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

Re: [Italian Renaissance Costuming] RE: Curious about sleeves

Expand Messages
  • Trish
    I agree with the fitted under-sleeve and an over-sleeve built onto it. I have made many gowns, and after the first one that had the same effect as mentioned
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with the fitted under-sleeve and an over-sleeve built onto
      it. I have made many gowns, and after the first one that had the same
      effect as mentioned below{collapsing etc.} I started to make my
      sleeves this way.
      Under-sleeve, with a fake chemise sleeve sewn in place over it
      where it is to show, and tacked to hold the "puffing" in place. The
      the outer sleeve is built. The tube lower and the strips for the
      "puffing" at the upper part. they are sewn down, and the whole thing
      sewn up and turned right side out. You bring the puffing through the
      slashes. This will then stay in place no matter what you are doing
      and your client will thank you for not having to worry about if it
      looks right or if the whole thing is sliding down the arm. Have you
      ever tried to wear a sleeve that is so tight, you can't flex your
      arm? It's not comfortable.You can't pick up anything, let alone bend
      your arm.
      What it looks like to me on that dress is maybe a kind of ribbon
      embroidery???
      It's sewn down in a V shape on the bodice then twisted a bit on the
      arm to make that look. I would also bet, that is a separate cuff that
      is attached. Please remember that what they did back then and what we
      do today are two different things. I mean the work we do. If this
      lady did very little work her dress sleeves might "stay" put. But if
      she did things like what we do, like driving a car etc, they more
      then likely won't stay, so you need to make allowances.
      The edges of the strips at the top of the sleeve are worked with
      gold more then likely to stop fraying.Also the sleeve would have come
      off as one whole thing, slashes and bottom in one piece. More then
      likely laced as mentioned before to the bodice shoulder strap. The
      strap tends to fall down a lot in movement.Remember also this is a
      posed painting, so everything would have been just perfect in the
      sitting and painting. but after wards, well....not only the London
      bridges fell down.
      I would never make a dress in just the reproduction aspect alone.
      One also has to be comfortable, and function in our modern world as
      well.After all, if you spend all your time posing in a mirror to see
      what you look like and if everything is in place, you won't enjoy
      yourself at all. And we know what looking at ones reflection can do
      for you....lol..{ the Greek myth about the one who couldn't take his
      eyes off himself????}
      I don't see any buttons either. Hidden lacing more like it.And a
      small band at the top of the sleeve next to the shoulder band.The
      puffing is hiding a lot of it, but it would make sense.I don't think
      there were any buttons used in that way??? Anyone know? It was called
      by another name, but was ribbons with points on the ends, and laced
      the two pieces together."Points"....????
      Anyone???
      Just my 2 cents worth.
      Deirdre



      >I agree wtih Diana about the fitted inner-sleeve holding up the
      >outer slash and (fake) puffs. When I built my first gown in this
      >style about 30 years ago, I made a slashed upper sleeve and pulled
      >my camicia through. It looked wonderful for about 5 minutes, but as
      >soon as I moved, the sleeve shifted, the camicia pulled away and the
      >slashes collapsed. The next version had a closely fitted
      >innersleeve supporting the puffed & slashed outer sleeve. To
      >maintain the shape I used rows of closely gathered nylon net tacked
      >to the inner sleeve instead of cotton wadding as bombast. Nylon net
      >is lighter and much cooler than real bombasting, and it holds up
      >well, too. The sleeve stayed up and looked perfect all the time.
      >
      > I don't seem to see any buttons or loops on the sleeves. I
      >believe the construction is similar to the sleeves discussed at the
      >end of December. Bella posted a picture in message number 3396 of a
      >separable lower sleeve with the upper sleeve sewn to the bodice.
      >I'll bet that the sleeves in your picture either lace into the
      >armseye or more likely the lower sleeve laces to the puffed upper
      >sleeve under the band with the gold piping.
      >
      > Katharine of Cate Hall
      >
      > PS I think the pattern on the bodice and sleeves is gold
      >embroidery done in bullion stitch.
    • borderlands15213
      ... Have you ... bend ... I, too, agree that they are built on a base. If you look at the sleeves in these portraits in period, the sleeves aren t actually
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Italian_Rennaissance_Costuming@yahoogroups.com, Trish
        <dragonfly2@c...> wrote:
        >
        > I agree with the fitted under-sleeve and an over-sleeve built onto
        > it. <<<Snipped>>>
        Have you
        > ever tried to wear a sleeve that is so tight, you can't flex your
        > arm? It's not comfortable.You can't pick up anything, let alone
        bend
        > your arm.

