There are actually 16th century portraits out there, in which there are clearly two *different* patterns on the two sides of a collar. It's also obvious, from some of the construction details, that collars had both an inside layer of fabric and an outer (I'm avoiding saying "always," of course....). There's a boy's shirt from, I think, the 1540's, currently at the V&A, which has a small ruffle extending out from the shirt collar. It's pretty clear that the shirt-edge of the ruffle is enclosed between two layers of collar. I'm guessing that your friend is more likely to find evidence of reversability in the cuffs and ruffles (applied or integral), than in the collars. --Sue ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Netherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Historical Costume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 6:47 PM Subject: RE: [h-cost] Medieval embroidery
> > On Sat, 5 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Its appearance at cuffs and collars doesn't have any real relevance to > > the state of the back, as embroidery was done prior to the making up > > of the garment (usually), so that the back of the work would be > > unlikely to be seen. > > That would certainly be the case for, say, a doublet, but for the cuffs or > collars of linen chemises, which are not lined, why would the embroidery > be done in advance, or assumed not to be seen? Chemises in 16th century > paintings are often shown with blackwork embroidery on cuff edges and > collars; presumably the insides of the cuffs would be readily visible, and > collars might be turned out in some cases. > > --Robin > > _______________________________________________ > h-costume mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
