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

Re: [Authentic_SCA] wriggle room

Expand Messages
  • Colleen Vince
    No opinion on Garb, but as for woodworking I extend my cut off to 1683. Joesph Moxon wrote a manual on Handyworks including a very detailed overview on wood
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
      No opinion on Garb, but as for woodworking I extend my cut off to
      1683. Joesph Moxon wrote a manual on Handyworks including a very
      detailed overview on wood turning. I wouldn't make a piece from 1683
      for an A&S competition, but for documenting how to turn in period I'd
      use it as there is little to no information on wood turning before
      that. Better a slightly out of period documentation than none at all.



      --
      Mary Ostler
      Apprentice to Mistress Agnes Cresewyke
      www.maryostler.com
    • CLEY
      In vocal music, I cut off England at around 1625, as that was when the two last great Renaissance genres died out, those being the madrigal and ayre. In Italy,
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
        In vocal music, I cut off England at around 1625, as that was when the
        two last great Renaissance genres died out, those being the madrigal and
        ayre. In Italy, the cut off is earlier, being around 1598, with the rise
        of opera.

        Arlys
      • wodeford
        In an effort to reduce agonizing over things, I would like to add that the only one who can decide how late is too late is YOU. We all make compromises in the
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
          In an effort to reduce agonizing over things, I would like to add that the only one who can decide how late is too late is YOU. We all make compromises in the pursuit of this hobby: time, materials, tools, skill level, and so forth.

          For some projects, 1602 is too late, for others, 1650 is in the ballpark. It takes a bit of homework to determine which, and ultimately, a judgement call on the part of the individual.

          Jehanne de Wodeford
          West Kingdom
        • gedney@OPTONLINE.NET
          ... for ME... I believe that, since I sign a document (waiver) that I agree, on y personal honor, to abide by the Rules of the SCA , I am conscrained,
          Message 4 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
            > For some projects, 1602 is too late, for others, 1650 is in the
            > ballpark. It takes a bit of homework to determine which, and
            > ultimately, a judgement call on the part of the individual.
            >

            for ME... I believe that, since I sign a document (waiver) that I agree, on y personal honor, to "abide by the Rules of the SCA", I am conscrained, personally to go by Corpora, which says "an attempt at preseventeenth century dress" which, by a simple excercise of logic, cannot apply to a conscious attempt at POST 16th century dress. So, for me, the 16th-17th century boundary is my delimiter.

            Capt Elias


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • christopher chastain
            Capt I would agree with you mostly on that point unfortunately the archeaology isnt there in some cases and a little fudge on the end time is warranted. Now
            Message 5 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
              Capt I would agree with you mostly on that point unfortunately the archeaology isnt there in some cases and a little fudge on the end time is warranted. Now should every possible effort be made to get as close to 1600 yes if it goes a couple years past grey area anything beyond 1640-50 is pushing it and had best be something that is known to not have changed in the 51 years before that date. Otherwise it's outside period and goes to the next group of reenactors timeline whoever that maybe.


              Yours in Humble Service,
              Pomestnik Dmitrii Zarekoi Ivanov
              "Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing!"
            • Marianne Perdomo
              2009/7/7 neeveofredriver wrote: Suppose one s persona is based in any given decade, and supposing there were ... Am I the only one who didn t think of the SCA
              Message 6 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
                2009/7/7 neeveofredriver wrote:

                Suppose one's persona is based in any given decade, and supposing there were
                > patterns for garb to be found for some decades before and some decades after
                > that, how far in either temporal direction is it reasonable to extend one's
                > researching reach? Barring any specific evidence that establishes the
                > discovery/invention of a technique or material, how do we go about deciding
                > what could have been available to our persona?


                Am I the only one who didn't think of the SCA cut-off date on reading this?

