Page 1 of 4

Hurrah! From the ashes AIPON 2

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:28 am
by Alice the Huswyf
"Am I Period Or Not' , the not-later-than-tudor SCA show-and-tell costume site which collapsed under the weight of british re-enactor postings has been resurrected with a slightly different format. You can select by period and view up to C20th. Fantasy is also allowed.

Play nice and enjoy!


To to all of you who have dipped into wallets and doshed it out for the Women's Refuge in return for a sneaky peaky at a certain posting on the aforementioned:

"Hi Alice & co , Your haloes must be dazzling! Thank you for the gifts of

On behalf of the committee and especially me (not
good english!!) please convey our gratitude and thanks
to your very kind and generous friends for your support and
encouragement for us. "

The money we have raised here has been put with money raised through the Husbynd to redecorate and re-organise the Refuge to give more suitable accommodation and to move the office closer to the front door for better security. He and a group of friends have also gone in and painted at speed to cut down on costs of the refurbishment and to save loss of money during the refurbishment period when the Refuge cannot take on clients.

The fact that men have been involved in raising money both here on the forum and locally sends a very important message to women who have been mindwashed to believe that they are of no value by the men who claim to love them. I aimed to get a quick £50 and so far have a slower but better £140 to date. Thank you all again and again!

Thank you also to Annie the Pedlar who fleeced Kentwellies
Thank you to Tuppence who is planning phase 4

Donations are still very gratefully received!

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:17 am
by Tuppence
Love the "bliaut" that bears absolutely no resemblnce to a bliaut.

I know nobody's sure if / how they were worn, but even so!

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:23 am
by DeviantShrub
Oh goodie, I did so love this site! :mrgreen:

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:10 pm
by WorkMonkey
This smacks of English elitism......


I'll have to have a look.

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:16 pm
by Tuppence
and damn right too :lol:

there is actually some seroiusly nice kit on there - esp in the victorian section

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:53 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
SCA Tudor onwards is good - becuase they have a common national history of it. Late Tudor seems to be most popular. Some european medieval and before is good - however a lot of it can get rather 'interpretive'.

My favourite from the old site was a much-used pharse along the lines of 'there is a fit issue around the' (add portion of the body). In other words, 'I want to carp but can't fault it historically/technically so I'll have a pick'. When this was used about someone I had personally seen at quality events (no names, no packdrill) I did have to point out that this 'fit issue' actually had more to do with the difficulties of photographing someone riding side-saddle toward you when you are grounded and stationary. I stayed nice and factual and didn't go as far as adding 'my dear' - which would have been a case of british elitism. (Apart from knowing what I was talking about on that occassion.) :twisted:

There is enough space for everyone to play, and personally I LIKE looking at good fantasy costume. I just don't like it when the labelling is confused/ deliberately misleading. However, we all started somewhere and if cotton is a place to get the manufacture right FIRST time, so be it.

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:55 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
Afterthought: perhaps we should be posting the wangiest pictures of ourselves and competing to get the lowest marks and hardest slating? I never did post our reenactment of the Arnolfi wedding (in rayon).........

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:55 pm
by Alice the Huswyf

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:33 pm
by Tuppence
Oh, I agree entirely about the fantasy costume thing - good costume is just good costume.

The thing about the "bliaut" I mentioned is that - (ok, the fabric and colour are all wrong - but that's being picky) - it's actually quite a nice dress - so why call it a bliaut, when it's not one :evil:

Of course, that's assuming that the term bliaut did actually refer to the kind of outfit worn by the sainted queens at chartres...

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:58 pm
by Karen Larsdatter
Tuppence wrote:Of course, that's assuming that the term bliaut did actually refer to the kind of outfit worn by the sainted queens at chartres...
I seem to recall that Bumke (in Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages) explained that it was a term referring to a gown, especially a silk gown, the word deriving from a word for silk (or a fabric made of silk).

It seems to be one of many terms that has come to mean only a particular style to re-enactors, historians, etc., while the meaning may not have been as focused to those who used it in the Middle Ages.
Chrétien de Troyes in [i]Le Chevalier de la Charrete[/i], c. 1180 wrote:N'ot sus bliaut ne cote mise, / mes un cort mantel ot desus / d'escarlate et de cisemus.

