Re: Perception of color, Re: [h-cost] Princess Elizabeth
At 16:01 21/02/2006, you wrote: Fabric dyes vary in their resistance to color change. Some dyes change color, some just fade, some do both. It also depends upon the fabric itself; in my experience cottons and linens tend to hold their colors better than silks. Wools have held their colors well. I had some acetate plaid taffeta that changed color while stored in a dark closet under fairly constant climatic conditions. So synthetics, in my experience, have the worst survival characteristics. Pigments for painting are generally minerals, so the colors have a better chance to survive intact, although where some organic pigments are used, they can fade/change just like fabric. There are some minerals that do change color due to chemical reactions with air, though modern analytic techniques can determine what the original mineral was and restore the proper color. The usual reason for color changes in portraits are the accumulation of dust, soot, etc., on the surface and earlier attempts to protect the painting with varnish, which often darkens with age. According to QEWU The deep pink gown is fashionably cut and the material is described in the records of Edward Vl's collection of pictures the ladye Elizabeth her grace with a booke in her hande her gowne like crymsen clothe of golde with workes. Just o confuse matters you understand. When I was at college we went to see the portraits at Windsor, and this was always referred to as the Pink Princess, which tends to make me think that we all saw it as a pink dress. Suzi Hi, Ah yes, and the purple wheelfarthingale dress i made for Castle Selsø has turned brownish grey :-) Anyway it was a dupioni silk, and they dont hold their colours very long. Dress was exhibited in a room with morning sun. Bjarne Re the perception of color in these portraits: For you who do dyeing (Natural or otherwise) did the color of dyed textiles of the past change because of exposure to sunlight or was there some chemical element that was not always stable and would mute or even mutate over a period of time. In the present world, I have seen color changes on bolts and even garments that have never seen the light of day go entirely from one color to another. For instance, there is a certain grey from the middle of the 20th C, that seems to change to pink within a 40 yr. span. My daughters pale blue taffeta promgown from the 1990s is now a sort of interesting pale rose. I have a bolt of rayon velvet from the'70s that is presently an interesting shade of lavender. In reference to these portraits under discussion, might the colors on the canvas have changed, or the garments themselves have been 'changeable'? kathleen Misremembering happens to all of us! g Seriously, though, it could be two different copies--I know that some of the portraits of Elizabeth I (as queen) and her sister, Mary, were done multipe times--there's that great chapter in QEUnlocked that talks about them. So it could be that, especially since so many of our details are similar. And maybe it explains why some of the reproductions seem so pink and others more orange? I don't know about yours--we only had time for the National Gallery of Art (which was on its last day of a Truly Cool Exhibit on Fabric in Portraits), and didn't make it over to the Portrait Gallery. Well, maybe we could have, if I hadn't been making a complete pig of myself in the bookstore. weg I've seen monochrome embroidery done in red in a couple of portraits in my books, and a little of it in the Textile Rooms at the VA. A friend of mine says it's known as morisco work (spelling optional at this time of the evening ;o) I *think* I've got a copy of a painting of Mary I with red embroidery somewhere. I *think.* (sorry...bad case of chocolate cravings paired with knitting fatigue from the Knitting Olympics! LOL!) When did you see it in the Portrait Gallery? I was in England in 2002, and saw the painting at Windsor. The dress was screaming pink, no orange to it at all. The forepart and undersleeves are made of a gold pile/cream base cut and voided velvet, although I suspect that the pile, in this case, is gold thread (looks distinctly metallic). --Sue, wondering if there are two of them out there Hmmm...maybe I was mistaken. I know I saw the Princess Mary Tudor portrait while I was there. I thought I saw the Elizabeth one, too. But seeing the Mary Tudor portrait in person was pretty cool because I discovered that her chemise had redwork on the cuffs! I hadn't heard of redwork before then and the photos I had seen of the painting didn't have enough detail to show it. Very cool! Diana www.RenaissanceFabrics.net Everything for the Costumer Become the change you want to see in the world. --Ghandi ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com
Re: Perception of color, Re: [h-cost] Princess Elizabeth