        I, too, agree that they are built on a base. If you look at the
        sleeves in these portraits in period, the sleeves aren't actually
        tight at all. They're not floppy-loose, either.
        They are structured.
        Some of the very exaggerated Elizabethan sleeves had "head" boning,
        set into the back of the sleeve head to help it stay up, and hoops,
        of willow withies or the expensive whalebone, to keep the shape and
        position of the head if it needed it; although not associated with
        sleeves, the *supportasse* or underpropper, employed to keep ruffs
        shown to their best advantage, is another support-providing 'base.'
        As the various Italian sleeves in period aren't skin-tight or
        tighter, some base on which to construct them seems to be the most
        logical explanation.

        > What it looks like to me on that dress is maybe a kind of ribbon
        > embroidery???
        > It's sewn down in a V shape on the bodice then twisted a bit on the
        > arm to make that look.

        If what we're seeing is ribbon, laid on and sewn down, it wouldn't
        have to be twisted even slightly: placed at a forty-five degree angle
        to the vertical line of the sleeve, the "twisting" happens on the
        body when the sleeve is worn. Or were you meaning that it must have
        been sewn on with a bend or a twist to accommodate a curve around the
        elbow of the sleeve, so that everything matches up ?
        I doubt this, although it could have been done that way.
        It seems to me that this is either a woven fabric (with the design
        woven in) cut on the bias for this portion of the sleeve, or this is
        an embroidered gown.
        If woven, then I have to think it very likely this is one of those
        bodices cut in the French fashion, like Queen Elizabeth I's Phoenix
        (? or Ditchley?) portrait bodice, which has the body of it cut in
        one piece with the lengthwise straight grain aligned with the spine;
        curving round the body and closing in front, with the front edges cut
        on the bias of the fabric. (This means interfacing, boning the
        edges, et c.)
        If embroidered, then before cutting out the gown the fabric for it
        would have been stretched over large stretchers very much like
        artists' canvas stretchers of today and attached to those stretchers
        as one would embroidery in a smaller scroll frame: fabric to be
        embroidered is basted securely strips of sturdy linen which have been
        tacked/nailed to the scroll bars or in the case of a large piece, to
        the stretchers, top, sides, and bottom; and then the individual
        pieces for the garment were outlined on the fabric using chalk,
        thread, or possibly "pounced" on with powdered chalk or charcoal.
        All the embroidery would be done on each garment piece even before
        cutting. No wasted effort embroidering the entire length of cloth
        which would include the soon-to-be cutaways, and no wasted embroidery
        materials, either. As to the embroidery design, same as the laid-on
        strips applies, because I believe this is a French-cut bodice which
        will put the front edges on the bias---true bias, I should have said.
        Same applies to the sleeves, as I'd said above.

        I would also bet, that is a separate cuff that
        > is attached. Please remember that what they did back then and what
        we
        > do today are two different things. I mean the work we do. If this
        > lady did very little work her dress sleeves might "stay" put. But
        if
        > she did things like what we do, like driving a car etc, they more
        > then likely won't stay, so you need to make allowances.
        > The edges of the strips at the top of the sleeve are worked with
        > gold more then likely to stop fraying.Also the sleeve would have
        come
        > off as one whole thing, slashes and bottom in one piece. More then
        > likely laced as mentioned before to the bodice shoulder strap. The
        > strap tends to fall down a lot in movement.