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:59 pm
by guthrie
WorkMonkey wrote:This smacks of English elitism......
Thats British, you dolt!

Oh look, one of those photos looks rather familiar. I think that side angle shots are not flattering though....

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:16 pm
by ada-anne
On the bliaut, she says it's from a pattern in a book, not a very great book by the looks of it, so bliaut is probably just what the pattern was called. But she does seem to have learned more since making it, so give her credit. I really must bookmark that site.

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:12 am
by gregory23b
Interesting the grades go from


very good


so whatever you put up is good by default, great.

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:32 am
by Nigel
Karen a word of advice from one who knows

Dont try to cross swords with Tuppence on matters costuming, or in my case anything really colour of bathroom walls, bog seat etc etc

Because quite simply me dear you will lose

Yes Iam English and elitist

On the original site somebody criticised gregory for ahving a rusty helmet

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:09 pm
by Tuppence
Most people know that I tend to prefer to use modern terminology for things because it's so much less confusing (hence I say dress instead of kirtle, and corset instead of stayes, etc).

Using correct period terminology just gets too complicated (see the pourpoint debates).

I was using the term bliaut as it is used in modern times by most of the costume historians I have read, in reference to an as yet uncertain garment or outfit, which appears to be made up of a several layered items, some of which are pleated, and which can be seen in several variations on the queens at chartres, from the mid 12th century, and which may or may not have been actualy worn. This is generally accepted usage.

That the term bliaut originally came from a word meaning silk should be blatantly obvious to anyone knowing anything about costume. Whether the dress is silk (or appropraite silk) is another matter.

I did also say that it was quite a nice dress, when being less flippant. (I was being flippant and making a throwaway remark, by the way, since some appear to have missed the mild sarcasm.)

But as has been implied :lol: above, pre-tudor SCA (assuming this is SCA) can be extremely questionable. (And don't, please, get me started on anglo-norman kit in general, or we'll be here all day.)


PS - as the term bliaut is generally accepted to apply to a garment worn(?) by the Normans (possibly anglo-normans), I don't quite understand the reference to a book about Germany. As far as I'm aware, there wasn't a terribly big norman contingent in Germany.

And I do think I may know the book she got the pattern from - if I'm right - oh dear - that explains it all...

perhaps we should be posting the wangiest pictures of ourselves and competing to get the lowest marks and hardest slating?
damn :twisted: - I wash I had some photos of me in on the field dark red trainers at Hastings '95. (they needed water carriers, and they were the only shoes I had with me - surprizingly none of the blokes had size 4 shoes spare).

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:22 pm
by Karen Larsdatter
Nigel, kind of you to warn me :lol:

Last year was my 20th anniversary with historical re-creation; I still work with a local 18th century program a few times a year (which is where I started out in this hobby).

Lately, I spend most of my time with (gasp!) the SCA. :shock: (And no, I'm not going to argue with you over the quality of the majority of SCA clothing. There have been increasing efforts towards historical accuracy by some folks, though. In the U.S., there's not a whole lot of other options for civilian pre-17th century stuff.)

Most of my work, lately, is material culture overviews; I'm working on finishing up a limited-focus 14th century clothing concordance article this month (an expansion/better-researched version of this article). I'm interested in learning about what "they" would have called a garment, and what would have distinguished one clothing-term from another; and further, how the choice of one term (or one garment) reflects on a literary or historical figure.

I appreciate that it's a complicated thing, Tuppence ... but I'm interested in this sorta thing. I'm just a boring ol' etymology nerd, I guess. :roll: For the research project I'm working on right now, I'm trying to figure out precisely what Chaucer meant by a "vitremyte," or "haynselyns," etc.; I understand from the context as to what sort of person would have worn them, and on what general part of the anatomy -- but if you saw a fashionable fellow in England in 1380, what exactly would have made his haynselyns any different from everyone else's clothing?

When I'm doing the 18th century stuff, it's a lot easier for me to use the correct term to describe what I'm wearing within the context of the 18th century portrayal (because of the records that we have for those sorts of things). If someone asks me what the heck I was trying to do with a clothing project, I can describe it in terms of the artifacts that inspired it ... but if I'm shooting for a first-person portrayal, than referring to it in terms of a series of items that a mid-14th century woman would never have seen all of (Margaret Braunche's memorial brass, a manuscript of the Romance of Alexander, etc.) just doesn't make sense.

