Do you see what I see?

[princess farcical]

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.

[princess farcical]

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! 

[verymerryseamstress]

My response to Miranda's point is that is DOESN'T HAVE to be functional or logical.  Decorative embellishments can be found throughout history.

[verymerryseamstress]

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.

[Miranda]

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. 

[verymerryseamstress]

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.



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. 

[CatAshtrophy]

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.

[Miranda]

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.

[Katie Bookwench]

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!

[isabelladangelo]

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.

[Angus]

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.

[gypsylakat]

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...

[Miranda]

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.

[Lady L]

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. 
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.

[Angus]

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".