        The shoulder "strap" will stay put, if the gown back is cut high
        enough, and is close-fitting enough across the shoulders and the tops
        of the shoulder blades; not tight enough to be binding, just very,
        very close. Bodice front can't be loose. And if the armscye is cut
        as high as it should be, there will be no hampering of arm movement.
        Please remember that ladies of the era *did* do things besides sit
        elegantly and regally posed. Upper class clothing had to be lived
        in, in period, and upper class ladies did move about. Very formal
        clothing, which is what most of the clothing seen in portraits is,
        didn't allow for as much activity or such robust activity, but ladies
        went hunting (on horseback) and danced some rather energetic dances
        without their clothes falling from their shoulders.
        Your mentioning London Bridge put me in mind of the BBC
        producution "Elizabeth R," starring Glenda Jackson. In the
        segment, "Shadow in the Sun," concerned with marriage negotiations
        between Elizabeth and the Duc d'Alencon, there's a ball given at
        which the ladies are dancing first--I think--a galliard, and then, on
        Her Majesty's command, "La Volta," which involved quite a bit of
        jumping by ladies and lifting of ladies by gentlemen. I'll grant you
        this was theatrical costuming, but according to Jean Hunisett, who
        was the head costumer for that series, the only concessions made in
        gowns were the absence of hoops (easier for the actresses, she said;
        they used 'sausage' pads in conjunction with 'biscuit' pads); modern,
        synthetic fibers to get the necessary "look," owing to the expense of
        and difficulty in obtaining period silk-satin, etc.; and the fact
        that modern women have, for the most part, broader and squarer
        shoulders than ladies in period seem to have had and so the bodices
        were cut for that fact. She *did* move the armscye seam at the top,
        higher onto the shoulder to create the illusion of the narrower
        shoulders of the age.
        But in case you're thinking, "Well, that explains that, then: those
        gowns' sleeves couldn't have fallen off if they'd wanted them to,"
        let me tell you I have what one fellow costumer, local to me,
        calls "Gone With The Wind" shoulders, very broad and with a dramatic
        slope to them (very heavy trapezius, but my shoulders aren't rounded
        or stooped) and I cut my gowns with the shoulder seams at the natural
        shoulder line.
        By the bye, for anyone wanting to determine exactly where
        that "natural shoulder line" is, rest the fingers of your right hand
        on your left shoulder, and raise your left arm straight out to the
        side without bending your left elbow. Press with the right hand, and
        at least one finger will detect a depression under your hand: that's
        where your shoulder joint is and where you want the seam of, say, a
        classically tailored modern blazer to sit.

        Remember also this is a
        > posed painting, so everything would have been just perfect in the
        > sitting and painting. but after wards, well....not only the London
        > bridges fell down.

        Has anyone here come across references to the difficulties ladies had
        in keeping their dresses, or at least their sleeves, correctly
        positioned on their bodies? Sleeves slipping off shoulders? I
        haven't seen any. Not even by that embittered-sounding misanthropic
        Philip Stubbes, in his Anatomie of Abuses, as far as I recall, and if
        any sort of awkwardness, difficulty or impracticality of attire
        existed, Stubbes was the man to rail against it.
        But I haven't come anywhere close to having read all the in-period
        commentary there is regarding period styles.
        If there are contemporary references to sleeves tending to fall off
        the shoulder, will anyone on list who has seen them, please share the
        sources?


        > I would never make a dress in just the reproduction aspect
        alone.
        > One also has to be comfortable, and function in our modern world as
        > well.After all, if you spend all your time posing in a mirror to
        see
        > what you look like and if everything is in place, you won't enjoy
        > yourself at all. And we know what looking at ones reflection can do
        > for you....lol..{ the Greek myth about the one who couldn't take
        his
        > eyes off himself????}

        Narcissus. So enchanted by and enamored of his own beauty seen
        reflected in a pool, that he fell in and drowned. Silly boy.


        > I don't see any buttons either. Hidden lacing more like it.And a
        > small band at the top of the sleeve next to the shoulder band.The
        > puffing is hiding a lot of it, but it would make sense.I don't
        think
        > there were any buttons used in that way??? Anyone know?

