Over the weekend I was doing a bit of research for a freelance article I'm working on and I was looking through my historical painting books and spent a few minutes looking at this image, (Adoration of the Magi, 1496, by Filippino Lippi):
(http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v300/98/30/501422167/n501422167_602043_6717.jpg)
Something caught my eye, and after looking closer, I wanted to share with you what I saw (sorry for the grainy shot):
(http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v300/98/30/501422167/n501422167_602042_7564.jpg)
There, at his neckline of the blue garment. Do my eyes deceive me, or does that look a heck of a lot like big, honkin', shiny brass grommets?
*chuckle*
LOL!!! Sure does....
That is amazing! Good eye :)
Well, there goes one theory down the dang drain. Now the hunt for more goes on. One painting does not proof make, but a hunt? Yes, indeedy do.
Grommets, buckles, rivets go back to the Roman Empire days, even back to Alexander the Great even.
It does not surprise me that grommets would show up in a 15th Century painting.
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.
The use of grommets, maile, rivets were key to keeping armor together used by the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans thousands of years before Christ. It makes me wonder as well the intelligence needed to develope such little and much used things. Wonders never cease do they???.
It's the little things, Heather, that speak the loudest. You brought up a very good subject that not even I had thought of.
Looks like BIG HONKIN' SHINY GROMMETS to me! :o
Playing devils advocate here:
What I see: I see the laces going toward the gold things, coming to a point, and coming back out. I do not see the laces going through the gold things, going around the fabric and coming back out the other side. Instead, it looks like the laces might be going around some sort of hook on either side to get the spiral lacing.
Grommets were used (http://www.festiveattyre.com/research/florentine/flor4.html) but just not the huge silver, hammer them in, on a peasant bodice. Metal was precious. If you had money, you might have something metal to hold your lacing holes. If you were poor, you didn't. Lacing rings and simple hand sewn eyelets were the the most common to the point that grommets don't seem to even be present later on.
Huh, interesting perspective. But I still see big, honkin' brass grommets. I see the spiral lacing. And the image is just too muddy to say they are absolutely not laced through the holes.
I definitely don't see any hooks.
I refer to "Occam's razor", in times like this:
"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
~or~
"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"
...but is generally paraphrased as:
"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
...meaning that where one sees "hooks", another see "grommets", this does not mean one is right and one is wrong...
Just that it is far easier to make a metal hole, and thread a cord through it, than to create a hook that would hold a loose cord without unhooking...
My $0.02 worth...
You see on the arm of the person behind this one, a sleeve... with what looks like grommets, too!
RenRen, EXCELLENT eye! I completely missed that!
Angus, have to agree with you on that, too. ;)
Hey! Is that a zipper on the third Magi's robe? ;D
Kidding...kidding...
I too see rivets. It looks so funny! Doesn't it? My brain doesn't quite want to accept that.
I personally believe it's either a hook (I'm think like hooks and eyes?) or lacing rings simply shown on the outside. It makes sense with seeing the lacing going around the gold but not around the fabric.
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. ;D
Quote from: verymerryseamstress on July 17, 2008, 11:38:26 AM
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.
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!
Quote from: Lady Caroline on July 18, 2008, 08:30:51 AM
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.
;D
Oh, and just to get the thread back on topic -- that close up looks like it's metal grommets and spiral lacing to me.
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.
Quote from: Miranda on July 18, 2008, 10:51:42 AM
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 :)
Quote from: Miranda on July 18, 2008, 10:51:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Miranda on July 18, 2008, 10:51:42 AM
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) ;D
Quote from: Miranda on July 18, 2008, 10:51:42 AM
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.
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.
QuoteThat 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote"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 :-).
[/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.
Quote from: Margaret on July 18, 2008, 01:33:58 PM
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.
Quote from: verymerryseamstress on July 18, 2008, 01:45:36 PM
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.
[/quote]
Ah. Yeah. Sorry 'bout that. :)
Miranda,
You're absolutely entitled to your opinion and there's no way I would ever tell you you're wrong in thinking that they are lacing rings. They might be! But they also might be grommets. They might be rivets (as someone else posted) and they might be rings with hooks in them (as someone else posted) None of us know with absolute certainty that their answer is the only right answer. THAT was my point.
You wrote: "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."
That's all fine and well, and I'm certainly in agreement with your new comment, but that's not what you wrote in your original post, nor is it what I was replying to. In your original post you listed a dozen things that are very obviously not going to be considered historically accurate. And that's why I felt the need to point out that my comment was *not* referring to obvious modern inventions.
You wrote:
I still think they are lacing rings :-).
