on my nerves :/) but that's something that has been
>bothering me for a while. The US is *very* hot in some places, but so
>is Europe. How did the women in Spain or southern Italy deal the hot
>weather and wearing wool? How many layers did they wear? did they
>have very thin wool? Or were all the rich just simply wearing silk?
>And the poorer people had the drab linen colors?

If you read in some of the books on medieval excavations, like the MOL books (I know,
you certainly don't have extra time right now!), you'll find that wool cloth was available in
a wide variety of weights during the Middle Ages, (actually, this was the case up until
this last century). I don't know how this affected their choices of woolen fabrics for
clothing, but they apparently had the option. Then you have the Spanish outfits with the
double surcotes... I forget what they were called. We also forget that the earth was
going through what has been called a "Little Ice Age" during the mid to late Middle
Ages (if I remember correctly, it was the 13th through the 16th centuries). Depending on
"how cold is cold" even the southern ladies might have been adding layers for warmth.

>Any clarification would be greatly appreciated... I just can't
>imagine that people in the Middle Ages in Southern Europe were
>sweating like horses all the time because the only fibre they had was
>wool... (and I think we can all agree that wool is warmer than linen
>etc.)

I've never tried this, but supposedly fine wool is cooler than fine linen. We think of wool
as being warming and insulating because, at the weights we're used to it in, it is. At
least, that's what the older women in my Mennonite family say, and several of the older
costumers I know in the Society have said the same thing.

But I'm sure our medieval ancestors did their best to dress comfortably, given whatever
rules of proper dress they felt they couldn't ignore. The question is, what rules couldn't
be ignored, and when.

Best wishes!

Your Servant,
Lady Arianne de Chateaumichel

Shire of Starhaven,
Kingdom of Trimaris

On the web at <http://www.chateau-michel.org>
• ... I don t get it... (sorry I am a bit grumpy these days... PhD is eating away on my nerves :/) but that s something that has been bothering me for a while.
Message 3 of 17 , Apr 30 3:27 PM
>
>>I love linen too but due to much stronger evidence in favor of wool
>>and silk for this time period, I'm shifting my personal wardrobe in
>>that direction. Alas, my linen gowns will languish in the closet over
>>time, but I'll never get rid of them... as I continue to hold out
>>hope that some triumphantly irrefutable extant example of a linen
>>gown will surface, dating to the time of the late 14th or early 15th
>>century, preferably in northwestern Europe. :^) There is enough
>>evidence for using linen as a lining fabric, IMO, and I'll happily
>>continue to do that...
>
>Lucky you! If I tried to wear a wool gown without something under
>it EVERYWHERE, I'd
>be terribly itchy! And here in Trimaris, few can believe I'm
>comfortable in two or three
>thick layers of fabric in the hot weather. _I_ can't believe I
>could double that and still be
>comfortable! So I'll continue wearing my "vegetable wool", and just
>be glad we've
>developed non-transient dyes, so I have the variety of colours I'd
>have if I really were
>wearing wool.

I don't get it... (sorry I am a bit grumpy these days... PhD is
eating away on my nerves :/) but that's something that has been
bothering me for a while. The US is *very* hot in some places, but so
is Europe. How did the women in Spain or southern Italy deal the hot
weather and wearing wool? How many layers did they wear? did they
have very thin wool? Or were all the rich just simply wearing silk?
And the poorer people had the drab linen colors?
Any clarification would be greatly appreciated... I just can't
imagine that people in the Middle Ages in Southern Europe were
sweating like horses all the time because the only fibre they had was
wool... (and I think we can all agree that wool is warmer than linen
etc.)
--
Yours,
Carolin

~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
~*~ Carolin vom Adlersberg Barony of Storvik, Atlantia ~*~

