Do you see what I see?

[verymerryseamstress]

Well, that's the beauty of it.  We're all going to see different things, but since none of us were there, none of us can say with absolute certainty that those are *not* grommets.   

[Margaret]

I'm not surprised either, really.  That's why I try to avoid saying things like "That's definitely not historically accurate!"

I wasn't there, (in fact, none of us were there) so it's not often that people can truly proclaim something to be 100% absolutely period INcorrect.  The best we can offer are educated theories, because even the few extant garments we have to use as guides are not inclusive of every single possibility.  Just because something doesn't appear often in portraiture, or occur in extant garments, doesn't mean that it's not possible.

I love keeping my mind open to all possibilities - even the unlikely ones!     I'm so geeked by stuff like this.

That's the very arguement that my buddy Katie would use when approached by a garb nazi when she was playing the Librarian at MIRF.

There is no way we can or will ever know EVERY fashion trend or fashion accessory that hit those times.  People had to try out things or new ways of sewing  - or hell, even screw up badly on a piece of fabric and have to wing it like we do today when we sew.

Those could either be grommets or gold accessories next to lacing holes - but I can't get close enough to really tell. 

[Lady Caroline]

Margaret, I had to laugh when I read "garb nazi".  A couple weeks ago, when I was sourcing out good sources to learn about Renn faires, I came upon one popular facebook group.  The moderator seemed to enjoy picking apart everyone's garb, in each photo that a member posted.  Some of these outfits were drop-dead gorgeous, but all she kept saying was how much she hated it when people.........blah blah blah.

I didn't join the group, but I did wonder....don't people go to these festivals to have fun, be free, express themselves, etc?  It's fine to be H/A if you have the patience or it is important to you, but why would you expect everyone else to be?  I would think that if you want only the real thing, maybe hang out in a working museum?

That being said, I would love my first dress to be H/A, but who am I kidding?  I'll be lucky if I don't end up pulling out a glue gun somewhere along the lines!  (kidding)

Oh, and I may end up slipping a grommet or two in there somewhere.  Maybe even a dart!

[Katie Bookwench]

Margaret, I had to laugh when I read "garb nazi".  A couple weeks ago, when I was sourcing out good sources to learn about Renn faires, I came upon one popular facebook group.  The moderator seemed to enjoy picking apart everyone's garb, in each photo that a member posted.  Some of these outfits were drop-dead gorgeous, but all she kept saying was how much she hated it when people.........blah blah blah.

I didn't join the group, but I did wonder....don't people go to these festivals to have fun, be free, express themselves, etc?  It's fine to be H/A if you have the patience or it is important to you, but why would you expect everyone else to be?  I would think that if you want only the real thing, maybe hang out in a working museum?

That being said, I would love my first dress to be H/A, but who am I kidding?  I'll be lucky if I don't end up pulling out a glue gun somewhere along the lines!  (kidding)

Oh, and I may end up slipping a grommet or two in there somewhere.  Maybe even a dart!

My first argument is that the person is in HOLLYGROVE. We play a bit fast and loose with history there (that's MiRF) --  You (not YOU, just a general you) can't inform me with me that my style of sleeves is 25 years out of date and make me feel guilty about it when I can look over my shoulder and see the Three Musketeers or Robin Hood bowing to Queen Elizabeth.  Logially, it simply does not wash.

Now... if I were performing in a RE-ENACTMENT, and I'm a bit off, I would take the critisism a bit more seriously.

I would never go up and tell someone that their garb isn't historically accurate. Never. It's not my place, nor my business, and I will admit to willingly taking liberties with my garbing to suit my own tastes and vanities. I'm certainly not the foremost authority on what's AUTHENTIC -- and I've found in my experience that the ones that I thought at one time WERE the authorities on what was authentic were - in fact- incorrect on a number of things. So there you go.

We can all have my personal pet peeves of what we think looks stupid, or wrong, but again, there is never a good reason to impose personal taste on someone else.

Do what makes you happy -- the end.

... and may we all live happily after after.


Oh, and just to get the thread back on topic -- that close up looks like it's metal grommets and spiral lacing to me.

[Miranda]

This post has brought up two issues for me.  First off, as a costume enthusiast that strives for historical accuracy, I must say I REALLY, REALLY dislike the term "Garb Nazi."  I've disliked it since I first heard it years ago.  Just because I value different things in my garb, does not mean I'm going to systematically round up and execute everyone with garb I don't like.  Using this term first and foremost makes light of a very nasty point in history and even the snarkiest comment does not compare.  Just because I prefer wool to cotton twill, silk taffeta to poly taffeta, and linen to broad cloth does not make me a nasty evil person.  I just have different standards.  To this effect I prefer something akin to "Garb Snob", or "Costume Elitist", same idea without the genocidal connotations.

That being said.  Part two:
"I wasn't there, (in fact, none of us were there) so it's not often that people can truly proclaim something to be 100% absolutely period INcorrect.  The best we can offer are educated theories, because even the few extant garments we have to use as guides are not inclusive of every single possibility.  Just because something doesn't appear often in portraiture, or occur in extant garments, doesn't mean that it's not possible."