And as I mentioned previously, you're just as entitled to your theory as I am my own, and I'll never tell you they are ABSOLUTELY NOT lacing rings. :-)
The whole point of this post was to emphasize that we're all going to see different things. Nobody has to be right. Nobody has to be wrong. I was hoping to hear a multitude of perspectives. I find them all very interesting.
Quote from: Miranda on July 18, 2008, 01:35:24 PM
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.
Ok-- we can agree that the label is a big deal to some, and rather cavalier to others. With my personal apologies to you, I'll admit I happen to be on the cavailier side... it's just a couple of words to me, ones that are in use in my personal vocabulary because that's always what I've heard them called, and what I have called them in the past-- and I don't personally know anyone who fits the description. I've just heard of 'them'-- in fact, it's kind of that ubiquitous 'THEM' or 'THEY' most people speak of. Perhaps the stuff of urban legend.
and to specificially call 'THEM' out, I would describe them as the MINORITY of the people you have described. Yes, the majority of these authenticity mavens ARE misunderstood, well meaning, though perhaps less skilled at the arts of personal communication... but there are those who:
A) Feel that they are the undisputed authority on the minutia of authenic garb--and are overly proud of their self-imposed authority.
B) Feel that someone else's taste is inferior to their own, or
C) Feel that someone is ignorant (willfully or not) of the proper construction and/or style are therefore just plain STUPID.
D) Feel that they are well within their rights--as the 'offended party' to disrespectfully (with the assumption that the other person is just too STUPID) take them to task about their attire with absolutely NO tact or delicacy whatsoever.
All of this shows a wanton disrespect for another person -- one MAY argue that this sort of disrespect is the first step in the downward spiral that makes one sort of person want to cleanse the earth of another sort of person.
I think that's stretching a bit...but if you cut it on the bias....well, there you go. ;D
And, just as a contrast to this discussion on nomenclature.... the parking people here at MiRF are widely known to cast/crew and many patrons as:
Parking Nazis. Go figure... :-\
Thanks for the parking warning! I'll be sure to park in a designated spot only. lol
Do they have special spots further away, reserved for us grommet users? :D
Quote from: Lady Caroline on July 18, 2008, 04:15:05 PM
Thanks for the parking warning! I'll be sure to park in a designated spot only. lol
Do they have special spots further away, reserved for us grommet users? :D
*snerf* I am sure we can arrange a special 'grommet section'!!
Hope it's near the front because I'd be parking there too. :D
VMS - thank you so much for posting that picture and your observations. It's thru discussion and debate of a theory that we can come to better conclusions about how things were worn and what was worn.
Miranda, I think I <3 you! ;D
Let's bring this back down and think logically. Have any grommets been found in the archeological record? No. Having lacing rings been found? Yes. Have hooks & eyes been found? Yes.
Is that to say that there is absolutely no way it can possibly be grommets, well no. But I also can't say that there weren't people wearing denim either. ;) (hey, they had indigo, they had cotton in the southern part of Europe, therefore, they had jeans!) Since it is not present in the archeological record, not obviously present in the pictorial evidence, and no written sources state that they were using anything that is described like grommets, then, it has to be assumed that they didn't have them. Do new things get discovered every day? Of course! But, for now, I think it's safe to say not to use big ole grommets (that can tear up the cloth) and just sew 'em up instead or use lacing rings.
As for the "If you want to be h/a, that's fine, if you don't that's fine" attitude...well, not entirely true. I do appreciate good fantastical clothing. I have a couple of fairy gowns of my own that I wear to the fantasy festivals. However, nothing is more grating on the eye than someone wearing something that is indecent (seen that. three pieces of rabbit sized leather do not cover anyone over 200 pounds...ever) or obviously trying to be obnoxious with the neon green and blinding yellow and the smug look like "I dare you to say something to me" (I've certainly see that...and seen what happens when the same smug individual states their "I can do whatever I want" position to an Elizabethan gentleman.)
Basically, it boils down to one very simple point, be polite. If you want to wear your fairy wings to a historical festival, just realize that, unless it's the day of wrong, you will be in the minority and people will look at you funny. People will ALWAYS look at the person who is "different" funny. That's the way of the world. Some people will love your "different" look, some people won't. That's the way of the world. If you want to fit in better with the theme, then fit in better with the theme and wear a simple skirt with a well fitted bodice or a simple pair of pants and a well fitted jerkin if you are a guy. Don't go to the festival with the idea of "I'm going to show them I can do whatever I please!" It's rude and obnoxious. Instead think "What would I feel most comfortable in and what looks good on me". If you ask yourself that, not only will you feel better about yourself, you will also get a lot more complements....even if it's not H/A.