                I have certainly had this problem... I do many things just because I like
                them but I try to place most of my efforts on being Spanish from the 1470s,
                as a kind of personal challenge. Yet for many things I can't get info
                between say, 1450s and 1490s. Certainly there seems to be less useful
                paintings available from the 1470s. So I often try to at least determine if
                something was done before and after - in that case I'm quite happy to assume
                it didn't cease to be done in between. That's mostly for clothing which
                changes by decade, it seems, at least in details like sleeves, necklines,
                that sort of thing.
                For other things I'll extend that a bit - furniture, for example doesn't
                seem to change as much - but of course I don't have my persona's furniture
                (I wish!!) so maybe I just haven't looked enough.
                For cooking, I try to stay with recipes written in the written or known in
                the 15th century (for example, the 14th century Sent SovĂ­ cookbook was
                copied in the 15th c.) but then cooking doesn't seem to change all that
                much, from what I've seen.
                For dancing I'll do almost anything :) but consider 15th c. Italian and
                burgundian dance to be "me".
                For music... (I listen, but not play, alas) I normally have to turn to
                material written down towards the end of the century. Better than nothing
                and not a bad approximation, as far as I know.
                And it's very annoying that printed books aren't really available to my
                persona yet... as well as some novels. Still I read them because they'll
                give me a better feel of the period, being as close as I can reasonably get.

                To me changes of style are an important consideration... in some periods
                20-30 years make little difference, but in others it's much greater. Think
                1480 vs 1500 vs 1520. The latter sees the introduction of a much wider
                silhouette, squarish shoes, etc. which appear to me as a departure from the
                erlier gothic ideals, which appear to differ in details only.
                Having looked at ca 1600 clothing it seems to me that there's a similar
                turning point towards 1610-1620, when you start to see real heels and lots
                of lace. The "drawings" on the material seem to change, as do neck-styles
                and so on. In earlier periods however it's hard to see such sudden changes
                (say 1050 vs 1150 - can anyone really tell them apart?). And of course high
                fashion and more normal wear probably differ, too.

                Id' be very happy to hear about what criteria of this sort other people use.
                :) or evolution of things and turning points.

                Cheers!


                Leonor


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Janis James
                Researching time for items has always been interesting but often not conclusive. For example: needlework, if we know a particular type was done in (x) century,
                Message 7 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
                  Researching time for items has always been interesting but often
                  not conclusive. For example: needlework, if we know a particular
                  type was done in (x) century, we should also know that it likely
                  didn't spring into use instantly, but was used and developed over
                  time and place. We don't have the extant examples to show this
                  so we can only surmise and use conjecture as to when it started.

                  Of course we do have a few examples - like when blackwork was
                  brought to England from Spain. However, we can't be absolutely
                  certain how and when it actually started in Spain. We just know
                  when it flourished in Spain.

                  In all the research I've worked on over the years I have forced
                  myself to allow a little given time at either end of the generally
                  accepted time-frame to allow for this. I suspect this is true of
                  many things through time other than just needlework. It would
                  be nice of course if we could be absolutely certain such as with
                  actual dated inventions, so I generally accept "wriggle room" unless
                  it can be proven to a set date.

                  Cheers, Sine







                  _________________________________________________________________
                  Internet explorer 8 lets you browse the web faster.
                  http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9655582

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • neeveofredriver
                  Thank you Leonor, Your answer captured the spirit of my question best. Although I am glad to have found out more about the cut-off debate. I suppose there is
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
                    Thank you Leonor,
                    Your answer captured the spirit of my question best. Although I am glad to have found out more about the cut-off debate. I suppose there is room to debate the end of our period because the oath taken is to 'attempt' preseventeenth century representation and sometimes borderline/fuzzy documentation is the best you can get.

