On Sunday 16 April 2006 6:50 pm, Kimiko Small wrote: [snip] > At 10:19 AM 4/16/2006, you [AlbertCat] 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 agree with Kimiko here. The few outfits where I disagree I believe the problem can be attributed to a less than optimal fabric choice. I would like to see more information about how to choose fabrics that are likely to look and behave appropriate in the next edition (assuming there is one!). [snip] > ><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. The biggest problem I found so far is that the comments in the text on French hoods appear to disagree with directions given in the back for making the French hood. The text says, for example, at page 28 that the foundation of all hoods was a separate linen undercap "which could be washed." The French hood pattern makes a hood with an integral "bag cap" and implies that the "bag cap" part could be used to make a separate "undercap" instead. I'm also wondering what the evidence is for the "separate undercap" interpretation (though it seems rational enough) but it's possible it's included in the endnotes, which are written in teensy print which I haven't yet tried to read. > > 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. I agree, but I also suspect it's a fabric choice problem. > 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. I agree with this opinion also. No one book is, or should be, the be-all and end-all on any area of historic costume. That doesn't mean that some books aren't worthy of praise for trying to support the efforts of those of us interested in reconstructing period costume. -- Cathy Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "I'm starting to like the cut of this man's gibberish." --General Fillmore (from "The Tick," episode 2) _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
