This entire thread just dumped into my mailbox; obviously things were hung up somewhere. I'll add a few thoughts to the various responses.
First: This is on the late side to be called a GFD, and there were a variety of fitting techniques available at this point. It's important to note that the dress you see on the surface is an outer garment, and there's another garment under that, the neckline of which is hidden under a placket. So the support comes from the underdress, which is not visible in these pictures. I myself, though, would use pretty much the same technique that I use for an earlier 15th c. fitted dress, as the silhouette you're looking for is much the same (although there are other silhouettes that appear concurrently by this point). Second: You cited three images: the Woodville portrait (maybe 1465-75?), the Seyntmour brass (1475), and the Cheyne brass (1485). I would not take the cleavage in the Seyntmour brass as being particularly realistic; brasses were made from stock patterns, not from life, and different schools included particular shorthand elements in the depictions (sometimes for artistic purposes, sometimes symbolic) for reasons that had little to do with the look a style would have in wear. The Woodville portrait is probably most accurate, if very posed; you can see a clearer view here: http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/Queens/Misc/Elizabeth.html ...which shows that the bust expansion is rather below the line of the placket. Cleavage would be unlikely except for an extremely large-busted woman. The Cheyne brass is rather later and has a somewhat lower neckline, with more bosom distending the necklines, but it's uncertain whether this was an accurate rendition of this style of dress, or the transference of standard artistic "female" characteristics onto a style that might not look this way in wear. That said: It is possible to get cleavage, or a sense thereof, using a GFD method and a small-busted woman. A lot depends, though, on just how small-busted she is, and whether the breasts are at all malleable. You say that you "can't get the dress to exert the right sort of pressure to push her breasts together." Can you do so with your hands? If so, you can make the dress do that too. If not, that means there isn't enough mass to accomplish conventional cleavage (meaning a crease between the breasts). However, you might be able to emphasize the presence of two independent "mounds" even if you don't get noticable "cleavage" by a modern definition. This is what Adele described, regarding her friend who had no loose tissue to move around. To do this, you need to exert pressure on the bottom of the breasts. This effect will be familiar to anyone who's seen me demonstrate this in my lecture. It involves the depth of the neckline. If your dress covers the top half of the breasts, you will get a rather flattened "monobosom" that is, in fact, correct for some eras (e.g. 1380). Over the ensuing decades, necklines crept downword, and the pressure on the top of the breasts was gradually eliminated, allowing the breast mass to shift upward. A lower-necked style is correspondingly a little tighter on the ribcage and the lower half of the breasts, to account for the fact that there is less of the breast mass at the lower levels and to maintain the pressure there. It helps to keep in mind that the breast itself stays in the same (high) position; you're just moving the internal stuffing around to change the profile. The easy way to see if this will work on your model: Have her lie down. If you press on the bottom side of her breast, does the top "plump"? If so, you can make the dress do that. (It should go without saying that you are fitting lying down -- right? You'll never get the mass positioned correctly if you fit her standing.) But wait, there's more. I normally use a straight front seam on my dresses, for a variety of reasons, including support. (This is particularly important for large-busted women; the last time I tried a curved-front seam, I watched my breasts drop to what felt like my knees, as they took advantage of the off-grain elasticity.) However, I will sometimes use a curve on the front to help "push up" a very small bosom that would otherwise be squashed into oblivion. This is *not* the same as the curve Tasha (at cottesimple) uses, which creates a rather lower expansion at the bustline. The front curve I use to plump a small-busted woman goes the other way: It presses in at the ribcage, then flares outward (as you follow the center front profile upward). This *must* be used in conjunction with a very low neckline, just over the nipples. The bust area acts like a funnel, being narrower under the bust and expanding upward so the widest part of the front curve is at the neckline. The entire front seam, from neckline to navel, looks like a parenthesis -- ( -- with the narrowest part over the ribcage. The outermost reach of the manipulated breast will be above the nipple, at the level of the neckline. Hope this helps. It's much easier to explain in person! --Robin _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