[...] Fride unde reht sint sêre wunt.
diu driu enhabent geleites niht, diu zwei enwerden ê
gesunt.
Walter von der Vogelweide

http://www.adlersberg.net
• ... Actually... I have to answer my own question here... *doh* ... you are absolutely right about the different weights of wool... and now that you mention it
Message 4 of 17 , Apr 30 8:02 PM
>
>
>I've never tried this, but supposedly fine wool is cooler than fine
>linen. We think of wool
>as being warming and insulating because, at the weights we're used
>to it in, it is. At
>least, that's what the older women in my Mennonite family say, and
>several of the older
>costumers I know in the Society have said the same thing.
>
>But I'm sure our medieval ancestors did their best to dress
>comfortably, given whatever
>rules of proper dress they felt they couldn't ignore. The question
>is, what rules couldn't
>be ignored, and when.
>
>Best wishes!
>

Actually... I have to answer my own question here... *doh* ... you
are absolutely right about the different weights of wool... and now
that you mention it I remember something very curious: my parents
used to go to tropical countries for vacation and my dad loved to get
his suits tailored in Thailand (don't ask... family of nutcases
;))... and they had really really light-weight wool which apparently
wasn't that warm at all! So... if we could get very light-weight
suiting woolens... in a color other than dark blue/black/grey... or
dye it ourselves... and so on... ah... where is that time machine
again?
And then of course wool would have been the first choice because it
was readily available, affordable (vs. silk) and could be dyed in
every color imaginable (well, almost... vs. linen). So it would have
been the first choice for clothing basically anywhere... unless you
get silk or cotton cheap.

And now I wish I could blame all my confusion and erratic posts on
cold medicine ;) But I guess my thesis will have to do for now as an
excuse ;). (And I finally want 5 yards of nicely colored - green
would be nice - very light weight wool. *pout* ... oh... add
affordable, i.e. below \$15, to the list)

--
Yours,
Carolin - very wet very soon because of a thunderstorm... and i am at
work, preparing a talk for tomorrow... last minute ;)

~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
~*~ Carolin vom Adlersberg Barony of Storvik, Atlantia ~*~

[...] Fride unde reht sint sêre wunt.
diu driu enhabent geleites niht, diu zwei enwerden ê
gesunt.
Walter von der Vogelweide

http://www.adlersberg.net
• BTW, I mispoke when I said the dress with dark tippets came from the Wenceslas Bible – I m conflating the sources roaming around in my head. It comes from
Message 5 of 17 , Apr 30 9:35 PM
BTW, I mispoke when I said the dress with dark tippets came from the
Wenceslas Bible  I'm conflating the sources roaming around in my
head. It comes from the manuscript of Willehalm de Orange, 1387 (the
initial "D"). Same book, though  the Olga Sronkova one.

My comments below are going to ramble a bit because I'm tired right
now, but there's probably some useful stuff in there somewhere. :^/

--- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "Arianne de Chateaumichel"
<arianne@b...> wrote:
> Lucky you! If I tried to wear a wool gown without something under
it EVERYWHERE, I'd
> be terribly itchy!

Heaven forfend! I shudder at the thought of wearing commercially-
produced wool fabric next to my skin, as it is usually treated with
a sulfuric compound that opens its scales and causes it to be more
permanently itchy to the skin than it would be if cleaned and woven
using more historic method ("anyone need to pee?"). I wear a white
linen chemise next to my skin, and that's the layer that gets washed
regularly. My apologies if my taking that 'unseen' layer for granted
in my previous posting caused you to think I was _that_ gung-ho
about wool... I assure you, I'm not... <grin>

> I put my lacings between an inch and an inch and a half apart for
the same reason.
> However, I put my lacings up the back, since all the pictorial
evidence I've found for
> front lacing was on English pieces, and I'm re-creating the French
version of the
> fashion.