                    Also, I think personality has an influence on each of us and our choices of clothing, household items, etc. For myself, in my mundane life, I have eclectic tastes. I love vintage clothing as well as fresher styles. I think of myself as both ahead of my time in some ways and quite retro in others (not to mention my weekend time-travels to centuries past). This sensibility will undoubtedly carry over into the expression of my persona as well. As I mentioned in my introduction a few weeks ago, I'm an 11th century Irish woman near but not in Dublin. I might choose to don a gown just like Grandmother's because I like it. And the next day wear a chic dress I bought in port, the very cutting edge of trade-route fashion! Or perhaps combine old cuts with new cloths. Who's to say "that just wasn't done"?

                    We can know by historical records and archeological finds what did exist but we can we be absolutely certain about what movers and shakers did NOT experiment with (including failures) given the general technologies and materials available to them at the time?

                    So, good Gentles, what say you? How do each of you go about determining the document-ablity of your own persona, garb, artifacts and all?

                    Enjoying the Creativity of our Anachronism and piecing the puzzle together with you all,
                    Truly,
                    Nem Aibhann Rua
                    [Carrie Thomas]
                  • JL Badgley
                    On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:39 AM, ... Lots and lots of reading. And museum-going. And image viewing. I start with trying to get a picture of the timeframe I m
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
                      On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:39 AM,
                      neeveofredriver<neeveofredriver@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > So, good Gentles, what say you? How do each of you go about determining the
                      > document-ablity of your own persona, garb, artifacts and all?
                      >
                      Lots and lots of reading. And museum-going. And image viewing.

                      I start with trying to get a picture of the timeframe I'm going for,
                      and study in order to better understand what it should look like.

                      After that, I look primarily for evidence of things during that
                      timeframe, though I may also look earlier.

                      I generally avoid looking later unless there is a source that is
                      describing earlier information, or something that shows a trend.

                      For example, if I find fabric X with pattern Y before my timeframe
                      (but not during), but can also see that it has survived to after my
                      timeframe, then I can use the two points to make a reasonable
                      assumption that the pattern continued to exist in the timeframe I'm
                      interested in, barring information that would contradict this (such as
                      a sumptuary law specifically prohibiting it). Likewise, if I see X
                      garment, but the only construction information is post the period in
                      question, I won't hesitate to use the later information to make the
                      earlier garment.

                      For food I often look at post-cutoff sources, but I analyze them
                      critically based on earlier evidence. If you find a 1640 recipe for a
                      food that is mentioned (but not otherwise described) in 1590, then
                      would it not be reasonable to assume that they are the same, barring
                      contrary evidence?

                      So I guess what all this means is that I believe post-cutoff sources
                      can be used, provided you've first done your homework regarding your
                      primary time period to be able to understand whether something is
                      plausible. You cannot just arbitrarily make that decision, though,
                      and you can in no wise determine that X number of years after a
                      particular date means it is appropriate. A 1601 painting could be
                      showing clothing that just came into fashion the summer of 1601, for
                      all you know, unless you've done your research.


                      -E. Godric Logan
                    • Cynthia J Ley
                      On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:03:35 -0700 Janis James ... Hi all. Sorry about the earlier top post--one of my e-mail servers seems to have more
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
                        On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:03:35 -0700 Janis James <seja02@...>
                        writes:
                        >
                        >
                        > Researching time for items has always been interesting but often
                        > not conclusive. For example: needlework, if we know a particular
                        > type was done in (x) century, we should also know that it likely
                        > didn't spring into use instantly, but was used and developed over
                        > time and place. We don't have the extant examples to show this
                        > so we can only surmise and use conjecture as to when it started.

                        Hi all. Sorry about the earlier top post--one of my e-mail servers seems
                        to have more problems with interjecture then the other.

                        > Of course we do have a few examples - like when blackwork was
                        > brought to England from Spain. However, we can't be absolutely
                        > certain how and when it actually started in Spain. We just know
                        > when it flourished in Spain.