        At this moment I'm not where I can get my hands on any of my own
        reference books, but if I'm recalling correctly, Janet Arnold's
        Patterns of Fashion shows an illustration of a sleeve buttoned into
        an armscye. (Or, my recall might be faulty...) I'll check as soon
        as I get home.

        It was called
        > by another name, but was ribbons with points on the ends, and laced
        > the two pieces together."Points"....????

        "Points" is correct.

        > Anyone???
        > Just my 2 cents worth.
        > Deirdre

        Yseult the Gentle

        <<<snipped out Katherine of Cate Hall's post>>>>
        >
      • Alex Doyle
        I have two questions for those that have problems with the sleeves collapsing during wear. First, was your camica and or your gown lining linen? The second
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 7, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I have two questions for those that have problems with the sleeves "collapsing" during wear. First, was your camica and or your gown lining linen? The second is do you make the pouf part of the sleeve pouffy all the way around the arm, even in the armpit area?

          I have worn several types of sleeves that require the undergarment to pouf out through slashes and strips. While I won't say they always stay perfectly in place, I don't recall the "collapsing" effect that is descibed. The only reasons I can think of why this might or might not be having is the two point I ask about.

          Cotton fabrics are more slippery than linen, or even a cotton linen blend. Cotton gauze used for the camica worn with a linen cotten blend stayed in place. Cotton sheeting fabric for the smock/shirt sleeve would stay in place mostly, but did move about. When I pair linen and wool, there's NO slippage- I can take that gown and sleeves off with the camica in place and the poufs are still in place.

          The other point, is that I always make the underarm area flat and to the length that I want the section to go, making the under area pouf as required. That keeps the sleeve from sliding down the arm and the poufs from the undergarment more likely to stay in place.

          Just curious
          alex


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • borderlands15213
          Correcting my own post, here.... ... Italian_Rennaissance_Costuming@yahoogroups.com, borderlands15213 wrote: ... a ... Checked
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 8, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Correcting my own post, here....

            --- In
            Italian_Rennaissance_Costuming@yahoogroups.com, "borderlands15213"
            <borderlands15213@y...> wrote:
            <<<major snippage>>>>
            >
            >
            > > I don't see any buttons either. Hidden lacing more like it.And
            a
            > > small band at the top of the sleeve next to the shoulder band.The
            > > puffing is hiding a lot of it, but it would make sense.I don't
            > think
            > > there were any buttons used in that way??? Anyone know?
            >
            > At this moment I'm not where I can get my hands on any of my own
            > reference books, but if I'm recalling correctly, Janet Arnold's
            > Patterns of Fashion shows an illustration of a sleeve buttoned into
            > an armscye. (Or, my recall might be faulty...) I'll check as soon
            > as I get home.

            Checked Arnold; no buttons used for attaching sleeves to armscyes or
            to upper/outer sleeves; all the illustrations I saw were of lacing
            strips sewn inside an upper or outer sleeve or the armscye, for
            attaching sleeves to.
            So much for recall.
            Plenty of buttons for closures, though.

            >
            > It was called
            > > by another name, but was ribbons with points on the ends, and
            laced
            > > the two pieces together."Points"....????
            >
            > "Points" is correct.

            > > Deirdre
            >
            > Yseult the Gentle
            >
            Yseult
          • toragana13
            Thank you, Katherine! I plan on checking it out. Someone else in another group is also looking into historical striped materials. Someone suggested this
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 8, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Thank you, Katherine!

              I plan on checking it out. Someone else in another group is also
              looking into historical striped materials. Someone suggested this
              book, too. However, I've heard that the author's research is
              questionable, but that the bibliography may be a great start. So, I
              will definitely check it out!

