Re-enactorisms

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Postby zauberdachs » Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:50 pm

Fox wrote:Do you really see that anymore? It's been a while since I've seen a WotR re-enactor with a horn.

Probably too many pottery drinking vessels though, not enough wooden drinking bowls.... (old disproportionally too many/too few problem)


Good point, to be honest I've only really got Tewkes as my basis of comparison and while I saw a few this year it's probably not representative.

Fox wrote:We looked at this a lot before , and you do see very occasional examples in illustrations even quite a way into the 15thC.
There are way too many though, and not enough full length split hoes (almost none in fact, everyone seems to go for full joined hose instead).
Again its the too many/too few thing.

I've corrected my wardrobe this year to exchange joined hose to full split hoes for most occasions.


Good call, I'm getting new joined hose made and then I'm going to make my old joined hose into split. I don't think I've seen anyone with proper 15th century split hose.



User avatar
Dave B
Post Knight
Posts: 1737
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Cheshire
Contact:

Postby Dave B » Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:50 pm

zauberdachs wrote:Split hose in the earlier style (i.e. tie at the front and don't reach all the way up to the hips/waist)


Guilty. I just find them more comfortable to be active/working in, especialy in the heat. I know its a rubbish excuse and will get some higher legged split hose this winter.

{grovels}


Find time in every day to look at your life and say; 'Well, it could be worse'

Kurt's uncle Bob.

User avatar
Glorfindle
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:07 pm
Location: Coalville, Leicestershire
Contact:

Postby Glorfindle » Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:05 pm

Jim Smith wrote:I've certainly noticed far more of them on the field these past few years. Allegedly the barbute was the inspiration for the Gondorian infantry helmet seen in 'Lord of the Rings' - although I'm not sure if that is the reason for their growing popularity...

Mind you, the next kid ho asks me if I fought at Minas Tirith is going to be in trouble. :twisted:


I dont know why, but kids dont tend to talk to me, most infact then to go crying to there mums when they get near... Not sure why :twisted:

Jim wrote:
Ian Macintyre wrote:I used one in my last year of re-enactment as they gave better facial protection for relative visibility than any other helmet. Simple as that.


Funnily enough those are the exact reasons my first helmet was also a Barbute.


Ditto, though i traded some vision for more protection, but i still feel i see more of the field then most other helm for the amount of protection offered, though i will have to confirm that later when i get my new one.

Dave B wrote:
zauberdachs wrote:Split hose in the earlier style (i.e. tie at the front and don't reach all the way up to the hips/waist)


Guilty. I just find them more comfortable to be active/working in, especialy in the heat. I know its a rubbish excuse and will get some higher legged split hose this winter.

{grovels}


Next season i intend to find some high ones too... Dont want to be laughed at for waring granddads hose now do i :roll: though i must say my full ones are fantastic, only problem is two have finally given up the ghost after about 10yrs service (What a result) and my new ones dont have a gusset so no fighting in them, or kneeling for that matter as they split right across the seams (Found that out at tewks on the sat)++


It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people
Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Postby zauberdachs » Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:12 pm

Dave B wrote:{grovels}


:lol:

Tell you what, once I've done/made half the amazing things you've done/made then we'll see about grovelling...



User avatar
Fox
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:27 pm
Location: Cheshire

Postby Fox » Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:53 pm

zauberdachs wrote:I don't think I've seen anyone with proper 15th century split hose.


Me either, except mine obviously.
They're probably out there, but not nearly enough, which is why I didn't even realise I should be wearing them until relatively recently.

In the last year or so I've started looking at illustrations with much more awareness of date and geography, mostly thanks to Jorge.



User avatar
Jim Smith
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent
Contact:

Postby Jim Smith » Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:52 pm

Could someone please clarify the difference between full length and short length split hose - 'cos quite frankly this is news to me. My understanding was that split hose were split hose - end of.

I had always understood fully joined hose to have appeared during the course of the C15 - possibly in conjunction with or as a result of doublet skirts becoming shorter. Generally, split leg hose remained for the less wealthy, labourers and craftspeople. For my part, as someone who portrays a middle-ranking household retainer, I had always assumed fully joined hose to be more appropriate.

Or is it that people are wearing split hose of an earlier style?
Last edited by Jim Smith on Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.


"I hold it to be of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and
insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any
way diminishes the strength of the enemy." Niccolo Machiavelli

User avatar
Jenn
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby Jenn » Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:53 pm

i refer to my post about who and when you are..
apart from in the beer tent (dave)
Not wearing enough clothes.. women should be wearing at least two layers and probably a jacket
No walking around in underwear - gentlemen unless you are actually a potboy or actually working in the fields
Oh that doesn't include the smock/shirt obviously



User avatar
Jim Smith
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent
Contact:

Postby Jim Smith » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:03 pm

With regard to things hanging off belts - yes, it's a problem. The only exception might be craftspeople at work.

