> My comment is just that on the left side of the collar, the top
> necessarily look like a pleated ruff, but like a flat attatchment
> scalloped edges, pearls and embroidery. I had another look and it
> looks like that to me, on the left side. though the back looks more
> rufflike. so I suppose it is still up for conjecture.
I think it's a difficult subject for many mannerist painters;) When
the edges of a ruff don't meet up some painters seen to have had an
issue with painting the further most edge. I can remember thinking...
what are these uneven or something? When I was looking at some
portraits of Queen Mary of Scotland.
Wouldn't you know it... the page that had an image is no longer
there.. and image searches are going slow... I will find some though!
scroll down to the 1585 portrait of Mary.
Oh for crying out loud... it's really hard looking for images;)
That one isn't so bad, but you can see the edges are treated a little
ANother... is it the same as one above? Probably, it's been about an
hour for me to find images;)
Again, it looks like the left side is made differently to the other
Same sort of thing happening here, the far side looks just ruffled.
Different problem, same difficulty in perspective and ruffles. If you
follow the wiggly line of the edge of the ruffle on the right hand
side, it ends at the squared off point. But on the left hand side the
edge of the ruffle ends before the edge and there is a point made
from the partlet/neckband.
As there is a bit of a continuum for a ruff (just at what point you
call a ruffled edge a ruff I suppose is a bit open to debate, and
there may have been a more aural tradition for callign soemthing a
ruff before it got written down;) ) I'm sure there is room for
everyone's point of view:)
I consider it to be a ruff as it is a more structured element to a
simple gathered edge. It is a little ruff to be sure, and attatched
still. I can see how you would consider it a ruffle as it doen't have
a lot of body.