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

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

Expand Messages
  • Arianne de Chateaumichel
    ... 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, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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>
    • Arianne de Chateaumichel
      ... 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, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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>
      • Carolin
        ... 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, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          >>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
        • Carolin
          ... 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, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            >
            >
            >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
          • demontsegur
            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, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              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
            • Marion McNealy
              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, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                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.

              • Carolin
                ... 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, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  >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
                • Aoife Ní Rónán
                  ... 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
                  • 0 Attachment
                    -----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
                  • Mary Denise Smith
                    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
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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).>>
                    • Amy L. Hornburg Heilveil
                      ... 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
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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
                      • Amy L. Hornburg Heilveil
                        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
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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
                        • sismith42
                          ... 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
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > >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
                          • Amy L. Hornburg Heilveil
                            ... 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
                            • 0 Attachment

                              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
                            • Carolin
                              ... 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
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >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
                              • Adrienne
                                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
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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
                                • Amy L. Hornburg Heilveil
                                  ... 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
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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
                                  • Carolin
                                    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
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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.