I'll post some examples of front-lacing in French or near-French art
sources for your consideration. As an aside, I greatly enjoy being
shown sources that I might not have seen or considered yet, so
please feel free to do the same for me. If you have the time, could
you please post a list of your visual sources by book/journal/etc.?
I would not be surprised to find there is a lot out there I haven't
seen yet on this subject, and am constantly seeking suggestions.
Anyway, here are the lacing examples that I use to support the idea
of front-lacing in France:

The effigy of Queen Philippa of Hainault, wife of Edward III; 1365-
67. This effigy, though technically English, depicts a woman dressed
in the height of noble fashion -- a woman born in Belgium and of
French descent through her father, Guillaume III and her mother,
Jeanne de Valois. She retained strong ties on the continent
throughout her life and is credited with bringing French fashions
with her to England. Margaret Scott, in _A Visual History of
Costume_, states that the headdress Queen Philippa wears in her
effigy is more reminiscent of contemporary French/Flemish headdress
than English (and I concur with her on that). It's hard for me to
imagine that the head-dressing styles of France had reached Queen
Philippa but that the front-lacing on her effigy gown was an English-
only specialty  especially considering how often fashions -- and
the details that make them possible -- were exchanged between
England and France (and the rest of Europe) during these times.

_Les Tres Riches Heures of Jean, Duc de Berry_ Approx. 1416.; the
month of June calendar entry. Two women in blue, short-sleeved cotes
work the fields with hoes. I've heard these outfits referred to
as "the idealized peasant" look. Granted, they are not nobility, but
for the sake of historical context, I like to look at all the
classes of clothing. What was worn by the common classes seems to
often directly be inspired by and 'trickled down' from the nobility
over time. Indeed, the short-sleeved, lace up cote is available in
the art of the mid-late 15th century in abundance, and is supposed
to be the foundation garment worn beneath the V-necked gowns of that
era.

_Heures de Rohan_, Lat. 9471, f.33v, located in the Bibliotheque
Nationale. The Virgin Mary nursing her child. Though this is a
Madonna allegory, the clothing is clearly based on the close-fitting
fashions still seen in those days (in this case 1419-1427; found in
_Dress in the Middle Ages_ by Francoise Piponnier and Perrine Mane).

_Agnes Sorel, or Virgin and Child_, Jean Fouquet. (1460-1480  I've
seen sources date this piece within that range.) This gown, though
painted at a later date than when these cotes we're discussing were
at their peak, shows an interesting take on front lacing  one that
effectively hides the presence of lacing when pulled closed.
Regardless of whether this is artistic stylization or a real method
of lacing, it opens the question of exactly how `fashionable' lacing
was perceived to be -- was it at all? This picture is all over the
place, Boucher's _20,000 Years of Fashion_, for instance.

You can see from that list that I don't consider fitted gowns solely
to be a style of the 14th century -- some of their best
representation happens in the 15th century.

<Major ramble alert>
Consider the art of the 14th century and then compare it to the 15th
century. A major difference between the two centuries was the size
of the `canvas'. Most of what we avidly pour over for our visual
sources in the 14th century are relatively small paintings executed
for the purpose of illuminating a manuscript. The question is
begged: how much detail was the artist going to portray? On average,
there is considerably less dress _detail_ available for us in 14th
century sources than there is in 15th century sources. Take Rogier
Van Der Weyden as an example of a 15th century artist: his works are
by and large LARGE. Consequently, it is not surprising to see lots
of seam lines, lacing, and other dress detail, such as the
fluffiness and texture of fur. Size aside, popular artistic methods
are another issue. The 14th century saw the height of grisaille, a
method for portraying figures in predominantly grey tones  which
incidentally, was most popular in France. This stylized rendering of
figures accentuated shadow and highlights  not linear details, such
as seamlines and lacing.

With this in mind, I ask myself: how many of those images of fitted
gowns in the 14th century art show seam lines? Not very many. Some
yes, but not most. It seems to me that portrayal of many mundane
details  and I'm putting seams and lacing on par with each other
here -- were forsaken in the pursuit of stylization and simplicity,
not only in relatively small works, but in the reasonably larger
ones too. I suppose I could go on and on with this topic, but for
the sake of tired readers' eyes, I'll move on to the next bit :^)

> Excluding the pieces that were just too small to make out any
details, all the
> French art I've found showed an utterly smooth front, with no sign
of lacings. That
> leaves the sides (which don't work well) and the back. I go with
the back.

