News:

Welcome to the Renaissancefestival.com Forums!  Please post an introduction after signing up!

For an updated map of Ren Fests check out The Ren List at http://www.therenlist.com!

The Chat server is now running again, just select chat on the menu!

Main Menu

Some historic accuracy...

Started by Kate XXXXXX, April 24, 2010, 06:16:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


isabelladangelo

The link doesn't work.  "Your authentication to this fulltext delivery has expired. Please go back and try again by logging back into the site and requesting the document. "   

Title?

Kate XXXXXX

How odd.  Try this one and look at  'And her black satin gown must be new-bodied': The Twenty-First-Century Body in Pursuit of the Holbein Look   

PrincessSara

I really don't understand this article, or the Tudor Tailor method for a kirtle.  They say right in the article that the first evidence for the use of boning is in the 1570s/80s, then they tell you to bone your 1520s-40s kirtle with plastic or cane.  But why would I bone my kirtle if there's no evidence for boning in period?  It just doesn't make sense as a construction method - if period women were able to get the silhouette without boning, then we should be able to as well.

operafantomet

Quote from: PrincessSara on April 24, 2010, 03:53:05 PM
I really don't understand this article, or the Tudor Tailor method for a kirtle.  They say right in the article that the first evidence for the use of boning is in the 1570s/80s, then they tell you to bone your 1520s-40s kirtle with plastic or cane.  But why would I bone my kirtle if there's no evidence for boning in period?  It just doesn't make sense as a construction method - if period women were able to get the silhouette without boning, then we should be able to as well.

I must admit I haven't read that article yet, so forgive me if this is irrelevant. But from Italian fashion there are many proofs of stiffening the bodices without the help of boning. Fabric cardboard, wool felt, padded fabrics etc. was used on top of eachother to form a solid base. I'm thinking something similar was done in Tudor dresses, but that the Tudor Tailor and the article suggests boning because its easier to deal with for a modern seamstress?

Cilean



I can't get anything on this to come up so I am extrapolating from when I was at the Tudor Tailor Talk here in Cali.  I had the chance to touch and ask questions regarding this gown. We are speaking of 2 different things, the Kirtle and the Gown.  Both Ninya and Jane state the Kirtle was partially boned with all manner of stiffening, such as but not limited to Whalebone, Cane and/or Reed, in their book they state this as well as during their talks.

The Kirtle is not the gown, and it has been shown, it could be a predecessor to the Pair of Bodies. Some called them Petticoats as well.

Here is the Kirtle from my own photos on the Tudor Talk:


Here is a Close up of the boning in the Kirtle:


Now you can plainly see the boning is IN the kirtle top, it is not separate at this time. It is part of the the Kirtle and they also have stated in the time period they would have used stiffening such as Cardboard and other venues.  It also states this in the book.

Here is the Gown:


Here is another look at the Gown:



TYou can also see there is no boning in the Gown at all.  The ladies do in fact state that people can put in anything they can afford not everyone will want to use Reed, but if you can use Plastic boning then use what you can and what you have.



So since I too can't see the article I am sorry I might be jumping on the wagon that has no wheels, but this is what I understood.

Cilean

Lady Cilean Stirling
"Looking Good is not an Option, It is a Necessity"
My Motto? Never Pay Retail

operafantomet

Again, things might be different for Tudor style, but in general it seems a lot of the confusion is that the 16th century women sometimes used the kirtle/petticoat/sottana as an individual garment, and that the distinction between it and the gown/overdress/veste is somewhat blurred. I've noticed that even skilled Italian researchers seems to mix or don't separate between the words "sottana" and "veste" (the crimson Pisa dress goes by both terms).

Cilean, that outfit looks wonderful. I don't think I've ever seen the full assemble - do you have a picture of you wearing it somewhere?

gem

Kate, THANK YOU for posting this!!  I haven't read the full article yet, but just from looking at the pictures, I think I might have found a solution to the bust-fitting issues that have plagued all my costuming efforts. Or, at least, I've never seen any article/blog/anything that addresses them so specifically. I've been thinking of giving the TT underbust boning method another try, and this might just push me over the edge.  :D

Cilean

#8

To operafantomet

Goodness no!!! Because this is the gown is from the Tudor Tailors themselves!! It is their demonstration Gown, used to discuss why people in the country also had silks that were 2nd hand from the Cities!!  They did some talks here awhile ago and they brought a lot of their things with them for the Talk.   There is hope that the TT ladies will be on the East Coast this year, to do other talks.   There is a picture of me putting on a 15th Century House Dress in PicasaWeb.com under Cilean Stirling though!

To Gem

Have done any research on the Pfaltzgrafin Dorothea Sabine von Neuberg in 1598??

Please check out Drea Leed's Most Excellent article on this subject:
http://www.elizabethancostume.net/corsets/history.html


And Mode Historique's lovely PDF on the subject:
http://www.modehistorique.com/research/Elizabethan%20corsetry.pdf

And her discussion on Boning techniques:
http://www.modehistorique.com/research/boningdescriptions.pdf

To Princess Sara

Ninya and Jane are very available, I have spoken with them for years, they have a Yahoo group called Tudor_Tailor_Reader.  Or pick up their books? Because they do explain pretty well in the book regarding the use of Kirtle which is stiffened and why the Gown is not.

Hopefully? we shall get Canada and the East Coast classes and workshops!

Cilean







[/color][/font][/size]

Lady Cilean Stirling
"Looking Good is not an Option, It is a Necessity"
My Motto? Never Pay Retail

PrincessSara

I understand the difference between the gown and the kirtle - I do have their book.  However, I personally haven't seen any period references to boning, in kirtle, gown, or otherwise.  The thing I don't understand is their use of boning at all, not where they put it.

Cilean, you said that the kirtle was boned with all sorts of things - what are the references for this?  It's stated in the article that bents were being used in the 1580s, but this style of gown is from the 1520s.

operafantomet

Quote from: PrincessSara on April 26, 2010, 01:38:38 AM
Cilean, you said that the kirtle was boned with all sorts of things - what are the references for this?  It's stated in the article that bents were being used in the 1580s, but this style of gown is from the 1520s.
As usual, I can't help you on the English fashion. But there are proof of stiffening (not boning) in a 1540s dress in Italy, namely that of Giulia Varano ( http://aneafiles.webs.com/renaissancegallery/extant.html ). The bodice was originally "boned" with two layers of padded linen stiffened with glue. The difference between glue-stiffened linen and period cardboard (fabric fibres held together by glue) is probably very small.

How they managed to get that neat torso in early 16th century dresses is hard to grasp because there are basically no surviving dresses of the styles in discussion, and no period tailor books either. A lot of it appear after the mid 1500s, and often the style of the second half of the century is applied to earlier style. Often it's correct, sometimes it's not. And as for theories on boning and corsets, I think there are as many as there are researchers...