Sharon wrote: >At 6:55 AM -0700 1/18/08, Saragrace Knauf wrote: >>Ah Ha! >>http://www.museothyssen.org/thyssen_ing/coleccion/obras_ficha_zoom605.html >> >>I suppose one could argue this isn't a shirt, but I've never seen an >>under dress with this kind of cuff... > >The portrait shows the garment as being lined, however -- or >magically blue on the outside and red on the inside. Whatever it is, >I really don't think this is persuasive evidence for colored >underwear (shirts).
To me, the clincher is that you *can* see a shirt or partlet in the front gap of the gown, at and below the neckline -- and it's white, just as one would expect. There's no sign of the blue-and-red garment in that front opening, which to me says that it must be open all the way down the front. I've never seen a cuff like that on an underdress either, but I'd be more willing to accept that it's an undergown with odd cuffs than a shirt that is open all the way to the waist :). ____________________________________________________________ 0 Chris Laning | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> + Davis, California http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
