Do you see what I see?

[Kate XXXXXX]

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!      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)

[Athena]

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 Think about it - would it be acceptable to march up to someone IRL and tell them their clothes are outdated by twenty years?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. 

[DonaCatalina]

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):


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.

[LaurenLee]

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! )

[Lady Kathleen of Olmsted]

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???

[princess farcical]

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'... 

[verymerryseamstress]

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."

[Kate XXXXXX]

GUFFAW!!

[Trillium]

*SNERK*

That was almost a waste of a darn good frappachino...

[Miranda]

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  )

[verymerryseamstress]

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 . . . .

[Miranda]

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.

[Capt Gabriela Fullpepper]

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.

[verymerryseamstress]

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. 

[DonaCatalina]

We know they had different ideas about reusing metals, and jewels for that matter.
I think George III's Coronation Robes 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.