I actually disagree very much with this statement. (I'm really not a disagreeable person....just feeling particularly passionate and soapboxy this morning.)
I can name nearly a dozen things that we absolutely positively know without a shadow of a doubt did not exist. Namely- Polyester, Nylon, Acetate, Rayon, Aniline Dyes, Gold Lame, Zippers, Hot Glue, Machine Stitching, Machine Embroidery, fusible interfacing, plastic anything...
My point is, we have A LOT of evidence as to what was present historically and what was not.  It isn't complete, but it gives us a nice little slice of life and we can extrapolate based on that.  Furthermore if something exists in the Archaeological record for that time period, it does not mean it was present "across the board" geographically.  Sure the Renaissance marks the beginning of a truly global market, but it wasn't nearly as homogeneous as today which is why you still had "Geographic Dress", at this time.  

That being said, I also think the gold bits in question were lacing rings.  Considering that they were probably valuable, and there for made to be removable in the event the clothing was sold or wore out.  Items of value like billiaments, ouches, and nearly all metallic trims, etc, were made to be removable, so they could be reused when a garment was retired, sold, or refurbished.  Traditional grommets seem too permanent.

[Lady Caroline]

This post has brought up two issues for me.  First off, as a costume enthusiast that strives for historical accuracy, I must say I REALLY, REALLY dislike the term "Garb Nazi."  I've disliked it since I first heard it years ago.  Just because I value different things in my garb, does not mean I'm going to systematically round up and execute everyone with garb I don't like.  

Of course not   There's nothing wrong with being accurate, and I for one, wish I could be! I admire your determination.  I don't think the term "garb nazi" was applied to people like you (Although I can't really say, I was quoting someone) I think it just refers to another type of person, who enjoys making people's lives miserable, and pointing out their flaws, whilst claiming supreme knowlege on the subject.

On a happy note:  I've stated my corset.  I'm using metal eyelets, but I'm sewing over them with floss

[Katie Bookwench]

This post has brought up two issues for me.  First off, as a costume enthusiast that strives for historical accuracy, I must say I REALLY, REALLY dislike the term "Garb Nazi."  I've disliked it since I first heard it years ago.  Just because I value different things in my garb, does not mean I'm going to systematically round up and execute everyone with garb I don't like.  *snip*  To this effect I prefer something akin to "Garb Snob", or "Costume Elitist", same idea without the genocidal connotations.

The term has existed in my area for a while -- and while you are correct in feeling that a horrid point in history has been made light of, 'garb snobbery' is not the only mis-use of the term 'nazi' in our culture.  I know that doesn't excuse it, but that's the truth of it. People will use it, and while I'm sure they don't mean to infer that even the nastiest 'garb snob' would never actually be as horrid as a genocidial maniac, those people who have had their day -- and sometimes entire faire experience - ruined by someone who accosted them with (a laundry list) of all the wrongs of their garb might be well within their rights to attach such an ugly name to that person.

I'm certain you're not one of those that goes around bullying others into changing their sewing styles to fit what you consider authentic. Therefore I would not feel as if that moniker referred to you.

That being said.  Part two:
"I wasn't there, (in fact, none of us were there) so it's not often that people can truly proclaim something to be 100% absolutely period INcorrect.  The best we can offer are educated theories ... *snip*  

I actually disagree very much with this statement. (I'm really not a disagreeable person....just feeling particularly passionate and soapboxy this morning.)
I can name nearly a dozen things that we absolutely positively know without a shadow of a doubt did not exist. Namely- Polyester, Nylon, Acetate, Rayon, Aniline Dyes, Gold Lame, Zippers, Hot Glue, Machine Stitching, Machine Embroidery, fusible interfacing, plastic anything...
My point is, we have A LOT of evidence as to what was present historically and what was not.

Very good point - but are you SURE about the hot glue?  (kidding)  

That being said, I also think the gold bits in question were lacing rings.  Considering that they were probably valuable, and there for made to be removable in the event the clothing was sold or wore out.  Items of value like billiaments, ouches, and nearly all metallic trims, etc, were made to be removable, so they could be reused when a garment was retired, sold, or refurbished.  Traditional grommets seem too permanent.

Very logical, whether accurate or not (though it seems quite so), it makes good sense.

My other theory is that most paintings of would be commissioned -- and I would think a point of cunning business sense would be for the artist to put his patrons into the painting and make them look good-- patrons with money enough to afford the metal lacing rings.

[Miranda]

I maintain that even the snarkiest nastiest comment doesn't warrant calling someone a Nazi.
A person "who enjoys making people's lives miserable, and pointing out their flaws, whilst claiming supreme knowlege on the subject" could be one of three things.
A) A socially inept person, but well meaning person, who is just trying to help, but lacks the ability to do it diplomatically.  I honestly think a large percentage of people who are dismissed as "snarky" fall into this category.
B) An insecure person who really just likes tooting their own horn, because sharing their "knowledge" makes them feel better about themselves.
C)A genuinely mean individual who is bent on making you feel self loathing.

