Hello,
It's ok that you have a negative perspective on the book, and I thank you
for sharing that as we all needed a critical and honest look. I actually
was rather pleased with the book.
At 10:19 AM 4/16/2006, you wrote:
<snip>>
pretty good, there is something unconvincing about all the clothes. They
look
costume-y to me. I can't quite put my finger on why. Maybe it's because
everything looks like it's hot off the sewing machine.
They look like clothes to me, compared to the many costume-y garments I see
at various faires in my area. And reading the book, there is a lot of hand
sewing going on in the directions. About the only machine sewing I am
reading (and I am by no means done reading) is the side and back seams, the
lining is noted as going in by hand.
I find the patterns basic at best. Very unsophisticated. I could have
drafted most of the men's stuff by looking at paintings.
To my perspective, all patterns at it's root during this time are basic.
Rectangles, form fitting shapes, draped sleeves based again on rectangles.
Looking at Bruegel recently I noted a number of rectangles and basic
patterns at the root of the peasant's garments.
And the women's patterns
can just about all be found in Janet Arnold [plus some of the men's] or Jean
Hunnisette.
Agreed. Which is a good thing to my mind as I would be a bit concerned if
her patterns didn't look similar.
I think if you can understand such patterns, you are to a point where you
don't need instructions to put the things together.
Perhaps for some of us who have done this for awhile, but I see this as a
good book for beginners to learn from as well.
<snip>> but their instructions for making a ruff are: "Starch ruff using
preferred method. Set pleats using curling tongs". Geee...thanks!
They also include a picture of a woman setting a ruff, which helps more
than just words can sometimes do. But that last part was at the end of
basic instructions for how to make the ruff to begin with.
<snip>>But, again, I find the Gable
hood pictured not convincing at all. It stands away from the head too
much and
the crossed, striped pieces over the forehead look nothing like paintings.
That is the gable hood without the "undercap front", which is why it looks
odd. I think they did that to show the bound hair crossed over the head,
which is one theory of what those striped pieces were supposed to be,
covered or just with a ribbon binding. Her directions actually call for
striped silk for the hair casings.
Some other problems...like I mentioned, the French Farthingale gowns look
skimpy in the skirts....and on top of that the whole ensembles look
unruly. This
can be because we modern folk just don't have it down when it comes to
pinning and tacking these complicated contraptions together....a daily
chore in
the period.
Could be. A friend made up the Hunnisett gown, and it looked just as
unruly, and skimpy in some ways.
And the back view of the early Tudor gown on page 110....look at it. The
side back pieces are not cut symmetrically. That bold pattern is off by what
must be 1/2 an inch or more!
Wouldn't that be for the seam allowance for the back and side back pieces?
Although I understand where that arrangement of pattern pieces comes from,
I personally don't understand what they are supposed to do to the garment.
To sum up this rant:
The book has some very useful info in it, especially concerning men's hose
and ladies' head gear. And it's convenient to have it all in one
place....men
and women.
Agreed. It also has a lot of background info all in one place, along with
the patterns, which is great if you don't have Arnold or Hunnisett in your
library already (which Hunnisett's books are getting harder and more
expensive to buy, especially if you are new).
But it's very basic and uneven. Honnisette's book has better instructions
for what are practically identical patterns....which if you can understand
from
this book, you probably don't need instructions.
While I have had a couple of items that I found confusing, for the most
part I have been able to easily follow the directions in the book. The
question is, how easy would beginners find the instructions? That I can't
answer.
Examples in the book look costume-y and have skimpy yardages and even cutt
ing boo-boos.
I don't agree, as at least in my area, if we could create and wear garments
to this level, the look of the events would greatly increase. Perhaps it is
the perspective of the areas we live and work for.
It's well worth having the book. But it's not my favorite by a long shot.
_______________________________________________
For me, it has become a favorite for many reasons. A big part is the decent
price and updated info all in one book.
There is a quote from the book that explains the writers' aim with this
book. "There is an identifiable hierarchy of activities: replication,
reconstruction and re-creation. The first is an attempt to duplicate an
extant item exactly; the second involves some justifiable speculation; and
the third uses guesswork and imagination. This book is primarily concerned
with reconstruction."
I think they succeeded in their aim.
No, it isn't perfect, but it is a darn site better than most books
available to the beginning to intermediate costumer, which either can be
overwhelming in the amount of info, too expensive to buy unless you are
serious, or feeds you wrong information in the guise of helping you to just
get started. I have learned a bit more than I already did, and that is
always a good thing.
Just my perspective.
Kimiko
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
