Page 4 of 5

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:55 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
That would be an early '90's monsoon smock, then......are we looking at Ebay? And otherwise she is getting there (apart from the vertical bust darts and some of her proportions. Have you seen the cross-over bodice one that they have re-sized by spreading the bodice apart. It no longer crosses but wholly plunges.......




Took delivery of embroidered netting today.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:20 am
by Quayn
gregory23b wrote:It doesn't matter, it is only a hobby.
I know this is probably sarcasm but who knows. I honestly believed this until a few years ago. Won't go into my rant where i compare this to other hobbies as there's no space but yes it irks me now when people say it in reply to why are you not doing it right.
lucy the tudor wrote:- sullen reenactors just make you wonder why they bother. If I didn't enjoy the job, I'd do something else! :wink:
Careful there Lucy, my dear. That's me you're talking about. :lol:
Don't think it's half as bad as people who hate the public. yes I am sullen, I look like some who lost a fiver and found.... his wife was bought with it. But put me in front of people talking about anything and I'll keep them happy despite my...'sullen' face.


It's a hierachy in the end. The bottom of the barrel with bare heads and DM footwear are the worst offenders so take the brunt of the finger pointing. eliminate them (take that in whatever context you wish) and you move to the next lot. obviously visable machine stiching. again elimination. you then have modern dyed wools and clothing 30 years either side of the exact date you're on. next you get rid of all remaining people without hand woven hand dyed hand embroided et al clothing and you do end up with the end of it all being two people in a field on their own arguing the correct week in a particular year for the style of weave for each other's interlining.

I know that's taking it too far but it is there. If everyone were to have a line drawn right now marking a bare minimum standard and through this season everyone stuck to it. you'd be back here complaining about that minimum. because it's not the conflict of the authenticy merely whatever's worst gets noticed.

Personally i don't think it's a bad idea. I've spoken to so many people who do have the means and the interest to improve. but why bother. their kit is x times better than the abre minimum so why spend the money.

Q.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:18 am
by Alice the Huswyf
Quayn-luvvie - bet I can look more sullen without trying! I have to grimace like a fool and chatter like a rabid squirrel or people keep asking me 'if I'm alright'. I have officially aged past sullen and strict to scarey.......having been informed by young members of another group that I "don't look half as scarey out of kit". Have you seen me in my camping pyjamas?

This hobby is a broad church and everyone has to start somewhere. It does get my goat sometimes that enthusiasts who honestly believe that they are 'authentic' and a well-researched group can mutually ruin the look of each other's camp becuase the organisers can't tell the difference and have put them side by side. But if their enthusiasm is re-infused into the world-weary while they realise that you don't have to put out everything that the group owns to make a good display...............

I would also like to point out that, after long debate with my electrician, re-enactors and practical steam enthusiasts may or may not outrank each other as sad anoraks but we can always look down on the trainspotters. The trainspotters meanwhile always have the bus-spotters.........but at least we are all safe from the ninja underworld of church flower arrangers .

Come and have a little lie down on the parlour sofa, Q - I'll draw the curtains and remove the aspidistra in case it over-excites you :twisted:

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:45 am
by Frances Perry
Well....right now, my Ebay listing for a falchion I listed as BLUNT and for re-enactment purposes only has been pulled from Ebay, which really gets my goat since I've just found over 1000 references to katanas on Ebay alone.

But anway.... the other thing that gets my bl88dy goat more than anything else is people who ask whether something is authentic or not, and then get offended when I explain that it isn't.

Example.

A lady in my group asks be whether her new black cloak is suitable for 15th century.

Without referring to the colour, which is very much up for debate in itself (she presents as a lower to middle class working lady in kirtle and linen headgear), or the fact that the lining is cotton (who cares, some might say) I say what I have been told before:

Cloaks of the 15th century don't appear to have had a joined hood, but had a separate hood. Also, the cloak fastening with the black fabric swirls and the fabric swirl button do not appear to be authentic either.

Fine. That was exactly what I was told when I started re-enactment - I had bought almost exactly the same thing when I first started. I took off the hood, shortened the cloak so it didn't drag along the ground, and changed the fastening. In fact, I eventually sold it and made several more wool cloaks before being happy with the one I now settle upon.

But what happens? Four months later I am told in on uncertain terms that I made the original asker cry! I didn't even know! I hadn't been nasty about it, just matter of fact advice...

What? What the hell did I do? I told the bl88dy truth didn't I?

Well, I do not venture advice, even when asked now, unless I put a verbal caveat in front, saying either you accept my advice as positive and constructive, or you don't ask at all.

If you can't accept it, don't ask the question...

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:55 am
by Alice the Huswyf
Hooded medieval cloaks of any kind (shudders) yes, well they are hoodless (much more practical with a separate hood and the overlap of the shoulder plate) and pretty much a traveller's / foul weather garment by the late C15th period or a coronation garment of state. So from the lofty pinnacle of my reasonable approaching I would have pinned her down and shouted "GOWNGOWNGOWN" in her ear until my mouth finished foaming and she passed out. After this a short, small sulk on her part would have been partially acceptable. But then my injection is due at 12.10.


