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

hand sewing??

Expand Messages
  • Regina Baird
    Ok, now that I ve given up getting ANY work done today, because I m too wrapped up playing, I have another question... Ok, so it works out to like 30 other
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 20, 2005
      Ok, now that I've given up getting ANY work done today, because I'm
      too wrapped up playing, I have another question... Ok, so it works
      out to like 30 other questions but.... <laugh>

      I've spent the better part of the afternoon researching and think
      I've come up with a starting point for a dress. Now, the question
      is: how hard are these things to construct by hand? I know period
      women did it all the time, but I have never sewed more than a BUTTON
      or darned a sock so, you can imagine my hesitation! <laugh>

      I'm thinking of a gown that has the tight sleeves to the wrist
      (kirtle?) and then a sideless gown (surcoat). I have a great
      picture of one such outfit dating from the time of Edward II that
      I'll be using as a reference. It's from the book, Medieval Costume
      and Fashion, by Herbert Norris. Then, I have another book, English
      Costume from the Early Middle Ages Through the Sixteenth Century by
      Iris Brooke (now, granted, I've chosen a French persona, so I don't
      know that this would be a good reference...) that shows the same
      kirtle/surcoat combination, but the surcoat does have sides and
      about 3/4 sleeves and then is trimmed with ... um, they called them
      tippits(??)... I really liked both of these, but wonder which would
      be more appropriate for a French lady in the early-mid 14th
      Century.

      Now, I notice that once history entered into the later half of the
      14th century, the gowns were off-the-shoulder, is that correct??

      Oh, and how hard (and period appropriate) would a cotehardie be to
      make?? The pictures I've seen today were from later in the century
      and were, therefore, off the shoulder. Is that always the case??

      Ok, I'm going to stop there even though I have about a million and a
      half MORE questions..

      Many thanks,
      Dame Johanna
    • Marco and Jitka Sainte
      ... Several things. First of all, you are NOT required to hand-sew anything, and if you were, I wouldn t ever get anything done. I don t care to hand-sew much,
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 20, 2005
        Regina Baird wrote:

        >
        > Ok, now that I've given up getting ANY work done today, because I'm
        > too wrapped up playing, I have another question... Ok, so it works
        > out to like 30 other questions but.... <laugh>
        >
        > I've spent the better part of the afternoon researching and think
        > I've come up with a starting point for a dress. Now, the question
        > is: how hard are these things to construct by hand? I know period
        > women did it all the time, but I have never sewed more than a BUTTON
        > or darned a sock so, you can imagine my hesitation! <laugh>
        >
        > I'm thinking of a gown that has the tight sleeves to the wrist
        > (kirtle?) and then a sideless gown (surcoat). I have a great
        > picture of one such outfit dating from the time of Edward II that
        > I'll be using as a reference. It's from the book, Medieval Costume
        > and Fashion, by Herbert Norris. Then, I have another book, English
        > Costume from the Early Middle Ages Through the Sixteenth Century by
        > Iris Brooke (now, granted, I've chosen a French persona, so I don't
        > know that this would be a good reference...) that shows the same
        > kirtle/surcoat combination, but the surcoat does have sides and
        > about 3/4 sleeves and then is trimmed with ... um, they called them
        > tippits(??)... I really liked both of these, but wonder which would
        > be more appropriate for a French lady in the early-mid 14th
        > Century.
        >
        > Now, I notice that once history entered into the later half of the
        > 14th century, the gowns were off-the-shoulder, is that correct??
        >
        > Oh, and how hard (and period appropriate) would a cotehardie be to
        > make?? The pictures I've seen today were from later in the century
        > and were, therefore, off the shoulder. Is that always the case??
        >
        > Ok, I'm going to stop there even though I have about a million and a
        > half MORE questions..
        >
        > Many thanks,
        > Dame Johanna

        Several things. First of all, you are NOT required to hand-sew anything,
        and if you were, I wouldn't ever get anything done. I don't care to
        hand-sew much, as I'm not very good at it.

        Second, from what I know, cotehardies are very period. Anything before
        1600 (and some things even to 1650) is allowed. Nobody is going to ask
        what your persona is and then berate you for not being exact on your
        clothing. Heck, I'm planning to branch out to Middle Eastern clothing,
        and my persona is Italian.

        Also, a word of caution. I don't know for sure, but I believe Dame may
        be used to denote some SCA rank, just like Lady is, so you may not want
        to use it. I may be mistaken, but that's the impression I have, and I'd
        hate for you to get snarked at for supposedly assuming a rank you aren't
        entitled to. :)

        And tippets are period, as far as I know, but I personally don't like
        them. Just one more thing to step on or trail in my food. :)

        YIS,
        Fiora Soranzo, a 15th or 16th century Italian hiding out somewhere in
        the Middle Eastern/Persian area. ;)

        --
        Get Firefox! <http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=71676&t=84>

        Get Thunderbird! <http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=71676&t=178>


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Regina Baird
        ... may ... want ... I d ... aren t ... Oohh, that s a good heads up. I only tagged it on there b/c the text I was reading about widows indicated that s how
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 20, 2005
          > Also, a word of caution. I don't know for sure, but I believe Dame
          may
          > be used to denote some SCA rank, just like Lady is, so you may not
          want
          > to use it. I may be mistaken, but that's the impression I have, and
          I'd
          > hate for you to get snarked at for supposedly assuming a rank you
          aren't
          > entitled to. :)

          Oohh, that's a good heads' up. I only tagged it on there b/c the text
          I was reading about widows indicated that's how they should be
          addressed... :P But, it's just as easy (and early enough) to drop it
          all together, when introducing myself. THANKS!
        • Iustinos Tekton called Justin
          ... Your impression is absolutely correct. Dame in the SCA is an alternative title for peerage, equivalent to Sir as used for Knights. As a matter of fact,
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 20, 2005
            On Wednesday 20 April 2005 19:42, Marco and Jitka Sainte wrote:
            > Also, a word of caution. I don't know for sure, but I believe Dame may
            > be used to denote some SCA rank, just like Lady is, so you may not want
            > to use it. I may be mistaken, but that's the impression I have

            Your impression is absolutely correct. "Dame" in the SCA is an alternative
            title for peerage, equivalent to "Sir" as used for Knights. As a matter
            of fact, the Society Chatelaine, who technically would be known as
            Countess Alys Katharine, is also a member of the Order of the Laurel (a
            peerage for arts and sciences) and the Order of the Pelican (a peerage
            for service). She would normally have used "Mistress" as a peerage title
            before she became a Countess (higher rank) a couple of years ago, but she
            chose to use "Dame" instead of "Mistress" and has told me since then that
            in some situations she still prefers it. (One is always allowed to use
            their previous lower title even if entitled to a new higher one.)

            That being said, having "dame" (lower case) in your email address might
            cause a bit of gentle confusion, but it is certainly not against the
            rules AFAIK. After all, email addresses aren't period. {GRIN}

            I would refrain from *calling yourself* Dame, because that is against the
            rules, at least in some kingdoms, but using it in your email address is
            not a serious problem. If people ask you about it, just explain that you
            had that address before you joined the SCA, and that should end the
            discussion. If it doesn't, then shame on *them* for being so darned
            uptight about something of so little import! :-)

            Justin

            --
            ()xxxx[]::::::::::::::::::> <::::::::::::::::::[]xxxx()
            Maistor Iustinos Tekton called Justin (Scott Courtney)
            Gules, on a bezant a fleam sable and on a chief dovetailed Or two
            keys fesswise reversed sable.

            Marche of Alderford (Canton, Ohio) http://4th.com/sca/justin/
            justin@... PGP Public Key at http://4th.com/keys/justin.pubkey
          • Lorie J. O'Donnell
            This is true; a woman in my Shire uses Dame in place of Mistress, and it s her rank. Johanna If you didn t want them to think, you shouldn t have given them
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 20, 2005
              This is true; a woman in my Shire uses Dame in place of Mistress, and
              it's her rank.

              Johanna

              "If you didn't want them to think, you shouldn't have given them
              library cards."
              --Robert Kaufman


              On Apr 20, 2005, at 7:42 PM, Marco and Jitka Sainte wrote:

              > Also, a word of caution. I don't know for sure, but I believe Dame may
              > be used to denote some SCA rank, just like Lady is, so you may not want
              > to use it. I may be mistaken, but that's the impression I have, and I'd
              > hate for you to get snarked at for supposedly assuming a rank you
              > aren't
              > entitled to. :)
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.