Okay, I'm back to the subject above again... <me and my obsessions>
If you'll allow me to play devil's advocate here... Utterly smooth
fronts are found all over the art of the 14th century, not just in
France. The lack of lacing in some (but not all) figure portrayal
does not necessarily preclude its presence in the clothing of that
time.

Keep in mind as well that France was essentially the fashion
bellwether for the entire European continent -- some countries
avidly mimicked what came from France while others merely picked up
quirks here and there. It's hard to isolate a region artistically in
this period for the purpose of studying dress, because a strong
argument exists for the fashion ubiquities seen across the
neighboring cultures (and there exist too a number of contemporary
chronicles complaining about French visitors bringing their
scandalous fashions to the country they visit -- _Fashion in the Age
of the Black Prince_). So, if we see lacing on a gown in the
Wenceslas Bible's "Death of Jezebel" scene, it makes more logical
sense to guess the French had lacing first than it does to assume
that the Bohemians started that trend and the French adopted it
later.

I have come to wonder about the social meaning behind what is
carefully portrayed and what is not. The artists' eyes did not seem
to be focused on details that did nothing to enhance the fashionable
look of the figure. Lacing does not seem to have been a fashion
statement  just a necessary and mundane intrusion on the landscape
for the purpose of achieving a tight fit. We're most likely to see
it in figures depicting nursing, for instance, where it's so
obviously undone a tad to allow the popping out of a breast. Or, in
the case of the Duc de Berry picture, when it's so hot out that
unlacing a bit of the front is useful for ventilation. Makes me
wonder if the artists were choosing not to "see" it very much in
more idealized scenery.

And what about buttons? Why lacing and not buttons on tight-fitting
gowns? Well, for any dress that serves as the first fashion layer
over the chemise, you may wish to reserve the possibility of wearing
a fancier layer atop it. Shank buttons are bulky by nature and can
hurt like the dickens when pressed into your flesh by a tight top
layer. Let's not even explore the unattractive ridge that appears on
that top layer when the buttons on the bottom layer push against it.
In other words, lacing would have been a practical component in
gowns that could be worn with another layer over top. These gowns
could stand alone or be covered (thus making them `versatile'), but
either way, lacing works better than buttons for comfort and
appearance when you plan to wear another close-fitting layer on top.
And, since many of the French feminine figures are wearing two
fashion layers  how do we know what that bottom layer looks like?
We simply can't be 100% sure, but we can make plausible guesses
given what we _do_ have in evidence.

When I look at the impracticality of back-lacing and combine that
with what I can only assume is a massive dearth in artistic
portrayal of same during this period, it becomes easier (for me,
anyway) to cast an interpretive filter on the art (the historical
context and stylistic methods in use at that time) than to assume
that lacing is on the side of the body that we can't see most of the
time.

> Your fabric suggestions make me drool, and are appropriate to the
era, but they're
> making my pocketbook try to hide! And I don't think I've gotten
to the point where I can
> casually drag more than two square yards of even a "cheap" silk
fabric through the dirt!

Hey, I woudn't either. :^) That's why I tend to portray a more
middle-class look with aspirations toward a more noble kit when I
finally cut into some silk I've been hording as a present to myself
when I'm done losing weight. I don't plan to wear anything made of
super-expensive silk or expensive wool during outside events. Cheap
wool, yes... linen, yes... And because I'm challenging myself to be
more authentic in presentation, not just in pursuit of information,
I'm trying to portray a class I can actually afford in `real life',
until such time as the lottery is magically won (it'll have to be
magic, because I hardly ever buy tickets for those things)... :^)

> Granted, but women who had to do any sort of physical labour were
not likely to be
> members of the nobility, whose clothing we are trying to recreate.