From past experience, these 'too much of one thing/too little of another' arguments are very tricky to put across to your group in a way that will make them want to change.

My personal re-enactorism hate - too many women in kirtles with no gown or over-kirtle.


"I hold it to be of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and

insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any

way diminishes the strength of the enemy." Niccolo Machiavelli

User avatar
Jim Smith
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent
Contact:

Postby Jim Smith » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:09 pm

Jenn wrote:i refer to my post about who and when you are..
apart from in the beer tent (dave)
Not wearing enough clothes.. women should be wearing at least two layers and probably a jacket
No walking around in underwear - gentlemen unless you are actually a potboy or actually working in the fields
Oh that doesn't include the smock/shirt obviously


What are you defining as 'underwear' Jenn? Strictly speaking this applies to the doublet as well surely? I find myself wondering about this. As a cook, I routinely work in shirt and hose. I refuse to get my doublet messy needlessly and I don't believe my C15 counterpart would have done so willingly either.


"I hold it to be of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and

insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any

way diminishes the strength of the enemy." Niccolo Machiavelli

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Postby zauberdachs » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:24 pm

Jim Smith wrote:Or is it that people are wearing split hose of an earlier style?


The majority of split hose for the 15th century should come all the way to the waist/hips and fasten all the way round your waist to the doublet. You can see an image in the fed guidelines or medieval tailors assistant I think.

The re-enactorism is people who wear hose of the sort you can see clearly in the mac bible that comes to mid thigh and fastens at the front only to the braies.



User avatar
Jim Smith
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent
Contact:

Postby Jim Smith » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:32 pm

zauberdachs wrote:
Jim Smith wrote:Or is it that people are wearing split hose of an earlier style?


The majority of split hose for the 15th century should come all the way to the waist/hips and fasten all the way round your waist to the doublet. You can see an image in the fed guidelines or medieval tailors assistant I think.

The re-enactorism is people who wear hose of the sort you can see clearly in the mac bible that comes to mid thigh and fastens at the front only to the braies.


Thanks for that - from what you're saying our split leg hose seem OK. :D


"I hold it to be of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and

insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any

way diminishes the strength of the enemy." Niccolo Machiavelli

User avatar
gregory23b
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Gyppeswyk, Suffolk

Postby gregory23b » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:53 pm

Ahem, 'open' hose or to use our reenactment vernacular, 'split hose' are for the 15thc just like closed hose in that they meet at the back and are quite near each other at the front, earlier, say 14thc and early 15thc can be more like th chausses. What you do see at WOTR is the early style, ie the hose coming to a point at the top, this is a much earlier (the odd excption ,see Catherine of Cleves Book of Hours), not only that but you seem pointed to belts, that is another thing altogether though.

hit the hip and meet at the back and front, for work, you can undo the back and have hanging, or rolled down.

Zauber is on the money basically.

I do wait for the old 'but I have mine for comfort', answer, hose are meant to be comfortable, if they are not then the following might be applicable:

badly made hose

improper use, eg tight hose being used done up whilst runnign around like a loon.


Jim

"What are you defining as 'underwear' Jenn? Strictly speaking this applies to the doublet as well surely? I find myself wondering about this. As a cook, I routinely work in shirt and hose. I refuse to get my doublet messy needlessly and I don't believe my C15 counterpart would have done so willingly either."


Depends, pants and shirt are typically the underwear, doublets are the foundation garment, taken later in time, a man in waistcoat was not undressed, nor was he partially dressed, but in shirts, unless in a decent context was considered undressed, tee shirts carry that over in some quarters. The Tres Riche heurres show men and women in their underwear whilst working in fields, I suspect that once on their way through town that they would at least put on their next layers, for decency's sake.

As for your doublet, well, you can use an apron mate or don't splash the food around so much ;-)


middle english dictionary

Isabela on G23b "...somehow more approachable in real life"

http://medievalcolours.blogspot.com

"I know my place." Alice the Huswyf

User avatar
Jenn
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby Jenn » Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:41 pm

underwear - anything less than a doublet (man)
only one layer over the smock for a woman
I'm with Jorge on that - but it also depends on who you are
If you're the Cook - then your doublet should be on because if there is a younger man/boy/woman to do the lifting/carrying/chopping for you(or at at least appear to be doing so) then they should be. But you should be wearing an apron as well because your 15th cent counterpart wouldn't have spoiled his doublet but since status was everything neither would he wished to have mistaken for the potboy.
It's men walking around in just braies, shirts - when with exception of harvesters in the fields it is very unlikely that men would have done so.