                        And even the first statement is not entirely correct. It's reasonably
                        fair to say that someone famous made it popular (Catharine of Aragon),
                        but we don't really know how far back its roots go, and it seems to have
                        at least some foundation in the non-representational arts of the Moors.
                        All this by way of emphasizing what Sine said. :-) A lot of times all we
                        have are pieces of the puzzle, and a lot of times pieces are missing.
                        Enter Ye Educated Guess.


                        > In all the research I've worked on over the years I have forced
                        > myself to allow a little given time at either end of the generally
                        > accepted time-frame to allow for this. I suspect this is true of
                        > many things through time other than just needlework. It would
                        > be nice of course if we could be absolutely certain such as with
                        > actual dated inventions, so I generally accept "wriggle room" unless
                        > it can be proven to a set date.

                        And even then, there are usually antecedents in one form or another.

                        Arlys


                        > Cheers, Sine
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > _________________________________________________________________
                        > Internet explorer 8 lets you browse the web faster.
                        > http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9655582
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >

                        ____________________________________________________________
                        You're never too old to date. Senior Dating. Click Here.
                        http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTQbQWKw2XfL3YDIqUaNc6a8msZ4R5inJXCRhxe8ZuP8k232gYrOjm/
                      • Jeff gedney
                        Well, the thing is, If you can legitimately show that it is likely that a item from out of period is logically consistent with being in period, then you can
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
                          Well, the thing is, If you can legitimately show that it is likely that a
                          item from out of period is logically consistent with being in period, then
                          you can "work the fuzzy"...
                          For example if you have name reference that is a church record of a burial
                          of a 44 year old in 1625, then it is logical to assume that the name was
                          given in period...
                          (but this is not reliable, names elide and change their usage, a name given
                          at birth may change to a more modern form just by vernacular usage and the
                          spelling standardization that widely took place in early modern England in
                          late 16th- early 17th century.

                          For my money,
                          if you are making the claim that a characteristically 17th century clothing
                          (like a buffecoat) is "an attempt" at PRE-seventeenth century, and
                          you can't document that it is preseventeenth, you fail that standard.
                          I don't care how cool you think you look in it.

                          > We can know by historical records and archeological finds what did
                          > exist but we can we be absolutely certain about what movers and shakers
                          > did NOT experiment with (including failures) given the general
                          > technologies and materials available to them at the time?

                          Its functionally impossible to prove that they did NOT experiment with
                          clothes and such....
                          For that matter it is also impossible to prove that some genius was not
                          experimenting with nuclear fission, or automotive vehicles, or antigravity.

                          So as far as I am able to judge, the line has to be what we can prove that
                          they DID do, not what they Might have done.

                          > So, good Gentles, what say you? How do each of you go about
                          > determining the document-ablity of your own persona, garb, artifacts
                          > and all?

                          I research, use good sources, juried, where possible, with clear
                          documentation that I can trace back to originals.
                          I take period iconography with a grain of salt, and prefer to have that
                          backed up with textual or better yet artefactual survivals...

                          THEN I decide what I am going to make.
                          I don't decide what I want and then try to "justify" it to period.
                          That way leads to bad scholarship.

                          Capt Elias
                        • bronwynmgn@aol.com
                          In a message dated 7/7/2009 5:51:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, marianne@historiaviva.org writes:
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jul 8, 2009
                            In a message dated 7/7/2009 5:51:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                            marianne@... writes:

                            <<Am I the only one who didn't think of the SCA cut-off date on reading
                            this?
                            >>

                            I didn't in relation to myself, because my persona is firmly based in the
                            12th century and the cut-off date is over 400 years in the future for me :-)
                            I did think of the cut-off date on reading the inital post.