OK you can toss marshmellows at me with a trebuche after this post and I am not trying to offend anyone with it. I can see both views. When some one uses the term "navi: I do not th8nk they are trying to interject the meaning of someone who followed Hitler or followed his views. Websters says this about the word "navi"
1: a member of a German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler
2: often not capitalized a: one who espouses the beliefs and policies of the German Nazis : fascist b: one who is likened to a German Nazi: a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person
I the case of "garb navi" I believe it is in reference to 2; b. a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person.
Would garb dictator be any offensive? When I hear dictator I think of Hitler, Stalin, Musalini, Napoleon, Idi Amin, and many others.
The person that used that term did not mean to offened anyone on this site, once again neither do I. There are words out there and terms many of us find offensive and we can in no way know what offends anyone. In those case you cannot take it in the literal meaning and let it roll off your back.
An example of this would be Being Native American I do not like the term Indian. Indians come from India, but lets face it, the term Indian is a common word that we as Americans use everyday to refer to those who who where here long before any European.
So my two cents, Nice catch Heather HUZZAH to you! Who know's what they really are. I'm in the belief they could be grommets, they could be hooks, either way you look at it, it's a great find. We cannot say they are not gromments and never had grommets. People never thought that ancient Americans knew of airplanes, but they have found sculptures that sure as heck look like modern airplanes in a time when human kind was just starting to become civilized long before flight was though possible by man. New discoveries are made all the time of things we though didn't or could not have existed, but ancient history proves us wrong.
I for one would love to be H/A but that is 100% impossible unless you can take the way back machine to 1589 and get 3000 dresses made for you. I dress to look my best and TRY to be as H/A when I can. But once again there is no way ANY ONE in this time frame can be.
Steps off soap box. OK fire the marshmellow trebuche's at me now Opens mouth to catch as many as I can
Quote from: Lady Caroline on July 18, 2008, 04:15:05 PM
Thanks for the parking warning! I'll be sure to park in a designated spot only. lol
Do they have special spots further away, reserved for us grommet users? :D
Yes, they do. You have to park out by the swamp.
um... wait... maybe I should be more
specific.... ;D
(for those of you who don't know, most of the MIRF site was built on a swamp. it's really hard to miss-- it borders to the South, SW, West and a little NW too)
"Is that to say that there is absolutely no way it can possibly be grommets, well no. "
And therein lies the *entire* point of my post. ;D
Frankly I don't care if people want to lace their bodices through duct tape and safety pins. I know what *I* prefer, and just because something chooses something different from what *I* choose is no reason for ME to be offended.
"If you want to wear your fairy wings to a historical festival, just realize that, unless it's the day of wrong, you will be in the minority and people will look at you funny. People will ALWAYS look at the person who is "different" funny. That's the way of the world. "
Not all people fit into your defined category. I don't look at ANY people 'funny.' I think it's rude to look at people 'funny.' And I don't feel it's "the way of the world," because I know quite a few other people who don't spend their time looking at people who are "different." When someone is different from me, I don't ever find it offensive. I don't find it annoying. I embrace diversity, creativity and differences. Just because it doesn't match MY personal choice doesn't make it wrong, and certainly doesn't make it acceptable to look at someone 'funny.'
Every person has their own preference and who am I to say they are right or wrong. All I say is "More power to you for making the effort!"
;D
We all have our preferences of what we want to wear. I am sure everyone here has made the statement at one time or another of "I would not be caught dead in that!!" yet there is someone who would wear it.
We all have preferences and opinions of what we like to see and create in our garb. And, I am also sure we have all saw someone in garb and thought "They could have done so much better if they just...." But to walk by and giggle behind your hand at a person or approach and give an unsolicited opinion is just rude.
We all started our garb making somewhere and we were not perfect. Some people wanted to be more historically correct and that is all well and good for them. Some people did not care one whit for HA just as long as they looked good and they were having fun. All well and good too.
At the end of the day, all we are doing is playing dress up and make believe. No one can say, with some exceptions, how everything was made, done or used. It's fun to discuss and debate as it increases our body of knowledge. However, keep your opinions to yourself unless asked, and then teach and educate.
One of the nicest compliments I've ever received at faire:
A few years ago, Bristol had a costume contest with categories for peasants, middle class, nobles, and sailors/pirates. The judges were the seamstresses for the royal court and the rest of the cast. The knowledge and talent of those 3 women was incredible, if you've ever seen the Bristol cast. Now, none of my garb can be called anything NEAR historically accurate.
