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

Re: Pushpa's pointed skirt

Expand Messages
  • marcus findlay-arthur
    Thanks for all the work. I was having a really bad feeling about those directions. Oh you re welcome - I ve been plannig to do one at some stage or myself
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      Thanks for all the work. I was having a really bad
      feeling about those directions.

      Oh you're welcome - I've been plannig to do one at some stage or myself anyway so getting to grips with the patter wasn't a hardship!!!  ; >>>

        Did the cut of the
      points work?  Or did you cut them differently?

      They did change slightly from Pushpa's version becoming wider in the slope down towards the points when I added the extra fabric.And I wanted to do some serious checking up on that by looking at some miniatures for comparison & clarification.Plus some tweeking of the pattern and fabric if I have to.

        I
      think I will go with two points per side as I don't
      have too much fabric.

      Sounds good to me.
      Don't quote me on this but I get the impression that the points are more a Court fashion that works out to the general populous,who would use less fabric and fewer features.Any thoughts?


      as an aside, did you get the off list email I sent
      about Known world classes?

      No I didn't.Am having problems with the iMac at home and so am doing all this stuff on the PC at work.Would you mind sending it again to this addy please?

      Mangal.



      Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
    • Margaret Polson
      ... Take a look at the file I uploaded. The points look really narrow and right next to the side seam/opening. (For those of you who care, that is out of the
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > Did the cut of the
        > points work? Or did you cut them differently?
        >
        > They did change slightly from Pushpa's version
        > becoming wider in the slope down towards the points
        > when I added the extra fabric.And I wanted to do
        > some serious checking up on that by looking at some
        > miniatures for comparison & clarification.Plus some
        > tweeking of the pattern and fabric if I have to.

        Take a look at the file I uploaded. The points look
        really narrow and right next to the side seam/opening.
        (For those of you who care, that is out of the Calico
        Museum Indian Costume book, btw)

        There is another minature in that book that shows the
        same thing (that one is entitled "Man slaying is
        unfaithful wife", why is it the minatures that show
        some really cool feature are always the one with
        different subject matter) I can post that one if
        people want.


        >
        > I
        > think I will go with two points per side as I don't
        > have too much fabric.
        >
        > Sounds good to me.
        > Don't quote me on this but I get the impression that
        > the points are more a Court fashion that works out
        > to the general populous,who would use less fabric
        > and fewer features.Any thoughts?

        That could be it. I would have to run dates, but it
        also seems to me that there are more points on the
        later ones, so it may have been an over time thing.
        As I remember it, the Akbar-nama ones all show two per
        side. But I could be wrong as I was not paying that
        much attention. I know one of the ones that shows
        three per side is out of period (Indian Book Painting,
        pg 54)

        Meenakshi





        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
        http://calendar.yahoo.com
      • marcus findlay-arthur
        Hehehehehe Just for a sec there you had me going Meenakshi! Its brilliant - the pic I mean.What a find !!! ... They ended up looking exactly like the pic s
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hehehehehe
          Just for a sec there you had me going Meenakshi!
           
          Its brilliant - the pic I mean.What a find !!!

          >   Did the cut of the
          > points work?  Or did you cut them differently?
          >
          > They did change slightly from Pushpa's version
          > becoming wider in the slope down towards the points
          > when I added the extra fabric.
           
          They ended up looking exactly like the pic's version - skipping for delight.I'm so proud of myself - sorry,but I'm self taught and only got a six month training course two years ago with an Asian Specialist.
           

          Take a look at the file I uploaded.  The points look
          really narrow and right next to the side seam/opening.
          (For those of you who care, that is out of the Calico
          Museum Indian Costume book, btw)
           
          Its fab the only serious difference with mine is that I made the under panel broader - from hip to inside groin of the opposite leg.
           
          The depth of the slit is almost exactly the depth I measured out by the look of it some 5.5" to 7".(I'd originally wondered if the slits were higher up the leg length and the points more 'slivered'after I'd cut the skirt out with the adjustments.)

          There is another minature in that book that shows the
          same thing (that one is entitled "Man slaying is
          unfaithful wife", why is it the minatures that show
          some really cool feature are always the one with
          different subject matter)  I can post that one if
          people want.
           
          'Different' - well I'd say yucky subject matter.Actually I'd really like to make a comparison if you have the time to post? 

          That could be it.  I would have to run dates, but it
          also seems to me that there are more points on the
          later ones, so it may have been an over time thing.
          As I remember it, the Akbar-nama ones all show two per
          side. 
           
          As I said before,my check was very perfunctory and I was checking several manuals at the same time and going way beyond the SCA timeframe for possible clues.
          You've got Rita Kumar's book haven't you? In the start of it,under the history section she has four tiny miniatures by Bishan Das.I'm sure he's got three or four points but I do recall that its late period circa 1590 plus and full Court Dignataries featured in the illustrations.
           