We could be talking apples and oranges, then, because I like to
study the fitted gowns of the late 14th/early 15th century across
all the classes, and across many geographic locations. Even so,
there is at least one French artistic instance of noble women in
gowns that stop above the floor  the artist who painted many of the
images in the Guillaume de Machaut _Le Remede de Fortune_ manuscript
depicts the women (mostly) with gowns that stop above the ground,
perhaps an inch or so, just to give one instance. I would agree that
long, voluminous skirting was the zenith of elegance for those who
could afford such luxury and inconvenience, but I'm hesitant to
assume it's a `must-do' for someone creating a noble woman's fitted
gown of this period...

Anyway, please do post a list of your visual sources, because I've
stalled recently on finding new ones and I know they're out there.
Any help appreciated.

Thanks, and if you got through this entire posting, my hat is off to
you,
Marcele
• Tropical and lightweight wool is not as hard to come by as you seem to think, you don t really need a time machine, just the right website. :)
Message 6 of 17 , Apr 30 10:01 PM
Tropical and lightweight wool is not as hard to come by as you seem to think, you don't really need a time machine, just the right website. :)

www.fashionfabricsclub.com usually has it and for under \$10 a yard. I bought some a while ago, dark blue and dark green, both \$5 a yard. Right now they only have it in a bright red and several checkerd patterns for around \$9 a yard. When shopping for lightweight wool online, I look for wool that is worsted and that is listed as being  good for blouses and dresses, that usually means that it is on the very lightweight side.
Here's the link for the wool section, I have it bookmarked and check everyweek for new stuff. Yes, I buy waaaaay too much fabric, but I only buy stuff that is under \$6 a yard. Let me rephrase that, I mostly buy fabric that is under \$6 a yard and am occasionally tempted to buy more expensive fabric, especially silk fabrics..... *sigh*

Denver Fabrics also has it too, although slightly more expensive they have more selection too, nice light to medium blues, browns, purples and greens. Currently they have a wide selection of merino and italian wools in the 5.6 oz per yard range (which is pretty lightweight), 60 inches wide, \$11-15 a yard. You can also order swatches to see what the fabric is like before you buy it.

-Marion
Who really needs to stop looking at fabric and get to bed. ^yawn^

So... if we could get very light-weight
suiting woolens... in a color other than dark blue/black/grey... or
dye it ourselves...  and so on... ah... where is that time machine
again?
<snip>
(And I finally want 5 yards of nicely colored - green
would be nice - very light weight wool. *pout* ... oh... add
affordable, i.e. below \$15, to the list)

--
Yours,
Carolin - very wet very soon because of a thunderstorm... and i am at
work, preparing a talk for tomorrow... last minute ;)

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

• ... thanks Marion, but I am familiar with both sites and have stared at their (and several other website s) wool selections for quite some time. The red wool
Message 7 of 17 , Apr 30 10:11 PM
>Tropical and lightweight wool is not as hard to come by as you seem
>to think, you don't really need a time machine, just the right
>website. :)
>
><http://www.fashionfabricsclub.com>www.fashionfabricsclub.com usually
>has it and for under \$10 a yard. I bought some a while ago, dark
>blue and dark green, both \$5 a yard. Right now they only have it in
>a bright red and several checkerd patterns for around \$9 a yard.
>When shopping for lightweight wool online, I look for wool that is
>worsted and that is listed as being good for blouses and dresses,
>that usually means that it is on the very lightweight side.
> Here's the link for the wool section, I have it bookmarked and
>check everyweek for new stuff. Yes, I buy waaaaay too much fabric,
>but I only buy stuff that is under \$6 a yard. Let me rephrase that,
>I mostly buy fabric that is under \$6 a yard and am occasionally
>tempted to buy more expensive fabric, especially silk fabrics.....
>*sigh*
>
><http://www.fashionfabricsclub.com/home/catalog_items.cfm?TypID=5&ViewBy=Types>http://www.fashionfabricsclub.com/home/catalog_items.cfm?TypID=5&ViewBy=Types
>
>Denver Fabrics also has it too, although slightly more expensive
>they have more selection too, nice light to medium blues, browns,
>purples and greens. Currently they have a wide selection of merino
>and italian wools in the 5.6 oz per yard range (which is pretty
>lightweight), 60 inches wide, \$11-15 a yard. You can also order
>swatches to see what the fabric is like before you buy it.
><http://www.denverfabrics.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=001&Category_Code=WO-%20solid&Offset=0&page_count=1>http://www.denverfabrics.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=001&Category_Code=WO-%20solid&Offset=0&page_count=1
>
>-Marion
>Who really needs to stop looking at fabric and get to bed. ^yawn^
>