Referring to those red fox-hunting jackets as pinks raises the additional question of just what the British historically meant when they called something pink. --Ruth Anne Baumgartner scholar gypsy and amateur costumer -Original Message- From: Suzi Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Feb 21, 2006 11:39 AM To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Perception of color, Re: [h-cost] Princess Elizabeth At 16:01 21/02/2006, you wrote: Fabric dyes vary in their resistance to color change. Some dyes change color, some just fade, some do both. It also depends upon the fabric itself; in my experience cottons and linens tend to hold their colors better than silks. Wools have held their colors well. I had some acetate plaid taffeta that changed color while stored in a dark closet under fairly constant climatic conditions. So synthetics, in my experience, have the worst survival characteristics. Pigments for painting are generally minerals, so the colors have a better chance to survive intact, although where some organic pigments are used, they can fade/change just like fabric. There are some minerals that do change color due to chemical reactions with air, though modern analytic techniques can determine what the original mineral was and restore the proper color. The usual reason for color changes in portraits are the accumulation of dust, soot, etc., on the surface and earlier attempts to protect the painting with varnish, which often darkens with age. According to QEWU The deep pink gown is fashionably cut and the material is described in the records of Edward Vl's collection of pictures the ladye Elizabeth her grace with a booke in her hande her gowne like crymsen clothe of golde with workes. Just o confuse matters you understand. When I was at college we went to see the portraits at Windsor, and this was always referred to as the Pink Princess, which tends to make me think that we all saw it as a pink dress. Suzi Hi, Ah yes, and the purple wheelfarthingale dress i made for Castle Selsø has turned brownish grey :-) Anyway it was a dupioni silk, and they dont hold their colours very long. Dress was exhibited in a room with morning sun. Bjarne Re the perception of color in these portraits: For you who do dyeing (Natural or otherwise) did the color of dyed textiles of the past change because of exposure to sunlight or was there some chemical element that was not always stable and would mute or even mutate over a period of time. In the present world, I have seen color changes on bolts and even garments that have never seen the light of day go entirely from one color to another. For instance, there is a certain grey from the middle of the 20th C, that seems to change to pink within a 40 yr. span. My daughters pale blue taffeta promgown from the 1990s is now a sort of interesting pale rose. I have a bolt of rayon velvet from the'70s that is presently an interesting shade of lavender. In reference to these portraits under discussion, might the colors on the canvas have changed, or the garments themselves have been 'changeable'? kathleen Misremembering happens to all of us! g Seriously, though, it could be two different copies--I know that some of the portraits of Elizabeth I (as queen) and her sister, Mary, were done multipe times--there's that great chapter in QEUnlocked that talks about them. So it could be that, especially since so many of our details are similar. And maybe it explains why some of the reproductions seem so pink and others more orange? I don't know about yours--we only had time for the National Gallery of Art (which was on its last day of a Truly Cool Exhibit on Fabric in Portraits), and didn't make it over to the Portrait Gallery. Well, maybe we could have, if I hadn't been making a complete pig of myself in the bookstore. weg I've seen monochrome embroidery done in red in a couple of portraits in my books, and a little of it in the Textile Rooms at the VA. A friend of mine says it's known as morisco work (spelling optional at this time of the evening ;o) I *think* I've got a copy of a painting of Mary I with red embroidery somewhere. I *think.* (sorry...bad case of chocolate cravings paired with knitting fatigue from the Knitting Olympics! LOL!) When did you see it in the Portrait Gallery? I was in England in 2002, and saw the painting at Windsor. The dress was screaming pink, no orange to it at all. The forepart and undersleeves are made of a gold pile/cream base cut and voided velvet, although I suspect that the pile, in this case, is gold thread (looks distinctly metallic). --Sue, wondering if there are two of them out there Hmmm...maybe I was mistaken. I know I saw the Princess Mary Tudor portrait while I was there. I thought I saw the Elizabeth one, too. But seeing the Mary Tudor portrait in person was pretty cool because I discovered that her chemise had redwork
Re: Perception of color, Re: [h-cost] Princess Elizabeth
Well, the colour name pink is supposed to derive from the flower, which is so called because the edges of the petals are pinked. The uncultivated form of the flower is pink rather than scarlet. Kate Bunting Librarian and 17th century reenactor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 21/02/2006 19:02 Referring to those red fox-hunting jackets as pinks raises the additional question of just what the British historically meant when they called something pink. --Ruth Anne Baumgartner scholar gypsy and amateur costumer __ ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: Perception of color, Re: [h-cost] Princess Elizabeth
Thanks for the many responses to my query on color perception and 'mutations'. This has been very interesting to me with examples of both fibers and painting/printing copies. Through the years I have had customers who come armed with a picture from which they expect a costume copy. Trying to tell them that they do not have a 'fair print' for reproduction purposes, especially regarding color, has truly been problematical. If it is a color that was not available for the time period, there is usually fuss and bother. Lately, I do not mind telling them to pick a 'right color' or find someone else to do up their creation. Sigh, Kathleen - Original Message - From: Suzi Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:39 AM Subject: Re: Perception of color, Re: [h-cost] Princess Elizabeth At 16:01 21/02/2006, you wrote: Fabric dyes vary in their resistance to color change. Some dyes change color, some just fade, some do both. It also depends upon the fabric itself; in my experience cottons and linens tend to hold their colors better than silks. Wools have held their colors well. I had some acetate plaid taffeta that changed color while stored in a dark closet under fairly constant climatic conditions. So synthetics, in my experience, have the worst survival characteristics. Pigments for painting are generally minerals, so the colors have a better chance to survive intact, although where some organic pigments are used, they can fade/change just like fabric. There are some minerals that do change color due to chemical reactions with air, though modern analytic techniques can determine what the original mineral was and restore the proper color. The usual reason for color changes in portraits are the accumulation of dust, soot, etc., on the surface and earlier attempts to protect the painting with varnish, which often darkens with age. According to QEWU The deep pink gown is fashionably cut and the material is described in the records of Edward Vl's collection of pictures the ladye Elizabeth her grace with a booke in her hande her gowne like crymsen clothe of golde with workes. Just o confuse matters you understand. When I was at college we went to see the portraits at Windsor, and this was always referred to as the Pink Princess, which tends to make me think that we all saw it as a pink dress. Suzi Hi, Ah yes, and the purple wheelfarthingale dress i made for Castle Selsø has turned brownish grey :-) Anyway it was a dupioni silk, and they dont hold their colours very long. Dress was exhibited in a room with morning sun. Bjarne Re the perception of color in these portraits: For you who do dyeing (Natural or otherwise) did the color of dyed textiles of the past change because of exposure to sunlight or was there some chemical element that was not always stable and would mute or even mutate over a period of time. In the present world, I have seen color changes on bolts and even garments that have never seen the light of day go entirely from one color to another. For instance, there is a certain grey from the middle of the 20th C, that seems to change to pink within a 40 yr. span. My daughters pale blue taffeta promgown from the 1990s is now a sort of interesting pale rose. I have a bolt of rayon velvet from the'70s that is presently an interesting shade of lavender. In reference to these portraits under discussion, might the colors on the canvas have changed, or the garments themselves have been 'changeable'? kathleen Misremembering happens to all of us! g Seriously, though, it could be two different copies--I know that some of the portraits of Elizabeth I (as queen) and her sister, Mary, were done multipe times--there's that great chapter in QEUnlocked that talks about them. So it could be that, especially since so many of our details are similar. And maybe it explains why some of the reproductions seem so pink and others more orange? I don't know about yours--we only had time for the National Gallery of Art (which was on its last day of a Truly Cool Exhibit on Fabric in Portraits), and didn't make it over to the Portrait Gallery. Well, maybe we could have, if I hadn't been making a complete pig of myself in the bookstore. weg I've seen monochrome embroidery done in red in a couple of portraits in my books, and a little of it in the Textile Rooms at the VA. A friend of mine says it's known as morisco work (spelling optional at this time of the evening ;o) I *think* I've got a copy of a painting of Mary I with red embroidery somewhere. I *think.* (sorry...bad case of chocolate cravings paired with knitting fatigue from the Knitting Olympics! LOL!) When did you see it in the Portrait Gallery? I was in England in 2002, and saw the painting at Windsor. The dress was screaming pink, no orange to it at all