           But I could be wrong as I was not paying that
          much attention.  I know one of the ones that shows
          three per side is out of period (Indian Book Painting,
          pg 54)
           
          No I believe that you're right.Mughal clothing starts to become far more elaborate and fussy from 1630 reaching an apogee about 1650 onwards,both in cut & construction as well as in the volume of fabric used (18thC equals 30 meters of muslin in the skirts of the jama being quite common.) and the various manners the garment was embelished.By the 1670's you see it in full swing and your fashion changes are more remarkable and more regionally significant.
           
          The scope of the garments circa 1550 - 1560 is much more modest and manageable in every way.Colour also seems to be used beween 1550 and 1575.Now around this time there is also the construction of Fatephur (sp?).Roughly by the time the Court fashions change again(1575 -1580)Akbar had moved his Court geographically which might be the root reason for these differences.
          Mangal.






          Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
        • Margaret Polson
          ... Hum, that may be determind by the amount of fabric you have. ... I was going to say icky myself, but I figured it didn t sound scientific enough. You
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            > Take a look at the file I uploaded. The points look
            > really narrow and right next to the side
            > seam/opening.
            > (For those of you who care, that is out of the
            > Calico
            > Museum Indian Costume book, btw)
            >
            > Its fab the only serious difference with mine is
            > that I made the under panel broader - from hip to
            > inside groin of the opposite leg.

            Hum, that may be determind by the amount of fabric you
            have.

            > There is another minature in that book that shows
            > the
            > same thing (that one is entitled "Man slaying is
            > unfaithful wife", why is it the minatures that show
            > some really cool feature are always the one with
            > different subject matter) I can post that one if
            > people want.
            >
            > 'Different' - well I'd say yucky subject
            > matter.Actually I'd really like to make a comparison
            > if you have the time to post?

            I was going to say icky myself, but I figured it
            didn't sound scientific enough. You should take a
            look at the Hamzanama, lots of icky pictures there,
            including the one of the guy who hid himself in a tree
            getting sawed in half, ick.

            I re-sent the emails on Known world off list. let me
            know if you did not get them

            Meenakshi

            >
            > That could be it. I would have to run dates, but it
            > also seems to me that there are more points on the
            > later ones, so it may have been an over time thing.
            > As I remember it, the Akbar-nama ones all show two
            > per
            > side.
            >
            > As I said before,my check was very perfunctory and I
            > was checking several manuals at the same time and
            > going way beyond the SCA timeframe for possible
            > clues.
            > You've got Rita Kumar's book haven't you? In the
            > start of it,under the history section she has four
            > tiny miniatures by Bishan Das.I'm sure he's got
            > three or four points but I do recall that its late
            > period circa 1590 plus and full Court Dignataries
            > featured in the illustrations.
            >
            > But I could be wrong as I was not paying that
            > much attention. I know one of the ones that shows
            > three per side is out of period (Indian Book
            > Painting,
            > pg 54)
            >
            > No I believe that you're right.Mughal clothing
            > starts to become far more elaborate and fussy from
            > 1630 reaching an apogee about 1650 onwards,both in
            > cut & construction as well as in the volume of
            > fabric used (18thC equals 30 meters of muslin in the
            > skirts of the jama being quite common.) and the
            > various manners the garment was embelished.By the
            > 1670's you see it in full swing and your fashion
            > changes are more remarkable and more regionally
            > significant.
            >
            > The scope of the garments circa 1550 - 1560 is much
            > more modest and manageable in every way.Colour also
            > seems to be used beween 1550 and 1575.Now around
            > this time there is also the construction of Fatephur
            > (sp?).Roughly by the time the Court fashions change
            > again(1575 -1580)Akbar had moved his Court
            > geographically which might be the root reason for
            > these differences.
            >
            > Mangal.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
            >


            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
            http://calendar.yahoo.com
          • marcus findlay-arthur
            Hum, that may be determind by the amount of fabric you have. Some but mostly a modesty factor.I feel safer with more of an apron.And its not a 16thC feature.My
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment


              Hum, that may be determind by the amount of fabric you
              have.

              Some but mostly a modesty factor.I feel safer with more of an apron.And its not a 16thC feature.My understanding of this addittion is that its either very late 17thC and decidedly an 18thC feature of the jama.

              The caveat is that some of the 11thC and 14thC extend garments that are very closely related to the jama but come from Tibet and Mongolia do have a small overlap.So I push the boundaries by three or four inches. 

              I was going to say icky myself, but I figured it
              didn't sound scientific enough.

              Heheehe

               You should take a
              look at the Hamzanama, lots of icky pictures there,
              including the one of the guy who hid himself in a tree
              getting sawed in half,  ick.

              I know I was fascinated by it.

              I re-sent the emails on Known world off list. let me
              know if you did not get them

              I believe that I got it yesterday but need to check.Am exhausted and its off the wall at work.

              M.



              Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.