One of the judges had on a beautiful partlet, so before the contest, I went up to ask her where she had gotten it. Before I could say anything, she asked me, "Oh, are you here to sign up for the contest?" I looked at her in amazement and said, "No, my garb isn't in the category to be in a costume contest, it isn't HA in the least, they probably didn't wear anything like this at all."
Her reply: "Darling, your garb suits you, it is well made, and you look beautiful in it. You certainly could be in any contest because the way you carry yourself when you wear it."
THAT made my day! So grommets, no grommets, hooks, whatever, I guess I don't care. I'm a happy camper wearing whatever I choose! And if somebody else doesn't like it, and if anyone ever comes up to tell me what is wrong (and nobody has in 12 continuous years of faire, and the early days, the garb was truly awful), I guess I'd just stick my tongue out at them. ;)
Lady Renee, you're *ALWAYS* gorgeous. I'm not surprised you were paid such a wonderful compliment. ;)
Ah, shucks, Heather, you're so sweet.
But honestly, we've been going to faire since the early 1980's, on and off. Started going 12 years ago regularly, wearing garb, driving long distances, etc. like the rest of all us totally hooked people here. No one has ever, ever approached us being snarky, nor have we ever caught anybody making fun of our garb behind our back. So whoever these garb "negativisists" (is that PC enough not to hurt anyone's feelings) are, and wherever they are, they must be in a very small minority. Probably a small enough group to just ignore them.
I know that I look at everyone's garb, one glance while passing. No analyzing, no comparisons. No matter whether it's befitting of the Queen or it's gold lame while wearing sneakers, I think, "Huzzah, they came dressed up, good for them."
I serve on the altar at church. It can be very intimidating sitting up there in front of the whole congregation, trying to help the priest during the gospel, communion, processing, etc. You're always afraid you're going to mess up, and the whole world will see. But guess what?? No one is even paying attention to you. They're not there to look at you and judge you. They're there to go to church.
I think it's the same thing as when we go to faire. The rest of the people aren't there to look at me though they may glance while walking by me. They're there to have fun. It's not about me. And I bet 99.99% of the people aren't even paying attention to you, certainly not whether you have a grommet or hook or whatever.
Go and have fun, everybody! Peace, love, Woodstock.
Quote from: verymerryseamstress on July 19, 2008, 08:46:29 AM
When someone is different from me, I don't ever find it offensive. I don't find it annoying. I embrace diversity, creativity and differences. Just because it doesn't match MY personal choice doesn't make it wrong, and certainly doesn't make it acceptable to look at someone 'funny.'
Every person has their own preference and who am I to say they are right or wrong. All I say is "More power to you for making the effort!"
;D
I agree with you wholeheartedly on that point. I would even extend that from garb to any other way someone is "different" than me. I find it very interesting to learn about other cultures, societies and languages. If I had not been accepted into MNRF, I doubt I would have begun to research about that historical time frame, which lead me to research many other cultures and languages, as well.
I LOVE creativity! As an artist, I have tried to teach my students that there is no right or wrong way in art, it's whatever you, the artist, want it to be. I have had people tell me the way I painted a unicorn was "wrong". How did they know it was wrong? Have they seen one in person?
The light of truth shines best through an open mind. ;D
Quote from: Margaret on July 19, 2008, 12:05:23 PM
At the end of the day, all we are doing is playing dress up and make believe. No one can say, with some exceptions, how everything was made, done or used. It's fun to discuss and debate as it increases our body of knowledge. However, keep your opinions to yourself unless asked, and then teach and educate.
I could not have said it better myself. We were discussing what some people think is historically accurate or not and why did it matter, when my then 5 year old grandaughter said "It's just pretend".
And I just recently said people should keep their negative comments and hands to themselves, after an incident at church. So, to that comment above, I say, Huzzah.
To get back to the beginning:
BIG SHINY GROMMETS:
Hate 'em. Always will. You won't see them on anything I make unless I get paid extra to do 'em! ;D ;D I love the look and durability of the stitched ones, and in the absence of a large enough payment to do them by hand, I'll do them by machine with my trusty eyelet plate.
(Been on the sick list_ Really bad fibro flare up coupled with World's Worst Head Cold. Hopefully on the mend again and back in the sewing room from tomorrow)
Quote from: Lady L on July 19, 2008, 11:38:20 PM
Quote from: Margaret on July 19, 2008, 12:05:23 PM
At the end of the day, all we are doing is playing dress up and make believe. No one can say, with some exceptions, how everything was made, done or used. It's fun to discuss and debate as it increases our body of knowledge. However, keep your opinions to yourself unless asked, and then teach and educate.
I could not have said it better myself. We were discussing what some people think is historically accurate or not and why did it matter, when my then 5 year old grandaughter said "It's just pretend".
