gregory23b wrote:a whopping girt gusste under the doublet part
Jorge - I wouldn't call that a gusset (or even a gusste). To my mind a gusset is a square piece of fabirc, put in so the bias of the fabirc adds stretch where seams would otherwise be put under stress . . . waits for the real costume people to put her straight . . .
There were WCo hose (ye Gods, thinking about it it is
nearly 20 years ago) with gussets between the legs at Gandi's "x point' - Himself got his first pair from Chiefy which had a gusset like that, but I think it was just lateral thinking - trying to find a solution to the problem of ripped seams - rather than anything based in research.
Maybe this is where hand stitiching rather than machine sewing would be an advantage on a hidden seam. It was once explained to me how/why hand stitching is stronger:
If you think about how a machine stitch is made you end up with a single thread looped through another single thread - the loop usually being hidden between the two layers of fabric. You only need to break a single thread for the stitching to come undone.
Hand sewing, especially if you use a double thread and use back stitch, is much harder to break. The person who explained it to me (Keith Bartlett I think) said the fabric is more likely to give way before the stitching goes.
Zachos wrote:They could obviously make trousers that stayed up themselves, because their braes did.
Braes are pulled tight with a cord - like modern pyjama trousers, or the like. The two things that help them stay up is that as the fabric is much thinner than lined wool hose it is easier to pull them tighter and there much less acting to pull them down than on a heavier, full leg length (or even footed) pair of hose.
If the braes are being worn with split leg hose, the hose are attached to the doublet/pourpoint/whatever and can not pull the braes down. thankfully
BTW, I'm assuming that when you're all talking about "hips" you actually mean hip-bone height, not the fattest part of the top of the leg