When I first viewed this garment I also thought it more likely to lace at the front , however I have not had the benefit of sitting alone with it for hours on end (let alone taking it apart !).behanner wrote:Whoever wrote that should be sacked. Portaits show that most gowns and doublets for that matter opened in the front. There are a variety of closures that hints can be seen of. Several costumers have seriously questioned the idea of this garment being closed in the back and without further evidence then what is currently availible openly I'd have to agree.Friesian wrote:
garment waws closed at the back with lacing. The original stitched eyelets have been preserved."
"It is therefore probably an undergarment, over which a second, sleeveless coat was worn. Long sleeved red undercoats of this type are found, for example, in miniatures for the epic of Girart de Roussillon (Vienna, Osterreichische National bibliothek, Cod. 2549, f.9v)."
As I said previously there is nothing to prevent points being attatched inside a garment allowing an outer doublet ( or tunic if you deem the word doublet inapropriate) to be worn over .
The determination of it being an undergarment would be based on whether or not it has a place to point hose on the inside. While it could I doubt it.
The fact that they reference Cod. 2549 shows that they aren't experts in costume or art history. Cod. 2549 is dated before 1450, so like 20-30 years before the garment in question. With the number of manuscripts made for the Burgundian court in that period its a horrible choice to look at.
It is very well know for this image.
and here is another one from it.
Just because someone says it is something and they are called an expert doesn't make it so.
Are there sleeveless garments that can be worn over that garment or a doublet or other kinds of gowns, yes but they have absolutely nothing to do with the image at the begining of this thread.
I have been trying (unsuccesfully ) to upload a manuscript held in Musse Conde -Chantilly that shows a hunting scene with a riders gown open over the saddle at the back .This gown also seems to have a low collar at the back compared to the front as the garment in question . The image is found on page 121 of 'Medieval Panorama ' edited by Robert Bartlett 2001 .I am therefore prepared to give Karen Christee & JohanPietsch the benefit of the doubt rather than sacking them
As for determination of whether its an undergarment or not , how on earth do point holes become wholey relevant ? It COULD be worn over a doublet/porpoint to lace the hose but under another doublet/tunic ? ...
I agree that its unwise to accept all 'expert' views blindly , but on this occasion I tend to except their expaination of the garment over yours , untill further research proves otherwise .