Page 1 of 5

Things that make you go '!'

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:40 am
by Alice the Huswyf
FOR GENTLE FUNNING - It's been a while since we had a thread where we could be less anodynely reasonable about period detail than 'in public'. And it is so cleansing if played with elegance of mind - what irks YOUR delicate rennaisance sensibilities?

....I like to think I am a reasonable person*, but many a Jane austen adaptation has been gently soiled becuase the costume dept didn't follow the dress ettiquette: long sleeves are for morning dresses , elbow length sleeves are for daywear and puff sleeves for evening wear. Couldn't work out why it niggled me until I found out myself. AND older and Married women wore caps and headdresses.

*Apart from not bothering with period underwear - why go to all the effort of making a correct overgarment ** and then ruining your effort by hanging it off wholly wrong-shaped underwear?

** ... and people wandering around in smart clothing outside without the relevant overgarments. If you can afford a nice dress, you can afford the hat, gloves and wrap. Unless you are a dress-whore, who has to rent your flash clothing from your bawd and are followed by an old hand who spies on you to make sure you don't earn on the side and can pay the debt for the clothing on your back.

That feels good. I'd better go and have a cup of tea now, before I line a gown I was supposed to have started on at the beginning of half term (and start on half-dressed medieval women and shelf-bosoms)

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:34 am
by Mad Mab
Tudor women with bare heads and hair all over the place (That doesn't sound quite right but you know what I mean :oops: ) and, possibly even worse, women with a coif on whose hair is still down (especially if they have a fringe). It's a silly bugbear but it makes my teeth itch.
I think it's the way that women wearing a coif but without their hair being up look so smug about being 'historically accurate' cause they have their head covered. :evil:
Sorry, feel better now :oops:

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:41 am
by Phil the Grips
Men who wear swords and then spend the whole time gripping the pommel/hilt tightly as they walk around.

It's the historical equivalent of staring into every one you meets eyes and then sticking two fingers up at them. Fine if you're being a bravo or a troublemaker but not everybody, all the time.

If your sword swings about, the main excuse people give for doing this, then get a decent rig to wear it with ( again- if you can afford the sword, you can afford the leatherwork)

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:58 am
by Alice the Huswyf
I agree about the hair thing - the modern aesthetic is so centred on the head and face, that you can ruin the best theatrical costume or period reproduction with the modern addiction to ' having a few wisps out'. Which can range from a fringe to your dreaded 'coif just plonked on top'.

And the sword-grasping threat-thing makes sense, now you mention it.

Fascinated and enlightened - more please!

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:34 am
by Shadowcat
Wrong shoes!!! I know they are expensive to buy, especially if, as many of my customers do, you wear different periods, but please try to get something approximating the right thing - no heels with much of the Regency for example.

(I once had a photo from a Regency wedding I had clothed - bride wearing Doc Martens, bridesmaids in, succesively, gold sandals, white Essex girl heels, and, I think, trainers. I know it wasn't "authentic, as it was a wedding, but I use it as a fine example of what not to wear!!)

Suzi

(I'm a culprit, I confess - I can't yet afford a pair of shoes for my Tudor merchant's wife, but I am with the Lions part, where, fortunately, anything goes - almost!)

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:44 am
by lidimy
Metal grommets instead of sewn eyelets. (Don't grommets come in around 1850?)

And what Lucy said about headcoverings in general! :o

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:10 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
Nipple rings being seen through inappropriate period clothing - although, I was surprised to find out (from a description of how it helps breastfeeding but also gave the lady in question surprising, beneficial side effects), it is a very Victorian thing........

I have real sympathy with people who had modern piercings and then took up re-enactment if they take them out or cover them well. For instance one new member decided to sacrifice a brow piercing as they heal up too quickly and has become very proficient with jewelry pliers and no mirror. - But not flaunting them when portraying non-piercing periods, regardless of period aesthetics.


Suzi - have you ever found yourself buying modern shoes that 'pass' for a period that you don't do, just in case you might possibly dress in it at some later point ?

