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

[SCA-JML] Re: tv show or movie????

Expand Messages
  • Bruce Mills
    ... I never said I *agreed* with those some ... ... Yes, certainly. I never said that we should recreate non-period things. I was just saying that while the
    Message 1 of 20 , Oct 10, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Anthony J. Bryant wrote:

      > "some" doesn't matter. Corpora says "make an attempt at pre
      > seventeenth-century costume." Deliberately recreating something that
      > didn't even appear until AFTER that cutoff is to me a complete disregard
      > of the rules.

      I never said I *agreed* with those "some"...

      > Plus the fact that their whole design is post period both in fact and in
      > concept. Nagabakama were developed for a reason, and that reason wasn't
      > something that was part of sengoku or feudal Japanese life. The thing
      > is, these garments are SYMBOLIC of the Edo period, and should not be
      > used in the SCA. They had analogues that DID exist in period, and are
      > symbolic of THAT era, and it is those that should be recreated.

      Yes, certainly. I never said that we should recreate non-period things. I
      was just saying that while the clothing protrayed in the series might get
      *close* to period, they weren't documentable *as* period, and shouldn't be
      used as a model for SCA use.

      > > Sheesh! Nit pickers! :-}
      >
      > PPPFFFFTTTHHHH!!! <G>

      At least provide a towel!

      Akimoya
    • J. Kriss White
      At 10/10/99 12:15 PM -0400, Akimoya calligraphed: Well, wouldn t you say 1620 is right post period , in the larger scheme of things? I didn t say 1601 on the
      Message 2 of 20 , Oct 10, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        At 10/10/99 12:15 PM -0400, Akimoya calligraphed:

        Well, wouldn't you say 1620 is "right post period", in the larger scheme of things? I didn't say 1601 on the dot.  It might even be considered *in* period, if, according to some, period stretches to 1650...
        Hey, it's Cavalier Era Japanese. :-)  Belongs right in there beside the fops.

        Livin' la vida meshuggah,
        Lord Daveed of Granada, mka J. Kriss White,
        Barony of Calafia, Kingdom of Caid
        email - jkrissw@...  ||  AOL IM - jkrissw  ||  ICQ #1824702
        (hobbies & interests web page: <http://members.aol.com/JkrissW/index.html>)
      • Anthony J. Bryant
        ... Hokey dokey! ... Hai, hai!! Effingham
        Message 3 of 20 , Oct 10, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Bruce Mills wrote:
          >
          > Yes, certainly. I never said that we should recreate non-period things. I
          > was just saying that while the clothing protrayed in the series might get
          > *close* to period, they weren't documentable *as* period, and shouldn't be
          > used as a model for SCA use.

          Hokey dokey!

          > > PPPFFFFTTTHHHH!!! <G>
          >
          > At least provide a towel!

          Hai, hai!!

          Effingham
        • Markejag@aol.com
          Sorry so late with the replies, but I do recall a BOD statement that the ending period for the SCA was 1600 with special dispensation until 1650 to allow for
          Message 4 of 20 , Oct 14, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Sorry so late with the replies, but I do recall a BOD statement that the
            ending period for the SCA was 1600 with special dispensation until 1650 to
            allow for contingencies in cultures. (I.E., those fops) There was a great
            discussion on the rialto about this years ago, of which I am unfamiliar with,
            and the after shocks were more to the point that if it didn't effect your
            personnel period or style then there was no more need for discussion.

            Calm down children and have fun doing your own thing :-)

            Fumio
          • Anthony J. Bryant
            ... You are mis-remembering. The 50-year grace period was a good idea gone awry created by then Laurel King of Arms Wilhelm von Schlussel to allow the use in
            Message 5 of 20 , Oct 14, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Markejag@... wrote:
              >
              > Sorry so late with the replies, but I do recall a BOD statement that the
              > ending period for the SCA was 1600 with special dispensation until 1650 to
              > allow for contingencies in cultures. (I.E., those fops) There was a great
              > discussion on the rialto about this years ago, of which I am unfamiliar with,
              > and the after shocks were more to the point that if it didn't effect your
              > personnel period or style then there was no more need for discussion.

              You are mis-remembering. The 50-year "grace period" was a good idea gone
              awry created by then Laurel King of Arms Wilhelm von Schlussel to allow
              the use in SCA heraldry of items that were first documented in the first
              half of the 17th century under the supposition that just because it was
              first mentioned doesn't mean it hadn't been around already for a few
              years.

              Unfortunately, it was wildly misused to allow things that were
              documentedly invented (rather than just referred to) between 1600 and
              1650, and it also spawned the misbelief that the SCA has (or at some
              point had) a 1650 cutoff date.

              Effingam
            • nostrand@acm.org
              Noble Cousins! I have some matterial about tents as well including evidence concerning where and for what they were used. The CA editor will not publish any of
              Message 6 of 20 , Oct 21, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Noble Cousins!