I think you might find Bumke's work interesting. The Germans, at that point, were adopting not only the "courtly" styles from France, but the garment-terms as well. It's not a quick read, but it does analyze a lot of 12th/13th century material culture from the context of literature and the historical records. I haven't seen anything nearly as in-depth for the same material for the Anglo-Normans or the Normans. Not a quick book to flip through, though.

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:43 pm
by gregory23b

"On the original site somebody criticised gregory for ahving a rusty helmet"

But criticism from the ignorant is not that big a deal, although I recall I was none too pleased at the time. ;-)

However I got my own back with some surreal insertions, mainly of Scraggles but with completely unrelated text.

Karen is a mine of info and has great resources and compiled huge volumes of reference material, she manages to keep the Armour Archive lot grounded when they take flghts of fancy.

Why do you do SCA karen?

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:09 pm
by Nigel

20years well not bad but not impressed as a mere strippling compared to me coming up to my 30th and I am only 39.

Well the SCA what can I say apart from the fact that everything I have seen on a us sitte has been utter toss. But I am open minded so Iam looking forward to a couple of hours at home browsing the site hoping to be wrong .

I cannot understand why when there are immaculate ACW and rev war units that the interpration of European culture has to be so wrong.Frankly I have seen some stuff clainming to be accure which i find insulting as its so wrong.

I would question the relevance of anything German to Anglo Norman culture at all So really not that interested.

As to wondering about stuff well I dont I wear it I hit folks and thats that I dont try naval gazing or weird nerdiness I leave that to those who obviousley ahve more timne than me.

I suppose coming from where I do and with my upbringing Iam not that interested in what folks though rather than in what they did.


Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:27 pm
by Karen Larsdatter
gregory23b wrote:Karen is a mine of info and has great resources and compiled huge volumes of reference material, she manages to keep the Armour Archive lot grounded when they take flghts of fancy.

Why do you do SCA karen?
Aww, that's awfully sweet of you, Gregory. :oops: :)

I started doing SCA because when I went away to a university in southern California, I wanted to hang out socially with the same kind of people I'd worked with at the 18th century re-creation site; but, being southern California, there weren't any such organizations (at least, within walking distance of the campus). The SCA filled that social niche for me.

When I moved back here, I wasn't originally able to put much of a time commitment into leaping back into the 18th century stuff, so I stuck with the SCA for being a fun little hobby for when I had time for it; out here, there are local events just about every weekend. And then I met a sweet fella at a fighter practice, and we dated for about a year, and we fell in luuuuuv, and we got married, and now we live happily ever. :lol:

Except ... he doesn't do 18th century. And most of our friends do SCA. So while I do about three 18th century events per year now, I do more SCA stuff, because there's more to do.

There aren't many civilian-oriented living history groups for the 14th and 15th centuries here. If I wanted to be a woman affiliated with a late medieval military encampment, then, yippee, I'm, like, in the geographic center of that sort of activity in the U.S.

But I'm just ... not interested in being a female attached to a late medieval military encampment.

I like being able to dress up in a fancy historically-inspired dress at one event (because I'm a girl and I like playing dress-up), and then go for something more accurate-but-working-class at the next event (because it'd be more appropriate for the tasks I expect to work on that day). I like being able to research stuff, and to inspire other people to make beautiful things (which, to some extent, explains my current role as "Kingdom Minister of Arts & Sciences").

So I guess that explains how I started in the SCA, and why I'm still here.

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:33 pm
by Karen Larsdatter
Nigel wrote:20years well not bad but not impressed as a mere strippling compared to me coming up to my 30th and I am only 39.
Well, huh. And me being an elderly and wizened crone at 31 years of age. :P

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:39 pm
by gregory23b
Well I was impressed that whatever the subject on the AA somehow you would manage to point to a collation of images to look at.

I wouldn't mind a full link set if that is ok, comes in handy. The medieval boxes and chest links were great as it happens.

I wont comment on clothing in general as I do mid to late 15th and am a bit rusty in places as it is, I will leave that to you guys.