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:17 pm
by Mad Mab
Alice the Huswyf wrote:Nipple rings being seen through inappropriate period clothing - although, I was surprised to find out (from a description of how it helps breastfeeding but also gave the lady in question surprising, beneficial side effects), it is a very Victorian thing........

I have real sympathy with people who had modern piercings and then took up re-enactment if they take them out or cover them well. For instance one new member decided to sacrifice a brow piercing as they heal up too quickly and has become very proficient with jewelry pliers and no mirror. - But not flaunting them when portraying non-piercing periods, regardless of period aesthetics.


Suzi - have you ever found yourself buying modern shoes that 'pass' for a period that you don't do, just in case you might possibly dress in it at some later point ?


The same goes for tattoos as well. I appreciate that there are some that you can't cover but at least make an effort for the others.

(and I'd like to add inappropriate hair colour into my head-covering rant. Really, most periods give you an opportunity to cover all of your hair should it be bright red or blue or whatever. I know a lot of people don't think they look attractive with all their hair covered but a) that's not the point and b) it really does look better.)

And modern necklaces! Really, take them off!

Apparently I'm feeling ranty today :oops:

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:43 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
Actually I'm not totally against dressing above one's station - after all everyone dresses aspirationally through any period - otherwise there wouldn't be such a huge market in designer knock-offs. But I don't like to see people dressing insupportably out of station. The fun goes if they can't describe what they are doing, what the tell-tale signs are and how they are bucking the system. That's the interesting part - ie the chemical weighting of silks in the Victorian period so that everyone could wear some (hence the heaper extant garments shattering while the really expensive, pure silks being well preserved), the use of polished tin to ape silver, or the flip-flop in status of black clothing from one side of the Alps to the other.

Ye Gods! I ought to change my sign-on to Anal the Nit-picker

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:07 pm
by Mad Mab
Alice the Huswyf wrote:Ye Gods! I ought to change my sign-on to Anal the Nit-picker


:lol: At the moment, I'd have to fight you for the title!

Am with you on the whole station thing. One of the fun things about tudor is dressing as high as you can go and seeing where the shortcuts are made (false petticoat fronts, pieced linens, etc) but knowing where to wear these items as well. You don't wear your best items if you're doing something likely to ruin them. Dressing the part for the activity you're doing and demonstrating the practicalities is part of the fun, surely.

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:18 pm
by sheepmilker
The usual:

glasses, watches

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:22 pm
by Eyemo
WWII Rifles being carried like SLRs...Empty German bread bags.

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:35 pm
by Phil the Grips
People wearing their clothes in the same way they do modern jeans and T-shirts- mainly at the wrong waistline.

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:47 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
YES YES YES!

A whole generation has grown up thinking that your waist is somewhere around your hips - which is fine - unless you are doing C15th reenactment.

C15th - natural 1980's waists - and all the young women have their belts worn on their hips - C14th style. Now that is just a huge timeshift, but for all the youngsters trying to wear any natural-waisted period of breech /pantaloon/trowser/slacks on their hips will not only look deeply odd but will also tear the groin seems as they try to walk 'through' rather than 'with' the crotch* and inner seams.

Also pulling period jackets/cotes/coats on as if they are of a modern high-necked cut. The hemline rises at the back, the shoulders twist forwards and the whole body swings down and back most oddly. Put it on, shrug a lot, swing your arms and hump your shoulders up and down to let the garment sit where it is cut to sit. You will look and move so much better.

NOTE: if you can't do it in the garment, then you aren't expected to do it in that period. The cut of clotheses conforms to expected activity, hence shoulders back in the C18th (tight, high armscyes) and bravos in hose having to squat knees-together like young ladies (bias cut wool can only deal with stretch two ways, not three, like jeans).

It constantly fascinates me how putting unbelievers into well-cut period lothing transforms their posture and body posture language within minutes.



