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

Re: wriggle room

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > 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 3 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 19 , Jul 7, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 19 , Jul 8, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 19 , Jul 8, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 19 , Jul 8, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 19 , Jul 8, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 19 , Jul 8, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 19 , Jul 8, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 16 of 19 , Jul 9, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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.