              Thank you for the info,
              Allison / Toragana

              "Dame Katharine of Cate Hall" <Catherine@C...> wrote:
              >
              > I had to root around at Amazon for a bit, but you may want to look
              > into a book by Michel Pastoreau called Devil's Cloth: A History of
              > Stripes and Striped Fabric, trans. Jody Gladding (New York: Columbia
              > University
              >
              > I haven't read it, and I know there are many examples of striped
              > clothing that are NOT being worn by outcasts and underworld figures,
              > but it may be of value.
              > >
              > > Katharine of Cate Hall
              > > Atenveldt
            • toragana13
              Katherine (of Kate Hall!) Thanks for the info. Herald is the secondary source that mentioned listing as the technique used to produce stripes. (Arnold also
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Katherine (of Kate Hall!)

                Thanks for the info. Herald is the secondary source that
                mentioned "listing" as the technique used to produce stripes.
                (Arnold also mentions it in PoF, but doesn't use the word 'liste.')
                I have her bibliography and am slowly hunting down her primary
                sources. Translation has become a great hinderance to the progress
                of my research on this topic. I don't even speak any modern Italian
                beyond wino! and carciofe! and live in an area of mostly Spanish and
                English speakers!

                I have a full, enlarged, rinted close up copy of
                http://www.kleio.org/monalisa/genealogy/images/190.jpg from a
                museum.
                Truthfully, all you can tell from the painting is the brush strokes
                used to make the stripes. It is possible that it is meant represent
                listing, but no hard evidence, and could just as well represent
                woven stripes. Or even the artist's idea of stripes! Her son, on
                the left side of the painting, also wears a striped garment, but his
                appears to be strips of fabric sewn together to form the stripes, or
                to have been woven. It is impossible to know for sure. In the close
                up of Ludvico's garment, even the design of the supposedly brocaded
                pattern also appears flat and without any woven texture.

                Now there is a primary written source, the only one I know of for
                this painting, from Ludvico to the artist in regards to how he
                wished his family represented. He complained that the artist needed
                to include more gold paint and more pearls, which the artist did.
                Thus, artists do not always represent what was there, but rather
                what the patron demanded. Thus, leaving us without photographic
                images and hard to interpret garments! Darn it.

                However, I have a possible lead with a 16th century weaving loom.
                It utilizes punch card technology (and we think that we invented
                that with the first computers!) to create complicated woven
                patterns. I have a picture showing the loom as currently set up in
                a modern Italian museum with a large punch card that is producing a
                complicated stripe pattern in silk! Now, I just have to locate the
                museum and write to them to find out if the card pattern is from
                our time period and if, and for whom, it was used. Now, that will
                be a great primary source, if I can find it.

                I'll share when what I find in future. Thanks for the assistance.

                Allison / Toragana




                Catherine Rogers-Cook <Catherine@C...> wrote:
                >
                > Jacqueline Herald, in her book Dress in Renaissance Italy, 1400-
                1500 published by Humanities Press 1981, defines liste as follows:
                Lista. A strip of cloth applied to a garment to give a bold striped
                effect, such as is found on the dress worn by Beatrice d'Este in the
                Pala Sforzesca. In this picture one can see that the pattern of
                stripes was put onto the fabric before the garment was cut and that
                the skirts of the gown are flared from the waist rather than being
                straight cut.
                http://www.kleio.org/monalisa/genealogy/images/190.jpg
                >
                > Hope this is useful to you.
                >
                > Katharine of Cate Hall
                > Atenveldt
              • Dame Katharine of Cate Hall
                As I was browsing the paintings of Sebastiano del Piombo this morning I came across this portrait in the National Gallery, London.
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 9, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  As I was browsing the paintings of Sebastiano del Piombo this morning
                  I came across this portrait in the National Gallery, London.
                  http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/WebMedia/Images/24/NG24/eNG24.jpg

                  Looks like listing to me. What do you think?

                  Katharine of Cate Hall
                  Atenveldt

                  --- In Italian_Rennaissance_Costuming@yahoogroups.com, "toragana13"
                  <toragana13@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Thanks for the info. Herald is the secondary source that
                  > mentioned "listing" as the technique used to produce stripes.
                  > (Arnold also mentions it in PoF, but doesn't use the word 'liste.')
                  >>
                  > Allison / Toragana
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.