> This won't work for me, though. The front panels alone are wide enough > to go completely around my waist. I'll have to pleat at the sides as > well as the back.
I scaled the pattern to fit me, so I went by the proportions on the pattern: I took my length from waist to floor for a guide to the height, then noted that the side seams matched the side back bodice, used my measurement for that, then used the angle for the skirt side seams to get my final measurement. Using the front panel I was able to work out the back panel. I suppose the method I used is based very much on the method of scaling up used in Kohler. I just find it gives a really good and easy way of scaling up proportionally. Oh yeah and to add more fun to the mix. None of the extant items has that tuck in the front of the skirt. Not the two cut down dresses for the statues, not the little girl's c1600 dress. Alcega does not mention them. What I suspect is that the seam that lies across the front of the faldallin (the half circle petticoats as opposed to gored) became a fashion feature. It's entirely possible this seam (which falls exactly as the tucks in the paintings do) crossed over into artwork, or the skirts were on occasion cut the same way. I don't really think so though given the pattern repeats in portraits don't bear this out. And the faldallin are cut so there is no vertical seam in the front. Michaela de Bruce http://glittersweet.com _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
