kass

Shoot! That's what I was afraid of. That's a very frustrating thing about Marquise's site -- if she doesn't know the attribution, she could at least tell you where she found the picture, you know?

Damn, damn, damnable damnings...

Any chance of a title, an artist, a place, a year, Josh?

Hey Das, ever heard the term "tropical weight wool"? This is wool used for men's suiting. It's very fine and breathes wonderfully. And the best part about it is that it doesn't wrinkle like crazy like linen does. If I were you, I'd search for tropical weight (or "summer") wool for your coat.

Josh hit it on the head -- walking around without your jacket would be like us walking around shirtless. Yeah, you can do it, but you better not try to go anywhere like that. Even today you cannot get into a store without a shirt or shoes.

We have pictures of men working in just their waistcoats, but this is for active labour. When they are done, they put their jackets back on. Part of that is sun protection. Part of it is convention. In the 19th century in India, Western men didn't go around in their shirtsleeves either. And India is HOT!

Do you know that if you're wearing natural materials, you are less in danger of heatstroke when wearing clothing covering every inch of your skin than with skin exposed? Don't believe me? Ask a Bedouin. There is a reason why the tradition garments of these desert-dwellers is an ankle-length wool (goat hair, actually) robe and not shorts and a tank top!

I can tell you from experience that I've worn a lot of clothing on one of those 90+ July days and I was fine. And believe me, I am not a very heat-resistant person.

Remember too that we live in a world of climate control and air conditioning. These people did not. I am relatively certain that they were tougher than us.

I'm with you, Christine. The fantasy stuff doesn't bother me. But when sci-fi enters the picture... uh, no. That's what sci-fi cons and Star Trek conventions are for. Look in the bookstore, people. There's the fantasy section and then there's the sci-fi section. Different, see?

It's not that I don't love both. Or I should say, all. I was raised on Star Trek. My X used to tell me that I was really a Klingon in disguise. And I love fantasy. Some friends of mine run a fantasy LARP and I love really getting into character and inventing what kind of clothing they'd wear, etc. But boy, do I get upset when people get their fantasy mixed up with reality. Once, I was playing a "Mongorian" (an Asian warrior race that was a mix of Chinese and Japanese culture). I wore some Japanese stuff I had and invented a persona story that explained why my character was in this particular village, away from her people. At the feast, I volunteered to do a "traditional Mongorian dance" and knowing that I lived and studied in Japan, one of my friends said, "Great! We'll show these losers some real Japanese culture!" Silly boy! I did a bellydance in kimono! I wasn't going to do a traditional Japanese dance at a LARP! It's fantasy. I just made stuff up.

I likes me fantasy fantastical and my reality real, and never the twain shall meet! My Mum used to say, "A place for everything and everything in its place." I guess I think that applies to Faires too.

There's room for everything really. I just wish I had more time in my calendar to do it all...

Yeah what's the deal with Ren Faires anyway? C'mon! Maybe when they first became popular most people dressed the part proper to the era, but nowadays it's utterly laughable. Why don't they change the name to Fantasy Faire or GetYourKillBillSwordHere Faire?

Some actually are called "Fantasy Faires", Josh. And I think now the words "Renaissance Faire" have come to imply fantasy. And they probably should. I don't think any Faire I've ever heard of calls itself historically accurate. When I used to tell people I was a historical reenactor and they asked me if I did Ren Faires, I would explain to them the difference between acting and reenacting. Acting is theatre. Reenacting is portraying a historic event. You can change a script, but you can never make the Normans lose the Battle of Hastings.

And for reasons I don't understand the medieval period and the Renaissance get confused with elves and unicorns and Tolkein. Don't know why. But as long as the Faires don't start throwing around the sacred word "Historical", I don't really have an issue with them. There are some really cool costumes at the Faire...

Thank you Kass, first for the wonderful picture (you too Joshua) and second, for knowing the correct period for your garb!...Anyways, you look absolutely lovely and I truly understand your textile interest and the way stiches are done, more power to you!

And thank you, Rue, for your compliments (and thanks Josh, for posting the picture).

I've always been a bit of a nut about the details.

That's because they seem to go in and out of print alternately. Last year, you couldn't get Cut of Women's Clothes at all, but Cut of Men's Clothes was everywhere.