And I just recently said people should keep their negative comments and hands to themselves, after an incident at church. So, to that comment above, I say, Huzzah.
Huzzah to your granddaughter, Lady L!
I applaud people who strive for historical accuracy, but it's never
ever acceptable to make a rude comment or offer unsolicited advice about someone's garb. Think about it - would it be acceptable to march up to someone IRL and tell them their clothes are outdated by twenty years? That would be considered extremely rude. Just because someone is wearing a costume doesn't make the situation any different.
I see grommets in the painting as well. I'm just as fascinated by his fur. It reminds me of a coat I used to have with a faux cheetah collar. :)
Quote from: verymerryseamstress on July 17, 2008, 08:14:05 AM
Over the weekend I was doing a bit of research for a freelance article I'm working on and I was looking through my historical painting books and spent a few minutes looking at this image, (Adoration of the Magi, 1496, by Filippino Lippi):
Something caught my eye, and after looking closer, I wanted to share with you what I saw (sorry for the grainy shot):
(http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v300/98/30/501422167/n501422167_602042_7564.jpg)
There, at his neckline of the blue garment. Do my eyes deceive me, or does that look a heck of a lot like big, honkin', shiny brass grommets?
*chuckle*
I have to go with
big shiny grommets because, on the right side at least, they appear to be set into the fabric. You can see a tiny edge of blue on both sides of some of them.
This happens in all reenacting.. in Civil War, they call them "stitch counters", and "stitch Nazis".... checking to see if your buttonholes are hand done; if your buttons are too shiny, do you have enough petticoats under that skirt..... ?. Have you heard the term "farby"? That's the insult they use most often.. I've heard it means "far be it from real"....
I think we should all take what we learn from the history available to us, add in the protection of our health, the level of comfort we feel is required, the level of skill we have, the depth of our pocketbooks, and find a happy medium. We do the best we can, and most importantly, always strive to improve in the areas where we can.
History is always open to interpretation, isn't it? And the infamous line "well, if they had it back then, they would have used it!" ( most often used when we find an air mattress in someone's tent! :D)
After studying the painting further, I have come to the conclusion that indeed the gold metal circles are GROMMETS.
A 15th Century artist not only had to know past history, but the current history and trends in fashion, music, architecture, etc. If grommets were not used in clothing during the 1400's, how else would the artist know to put them in a painting???
Quote from: Lady Kathleen of Olmsted on July 22, 2008, 08:43:24 AM
After studying the painting further, I have come to the conclusion that indeed the gold metal circles are GROMMETS.
A 15th Century artist not only had to know past history, but the current history and trends in fashion, music, architecture, etc. If grommets were not used in clothing during the 1400's, how else would the artist know to put them in a painting???
Wouldn't that same theory also apply to the possibility of him/her having painted in lacing rings?
Plus - once you hammer in grommets, that's *it*. Metals were precious, then, and were re-cycled (along with salvageable fabric scraps and trims) far after the life span of the shirt/gown/whatever.
Just sayin'... ;)
My husband is absolutely, 100% certain that they are neither lacing rings or grommets.
"They are Cheerios. Isn't it quite obvious to you? I mean, really. If they were Froot Loops, they would be purple. Heavens, woman. Get it right."
GUFFAW!!
*SNERK* ;D :D
That was almost a waste of a darn good frappachino...
Quote
After studying the painting further, I have come to the conclusion that indeed the gold metal circles are GROMMETS.
A 15th Century artist not only had to know past history, but the current history and trends in fashion, music, architecture, etc. If grommets were not used in clothing during the 1400's, how else would the artist know to put them in a painting???
Using this theory and train of thought, then grommets should be showing up in 17th and 18th century clothing as well. We have far more examples of existent 18th century clothing than we do 16th, and yet, I am having difficulty finding any examples of grommets in any of those. Really I'm only finding them in the mid to late 19th century, when they could be made for cheap in a factory. And then only on industrial made corsets.
It was said early that they were found in the classical age, but all the examples sited, were armouring examples which does not mean that it would extend to daily wear clothing.
Also I site the example from our own boards where recently a lady was having issues because her grommets had ripped out of her doublet. Having worked in theater I know this to be a common occurrence.
So answer me, why would 16th century tailors and consumers use a product that could potentially damage a very expensive garment. Keep in mind folks that people spent a significantly larger percentage of their yearly salaries on clothing.
We know that thread worked eyelets and lacing rings were used, without a doubt, they show up in the Archaeological Record.