                            <<I have certainly had this problem... I do many things just because I like
                            them but I try to place most of my efforts on being Spanish from the 1470s,
                            as a kind of personal challenge. Yet for many things I can't get info
                            between say, 1450s and 1490s. >>

                            There's not a lot of 12th century information, either. For clothing, we
                            have a lot of statues and some illuminations that are more or less stylized,
                            and a very few extant pieces such as coronation robes or ecclesiatical
                            clothing.
                            For cooking, there is one Anglo-Norman cookery collection that is close in
                            time, but I'm not sure it's been published in it's entirety yet - I do have
                            a photocopy of some of the recipes. Otherwise I'm limited to mostly 14th
                            and 15th century sources, but I won't go further than that. I also tend to
                            limit myself to Northern European sources. There's the Harpestrang cookery
                            manuscript which is also 13th century, I think, and exists in several northern
                            European versions (German, Norwegian I think, etc) but which is probably a
                            copy of a more southerly-based text based on the ingredients used.


                            Brangwayna Morgan
                            Shire of Silver Rylle, East Kingdom
                            Lancaster, PA
                            **************Popular laptop deals plus free shipping!
                            (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221917659x1201411421/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.media
                            plex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D2)


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • bronwynmgn@aol.com
                            In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:28:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, neeveofredriver@yahoo.com writes:
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jul 8, 2009
                              In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:28:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                              neeveofredriver@... writes:

                              <<So, good Gentles, what say you? How do each of you go about determining
                              the document-ablity of your own persona, garb, artifacts and all? >>

                              For me, it's important that it be as close as I can get it to my time
                              period and country, and I like to have at least one solid point of data for what
                              I'm doing. There aren't really many for cooking, so I have to go further
                              afield for solid data points. For clothing, I have lots of data points, but
                              not many that give me a lot of detail on construction, so I need to work with
                              interpretations on those, and decide which interpretations I think are
                              accurate.


                              Brangwayna Morgan
                              Shire of Silver Rylle, East Kingdom
                              Lancaster, PA
                              **************Popular laptop deals plus free shipping!
                              (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221917659x1201411421/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.media
                              plex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D2)


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • bronwynmgn@aol.com
                              In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:51:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tatsushu@gmail.com writes:
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jul 8, 2009
                                In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:51:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                tatsushu@... writes:

                                <<For food I often look at post-cutoff sources, but I analyze them
                                critically based on earlier evidence. If you find a 1640 recipe for a
                                food that is mentioned (but not otherwise described) in 1590, then
                                would it not be reasonable to assume that they are the same, barring
                                contrary evidence?>>

                                Similar yes, but quite possibly not the same. After all, we have lots of
                                contemporary manuscripts which list a recipe of the same name in each, but
                                the recipes themselves can be anything from slight variations of each other to
                                completely different. We also have evidence that a dish can be listed by
                                the same name in an earlier and a later source and have evolved significantly
                                in between. So assuming that a dish named Bukenade in one source and a
                                dish named Bukenade in another source are the same dish is a faulty premise.
                                It may be the closest you can get, but you shouldn't fool yourself that the
                                person who referred to it 50 years earlier means exactly what the person who
                                wrote it down did.

                                Not to mention the fact that some period recipes are so vague that it's
                                very possible to make entirely different dishes from the same recipe in the
                                same source. Bukenade's a good example; one recipe I have for it basically
                                says to take good meat, whatever you have, boil it with beef, and add onions
                                and spices. I've done chicken and beef, lamb and beef, and pork and beef, and
                                a variety of different spice comibinations depending on what is usually
                                used with the "other" meat I've chosen, so each result has been quite different
                                from the others.