The Husbynd has had dire warnings flashed at him for some time when selling historical wargaming figures and specifying anything vaguely weapony. It is going to be hard describing a 10mm lead rifle company, or 2mm cavalry officer with sword.

I expect the word search has been set up by programmers - so will pick up blade / sword / point / knife but not esoteric terms like katana or assegei - which is where the sneaky who are not intending to follow the rules will win out. Falchion could also technically fall under curved blade if you don't know what you are talking about and look at some of the pictures. And yes, I know Katanas have curved blades but..... it is not a DRESS

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:50 pm
by Quayn
Alice the Huswyf wrote:Have you seen me in my camping pyjamas?

Come and have a little lie down on the parlour sofa, Q - I'll draw the curtains and remove the aspidistra in case it over-excites you :twisted:
Well if you were to let me know when you'll be parading them, i'll offer my proffesional pyjama critique, And I'll have you know I've never been overexcited in my life :lol:

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:14 pm
by Marcus Woodhouse
i have had someone come up to me and tell me that my red hose are not authentic, I've directed them to look at 15th century images in which many soldiers wear red and then still been told that "It's too bright to be real" I've also been told at the same event (the old Berkley skirmish) thta my clothes were too clean to be authentic.
Now I'm going to come clean and say I am a bit of a tart here but I do hope that i don't have to roll in mud to be the part. Tha same hose do show signs of wear and tear, especially around the cods and *rse, but cleanliness is next to Godliness (and is a medieval expression so I've been told.)

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:46 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
I must get new glasses - I thought the comment on your nose was flippin' personal until I re-read it properly

I agree re godliness. As stated elsewhere by others, clothes (until the last few decades) were a limited resource for most people and people were concerned with their standing. You look after clothes and present a neat appearance if you want to be treated with some respect. You don't tend to get sumptuary laws in a shellsuit period like ours. The medieval period was raddled with them and the herds of addenda as people worked out how to cheat. Work it out.

As to reds - it is pretty much down to how much you can afford to spend on your cloth. The criticism would perhaps have been more thought provoking had it been along the lines of " can you afford that shade of red".

Please excuse me, I have to go back to spinning gold wire thread into the jute for my Hessian - I am making a new tapestry princess corset dress for my portrayal of Hildegard of Bingen's meeting with Christine de Pisan at the Burning Masque.


Q - how can a man who dresses in layers of black critique pyjamas? I bet your eyes aren't even designed to receive the wavelengths the rest of us can decipher as 'pink' and 'pilled-flannel'

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:05 pm
by Alan E
Since the thread appears devoted to pedantry:
Alice the Huswyf wrote:Hooded medieval cloaks of any kind (shudders) yes, well they are hoodless (much more practical with a separate hood and the overlap of the shoulder plate) and pretty much a traveller's / foul weather garment by the late C15th period or a coronation garment of state.
Chaucer (Canterbury Tales, Canon's Yeoman's tale) wrote: What he could be, until I understood
The way he had his cloak sewed to his hood;
From which, when long I had communed with me,
I judged at length some canon he must be
...
And this in England ... so hooded cloaks did exist, probably rare (hence the long communing) and definately associated with ecclesiastical service of some kind.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:09 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
That's a nice point to stretch - hey girls, as we can even sneak in as Pope in the middle ages it's hooded bishopey cloaks all round! In Purple!! With gold silk linings!!!!

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:40 pm
by Frances Perry
Now, now Alice....

Don't be pedantic or you'll annoy Mr Alan E.

Goodness sake! anyone would like this thread was for each invidivual to voice what personally makes them go '!'...

...oh hang on...

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:11 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
I don't do pedantic.

I don't micromanage.

I am the housewife.

Instilling mindless detail is my job.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:33 pm
by gregory23b
"I know this is probably sarcasm but who knows. I honestly believed this until a few years ago. Won't go into my rant where i compare this to other hobbies as there's no space but yes it irks me now when people say it in reply to why are you not doing it right"


Yes it was, it is a refrain that often gets trotted out as a defence for using crap stuff or not being bothered, that of itself is not a problem, horses for courses, but it can be used as a way of saying 'trying to do it better is a waste of time' etc.

The rest of my post will have shown my true intent.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:45 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
For latecomers, this thread started with the specification 'for gentle funning'.

Play nice. It is about the small things that irritate. We are not setting the world to rights.

Getting back on me chaise percee, in me hooded purple silk episcopal finery.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:56 pm
by Marcus Woodhouse
Do I get to check that you are indeed eligible for the role in the traditional manner? Namely copping a good feel as you sit down on your throne so?

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:00 pm
by gregory23b
"It is about the small things that irritate."

yes, small minds mainly.

Slinks off to xbox live

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:24 pm
by Nigel
good point matey youa round the weekedn the agm MISSES YOU

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:13 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
Chaperone required please, Greggie - dear.