Look at it from a logical stand point. What is YOUR explanation as to why grommets were used. Keep in mind that they weren't cheap (so easy of use and price probably aren't the answer ;))
I've been wearing many of the same bodices since 1998. Some of them have grommets in them and they have never come out. Not everyone has this problem.
We don't know answers for the "why did they?" questions on hundreds and thousands of garments throughout history.
Codpieces? Really necessary, guys? Come on. . .
Why on earth did bell-bottoms come BACK into fashion? Weren't they hideous enough the first time around?
DAY-GLOW PINK PUFFY SKI VESTS IN THE 80s. GOOD GRIEF, WHY?
I won't even venture into the discussion of thong underwear, other than to say, it feels like my butt is trying to eat my underpants . . . .
I'm not talking about cosmetics or aesthetics, when I ask why. I'm talking purely utilitarian. Most fasteners, particularly on women's clothing at the time, were utilitarian. They hold the garment closed.
I'm asking for a logical reason for why grommets. They would have had to been made by an artisan or metal worker. Once installed they are permanent unless they rip out meaning, if you resold or remade a garment, they are either stuck there or leave you with a big hole. They aren't exactly reusable, so if you did want to salvage them to put into a new garment, they would have to be melted down and remade (costing more money) unlike lacing rings that can be popped off, or eyelets which only set you back the cost of the thread. It seems like a lot of trouble and money that the consumer could have spent on new ouches, or some nice gold lace, or higher quality silk.
And codpieces did serve a purpose. They started out as a fly flap.
I'm really not trying to be mean or contrary. I just think that if you are going to present a theory that is contrary to what we do know existed, be ready to argue it, and don't expect the "evidence" to speak for itself.
I was the one you may have been refering to with grommets pulling out. It is simp[le as tou how and whay they were pulling out. The first being when I first got the doublet the woman DID NOT use proper measurements so it was tighter. This alone will cause damage to ANY article of clothing. Just look at modern zippers. I can't tell you how many of those have gone bad on me. All because they are CHEAP and not high quality. I've had expensive clothing go bad becuse of flaws inthe aterieal. Once again flaws in craftsmen ship and the manufactorer using low quality material.
The grommets also were set in two pieces of cloth and were NOT reinforced this cauing them to damage the material and pull out causing damage to the garmet.
Saying they cannot be grommets is saying that in no way Native American had metal tips. It's been proven they did. Where id they come from? Most likely trade. There are hundreds of thousands of exaples of where archielogists have found something in a time they did not below or should not have belonged, but did. Human kind is always stumbling on things from the past we have NO idea how to reproduce. The Stratovarios violin being one. I watched a great program the other day called Surviving History. In it they made a pendulum. It was not something ecorded in history except in a Poe book. Yet the team recreated one and it worked perfect. Just because technology wise we are far more advanced, does not mean that the past peoples of this planet did not create things lost to us in the here and now.
Reusable? No, not in present form, but remelting metal was done. Rivits were a very common thing, so why not a rivit with a whiole in it. Easy to make for a smith or jeweler and if it was presicious metal which is most likely for a noble, then a jeweler could make these these items as easly as he made any other jewelry piece.
I still think they could be either. But the more I look the more I think they are grommots. Look at the shading they give hints. I see no hook and a hook in metal would be much harder to produce than a grommet.
Miranda,
I'm not here to "argue" with you, or anyone else.
The point I was trying to make with my last post is that there need not be ANY functional purpose when it comes to fashion. Quite often mere decoration is enough to make people want to use it.
The codpiece to which I am referring is the obnoxiously huge, overstuffed monstrosity that has no purpose other than to say "HEY, BABY! CHECK OUT MY GROIN."
I'm *not* referring to a fly flap.
The grommets on these garments (both on the sleeves behind and on the tunic) are *not* laced tightly. They are laced very loosely, almost decoratively, and are *not* being used to fasten anything in this situation. Your argument might work if this was a tightly-laced garment, but it's not.
We know they had different ideas about reusing metals, and jewels for that matter.
I think George III's Coronation Robes (http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Sovereigns_Coronation_Robes.htm) are the earliest in existence because the others were disassembled and the components reused, even to the gold wire in the embroidery.
Gold was extremely hard to come by in the pre-19th century world. Other metals were nearly as hard to come by. It is possible that the garment in question had gold or brass grommets to show off the owner's wealth. Even melting it down and reusing it would have been less expensive than trying to buy more. But if you could afford metal, then you did it to show off your wealth and power. You might have to read some of John Hawkwood's correspondence with several Popes to grasp the sheer magnitude of the Renaissance idea of conspicuous consumption. Where one noble is melting down his dinnerware to bribe mercenaries, another is feeding them roast pheasant covered in gold foil.
