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

RE: [Authentic_SCA] Re: wriggle room

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.