User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Postby zauberdachs » Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:45 pm

gregory23b wrote:Zauber is on the money basically.


8)



Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:55 pm

None of the above are "re-enactorisms" in my opinion. To me a re-enactorism is something that is being fed to the public as truth when it is not. I've never been asked about dyes, or the cut of my hose. What bugs me are things being communicated, normally by the commentator, such as "Only foreignors used handguns and crossbows therefore any handgunner/crossbowman is a merc from across the seas." Oh I also get annoyed at other re-enactors accepting fully the notion that there were bands of German heretics wandering through WOTR era England shouting about Huss (most persecuted minorites survive by keeping very quiet about such things in my experience) but are completly incredulous about my portraying an italian dispite there being much, much more evidence for there being an italian precence in the country. Makes me grumpy that one.


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

User avatar
Jim Smith
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent
Contact:

Postby Jim Smith » Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:01 pm

Jenn wrote:underwear - anything less than a doublet (man)
only one layer over the smock for a woman
I'm with Jorge on that - but it also depends on who you are
If you're the Cook - then your doublet should be on because if there is a younger man/boy/woman to do the lifting/carrying/chopping for you(or at at least appear to be doing so) then they should be. But you should be wearing an apron as well because your 15th cent counterpart wouldn't have spoiled his doublet but since status was everything neither would he wished to have mistaken for the potboy.
It's men walking around in just braies, shirts - when with exception of harvesters in the fields it is very unlikely that men would have done so.


Sorry Jenn, but when you're cooking for 12 people, the majority of whom are busy with their own displays and crafts, you end up having to do most of the lifting, chopping etc yourself. the only thing I don't do, by group tradition, is the washing up.
I'm a bit confused about your interpretation of the C15 cook's apron. It was always my understanding that this did not cover the chest and was basically a hemmed piece of linen tucked into the waistband of the hose. That I do have. A few references;

http://expositions.bnf.fr/gastro/grands/096.htm

http://expositions.bnf.fr/gastro/grands/087.htm

http://ark.bnf.fr/ConsulterElementNum?O ... 91&Param=C

http://ark.bnf.fr/ConsulterElementNum?O ... 99&Param=C

By contrast, the aprons worn by say carpenters did cover the chest.
And yes, I know the people are depicted as wearing their doublets. I quite simply choose not to get mine filthy and if that's not entirely authentic I guess i can live with that. :wink:

BTW, is 'potboy' a medieval term? Websters on-line thinks differently

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potboy

- but I'm ready to be corrected on that.


"I hold it to be of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and

insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any

way diminishes the strength of the enemy." Niccolo Machiavelli

the real lord duvet

Postby the real lord duvet » Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:19 pm

we prefer mischievious misinformation in response to stupid MOPs questions.

only rich people had children as there is no pictorial evidence of poor people's children
poor people had children because they couldn't afford duck at christmas
everyone was vegetarian, because they hadn't invented meat until the tudor period.
all british soldiers were very fat - only the fattest could join the paras as they were too lazy to walk into battle.
the german paras were all close to pensionable age too.

all scottish people wore kilts even back in the ice age where the kilts were woven from dinosaur hooves.



User avatar
Jim Smith
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent
Contact:

Postby Jim Smith » Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:00 am

the real lord duvet wrote:we prefer mischievious misinformation in response to stupid MOPs questions.

only rich people had children as there is no pictorial evidence of poor people's children
poor people had children because they couldn't afford duck at christmas
everyone was vegetarian, because they hadn't invented meat until the tudor period.
all british soldiers were very fat - only the fattest could join the paras as they were too lazy to walk into battle.
the german paras were all close to pensionable age too.

all scottish people wore kilts even back in the ice age where the kilts were woven from dinosaur hooves.


:twisted: There's also: 'Of course they all lived in tents in those days - York Minster was originally built from matchsticks.'


"I hold it to be of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and

insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any

way diminishes the strength of the enemy." Niccolo Machiavelli

User avatar
craig1459
Post Centurion
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Postby craig1459 » Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:03 am

Ian Macintyre wrote:
Jim Smith wrote:I've certainly noticed far more of them on the field these past few years. Allegedly the barbute was the inspiration for the Gondorian infantry helmet seen in 'Lord of the Rings' - although I'm not sure if that is the reason for their growing popularity...