Okay, here's a perspective I haven't heard expressed here yet (but I'm like Das -- I skipped to the end!).

What if being accurate IS your idea of fun? I keep hearing about this word "balance". I don't think the two concepts have to be mutually exclusive. They aren't for me in any case.

You see, I'm really into textiles and the history thereof -- whether it be a piece of wool cloth that is the oldest surviving textile in Western Europe or a brand new design by Jean Paul Gautier. I want to know everything about it -- fibre content, thread count, stitches used, etc. Call me crazy, but I know there are people out there who are the same way about firearms or boats or other things. Clothing is really just another thing to be obsessed about.

When I dress for any reenactment, I am putting on the fruit of hours of work and months and sometimes years of painstaking research. But that is my idea of FUN! I don't care if no one knows that my interlining is made out of real horsehair or that the pattern repeat on my gown is exactly the same as on this extant gown in that museum. It doesn't matter to me if no one but me will ever know or ever care that the stitches that hold my lining together are exactly the same as the ones that held together the lining of a frockcoat from 1725. No one cares that they are exactly the same size as those on the original. No one will ever see them. And I don't really talk about them (except with similarly-obsessed friends). I know it's right and how much work I did to make it right.

Furthermore, I really don't care what anyone else does. I don't judge. And I don't hold people up to my standards. I'm not in this crazy dress-up hobby to make people conform to my idea of fun. I'm just here to dress up! So sit your poly-cotton clad butt down here next to me and I'll buy you a beer!

But woe-betide the person I see getting in anyone else's face about historic accuracy! I'm kind of a monster when it comes to defending the weak and helpless. Let he who has no sin throw the first stone, mates!

When I show up at an event, be it a reenactment at a historic site, an SCA event or a Ren Faire, you will find I have a lovely smile on my face. That smile is because I feel like I accomplished something great. And I am revelling in the satisfaction of a job well done. It's all inside, you see.

And frankly, since all that "work" is then out of the way, I can drink and carouse with you lot to my heart's content!

Kass

You know, I hate the camera thing. I don't carry one with me at events, so I never get pictures of my stuff unless someone else takes them. And then they never seem to get good pictures of my stuff. Annoys the hell of out me. Of course I could just buy myself a good camera and take my own damn pictures...

You can't see things too well, but this is my new kit. You can't see very much, but it's a ladies hunting outfit from 1692. (if you want to read about the history, that's here)

My persona is a well-known Covent Garden courtesan who became a procuress and wealthy "businesswoman". So I thought I should be attired as such. I'm wearing a wine waistcoat (you can see the colour on my right arm) under a brown and gold brocade frock coat lined with safflower-dyed silk. The petticote matches the frock coat and has a nice little train. I'm also wearing a Steinkirk cravat, shift, safflower-dyed sash, and my good ol' stays and holding my hunting whip. Forgot to order the ostrich feathers for my hat in time, but I did trim it up with lace a bit.

But I look twelve...

It's woven. I don't think you can felt horsehair. The hairs need to have curl to them for the felting process to work. Felting horsehair would be like trying to make dreadlocks on a person with pin-straight hair.

Your friendly neighbourhood obscure textile knowledge geek,

Kass

I don't know if any of you remember me talking about the safflower-dyed frock coat I was making for my husband for a Colonial Ball in October, but I've finally gotten pictures of him in it. They aren't the best (the light was really low, so the pictures are a bit blurry), but you can still get an idea of what the coat looks like. Here's the URL. Page down for the pictures of the finished coat:

Safflower Frock Coat

I'm seeing a friend who is a professional photographer this weekend and she'll probably take some better pictures of it for me. In these photos, you can't even see the hand-done buttonholes.

Horsehair interfacing is still used today to interline high-end Saville Row suits (and upholstery). The best stuff is 100% horsehair because the addition of another material (like cotton) only serves to soften it, which is not what you want in an interfacing. You can also find synthetic horsehair interfacing in tailoring supply stores. But it's not nearly as good as the real thing and doesn't breathe worth a damn.

Use of horsehair interfacing can be seen in tailoring as far back as the Elizabethan period. And I bet if we had more extant garments from eariler, we'd see it in doublets as far back as doublets go. It's great stuff and really does the job of making the coat/doublet/justacorps hang properly.

Kass

Gentleman, you're my hero. I was thinking the exact same thing!

Me, I call it all "clothing". I wear my "pirate clothing" or "pirate outfit" or "pirate kit".

Lesson time!

In the middle ages and Renaissance, the word "garb" meant the top of a stalk of grain, the head where the eatable part grows.

The word "costume" on the other hand can mean either an outfit to wear to pretend you're someone else (as in "Hallowe'en costume") or the clothing of a particular time and place (as in "the costume of 17th century Europe"). Both uses of this word are proper in this context.

So Charity, you just call your outfit whatever you like. Don't let anyone tell you what it is or isn't. It's YOURS above all.

Ah! En route! I hadn't thought of that...

I suppose you could wait until you're at the site to fill them with blackpowder and fuse them. And pack the blackpowder in the trunk and the innocent burned tennis balls in the back seat.

But please, don't do anything that would get you in trouble just because we've never had any trouble with them here! Stay safe, all!

You don't leave the nails IN the grenadoes, you understand, Foxe. They're just to make the hole for the powder and fuse.

Royaliste, if you are firing cannon and muskets at a reenactment, I doubt Homeland Security would swoop down on you for using grenadoes.

But obviously use your best judgement. And just to be certain, get permission of the event organizers before you use ANY weapon.

After a refresher course in grenado-making last night, I have to post a revised recipe:

- go to local second-hand sporting good store and get a bunch of used tennis balls (cheap!)

- drive a bunch of long nails through a 2x6 so that the nails stick up like spikes

- impale the aforementioned tennis balls on the nails

- spray with blow torch to vulcanize and burn off the fuzz

- spray with black charcoal grill paint for effect

- pull balls off board

- squeeze ball, forcing nail puncture to open slightly

- stick funnel into nail puncture

- pour in 200 grains of 3F

- while still squeezing ball, put fuse into nail puncture

- release ball; puncture hole will close firmly around fuse

- light and throw

The benefit of this recipe is that the fuses are held in by the nail puncture and therefore no glueing has to take place. It also makes the grenadoes fairly water-tight so you can drop them in a moat and still have them go off. It also makes them safe when spent as the grenado splits along the tennis ball seams and then lies flat. There are no balls or film canisters on the field to trip on. It's just a flat piece of rubber when you're done. Of course they're not reusable at all. But you can get used tennis balls for something like $2 for a bushel bag so there's not a great expense.

Have fun, guys!

Aw psshaw... I bet you say that to all the girls who could dye and embroider you a safflower-pink frockcoat with matching breeches and contrasting waistcoat with sleeves.

Besides, I have to have my own hand grenade recipe. God knows I can't cook!

We used to make them this way:

- take a tennis ball that's lost its bounce

- burn tennis ball gently with a torch

(this does three things: it makes it black, it removes the furry covering, and it vulcaizes the rubber, decreasing the ball's ability to bounce)

I think we put a mix of talc or baking powder into the balls with the grains of powder for smoke effect. We drilled right into the balls (no film canisters) and put the fuse in the same hole we used to fill them.

The tennis balls just pop open gently at the seams when they go off. I knew and ECW guy who had one go off in his bucket-topped boot and it didn't hurt him at all.

That is NOT to say that these are safe to play with!

Kass

The discussion of making safe grenades has been moved to its own thread so this thread can continue the discussion of historical grenades.

You can visit the new thread here: https://pyracy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3570

Your Empress,

Kass

How go the panniers, Jennifer?

I thought I'd swing by and see if you posted any progress.

My husband is working on a set of really wide panniers for me that I'm going to wear to the Colonial Ball on the 9th. Wish our architectural skills luck!

I'll probably post a webpage about it when I'm done.

Kass

I always say that if the costume doesn't include your head, the whole thing looks wrong. I have short hair and I've become a real master at using fake hair pieces and hats to make my hair look "period".

Ah yes... The end of October. I've entirely lost my brain and thought we were talkin about the end of this month. Sheesh!

Ovoid hoop petticotes were worn in this period. I think there's an extant one in Corsets and Crinolines or Cut of Women's Clothes or something. They're just like a modern or Civil War hoop skirt except squashed in the middle as you describe. So if the one you got works: HUZZAH! Less work for you!

Don't stress out over fitting the petticote over the panniers/hoop petticote. Put the panniers on your dress form and use it to make the adjustments to the hem. The pleating shouldn't change if it's a small pannier. I'm making a really wide pannier for the Ball on October 9th and that will need to have pleats that make the side pieces look like rounded corners. But with the dress you're making, it doesn't sound that severe. Just put the panniers on the dress form and make sure the hem of your petticote is even all the way around. It should dip down more at the sides to accommodate the panniers, but when you have the panniers on with it, the hem should appear even all around. It doesn't take any special adjustments at all.

I've never seen the pattern in Hunnisett's book, but do you have Waugh's "Corsets and Crinolines" by any chance? That's the pattern I used for my pocked hoops. It worked perfectly for me in that picture you saw.

I either wear pocket hoops or nothing under my polonaise gowns. To be blunt, I have an ample posterior and never felt a need for a bum roll. In fact one of the ladies at the house where I volunteer once asked me how to make "one of your bum rolls". When I told her I never wore them, she was really embarassed. I wasn't. We are what we are. And it's nice to think that my shape was so in fashion in the 18th century that women made accessories to make up for the fact that they didn't have bums like mine.

But all joking aside, bumrolls in the 18th century were subtle things and not everyone needed them. It's certainly not like the 17th and 19th centuries where bum rolls and bustles were so big, the women looked like a centaur or at least that she had someone hiding under the back of her dress. I would only use a bumroll if my polonaise didn't pouf out properly in the back when worn. Your butt should not look flat in a polonaise. But neither should it look like it's sticking out (this is something the Kyoto Costume Museum got wrong in their book "Revolution of Fashion" -- too much butt on the mannequins!).

My advice is to put on your polonaise over your petticotes and look at your backside in a mirror. Sometimes just adding another under-petticote will do the trick.

Kass

AkashaZuul,

Forgive me! I've been woefully busy and haven't been by the Pub. Blackjohn just shook my tree and woke me up to the fact that you might need my help. I hope it's not too late.

I would suggest going for the pocket panniers. They are dead easy to make and they will hold more weight than you imagine. At the top of this page My Webpage are two pictures of me in a blue polonaise gown and matching petticote. I'm wearing pocket panniers under this. They are made from 5oz natural linen with 1" twill tape for the boning channels. They are boned with 1/2" flat or half-round basket reed (you can get some here: http://www.grannd.com/corsetsupply.shtml#reeds )

They are very light and yet they hold up this heavy brocade quite well as you can see from the pictures.

If it's not too late, email me privately and I'll scan you the pattern for them. They're really easy to make and could easily be done in an hour and a half, I'm sure. Just make sure you hem the petticote over the panniers or else the petticote will sag in the center when you wear it.

Kass

Yeah, one wonders. Most of the early 17th century jackets I've studied have passementerie buttons -- that is buttons with silk floss or braid knotted or wrapped around them. In the 18th century I know we start getting fabric covered buttons. But you're right: it's kinda obscure whether Lady Fermanagh is talking about silk thread covered buttons or silk fabric covered buttons.

Wow! That sleeveless waistcoat DEFINITELY looks like it was made that way to conserve fine fabric. And it's so short. If it weren't for the buttons going all the way to the bottom and the straight fronts, I would have taken it for a mid-18thc waistcoat.

Is that pic from Kohler by any chance? It has that look about it.

Hello all.

I've been running into a problem on a 1680s waistcoat I'm working on, but I've noticed the problem on earlier clothing too and wanted to know if any of you had a better solution.

This 1680s waistcoat has buttonholes every inch all the way down the front edge. That's like 5 million buttonholes. Anyway, as I'm making the buttonholes, I'm noticing that the left side of the waistcoat is getting shorter. I realize that this is because of "take up" caused by making buttonholes. I've noticed it before. Thinner fabrics tend to take up more than thicker fabrics. And this waistcoat is silk outer and lining, interlined with linen.

My current solution is to cut the right side shorter to match the left when I'm done because attaching buttons on the right isn't going to cause any take-up at all.

Have any of you a better solution?