                                Brangwayna Morgan
                                Shire of Silver Rylle, East Kingdom
                                Lancaster, PA
                                **************Popular laptop deals plus free shipping!
                                (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221917659x1201411421/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.media
                                plex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D2)


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Heather Rose Jones
                                ... My favorite example of this problem is how to interpret the Welsh clothing term pais . The word shows up as a description of a specific garment
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jul 8, 2009
                                  On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:11 AM, bronwynmgn@... wrote:

                                  > In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:51:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                  > tatsushu@... writes:
                                  >
                                  > <<For food I often look at post-cutoff sources, but I analyze them
                                  > critically based on earlier evidence. If you find a 1640 recipe for a
                                  > food that is mentioned (but not otherwise described) in 1590, then
                                  > would it not be reasonable to assume that they are the same, barring
                                  > contrary evidence?>>
                                  >
                                  > Similar yes, but quite possibly not the same. After all, we have
                                  > lots of
                                  > contemporary manuscripts which list a recipe of the same name in
                                  > each, but
                                  > the recipes themselves can be anything from slight variations of
                                  > each other to
                                  > completely different. We also have evidence that a dish can be
                                  > listed by
                                  > the same name in an earlier and a later source and have evolved
                                  > significantly
                                  > in between. So assuming that a dish named Bukenade in one source
                                  > and a
                                  > dish named Bukenade in another source are the same dish is a faulty
                                  > premise.
                                  >

                                  My favorite example of this problem is how to interpret the Welsh
                                  clothing term "pais". The word shows up as a description of a specific
                                  garment continuously from the earliest written sources (the Book of
                                  Aneurin) to the present day. But the specific nature of the garment
                                  being referred to changes enormously over that time. Even if you had a
                                  picture of a garment in century X with an arrow pointing to it saying
                                  "this is a 'pais'", that wouldn't tell you what the word referred to
                                  in century X-1 or X+1.

                                  Tangwystyl
                                • JL Badgley
                                  On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Heather Rose ... All true, but then again, this is where we get into the reasonable attempt --we get as close as we can
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Jul 8, 2009
                                    On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Heather Rose
                                    Jones<heather.jones@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:11 AM, bronwynmgn@... wrote:
                                    >
                                    >> In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:51:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                    >> tatsushu@... writes:
                                    >>
                                    >> <<For food I often look at post-cutoff sources, but I analyze them
                                    >> critically based on earlier evidence. If you find a 1640 recipe for a
                                    >> food that is mentioned (but not otherwise described) in 1590, then
                                    >> would it not be reasonable to assume that they are the same, barring
                                    >> contrary evidence?>>
                                    >>
                                    >> Similar yes, but quite possibly not the same. After all, we have
                                    >> lots of
                                    >> contemporary manuscripts which list a recipe of the same name in
                                    >> each, but
                                    >> the recipes themselves can be anything from slight variations of
                                    >> each other to
                                    >> completely different. We also have evidence that a dish can be
                                    >> listed by
                                    >> the same name in an earlier and a later source and have evolved
                                    >> significantly
                                    >> in between. So assuming that a dish named Bukenade in one source
                                    >> and a
                                    >> dish named Bukenade in another source are the same dish is a faulty
                                    >> premise.
                                    >>
                                    >
                                    > My favorite example of this problem is how to interpret the Welsh
                                    > clothing term "pais". The word shows up as a description of a specific
                                    > garment continuously from the earliest written sources (the Book of
                                    > Aneurin) to the present day. But the specific nature of the garment
                                    > being referred to changes enormously over that time. Even if you had a
                                    > picture of a garment in century X with an arrow pointing to it saying
                                    > "this is a 'pais'", that wouldn't tell you what the word referred to
                                    > in century X-1 or X+1.

                                    All true, but then again, this is where we get into the "reasonable
                                    attempt"--we get as close as we can justify to the truth of the
                                    matter, and don't ever try to adjudicate things in a vacuum.

                                    -E. G. Logan
                                  • Chris Laning
                                    ... I think you have a good point here. You mention that clothing in a certain time period seems to change by decade. You know this *because* you have
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jul 8, 2009
                                      On Jul 7, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Marianne Perdomo wrote:

                                      > I have certainly had this problem... I do many things just because
                                      > I like
                                      > them but I try to place most of my efforts on being Spanish from
                                      > the 1470s,
                                      > as a kind of personal challenge. Yet for many things I can't get info
                                      > between say, 1450s and 1490s. Certainly there seems to be less useful
                                      > paintings available from the 1470s. So I often try to at least
                                      > determine if
                                      > something was done before and after - in that case I'm quite happy
                                      > to assume
                                      > it didn't cease to be done in between. That's mostly for clothing
                                      > which
                                      > changes by decade, it seems, at least in details like sleeves,
                                      > necklines,
                                      > that sort of thing.