(which may have accidently poisoned Prince Lionel by the way)
So you can't argue away metal grommets by saying that it would have been too costly to reuse the metal or the fabric. They did it all the time.
As for the lack of 18th century examples, you have to remember the economy was different for the ruling class by then. A baron's income might exceed the average merchant by multiple of 20 in the 15th century. By the 18th century that had dropped to an average of x5.
Quote from: verymerryseamstress on July 22, 2008, 02:33:20 PM
Miranda,
I'm not here to "argue" with you, or anyone else.
The point I was trying to make with my last post is that there need not be ANY functional purpose when it comes to fashion. Quite often mere decoration is enough to make people want to use it.
The codpiece to which I am referring is the obnoxiously huge, overstuffed monstrosity that has no purpose other than to say "HEY, BABY! CHECK OUT MY GROIN."
I'm *not* referring to a fly flap.
The grommets on these garments (both on the sleeves behind and on the tunic) are *not* laced tightly. They are laced very loosely, almost decoratively, and are *not* being used to fasten anything in this situation. Your argument might work if this was a tightly-laced garment, but it's not.
I think that what Miranda's trying to say is that, because both garment and fastener were both HIGHLY valuable (in this, as well as in future time periods), it wouldn't make sense to utilize a grommet. (Because, as she pointed out, you'd not be able to re-sell either fastener or article of glothing - the grommet would leave a hole, and, once punched, it was there to stay - unless it was ripped out, thus, leaving a hole... Etc. ad infinitum.) Certainly, they could be melted down and recyled in *that* fashion, but that's a very labor-intensive process for so small a piece of metalwork.
Common sense dictates that you'd, both as a tailor and as someone who appreciated the high cost of clothing, take the path that would allow you to eke as much out of your items as possible. Ergo, easily removable lacing rings (which wouldn't damage the shirt in the process).
Plus, if you examine the painting, the lacing appears to loop around the ring - rather than the edge of the shirt and INTO the ring (as with a grommet/hole).
Incidentally, you'll notice that those things on the dude's wrist behind Senor Controversial Collar are more clearly lacing rings.
Does anyone have any examples of actual grommet usage from which to site? I know there's lots floating around about lacing rings...
Just curious! :)
My response to Miranda's point is that is DOESN'T HAVE to be functional or logical. Decorative embellishments can be found throughout history.
When I have some free time to upload the images of the OTHER sleeve, you will see that they actually look more like grommets and not lacing rings. ;) They actually appear to be set into the fabric as opposed to resting on top of it, as a lacing ring would. Give me a day or two to upload it.
I honestly think that if they were used, they would show up in later periods as well.
Also, the clothing in the painting doesn't really resemble the clothing found in this geographical region at this time period. It is the artist representation of what was worn in biblical times.
And I am not trying to "argue" merely to debate. Which is what you do when new ideas are presented.
I think we're all in agreement that this is not typical of fashion for this era. I don't think anyone disputes that fact.
I've managed to take a photo of the other sleeve, and while it's not terribly clear, it's as good as I can get it.
(http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v272/98/30/501422167/n501422167_615595_6976.jpg)
Please look at the bottom piece. It's flush with the fabric as though it's set-in. A lacing ring would be well raised above the fabric. The lacings are also very loose - not tight at all - which would allow the cord to drape down on top of itself, making it look as though it was coming in and out of a ring. Because the lacings are so loose, we can't really use that as definitive proof that they're lacing rings, because the cord would look that way, no matter what the metal pieces are.
This picture, moreso than the other, looks to me like grommets than lacings.
Could someone direct me to a good image of a lacing ring looks like? I don't know what they are or how they even differ from grommets. I'd like to be able to compare them myself. Thanks.
http://www.festiveattyre.com/research/lacing/lace9.html
http://www.festiveattyre.com/research/lacing/lace2.html
http://www.festiveattyre.com/research/lacing/lace1.html
Here are some details of lacing rings.
I'm now thinking perhaps the argument of what is depicted in the painting is kind of moot-- consider this:
A) the painter is depicting what he wishes to, not necessarily what was actually WORN by the subjects: artisic license. Embellishing.
B) Those really ARE gold/brass colored eyelets -- but not metal ones, hand worked eyelets in metallic or metallic colored thread.
I don't know for sure if they existed at that point, or who used them. It is a good argument.... but not one I"ll spend a lot of time agonizing over -- what I do know is, grommets are a pain in the patoot to put in, and since I don't have a machine that will do it, I have to do it by hand. Either choice is a bit tedious time consuming to me (I'm not expert at it yet). Depending on the garment, and my deadline, I could go either way, and consideration of historical accuracy will usually take a back seat.
and it's back to the sweat shop for me anyhow...I"ve got less than a month till faire -- and a gal's gotta have SOMETHING to wear, ya know!