Nicey - it is a visual check only - even today. And I has spawned one and a spare I claim uber authenticity - the check being brought in for successives only.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:20 pm
by JC Milwr
Off the shoulder kirtles/shifts. They annoy me. You'll burn dear! Even more annoying is when they _are_ burnt...

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:31 am
by Alice the Huswyf
But it is the modern back to front misunderstanding of eroticism in dress. Show it, becuase you can. It is not what you show, it is what you cover. Which brings us back to period inappropirate baps. A bikini is great in that it leaves little to the imagination but most like to guess what a one piece covers. As the saying goes --- is 10 % -------- and 90% fantasy.

Cover it and blow a blokes mind!

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:44 am
by lidimy
What's the second word? :o

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:24 am
by Alice the Huswyf
Refusals. :mrgreen:


Vote housewife! Guardians of innocence and twisters of minds .

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:04 am
by Alan E
Frances Perry wrote:Now, now Alice....

Don't be pedantic or you'll annoy Mr Alan E.

Goodness sake! anyone would like this thread was for each invidivual to voice what personally makes them go '!'...

...oh hang on...
Pedantic doesn't annoy me, pedantic makes me go "!" and want to join in :D

Sweeping generalisations though ... :shock: :wink: :D

BTW (re purple cloaks with gold lining), the same hooded-cloaked ecclesiastical is described as:
"A man, who was clothed all in clothes of black,
And underneath he had a surplice white. "

Continuing the 'hooded cloak' discussion (OT for this thread evidently) here: forums/viewtopic.php?t=16876

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:56 pm
by Colin Middleton
Alice the Huswyf wrote:But it is the modern back to front misunderstanding of eroticism in dress. Show it, becuase you can. It is not what you show, it is what you cover. Which brings us back to period inappropirate baps. A bikini is great in that it leaves little to the imagination but most like to guess what a one piece covers. As the saying goes --- is 10 % -------- and 90% fantasy.

Cover it and blow a blokes mind!
Birka?

Seriously though, a long skirt that hints at the shape of the leg is much more sexy than the over-exited belts that are in fashion at the moment!

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:21 pm
by zauberdachs
Alice the Huswyf wrote:Hooded medieval cloaks of any kind (shudders) yes, well they are hoodless (much more practical with a separate hood and the overlap of the shoulder plate)
Unless you are Scottish/Irish from the mid medieval period and then hooded mantles are all par of the course.

See below for a reproduction from the images of the Carlisle Charter from the Gadgedlar website.

Do I win extra pedantic points? :lol:

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:23 pm
by ada-anne
Speaking of dirt and lack of repairs...

(What makes me go "!" is people walking around in modern clothes with the hems of their trousers in tatters, becasue they can't even take up a hem - even the steward on our sleeper train at the weekend! Bring back GNER and their red coats!)

We did a show with a group who obviously thought they hadn't invented hems in the middle ages, all their clothing had unfinished edges. We thought of swooping on them when they came into camp, exclaiming "Oh no, what happened to you, your clothes are in rags, come here and let us mend them!" :D

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:28 pm
by Drachelis
I believe the ragged hems on trousers etc suggest that the wearer does not have to mend them because they have enough money to buy more - throw away society

It a bit like a tan - yesteryear - a tan denoted work outside pale and interesting suggest the money not to do any outside work and the ladies heads were shaded when the did venture out.

cherry
shadowlight Designs

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:57 pm
by ViscontesseD'Asbeau
The Viscount's is 15thC women wearing soldier's livery coats over their women clothes. Wouldn't they be executed for cross dressing, he says.

Ditto 17thC children in miniature soldier's coats. He's always hated that.

I found a website yesterday - bit dodgy as they had to link to Photobucket for their images which wasn't a great start :lol: - with glorious close up of much vaunted, on the site and in their promos, 15thC bloke. With a VERY prominently displayed row of machine stitched hemming on his hat. If you're really going to do that don't big yourself up so much, love, then have a close up of your machine sewing. :D

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:24 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
......one new group using an image of our group prominently with another similar group in action on their gallery - but not specifying to viewers (and potential bookers) that it was " Group X seen at Y - an event we attended". It stayed up and without a qualifying caption even after I sympathetically pointed it out their mistake and the hot water it could get them into if they turned up to a booking and didn't feature a battleline of the size, experience and kit shown.

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:20 pm
by ViscontesseD'Asbeau
This bloke was meant to be high status too, according to the captions, Lord Fol de Rol or somesuch... and his very clearly machine sewn chapeau was a sort of nasty, washed out (raggy at the edges) cheap material, too. But then their plebs were wearing stuff that would have put the royal family to shame. And everywhere the women wearing man coats over women clothes. The Viscount had to sit down and fan himself for some time. :D

He also always points out the men in really badly fitting cheap Indian armour - to be honest it all looks the same to me. But it makes him apopleptic. :lol:

I really miss that American website that used to run photo competitions of RenFayre ensembles... and the UK equivalents. I'm so tempted to go find my Dreamweaver and get site building... :wink: