Stockings in 17th century are more likely to be baggy. Specially if without
clocks so don't need to show off pattern. Woven or knitted, expensive silk
stockings didn't have as much stretch. In paintings such as Van Dyck's they're
oftentimes deliberately wrinkly and that's meant to be attractive, not a sign
the wearer was too poor to buy good stockins or too lazy to pull them up!
Sometimes the gusset is shown in the side of the shoe so it's not
over-romanticising the garment for artistic effect. Sewers and knitters of
cheaper woollen ones still tried to follow fashion even if at a
distance. They'd aim for a good fit, but not the skin-tight svelte fit of
modern stretchy machine-made pantyhose.
It's generally unfair and patronising to assume that past craftsmen and artists
didn't know what they're doing. Often it's true they used certain methods
because they didn't know anything else. Eg some oil paintings discoloured
because that artist or their paint supplier hadn't been taught how to grind and
mix the paints correctly so the colours fade and distort over time, or they
only knew how to create certain effects by using colour glazes and varnishes
removed by overcleaning in the more recent past. But oftentimes they knew
exactly what they were doing, experience and sensible deduction frequently
highlight why. It's also mistake to view period fit through modern eyes. What
we find attractive and commonsense isn't guaranteed attractive and commonsense
in period.
Very quick and ungrammatical as I'm going out!
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
