- Greetings, I was talking to Robin Netherton (the woman I mentioned in a previous post) about the kirtles and this is her response she asked me to post to theMessage 1 of 34 , Jan 25, 2001View SourceGreetings,
I was talking to Robin Netherton (the woman I mentioned in a previous
post) about the kirtles and this is her response she asked me to post
to the list.
Gwendoline (mka Danielle to solve confusion) : )
>Kass is right that the fitted dress (cotte, kirtle, etc.) is properlyan
>underdress. Perhaps a better term (though anachronistic) would be"day
>dress." It is always worn over a linen undergarment (shift, smock,two
>chemise). There's plenty of pictorial evidence to indicate that those
>layers were considered sufficient for informal wear (e.g. around thelikely
>house, possibly for marketing or running errands), and were very
>routine everyday wear for middle-class women (and noblewomen not atcourt)
>going about their daily work. The February illustration of the TresRiches
>Heures, which shows an upper-class woman warming her feet in apeasant's
>cottage, is one useful example -- she is clearly wearing only thechemise
>and the fitted dress. (The models I used at Kalamazoo, the year Ilectured
>on this dress, were wearing only these two layers, because I neededto
>display details of the fit. That may have been what Danielle ishave
>remembering when she indicated the dresses were worn without an
>overlayer. That day, they were!)
>For public, formal, or social circumstances, a complete outfit would
>also included an overdress. The overdress could take any of a varietyof
>forms, depending on exactly where, when, and who you were -- anotheror
>long-sleeved fitted dress, a short-sleeved fitted dress with tippets
>hanging sleeves, a houppelande, etc. Again, the Tres Riches Heuresalways
>provides a large range of variations.
>The fitted dresses and overgowns I make are always lined, almost
>with linen, but sometimes with silk or wool; it depends on what theouter
>layer is, what I have on hand, and so on. For wool linings, I usewool
>worsted, which is smooth and slides nicely over other fabrics. Iimagine a
>worsted-lined overdress would do fine over a wool fitted undergown,though
>truth to tell I don't think I've done that combination for reasons ofdeep
>American climate. I'm more likely to use linen linings.
>(People who saw me at KWCS may remember I spent most of the day in a
>red silk fitted dress, which was lined with rose silk. Over that Iwore a
>sideless surcote for a little while, because I was lecturing onsurcotes,
>but the surcote -- which was fur-lined -- was far too warm for me to
>manage in all day in a classroom environment.)
- Much of original message snipped ---- I m going to put my oar into this troubled water..... Don t forget the law that was passed this past December that allowsMessage 34 of 34 , Jul 31, 2006View SourceMuch of original message snipped ----
I'm going to put my oar into this troubled water.....
Don't forget the law that was passed this past December that allows a fabric manufacturer to multiply the plies of a thread times the threads per inch to get a much more 'attractive' thread count.
(ie a 2 ply thread woven at 200 threads per inch NOW equals a 400 threads per inch fabric).
So what was a high thread count (ie tightly woven fabric) last year or so, might now be a lower thread count (ie looser less tightly woven fabric) with a higher ply.
So the problem of good fabric is now compounded with another stupid law.
----- Original Message -----
> > > That was why I'd brought up the wool labeling. It irritates
> me that because manufacturers are allowed to call a wool blend "wool"
> instead of a wool blend as long as there's a minimum percentage of
> wool--- which doesn't have to be virgin wool, iirc---the stores don't
> have to say "Wool Blend Suitings."
> It isn't legal to say "100% Wool," because that's what it isn't,
> but there'a a human tendency, I think, to unconsciously equate that
> bald "Wool" or "Wool Suitings" with "100% Wool" or "100% Wool
> Another question which just occurred to me---and again, this is a
> question of legislative interpretation---is, does the law
> consider "Blend" to be mixed fibers in the *thread,* or does it
> recognize "blend" also as a combination, such as a warp of one
> fiber and a weft of another?