I used one in my last year of re-enactment as they gave better facial protection for relative visibility than any other helmet. Simple as that.
Indeed - we have one for that purpose too - can't say I've actually seen one in my research though :?


die Behmen hinder iren bafosen ... stunden vest wie die mauren

User avatar
Jim Smith
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent
Contact:

Postby Jim Smith » Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:18 am

Marcus Woodhouse wrote:None of the above are "re-enactorisms" in my opinion. To me a re-enactorism is something that is being fed to the public as truth when it is not. I've never been asked about dyes, or the cut of my hose. What bugs me are things being communicated, normally by the commentator, such as "Only foreignors used handguns and crossbows therefore any handgunner/crossbowman is a merc from across the seas." Oh I also get annoyed at other re-enactors accepting fully the notion that there were bands of German heretics wandering through WOTR era England shouting about Huss (most persecuted minorites survive by keeping very quiet about such things in my experience) but are completly incredulous about my portraying an italian dispite there being much, much more evidence for there being an italian precence in the country. Makes me grumpy that one.


For what it's worth I agree with your sentiments Marcus - although I think we've been approaching 're-enactorism' from the perspective of what we wear, rather than what we say or the overall impression we attempt to give. As regards the latter, I've always had big problems with the idea of the bill-block. Leaving aside the Burgundian army of the 1470's, I don't believe that English troops of the period fought in quite such a regimented fashion. However, safety concerns dictate this formation at military re-enactments and it's become an accepted part of re-enactment orthodoxy.


"I hold it to be of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and

insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any

way diminishes the strength of the enemy." Niccolo Machiavelli

User avatar
Laffin Jon Terris
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:32 am
Contact:

Postby Laffin Jon Terris » Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:51 am

Jim Smith wrote:
And yes, I know the people are depicted as wearing their doublets. I quite simply choose not to get mine filthy and if that's not entirely authentic I guess i can live with that. :wink:

BTW, is 'potboy' a medieval term? Websters on-line thinks differently

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potboy

- but I'm ready to be corrected on that.


No offence, Mr Smith but that statement is the closest example to my idea of a re-enactorism I've ever seen in type.

"I know its not right but I'm not going to bother any further- you, on the other hand are WRONG and here's my evidence." :D


Knowing is only half the battle.
Image

User avatar
Jenn
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby Jenn » Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:41 am

Re-enactorism - I took it be something that we showing or telling gave the impression to the public was common/happened when the evidence appears to suggest it doesn't.
Potboy - nope you're right I simply couldn't think of an easily understood medieval term off the top my head..spitboy? Er
My original point was that most re-enactors - aren't wearing enough clothes. We have got used to working in far fewer clothes than they did (and even our grandparents did. My grandfather always did the gardening in a tweed jacket and tie for example). When I am cooking I find an apron protects me against most of the mess since it's the pots that tend to be dirty and lifting them on and off the fire that creates most of the mess ..and I have lots of aprons.(or do you do a particularly immersive form of cooking??).
The same applies to anyone doing any of the trades who would want to show their status. There are 16th cent pictures of gardeners working in the height of fashon. I think we forget how important status was to them and their clothes were one of the key ways of showing it. (That after all is what the sumpturary laws are about and why people broke them all the time).



User avatar
gregory23b
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Gyppeswyk, Suffolk

Postby gregory23b » Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:55 am

To me reenactorisms are:

blatant mythology and fabrication of 'facts', eg superhuman archers, they all died at 35 years old etc, WOTR being a civil war and laying waste to the country, when the country hardly noticed the events.

dodgy interpretations of kit, and saying interpretation is being generous as that implies some level of consideration before action, christmas tree belts, hagstones etc

They both are self-feeding, it then becomes 'fact' because many other people end up doing it. By then the general cry of 'it is only a hobby' gets trotted out.

Some of the above also comes from not very good historians as well, it is not all reenactor generated.


middle english dictionary

Isabela on G23b "...somehow more approachable in real life"

http://medievalcolours.blogspot.com

"I know my place." Alice the Huswyf

Mad Mab
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:32 am
Location: I'm not sure. They won't let me out!
Contact:

Postby Mad Mab » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:20 am

Jenn wrote:Re-enactorism - I took it be something that we showing or telling gave the impression to the public was common/happened when the evidence appears to suggest it doesn't.
Potboy - nope you're right I simply couldn't think of an easily understood medieval term off the top my head..spitboy? Er
My original point was that most re-enactors - aren't wearing enough clothes. We have got used to working in far fewer clothes than they did (and even our grandparents did. My grandfather always did the gardening in a tweed jacket and tie for example). When I am cooking I find an apron protects me against most of the mess since it's the pots that tend to be dirty and lifting them on and off the fire that creates most of the mess ..and I have lots of aprons.(or do you do a particularly immersive form of cooking??).
The same applies to anyone doing any of the trades who would want to show their status. There are 16th cent pictures of gardeners working in the height of fashon. I think we forget how important status was to them and their clothes were one of the key ways of showing it. (That after all is what the sumpturary laws are about and why people broke them all the time).