                                      I think you have a good point here. You mention that clothing in a
                                      certain time period seems to change "by decade." You know this
                                      *because* you have studied the period, the clothing, the times before
                                      and after, etc. in detail, and you have deduced that in *this*
                                      particular case, *this* category of things (necklines, sleeves, etc.)
                                      doesn't change that fast.

                                      The more you know, the more plausible your educated guesses are going
                                      to be.

                                      Of course, ultimately how far you decide you want to stretch your
                                      educated guesses is always going to be up to you. What I think is
                                      important is that you *know* when you are extrapolating on the basis
                                      of not enough information, and not kid yourself that your guesses are
                                      on solid ground when they aren't.

                                      I tend to agree with Capt. Elias -- I try to first study the
                                      information to find out what people actually DID do, and then decide
                                      what I want to do based on that. So far, that's always given me
                                      plenty of ideas for projects I think are really cool.
                                      ____________________________________________________________

                                      O (Dame) Christian de Holacombe, OL - Shire of Windy Meads
                                      + Kingdom of the West - Chris Laning <claning@...>
                                      http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com
                                      ____________________________________________________________
                                    • Marianne Perdomo
                                      ... Actually, they do. It s very annoying! That s for 15th c. but I think it s pretty similar for 14th... Before then it s probably manageable. My impression
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Jul 9, 2009
                                        2009/7/9 Chris Laning wrote:

                                        >
                                        > I think you have a good point here. You mention that clothing in a
                                        > certain time period seems to change "by decade."


                                        Actually, they do. It's very annoying! That's for 15th c. but I think it's
                                        pretty similar for 14th... Before then it's probably manageable.
                                        My impression from my looking around at late 16th and early 17th century
                                        clothing is that it does change fairly quickly, too.

                                        That said I think I am going to go ahead and make myself a dress from 10-20
                                        years back, because I want something from that period. And I figured it
                                        could be an old dress of my persona... But when I do wear anything
                                        significantly older, or further in the future, I do so knowing that my
                                        persona wouldn't have done so. Just like I don't dress like my grandmother
                                        (with a retro touch, maybe, but not quite like her). I just either ignore
                                        the fact or think I'm just "different" on that day. Again, this is late
                                        middle ages... not sure if actually makes a difference before 1250-1300.
                                        A piece of jewellery I think would be different, too, but I don't know
                                        whether it's because I don't know enough of its evolution, or if it really
                                        was more estable, as I suppose (hints from jewelry fans/experts welcome
                                        here!).


                                        > You know this
                                        > *because* you have studied the period, the clothing, the times before
                                        > and after, etc. in detail,


                                        Exactly. I also find that sometimes you're paying attention to general dress
                                        shape but you don't pay so much attention to say... neckline, or sleeve
                                        width.
                                        I also avoid special one-offs (things which are odd and only appear in one
                                        or a very few examples).


                                        > The more you know, the more plausible your educated guesses are going
                                        > to be.


                                        Yes, ultimately, as you say it's a line you have to draw yourself, about how
                                        comfortable you are with what you've found out and what you can do. To me
                                        it's all about coming closer and closer :) (within economic restraints!)

                                        I tend to agree with Capt. Elias -- I try to first study the
                                        > information to find out what people actually DID do, and then decide
                                        > what I want to do based on that. So far, that's always given me
                                        > plenty of ideas for projects I think are really cool.


                                        Are you talking of extant examples? I wish I could do that! :)

                                        Cheers!


                                        Leonor


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.