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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.