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:18 pm
by Karen Larsdatter
Well, as Nigel says, I obviously have a lot of time for omphaloskepsis. :wink: The list of all of the material culture linkspages I've done is at -- but that doesn't include some of the not-quite-ready pages that just don't have much stuff on 'em yet, like the tailors, seamstresses, & sewing tools, or the late medieval women's smocks. (Will probably start developing a new page on cooks & kitchens in the near future, too.)

I also admin for ... so that's kind of the "full link set," and where I tend to put interesting things that nobody's asking about now but might be useful in the future. :)

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:50 pm
by Nigel
Karen why dont you speak English

I understand what you are saying (as a will a lot of us here having benefitted from a certain type of education) and frankly its a trait I despise and one I ahve noted amongst a certain type of person. So please stop before I express my self out of turn.

At the moment you are picking the wrong chap to poke at believe me.If you read the threads here you would understand why


Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:07 pm
by Kate Tiler

I'm gonna reach for the fairy dust if I can remember where I put it!!!

Nigel I know you've had a stressful few days but take it down a notch please, there's no need for that tone in the costume area towards a guest who probably has more in common interests with Debs & the others here than most of us.

try & remember we all have more in common here than we do with the rest of the population 'out there' & be kind, please.

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:09 pm
by JC Milwr
Alice the Huswyf wrote:Afterthought: perhaps we should be posting the wangiest pictures of ourselves and competing to get the lowest marks and hardest slating? I never did post our reenactment of the Arnolfi wedding (in rayon).........
Unfortunately ;) there are no photos of me in my leggings, cotton tabard and 80's boots, how sad!javascript:emoticon(':oops:')

Alice, go on, show us the Arnolfini rig, go-on go-on go-on :)

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:22 pm
by gregory23b
Well I am not afraid.

the one with the really good (ahem) flourescent arrows and demob haircut was about 1988 Tiffin Girl's School I think.

The other was at Ludlow 89, a really good event, the jack whilst not exactly a masterpiece of tailoring had 20 odd layers of drill with stuffing, but channelled. You couldn't really feel an arrow shot. But tailoring it certainly was not. The back looks and felt like a bed headboard.

And you should have seen my efforts at bootmaking, ouch the tacks wore holes in my feet, did I care, did I hell.

Ah two stone lighter...

Oh and some of you might recognise the liveries, still doing the rounds oddly enough, or at least exact copies.

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:45 am
by Alice the Huswyf
NAAAAAAH! Let me tell you whippersnappers (39 - pah!) that that is not WANG. You are wearing HOSE. Same hat, though.

We are talking glasses!

We are talking acrylic fun fur in mustard!

We are talking trousers!

We are talking half-dropped-out permed hair cascading over the shoulders from underneath the hennin!

And the other player promised Hessian-wrapped trainers and chickened out, so I don't go first any more (too much to lose). I may carry a small effigy at the market where a donation to the local Women's refuge gets you a long, hard stare..........

Actually, if you send me cheques made out to the Warwickshire Women's Refuge I WILL post it on AIPON2 and give you the page ref.

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:26 am
by Nigel

To you who I know and think is fab I will withdraw from this.I aplogise if I have upset you

BUT I will say Karen is typical of the pseudo american intelectual snobbery which I have had a belly full. I dont need to use classical languages to pretend I am educated (because as everybody knows my school was a dump).

That is the important differance between her and Debs in my opinion.

Having had alook at the site all I can see is a load of bitchy mainly Americans offering nothing constructive at all


Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:07 am
by gregory23b
Alice, it was not the worst.

My bracer is Quicks.

The hat is not the same one as it happens, that was my first floppy red hat, without dangly bits.

The shoes were maroon suede, badly made.

I had single points tying my arms to my doublet.

My arrows are poop.

Bow is nonsense.

I had cast iron Ikea-likie pots and really dodgy ceramics

However all of our armour was Emrys (Nigel Clough as we knew him)

Prior to all that drawstring hose and rubbish doublet, prior to that jogging bottoms and pixie boots from BHS.

Anyway Chanel, the chap on the right of me is wearing specs, I don't think we knew any better then.

Well it makes me cringe, but had happy times though.

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:39 pm
by Kate Tiler
Jorge - it's a good job I didn't meet you earlier, I'd have eaten you!

Nigel :) thanks :)