thanks Marion, but I am familiar with both sites and have stared at
their (and several other website's) wool selections for quite some
time.
The red wool from fashionfabricsclub is crepe, which brings back my
old (unanswered) question whether wool crepe resembles anything that
might have been worn in period (so far I strongly doubt that and
therefore have not bought any wool crepe).
And I ordered some of the wool swatches from Denver Fabrics earlier
today - mainly to see whether it is still something that might be
bearable in warmer weather after being washed a couple of times.
And I still need a time machine, trust me. For about a milion things.
--
Yours,
Carolin

~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
~*~ Carolin vom Adlersberg Barony of Storvik, Atlantia ~*~

[...] Fride unde reht sint sêre wunt.
diu driu enhabent geleites niht, diu zwei enwerden ê
gesunt.
Walter von der Vogelweide

http://www.adlersberg.net
• ... From: Marion McNealy [mailto:m_mc_nealy@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 1:02 AM To: Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Authentic_SCA]
Message 8 of 17 , May 1, 2003
-----Original Message-----
From: Marion McNealy [mailto:m_mc_nealy@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 1:02 AM
To: Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Authentic_SCA] lightweight wool

Tropical and lightweight wool is not as hard to come by as you seem to
think, you don't really need a time machine, just the right website. :)

<snip>

-Marion
Who really needs to stop looking at fabric and get to bed. ^yawn^

Boy, I could probably make a bundle going to Jomars in philadelphia,
buying large quantities for \$3-5/yd and reselling online, they've got
tons of colors aside from black, grey, and blue (saw some gorgeous
muted purple last Saturday, but didn't really have the money to stash
it). Only problem with that being the initial investment money for such
a venture, since mine is currently going toward a new bernina
sewing/embroidery machine. :-)

- Aoife Ní Rónán / Aoife Ben Conaill
(Aoife ingen Rónán uí Cillíne ben Conaill Meic Bradaigh)
m.k.a.: Marie K. Altobelli
Seam and Songstress
Canton of Forestgate
East Kingdom
• In a recent post on the SCA Garb list (I think it was that list), Mistress Thora Sharptooth explained the mechanics of crepe, and that creped yarn was used for
Message 9 of 17 , May 1, 2003
In a recent post on the SCA Garb list (I think it was that list),
Mistress Thora Sharptooth explained the mechanics of crepe, and that
creped yarn was used for weaving in the Viking era that she studies.
Modern "crepe", especially non-wool crepe, is not the same mechanically
as those fabrics. Modern lightweight wool crepe is made of creped yarns.
You have to inspect the yardage to see if it is just that - intersecting
creped yarns without the addition of "specialty" yarns.

Having said that, just because a fabric was used in one time and place
does not make it correct for another.

I am sorry that I missed the early part of this conversation, so I don't
know what time and place you are thinking about. I do late period
English, and would consider wool crepe if it met other criteria for a
particular garment. Please note that I said "consider".

Hope this helps,

MD/Marged

Carolin wrote:
> The red wool from fashionfabricsclub is crepe, which brings back my old (unanswered) question whether wool crepe resembles anything that might have been worn in period (so far I strongly doubt that and therefore have not bought any wool crepe).>>
• ... Did you check message # 29533 and 29529 in the archives? Evidently this message didn t come through yesterday so here it is again: In the archives is much
Message 10 of 17 , May 1, 2003
At 01:11 AM 5/1/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>The red wool from fashionfabricsclub is crepe, which brings back my
>old (unanswered) question whether wool crepe resembles anything that
>might have been worn in period (so far I strongly doubt that and
>therefore have not bought any wool crepe).

Did you check message # 29533 and 29529 in the archives?

Evidently this message didn't come through yesterday so here it is again:

In the archives is much information. Please peruse it.

on the topic of period wools:
30497 and 30544 and 30623

29529 and 29548 and 29533 and 29535
and 29537 (which includes an online source) and 29551

You can search the archives by topic such as "period wool" or "wool" or
"appropriate wool" or "good wool" etc. One needn't go through the entire
archive to find information on a particular subject.

This is also why it's a good idea to change the subject of a thread once it
deviates from the original topic - the search that happens when you look
for something in the abovementioned manner is done by thread title. So if
we're talking about hair fashions and the discussion moves into hats - the
subject line needs to be changed to reflect that otherwise that information
will be difficult to find in the archives.

Smiles,
Despina
• Yes, this is a reideration of a post contained in the header lightweight wool . I thought it a good idea to restate the information with a header that
Message 11 of 17 , May 1, 2003
Yes, this is a reideration of a post contained in the header "lightweight
wool". I thought it a good idea to restate the information with a header
that reflects what this post is more specifically about.

>You can search the archives by topic such as "period wool" or "wool" or
>"appropriate wool" or "good wool" etc. One needn't go through the entire
>archive to find information on a particular subject.
>
>This is also why it's a good idea to change the subject of a thread once it
>deviates from the original topic - the search that happens when you look
>for something in the abovementioned manner is done by thread title. So if
>we're talking about hair fashions and the discussion moves into hats - the
>subject line needs to be changed to reflect that otherwise that information
>will be difficult to find in the archives.

Smiles,
Despina
• ... thread once it deviates from the original topic - the search that happens when you look for something in the abovementioned manner is done by thread title.
Message 12 of 17 , May 1, 2003
> >This is also why it's a good idea to change the subject of a
thread once it deviates from the original topic - the search that
happens when you look for something in the abovementioned manner is
done by thread title. So if we're talking about hair fashions and
the discussion moves into hats - the subject line needs to be changed
to reflect that otherwise that information will be difficult to find
in the archives.

Are you sure? I was allways under the impression that the archives
search feature looked for words in the body of the message, and not
just the subject line. Certainly meassages titled
"Re: Digest # [number]" come up, and that's nothing like what I'm
searching for (most recently, hairnets)!

That said, it's a good idea to change the subject heading just so
people know what you're talking about!

:-) Stefania
• ... You re correct. However, it s much simpler to see the header of Casting and know that the contents will be about casting rather than seeing the header
Message 13 of 17 , May 1, 2003

Are you sure?  I was allways under the impression that the archives
search feature looked for words in the body of the message, and not
just the subject line.  Certainly meassages titled
"Re: Digest # [number]" come up, and that's nothing like what I'm
searching for (most recently, hairnets)!

You're correct.  However, it's much simpler to see the header of "Casting" and know that the contents will be about casting rather than seeing the header of "portrait" and going through the message to find that someone said that the necklace was probably made with some sort of casting method.....  Just makes things easier for everyone....

Sorry I misspoke.  My brain is jumbled today.

Smiles,
Despina
• ... Thanks Despina, apparently my email has really eaten your message yesterday (which makes me wonder what else gets lost... but that is another issue). And
Message 14 of 17 , May 1, 2003
>At 01:11 AM 5/1/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >The red wool from fashionfabricsclub is crepe, which brings back my
> >old (unanswered) question whether wool crepe resembles anything that
> >might have been worn in period (so far I strongly doubt that and
> >therefore have not bought any wool crepe).
>
>Did you check message # 29533 and 29529 in the archives?
>
>Evidently this message didn't come through yesterday so here it is again:
>
>In the archives is much information. Please peruse it.

Thanks Despina,

apparently my email has really eaten your message yesterday (which
makes me wonder what else gets lost... but that is another issue).
And you are absolutely right: there is a lot of info in the archives!
I have read all the message - from what I understand it basically
boils down to: flannel is always good, suiting might be... and wool
crepe is not? (sorry to keep asking that one question over and over
again - I feel very stupid by now.) Wool crepe just doesn't seem to
be "right" after all I have read in the MoL book and having a vague
idea about how wool crepe feels like.
(And if you search the archives for "crepe" it only spits out the
most recent messages with me whining about not knowing whether it is
OOP or not ;)).

Sorry for being such a pain
Carolin - after giving a talk + discussion that lasted more than 2 hours...

~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
~*~ Carolin vom Adlersberg ~*~
~*~ Kingdom of Atlantia http://www.adlersberg.net ~*~

[...] Fride unde reht sint sêre wunt.
diu driu enhabent geleites niht, diu zwei enwerden ê gesunt.
Walter von der Vogelweide
• Lightweight wool doesn t have to be crepe. I have very lightweight wool that has a linen (slubby) weave to it and it s definitely NOT crepe. (I ve got that
Message 15 of 17 , May 1, 2003
Lightweight wool doesn't have to be crepe. I have very lightweight wool
that has a linen (slubby) weave to it and it's definitely NOT crepe. (I've
got that too, btw, much different look and feel to it). I've also seen
light weight tabby weave at my local wool supplier that is almost hanky
weight (or pretty darned close).

Ragna
• ... It s not in the archives either, which says that either yahoo had a serious problem yesterday (which I am inclined to believe) or that my server did (and
Message 16 of 17 , May 1, 2003
At 12:24 PM 5/1/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>apparently my email has really eaten your message yesterday (which
>makes me wonder what else gets lost... but that is another issue).

It's not in the archives either, which says that either yahoo had a serious
problem yesterday (which I am inclined to believe) or that my server did
(and no one else on the university complained).

>And you are absolutely right: there is a lot of info in the archives!
>I have read all the message - from what I understand it basically
>boils down to: flannel is always good, suiting might be... and wool
>crepe is not? (sorry to keep asking that one question over and over
>again - I feel very stupid by now.) Wool crepe just doesn't seem to
>be "right" after all I have read in the MoL book and having a vague
>idea about how wool crepe feels like.

That's my take on it pretty much, but do read the information just posted
from Mistress Sharptooth about crepe and "Vikings".

>(And if you search the archives for "crepe" it only spits out the
>most recent messages with me whining about not knowing whether it is
>OOP or not ;)).

Um, did you look at the top of the messages area? The "next" button is a
hot spot for you to go farther back into the archives.

Smiles,
Despina
• ok, as we were discussing fabric anyway and I really have to share this: I just got a package with wonderful upholstery fabric! won on ebay! 5.5yds for \$34
Message 17 of 17 , May 2, 2003
ok, as we were discussing fabric anyway and I really have to share
this: I just got a package with wonderful upholstery fabric! won on
ebay! 5.5yds for \$34 incl. shipping! And it's so pretty (a bit on the
heavy side which will affect draping...): nice rusty red with golden
woven in pattern that looks almost like you can see in many drawings
from the 15th c.
(http://www.unitedtextilesinc.com/apr03/DSCN201348.jpg) - just
because I really need to share ;)) ... and best of all... according
to the burn test I just made it seems to be mostly if not 100%
cotton! no poly for me! (or only very little)... but this baby will
have to sit in my closet until fall... will make a nice houppe for
12th night... :) + a nice hennin (already got the organza for the
veil) *sigh*
Sorry for taking up bandwith with stuff like that, but I think the
lesson you can learn from this: sometimes you can find cool fabric on
ebay ;)
--
Yours,
Carolin - back to petting her fabric a bit more...

~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
~*~ Carolin vom Adlersberg Barony of Storvik, Atlantia ~*~

[...] Fride unde reht sint sêre wunt.
diu driu enhabent geleites niht, diu zwei enwerden ê gesunt.
Walter von der Vogelweide

http://www.adlersberg.net
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.