I truly believe that most "Garb Nazis" fall into the first two categories.  AND EVEN if they fall into the last category that doesn't warrant being called a Nazi (unless that is their political persuasion.)  There are also people who legitimately want to know why choices where made.

[Miranda]

That being said, I also think the gold bits in question were lacing rings.  Considering that they were probably valuable, and there for made to be removable in the event the clothing was sold or wore out.  Items of value like billiaments, ouches, and nearly all metallic trims, etc, were made to be removable, so they could be reused when a garment was retired, sold, or refurbished.  Traditional grommets seem too permanent.

Very logical, whether accurate or not (though it seems quite so), it makes good sense.

There is an exceedingly well documented trade in second hand clothing in England at this time.  You need to get into the mindset of clothing as cars.... .  The amount people paid for clothing was akin to what they pay now for cars.  So like today, with the used car trade, there was a used clothing trade, then.

[verymerryseamstress]

Miranda:  Using your list, we could come up with over a million things that were very obviously not around during the Renaissance.  When I made my comment, perhaps I should have noted that the statement referred to anything that's not an OBVIOUS modern invention . . .

Most people understood what I was trying to say, so hopefully this will clear up any misunderstandings.

[verymerryseamstress]

I, personally, dislike the term as well.  However, I've never associated people who strive for historical accuracy with that term.  I have a lot of respect who strive for period accuracy and it's always a treat to see a flawlessly constructed, well-researched, historically-accurate garment.  Just because someone strives for accuracy does not make them a 'garb nazi.'

That said, when I hear that term being used by others, I instead think of the people (historically accurate or not, and they are not always accurate themselves) who stand up on their soapboxes and proclaim historical inaccuracies as ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE.  They tend to do it with a rude lack of manners, often with the intention of humiliating others.  These people never behave with any amount of tact or manners, and quite often it's done in a cowardly fashion behind people's backs. 

THAT is what I think of when I hear the term being used. 

[Margaret]

Dang - it's not that big an issue,

If you want to strive for a certain amount of HA in your own garb, rock on with your bad self.  It's your garb you are creating.

The issue I have is when someone offers unsolicited comments on a person's garb.  It's never done in the nice way of:  "Excuse me, but did you know that the style of sleeve you are wearing really was not seen until 1587 or so."  Comments like that are usually delivered with someone looking down their nose at another person and said in a condesending tone that may as well be saying "You idiot..."

Not saying people here do it, but I have had it happen to me and others I know.

So, pick whatever term you want for them.

[Miranda]

Yes it is kind of a big deal Margaret.  Because its a two way street. 
It is hurtful to have your garb snarked, I know, I've had it done to me. 
I've heard the terms "Garb Nazi", "Authenticity Nazi", and similar terms thrown around in cavalier manner.  And as I said before, I daresay the majority of the people that are perceived as snarky are just well meaning and misunderstood people and I imagine they are just as hurt and crushed.

I understood exactly what you were saying with.

"I wasn't there, (in fact, none of us were there) so it's not often that people can truly proclaim something to be 100% absolutely period INcorrect.  The best we can offer are educated theories, because even the few extant garments we have to use as guides are not inclusive of every single possibility.  Just because something doesn't appear often in portraiture, or occur in extant garments, doesn't mean that it's not possible."

When researching a theory, I hold a standard.  When using secondary and tertiary resources, find multiple examples.
Also take what you see in Allegory pictures with a grain of salt.  Sometimes they are great resources (the numerous Judith pictures for example) but other times its just the artist's idea of what Jesus wore...etc.

Logic also goes a long way to figuring stuff out.  Clothing evolves...and there is a lot more 17th and 18th century exhistant clothing examples available and I'm still not seeing grommets in garments.

I still think they are lacing rings :-).

[verymerryseamstress]

[/quote]

Forgive me, but I rather think that calling someone a "Garb Nazi" behind their back is absolutely as hurtful and humiliating.


[/quote]

Please note that I also mentioned in my post that I dislike the term just as much as you to.  I wasn't defining the word.  I was merely pointing out what *I* think of when I hear *OTHERS* use the term.

[princess farcical]

Dang - it's not that big an issue,

If you want to strive for a certain amount of HA in your own garb, rock on with your bad self.  It's your garb you are creating.

The issue I have is when someone offers unsolicited comments on a person's garb.  It's never done in the nice way of:  "Excuse me, but did you know that the style of sleeve you are wearing really was not seen until 1587 or so."  Comments like that are usually delivered with someone looking down their nose at another person and said in a condesending tone that may as well be saying "You idiot..."

Not saying people here do it, but I have had it happen to me and others I know.

So, pick whatever term you want for them.

You know, I've heard of that happening on the path - for instance, one of our performers actually approached a good friend of mine (in his impeccably accurate, albeit mid-later Elizabethan gentleman's outfit) and totally derided his choice of attire.  My friend wasn't on cast, he was there to play.  But still!

Socially awkward or not (and in his case - I know the performer - he was just trying to be funny, but ended up really offending my friend), that's totally unforgiveable.