* Old-timers will know how I can foam at misuse of THIS word

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:52 pm
by Shadowcat
Alice the Huswyf wrote:
Suzi - have you ever found yourself buying modern shoes that 'pass' for a period that you don't do, just in case you might possibly dress in it at some later point ?


How did you guess? You've been looking in my wardrobe!

Suzi

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:54 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
NO - but it was a good guess, wasn't it? Why do you think I was selling off men's Norman boots?

Eyemo - I get the gun position - but why EMPTY german bread bags?

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:51 pm
by Mad Mab
Alice the Huswyf wrote:
It constantly fascinates me how putting unbelievers into well-cut period lothing transforms their posture and body posture language within minutes.


This has always been one of my bugbears about historical drama. You put an actress in (eg C18th) dress and she continues to walk and move like a late C20th person with the slouch and shoulder roll. It's hampered to an extent by their clothing but they still manage it and it's made so much worse when there are other people in the cast who do know how to move properly in what they're wearing (a good example of this is Keira Knightly in 'The Duchess'!) For goodness' sake they're actresses, they're supposed to know about body language!

You get a distinct version of this in reenactment as well with (usually) women dressed as nobles shouting remarks at fellow reenactors, slouching around camp, sitting on the ground. If you're going to dress as nobility, at least try and act the part while the public are around (And really, even the men aren't exempt from this, they just have a little more leeway). If you want to get dirty, help around camp and sit on the floor then dress to a lower station.

Since I'm on a roll. People with unrepaired holes in their clothes, particularly along the stress lines. Clothes were valuable, I'm sure you would try to repair them (particularly at weak points) beofre they got worse no matter how bad the cobbling would be.

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:04 pm
by Shadowcat
Mad Mab wrote:
Alice the Huswyf wrote:
It constantly fascinates me how putting unbelievers into well-cut period lothing transforms their posture and body posture language within minutes.


This has always been one of my bugbears about historical drama. You put an actress in (eg C18th) dress and she continues to walk and move like a late C20th person with the slouch and shoulder roll. It's hampered to an extent by their clothing but they still manage it and it's made so much worse when there are other people in the cast who do know how to move properly in what they're wearing (a good example of this is Keira Knightly in 'The Duchess'!) For goodness' sake they're actresses, they're supposed to know about body language!



A certain actress who has made many "costume dramas" is renown for wearing trainers under her farthingale/bustle etc. I was once at a lecture on costume, where John Bright (God bless Cosprop - at least they try!) and a famous film director ranted for some time about the same subject, which I had brought up.

Suzi

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:07 pm
by Dathi
Alice the Huswyf wrote:NO - but it was a good guess, wasn't it? Why do you think I was selling off men's Norman boots?

Eyemo - I get the gun position - but why EMPTY german bread bags?



Cos it's for carrying food in, quite a bit of food. Any soldier doesn't like carrying dead weight, so an empty bread bag is both annoying and useless

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:10 pm
by Mad Mab
Shadowcat wrote:A certain actress who has made many "costume dramas" is renown for wearing trainers under her farthingale/bustle etc. I was once at a lecture on costume, where John Bright (God bless Cosprop - at least they try!) and a famous film director ranted for some time about the same subject, which I had brought up.

Suzi


I now have an image of someone with a bustle stuffed with trainers :shock: :lol:
(Says more about my slightly sideways brain than the phrasing there!)

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:49 pm
by steve stanley
Mad Mab wrote:Since I'm on a roll. People with unrepaired holes in their clothes, particularly along the stress lines. Clothes were valuable, I'm sure you would try to repair them (particularly at weak points) beofre they got worse no matter how bad the cobbling would be.


On the same roll....kit that never gets cleaned/washed/maintained on the grounds that it 'looks better'..They had to live & work with this stuff!!!

Empty snapsacks...See German Breadbags.

Victorian-style tankards hanging off the belts of 17thcent soldiers.

Inappropriate Beards........They are NOT compulsory because you're a re-enactor.......

19thcent spring-valved powder horns on anything earlier.

Doublets that don't hook/lace to breeches.