I agree with you about the lack of layers. Problem is, is they were entering (or possibly fully in, little shaky on that one) the little ice age which froze the Thames and whatnot. Temperatures being a little warmer in our day and age can make it a little uncomfortable to wear the same amount of layers today (Of course, sometimes, especially up here, layers are a godsend). I try to wear a surcote or overkirtle (am currently working on such for my newly made kit) at Livinghistory events, but, being unusually susceptible to the heat (to the point where I can get heat stroke in the winter. In Northumberland :shock: ) I will reduce to just a kirtle over a shift for, say, going around the market at Tewkesbury or watercarrying, just cause I'm no use to anybody unconsious on the floor :oops: I'll usually gabble away to anyone who'll listen about me working and if I were to go out, how I'd put on all these layers but I know it's not ideal :oops:


Have broom, will travel!
The Company of St Margaret
The Borderers

User avatar
Fox
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:27 pm
Location: Cheshire

Postby Fox » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:36 am

I think on top that we have to consider is that illustrations represent life all year round, and also over represents some aspects of life.

Therefore pictures, particularly of women, working on hot day are less common.

Conversely, we have a medieval life centred strongly around summertime and daytime.

I'm not convinced that there is a prudishness about what clothes people displayed; I think its as big a myth as the immodesty of having your head uncovered (there are other reasons for head covering).

But it seems to me that fashion and practicality are both strong drivers in medieval costume.

So that raises two questions for me:
(1) When re-enactors want to be cooler, are they (a) removing the correct layers and (b) using the correct materials.
(2) When re-enactors want to be warmer do they add the correct layers. I'm thinking particularly of adding a cloak, rather than [in the case of women] an over kertle/gown.

I'm not sure I know the answer to (1); but like all these things I'm working on it.



User avatar
Jim
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:30 am
Location: Basingstoke, Hants
Contact:

Postby Jim » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:44 am

What I tend to do is if I get too hot, I undo the front of my doublet and take my arms out of the sleeves, letting it hang down behind me, held in place by my belt. I am fairly sure this is authentic, I seem to remember seeing medieval pictures of people doing just that while working. Perhaps this would be a good compromise for the chaps. The doublet still holds your hose up (you DO all point your hose to your doublet, don't you, eh? :wink: ), it's there when you need it and you get to cool down a bit, whilst still, technically, wearing your doublet.


www.cybalism.org - The new view of the Universal Truth

User avatar
Dave B
Post Knight
Posts: 1737
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Cheshire
Contact:

Postby Dave B » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:44 am

I was just musing on the fact that I don't believe that there are any pictures in existance of my grandfather without a jacket (or smart cardigan) and tie. Yet I remember him more often wearing rolled up shirtsleeves.


Find time in every day to look at your life and say; 'Well, it could be worse'



Kurt's uncle Bob.

User avatar
Fox
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:27 pm
Location: Cheshire

Postby Fox » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:58 am

Dave B wrote:I was just musing on the fact that I don't believe that there are any pictures in existance of my grandfather without a jacket (or smart cardigan) and tie. Yet I remember him more often wearing rolled up shirtsleeves.


Very much my point. Thank you, Dave



User avatar
Zachos
Posts: 424
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:34 pm

Postby Zachos » Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:00 pm

Jim wrote:What I tend to do is if I get too hot, I undo the front of my doublet and take my arms out of the sleeves, letting it hang down behind me, held in place by my belt. I am fairly sure this is authentic, I seem to remember seeing medieval pictures of people doing just that while working. Perhaps this would be a good compromise for the chaps. The doublet still holds your hose up (you DO all point your hose to your doublet, don't you, eh? :wink: ), it's there when you need it and you get to cool down a bit, whilst still, technically, wearing your doublet.


I believe if your doublet is correctly fitted then all you need do is leave the bottom ties done up, and it will hold it around the waist with no need for a belt.


Slowly realizing just how far is still to go.

User avatar
Dave B
Post Knight
Posts: 1737
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Cheshire
Contact:

Postby Dave B » Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:08 pm

Zachos wrote: and it will hold it around the waist with no need for a belt.


But then what will he hang his pouch, dagger, set of keys, pewter mug, purse and rabbits foot from?


Find time in every day to look at your life and say; 'Well, it could be worse'



Kurt's uncle Bob.


Return to “1100-1500”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests