<snip>
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.
Yes, I forgot to mention we are fitting the under-dress not the outer dress (I think her ambitions to have this and the overdress finished in 2 weeks is a little ambitious, but if we get the under-dress done at least she has something to wear that's not a discard from the Chandlery (loaner garb for those unfamiliar with SCA terminology).
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). <snip>
She's aiming for about 1480, she has a particular brass she wants to replicate (which does show cleavage) but I don't know where to find her image. I found another image which shows cleavage from 1479 http://www.mbs-brasses.co.uk/pic_lib/Sotterley_Brass.htm which is probably a better representation of what she wants.
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.
Yes she can bush her breasts together to create cleavage but I can't get the dress to push her breasts inwards.
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 neckline is definitely low, in fact she is in danger falling out (somebody else began the fitting process on this dress a year or two ago so certain things, like the neckline, are already established and can't be changed)
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.)
Hmm, I might try lying down again, we tried it in the early stages of the fitting but couldn't get it firm enough to give her much support, then again, now I'm manipulating the side seams rather than the front seam it might work better (when I started I tried a curved front seam but then decided to go for a straight front seam instead)
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
Thanks for these tips I'll try them out and see what sort of success we get. Elizabeth -------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Walpole Canberra Australia ewalpole[at]tpg.com.au http://au.geocities.com/amiperiodornot/ _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