1620's doublets worn for high-staus 1640's

Now see what you've done...must go for a lie-down........
Steve

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:00 pm
by Shadowcat
Yes, now look!

Modern makeup with period clothes, when you've told them that eyeshadow and mascara are not suitable for 16th century. (And as for the women...sorry!)

Suzi

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:12 pm
by Mad Mab
steve stanley wrote:
Inappropriate Beards........They are NOT compulsory because you're a re-enactor.......

Steve


Damnit, you mean I have to shave :shock: :lol:

I love the phrase 'inappropriate beards'. Conjures up images of either beards in weird places or just facial hair with no sense of tact :wink:

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:24 pm
by steve stanley
Vision of beard humping leg & being told 'Down Boy'.........

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:45 pm
by JC Milwr
Earrings on medieval women. Just take 'em out!
and "I'm a loose woman so I don't have to wear a head-covering".

Oh yes, and those cotton frocks with a tied bodice and a split skirt in the front, parading as medieval.

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:49 pm
by Mad Mab
steve stanley wrote:Vision of beard humping leg & being told 'Down Boy'.........


:lol:
On that note, that line in your signature '-Labrador Trapper's Song' gives me visions of a man wandering round the Home Counties with his 'chew-toy' bait and a net big enough for a medium sized dog......
Actually, thinking about it, it must be an easy life being a labrador trapper. All you really have to do is walk past the things and they'll come lolloping up to say hallo, probably bringing their master's slippers with them.......

I think I need back on the medication :shock:

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:29 pm
by Alice the Huswyf
.....whereas a labradoodle will come lolloping up to you - look you up and down and then cut you dead with a gallic shrug?

Expanses of inappropriately propped bosomry in defiance of period illustrations.

And converseley, underweight modern actresses / bloody Knightley doing period. Especially 'The Duchess' - characters which, while considered at times unhealthily thin by their peers - but even that was several stone heavier than La Knightly at her heaviest pre-US breakthrough Brit-weight. Diana, Duchess of Devonshire would have considered her ribs to be internal physionomy. She had breasts! Zelliger's geriatric knees in Chicago - you don't have a fashion for rouging something knobbly - you hide it! It is possible to be slender and pneumatic - Catherine Zeta JOnes managed it. Her with the fuzzy hair* wot went into ER managed it in her Moll Flanders adaptation.


* "Alex Kingston " - yelps His Inappropriately Beardedness

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:41 pm
by Tamsin Lewis
Artificial fabrics!

People only wearing part of a costume - eg leaving sleeves off a gentry costume.

Lack of sleeves in general...

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:37 pm
by gregory23b
It doesn't matter, it is only a hobby.

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:51 pm
by Dathi
steve stanley wrote:
Mad Mab wrote:Since I'm on a roll. People with unrepaired holes in their clothes, particularly along the stress lines. Clothes were valuable, I'm sure you would try to repair them (particularly at weak points) beofre they got worse no matter how bad the cobbling would be.


On the same roll....kit that never gets cleaned/washed/maintained on the grounds that it 'looks better'..They had to live & work with this stuff!!!

Empty snapsacks...See German Breadbags.

Victorian-style tankards hanging off the belts of 17thcent soldiers.

Inappropriate Beards........They are NOT compulsory because you're a re-enactor.......

19thcent spring-valved powder horns on anything earlier.

Doublets that don't hook/lace to breeches.

1620's doublets worn for high-staus 1640's

Now see what you've done...must go for a lie-down........
Steve


Ahh.. but 1620's doublets worn as 1640's High status are fine...as long as you're over 40 years in age yourself. The fashions you wear tend to stick to what was fashionable in your youth. I've got a reference to a late 40's Gent buying wrist and coller ruffs in 1644....
and if you look at the Dutch Milltia paintings you do see this.

Look here http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/h ... ebrat.html

Try left, gentleman in black talking to gent in armour sat down. This was painted in 1648. That's 1620's fashion in a 1648 painting of a group of men who existed and commissioned this picture