kass

Mick, I live in PA too and it's my understanding that replica weapons are not considered firearms at all in the Commonwealth. This is why you can sell them without a dealer's license and buy them without a handgun license. You don't even have to do what you describe to carry your Queen Anne pistol without a license. It's simply not a firearm. But not every highway patrolman knows the intricacies of this law. But you will be fine as long as you don't carry it loaded. You NEVER carry it loaded, you do?

This is really interesting for me because I find private events to be very boring. Perhaps it's because I'm a woman who hates to cook... Plus I'm a bit of an extrovert. Don't know if anyone's noticed... I'm definitely not in reenactment for the "time travel" experiences. I find them very hard to achieve, even when everything is as perfect as it can be. I think if you chase those moments of transportation, you'll always be disappointed. I have a few friends who never seem satisfied because nothing is "period" enough for them: they always see the flaws. That's no fun. You know, the only time I've had one of those "time travel" experiences was on the way to a Colonial Christmas Ball. Yes, we were riding in a Jeep Cherokee. But we were travelling on the old road to Philadelphia that dates to before the Rev War, and there are more 18th century houses along that road than not. In some areas, you have to slow down to 10mph to go around very sharp turns between old houses. It had just snowed, so the cars on the side of the road weren't that obvious. It didn't matter that we were in a modern conveyance; I just suddenly felt like we were on our way to the Ball in the 1770s...

You got it! Apologies to Gentleman of Fortune for hyjacking his thread...

Unfortunately, Rue, store sizing varies from store to store. Once upon a time (actually as late as the early 1980s) store sizing and pattern sizing was the same and you could count on the sizing being the same or at least close from store to store. But stores started trying to sell by low numbers (lulling their customers into the idea that they were smaller than they really were). Pattern sizing did not change at that time and is still the same from company to company. We all (me, other small companies, and the big guys: Simplicity, Butterick, Vogue...) use industry standard sizing. Well, there are a couple companies that deviate from the norm, but most companies confirm to the industry standard. We also put measurements on the back of every package to guarantee that you can check your size before you cut the pattern. So where was there a lack of directions? Because I recall that pattern has nearly 20 pages of directions on not only how to put the pattern together, but how to fit it to your particular body type.

Jib, I agree with your assessment 100%. But that's my personal views on living history and reenactment. As you've seen in this thread, Blackjohn and Hawkyns are of a different opinion than I. However we have participated in the same reenactments together for years and our different views haven't stopped us from enjoying each other's company.

Carolina, Muslin isn't a very durable fabric. 5oz linen is a better choice. Also I've been looking through my sources showing extant waistcoats from 1700 through the 1770s and the vast VAST majority of them have backs as long as the fronts. Some do, as Dorian mentioned, have backs of plain linen while the fronts are silk and embroidered. But there is no length difference. This is not to say that backs weren't sometimes shorter than the fronts, just that the usual form of waistcoat was with the back the same length as the front. They're all split at center back so no problems riding a horse! Kass

Hi Adam, If I'm understanding what you mean by the "fore and aft" crotch shape, then I beg to differ with you. The extant early and late 17th century (1620 and 1670s respectively) that I've examined have this curved crotch shape. Even earlier extant breeches (circa 1560s) have it. Matter of fact, I cannot think of a single example of breeches that don't have that shape. Or am I completely misunderstanding what you mean? Kass

Pearl, I hate to break your heart, but the leather justacorps that they're talking about isn't thin, garment leather. It's thick, armour-type leather. It really is a type of armour, not just a fashion statement. So suede wouldn't quite fit the bill. Sounds like a gorgeous coat and I would certainly wear it! But don't make the mistake of thinking that a coat made from any type of leather would be period correct. And I think suede isn't period appropriate because it's made from split hides and they weren't doing that this early in time. But please, leather experts, correct me if I'm wrong.

Jack, if you don't send me pictures, I'm gonna cry!!! Jim, Breeches will come. Still working out the bugs in the pattern. Kass

Hi guys, Greg, I'm not going to answer your question because I think it's already been answered perfectly. But I'd like to add my perspective to the mix. I'm a reenactor and living historian. I reenact when there's actually a reenactment going on. That means that the group I'm with is doing Washington's Crossing of the Delaware, I've got my part and I play it. If we're doing the Battle of the Bulge, I'm in the trees shooting at Nazis. If we're doing the Seige of Straalsund, I'm throwing kitchen garbage from the walls onto the invading Imperialists (Germans). But there are things I do that aren't reenactments. There, I'm a living historian. For example, at Pennsbury Manor, Willliam Penn's summer house North of Philadelphia, I'm not reenacting anything. I'm one of the Penn's housemaids and I show visitors around the house and grounds and tell them about Pennsylvania in the 1680s-1700. At the Bachmann Publick House in Easton, I'm a resident of Easton in the year 1753. I talk about how I came from Ireland as an indentured servant when I was eight years old, and how I am now married to a brewer and keep the books for the business because my master taught me to read and write... Unlike many of my friends in the hobby, I think the most boring thing in the world is sitting around in historical clothing with my mates. I CRAVE talking to the public. Get me started on a favourite subject and you'll have to stick an apple in my mouth to shu me up! I love doing first person, but I enjoy explaining things in third person as well. My biggest turn on is sharing my knowledge. I really love this stuff and I want to tell people all about it! LARPing, I've done that too. It's fun. I like it because it's ore physical than what I typically do at reenactments. But I don't care for "closed" events. There too much of the exhibitionist in me. I like to perform for a crowd!

The last word on the group shoe order is that it's still on and our own Gentleman of Fortune is waiting for the prototype shoe to arrive. He's in Germany, so it's taking a little longer than a couple days to get there. He'll post info on how to order as soon as he sees that the shoe is well-made and worth the effort. Kass

Hi Jim, Thank you for your compliments on my site. Keep checking back for some exciting new changes this summer that I know you're going to love. :) About the waistcoats, yes we plan on producing a pattern for waistcoats from 1700 to 1725. Just haven't finished it yet. It will be announced on the website (and likely here too) when it is available. But if you're looking for a waistcoat to wear under the 1680s Justcorps, the waistcoat is included in the pattern. It's really just the same pattern as the Justacorps but without cuffs on the sleeve ends. So if you're interested in the 1680s Justacorps pattern, you don't have to wait for the waistcoat pattern to come out to have both garments. And the historical notes cover both garments as well, so all your questions should be answered there. Thanks again for your enquiry, Kass

Rue, Do you wear an 18 in store-bought clothing? Or do you wear an 18 according to the measurements on the back of my pattern? Store sizes and pattern sizes are not the same. And since I base my pattern sizes on the same industry standards that Simplicity and Butterick use, you wouldn't be an 18 in their patterns either (unless the sizing is so big and boxy that size hardly matters). If you followed the directions carefully, making the coat layer by layer from the lining out, you would have found out the sizing mistake in the lining layer and would not have had to add any strange bits to the garment to resize it. This is why I instruct you to build the coat as I do. Different people are built different ways and ten people could have exactly the same bust measurement and not be able to wear the same fitted garment. Katheryn, I suppose I could have laid out the pattern pieces separately. But this would have increased the cost of printing the pattern two-fold. Would you have preferred to pay $50 for the pattern? This is why the pattern is laid out as it is. Other customers of mine have suggested tracing the lines for your size with a highlighter pen so you can see where to cut. Kass

Chill out, people. Thread hyjacking isn't a hangin' offense. We're all friends here...

It's the tannins in the tea that make things darker. Same thing that's in oak that they use to make ink and to "tan" leather. See: tan = using tannins to dye. Another method that will "sadden" the colours of your garment (make them less bright) is to soak the thing in a solution of iron oxide. You make this by soaking iron nails or other iron bits in vinegar until they rust. The vinegar should turn orangey and then it's ready to use. Fill a plastic tub with water enough to cover the garment and then pour in the "iron water". I would make up a gallon but you probably won't need that much. Let soak overnight. Wash as usual and the colour will be duller. Don't worry. Soaking your clothing in tea or iron oxide will NEVER take the dye out. It just doesn't work that way.

I wouldn't shoot you either, Rod. However, if your reasoning is based on the non-scholarly nature of the thread, before you acted, it had already come back to a thread about hats and what is appropriate to the period and where you can buy them. So I think editing the thread was a mute point by then. And since no one emailed me any complaints at all, I saw no reason to act. This is an overview of what I was thinking in my capacity as co-moderator of this forum, just in case you wanted to know...

You're a lucky man, Amanjiria. Your wife is lovely! And you're quite a handsome devil yourself! Personally, I'd lose the bucket boots and get yourself a good cocked hat instead of the leather hat, but do a search in this forum on "boots" to read why. And have your darling make you a nice, white linen shirt. Coloured shirts aren't really seen yet, and once you have a real linen shirt, I guarantee you that you won't go back. :) But justacorps, definitely... And I even know where you can get a pattern. Click below...

Not on my watch, Blackjohn! I enjoy your humour.

Precisely the point I was trying to make. Thank you Greg for putting it so well! There are parts of this forum that I don't let MYSELF look at. But that picture was far from the worst offender. As the other moderator of this board besides Hawkyns, I would like to think that my opinion counts at least as much as his. And no one complained about the picture to me.

One would have thought it's no worse than some of the things on other threads of this board... I mean some of those bodices you people wear are quite shocking! And as the resident local prude, if I didn't mind, why would anyone else? But I digress. This IS supposed to be a forum for the discussion of scholarly things... Ahem...

Simply put, silver is a precious metal and pewter is a base metal. You make pots out of pewter. You make jewelry out of silver. Now silver isn't perfect. It will scratch and it will tarnish. But a polish with a silver rag (available at jewelers or department stores where real silverware is sold) or a dip in some silver cleaner when the ring starts to look black will do the trick easily. On the other hand, pewter is a very soft metal and will mark up rather badly and really show signs of wear. The only metal I know of (and I don't know about them all) that doesn't tarnish is gold. This is why you see jewelry in "white gold", not silver. White gold doesn't tarnish. And it's more resistant to scratches than silver. But my wedding ring is silver and after more than five years of constant wear, my husband's and mine have only minor scratches and no tarnish.

I'd like to announce that the Bodiced Gown (RH707) and the 1670s-1720s Stays (RH711) are now in stock and ready to ship. If you preordered either of these patterns, you will receive them shortly. If you have been waiting for them to materialize before placing your order, now's your chance! Kass

And you better post some pictures, Rue! Kass

Oh? Silly me... And I thought I spoke English... I want to see those pockets, man!

And that's totally cool, Rue! Brava!