Quote from: Katie Bookwench on July 22, 2008, 07:54:35 PM
B) Those really ARE gold/brass colored eyelets -- but not metal ones, hand worked eyelets in metallic or metallic colored thread.
THIS!!! I think this is exactly what we are seeing with the sleeve.
It looks to me that there certainly are Grommets on the "sleeve", although they appear to be not to be part of the sleeve, but appear to be wrist bracers.
They (the bracers) appear to be made of thick Leather, and I cannot fathom that someone would sew lacing rings to such thick leather...
...although I cannot completely rule out that the artist didn't paint it so, or that some medieval leather worker took the time to sew them on, it just seems unlikely to me.
well parts of what peoples were saying was the fact that people would re-use the metals in other products or garments, the gold wire and such...
why can't a grommet be re-used, just melt it down and use it again..
as to there being a hole in the fabric, that part of the fabric would be torn, but not the whole fabric, cut around it... also just wear that garment till you've stained it up...
The issue is, in history, the garb would have been resold. Cutting grommet from the garment would devalue the garment.
http://www.extremecostuming.com/articles/secondhandclothes.html
Here is a whole article on the secondhand clothing market in 16th century London.
Ok, as an artist, and as I said in an earlier post, they didn't have real unicorns either, but there are paintings and tapestries with unicorns on them, painted in a realistic manner. :o
Our perceptions of what unicorns or angels look like, are based on the artists' interpretation.
Sometimes artists add things that look good, not because they are really there. Or take out something that doesn't look good. A lot of art is symbolism, too. Art is an illusion, not a photograph.
Lady L,
I most certainly understand your point, however while there were not real "Unicorns", there were undoubtably real "Unicorn Horns".
While such creatures were not seen, their horns were, and as so they existed... (because if the horns existed, so must the creature.)
A Unicorn horn was worked into the Medicis' Royal Chalice, to combat poison.
...the reality of it, is now known as a "Narwhale horn".
...however this little factoid does not negate your point of "Artistic License".
Fun tidbit on Unicorns. The Populace may have thought they existed and the reasoning is this.
A few weeks ago I saw a non-doctored photgraph from a scientific website that showed a Roe deer with 1 antler. The antler was growing right dead center of his forehead and came to a single point. The jounel went on to say that while this was rare, it was not the first instance of it. It was the first time they had seen it growing dead center. Most were usually off center. It was noted this this could have sparked the belief in Unicorns. SO in retrospect Unicorns may have truely existed to those in times past.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080612-AP-unicorn-photo.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080612-AP-unicorn-photo.html)
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/11/unicorn-deer-italy.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/11/unicorn-deer-italy.html)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_TvkB1-XeE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_TvkB1-XeE)
It would be easy to see how one could easily say these are unicorns
Aww..cute little unideer.
Here's a thread that may be helpful:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/berengaria/nov98.html
The author states lacing rings were used around the lacing hole. I'd thought rings were only sewn on one end so as to allow the cord to string through the ring itself and not the fabric. I have seen photos of metal rings sewn into a belt hole. Perhaps this is what we are looking at?
They are used either way. Either to reinforce a stitched eyelet as described here:http://www.modehistorique.com/stays/halfbonedstays.html (http://www.modehistorique.com/stays/halfbonedstays.html)
Or
Stitched on as described in Anna Iram's post, shown here:
http://www.festiveattyre.com/research/lacing/lace1.html
I believe we are seeing both types in the Adoration Painting.
Quote from: Angus on July 23, 2008, 03:45:40 AM
Lady L,
I most certainly understand your point, however while there were not real "Unicorns", there were undoubtably real "Unicorn Horns".
While such creatures were not seen, their horns were, and as so they existed... (because if the horns existed, so must the creature.)
A Unicorn horn was worked into the Medicis' Royal Chalice, to combat poison.
...the reality of it, is now known as a "Narwhale horn".
...however this little factoid does not negate your point of "Artistic License".
Yes, I am quite aware of narwhale horns. The thing is, though, narwhales do not look like any of the unicorns that were painted or stitched during the Renaissance. I don't recall seeing any paintings of just the horn by itself. It's usually on the head of a 4 legged, hoofed (quadruped ungulate) animal... sometimes it looks more like a small goat and others depict it more horse-like. But not whale-like. :) So, if artists could invent such a creature, how difficult would it be for them to paint something such as grommets?
Yes, I saw that too, Lady de Laney. :)