                I have some matterial about tents as well including evidence
                concerning where and for what they were used. The CA editor
                will not publish any of this along with other stuff of the
                miscellany sort. I have asked and been told so. (Basically
                Baron Edward's earlier issue blocks anything newley
                discovered. The same thing applies to the poetry omnimbus
                which got Japanese poetry wrong.) Sorry for grumping, but
                this sort of thing bothers me. (Note. I have stuff more
                recent than my 4 page article on Japanese outdoor life.
                However, I have dispaired of having any of it appear in CA.)

                Your Humble Servant
                Solveig Throndardottir
                Amateur Scholar
              • nostrand@acm.org
                Noble Cousins! There was a long standing dispute over whether SCA period should end at 1600 or 1650. Quite a few members still contend that the cut off should
                Message 7 of 20 , Oct 21, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Noble Cousins!

                  There was a long standing dispute over whether SCA period should end
                  at 1600 or 1650. Quite a few members still contend that the cut off
                  should be 1650. The BoD ruled that the cut-off would be 1600. People
                  generally agree that documentaiton up to 1650 can be used.

                  Your Humble Servant
                  Solveig Throndardottir
                  Amateur Scholar
                • Barbara Nostrand
                  Baron Edward! Greetings from Solveig! Sorry, but the A&S community now generally accepts post 1600 sources. A good example of this in dance is a book by Caesar
                  Message 8 of 20 , Oct 21, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Baron Edward!

                    Greetings from Solveig! Sorry, but the A&S community now generally
                    accepts post 1600 sources. A good example of this in dance is a
                    book by Caesar Negri which appeared around 1603. Other examples
                    can be found in cooking. The idea is that post-1600 documentation
                    can be used to document pre-1601 stuff. You need to distinguish
                    between when the stuff was extant and when it was written down.

                    As for post 1600 Japanese clothing and hair styles. I am very
                    much in agreement with you. Clothing changed significantly during
                    the Edo period. There were significant clothing and hair fads
                    and what naught. (I have a rather nice history of clothing in
                    the Edo period and a matching history of hair styles in the
                    Edo period.)

                    In Japan, by 1650 you can easily have clothing and hair that
                    was unseen before 1601.

                    Your Humble Servant
                    Solveig Throndardottir
                    Amateur Scholar

                    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                    | Barbara Nostrand, Ph.D. | Solveig Throndardottir, CoM |
                    | de Moivre Institute | Carolingia Statis Mentis Est |
                    | mailto:nostrand@... | mailto:bnostran@... |
                    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                    | Ignored domains: bestbiz.net, pop.net, hotmail.com, aibusiness.com |
                    | vdi.net, usa.net, tpnet.pl, myremarq.com |
                    | netscape.net, excite.com, bigfoot.com, public.com |
                    | com.tw, eranet.net, yahoo.com, success.net |
                    | mailcity.com, net.tw, twac.com, netcenter.com |
                    | techie.com |
                    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                  • Anthony J. Bryant
                    ... Regardless, the SCA cutoff is 1600. Period. (so to speak. ) The only extra allowed was a misguided Laurel ruling years ago to allow anything first
                    Message 9 of 20 , Oct 21, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      nostrand@... wrote:

                      > Noble Cousins!
                      >
                      > There was a long standing dispute over whether SCA period should end
                      > at 1600 or 1650. Quite a few members still contend that the cut off
                      > should be 1650. The BoD ruled that the cut-off would be 1600. People
                      > generally agree that documentaiton up to 1650 can be used.

                      Regardless, the SCA cutoff is 1600.

                      Period. (so to speak. <g>)

                      The only "extra" allowed was a misguided Laurel ruling years ago to allow anything first
                      documented between 1600 and 1650 under the supposition that if it's first public reference was
                      then, it was POSSIBLE that it first appeared earlier, IN period.

                      People started using this to claim things that were documentedly INVENTED in 1600-1650 (OOP) were
                      allowable in the SCA under that rule.

                      I do not and will not do post period. Nor can I or will I support it.

                      Effingham
                    • Anthony J. Bryant
                      ... That s what I m talking about. This is the only acceptable use of post-period material. The trouble is when people start wanting to do post period things
                      Message 10 of 20 , Oct 22, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Barbara Nostrand wrote:

                        > Baron Edward!
                        >
                        > Greetings from Solveig! Sorry, but the A&S community now generally
                        > accepts post 1600 sources. A good example of this in dance is a
                        > book by Caesar Negri which appeared around 1603. Other examples
                        > can be found in cooking. The idea is that post-1600 documentation
                        > can be used to document pre-1601 stuff. You need to distinguish
                        > between when the stuff was extant and when it was written down.
                        >

                        That's what I'm talking about. This is the only acceptable use of
                        post-period material. The trouble is when people start wanting to do post
                        period things (the Edo style kataginu, for example) even though it's only
                        "a little" after 1600.


                        Effingham
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.