On Dec 25, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Robin Netherton wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006, Robin Netherton wrote:
This is the one I like -- look at Elizabeth's left side, and
you'll see the side seam has been opened and laced with a gap. You
can see the dark underdress beneath.
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006, Carol Kocian wrote:
Ok, that is very obvious. I see again that there are more
eyelets than are being used by the lace. What's going on there - some
kind of lace shortage? It's not a get dressed fast scene, and also
wouldn't that side lace be for adjustment
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006, Sue Clemenger wrote:
If I recall correctly, through the mists of time and cold medicine ;o), I
remember you pointing out (at the workshop in Boise) that the different
silhouettes we were coming up with during the fittings were appropriate to
different decades/time
Is that really a pleated ruffle at the bottom of the
undergown?
MaggiRos
--- E House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Suzi Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you for the wonderful images - unfortunately
I cannot get this one
MaggiRos wrote:
Is that really a pleated ruffle at the bottom of the
undergown?
http://www.formfunction.org/temp/1475-80ValeriusMaximus.jpg
I would have guessed an area of embroidery or applied trim, since
there's no obvious additional fullness around the hem.
--
Adele de Maisieres
In the mid late 15thC, supportive gowns often don't close up all the way.
A few of the many examples:
http://www.formfunction.org/temp/15thDress1.jpg
http://www.formfunction.org/temp/memling38.jpg
http://www.formfunction.org/temp/minidance.jpg
At 08:34 24/12/2006, you wrote:
In the mid late 15thC, supportive gowns often don't close up all
the way. A few of the many examples:
http://www.formfunction.org/temp/15thDress1.jpg
http://www.formfunction.org/temp/memling38.jpg
http://www.formfunction.org/temp/minidance.jpg
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, E House wrote:
The fit of the supportive gown/GFD in the mid late 15thC is
different than in the 14thC early 15thC.
Yes indeed.
I should note that the term GFD seems to be applied much more broadly
these days than I ever intended when I began lecturing on the Gothic
The fit of the supportive gown/GFD in the mid late 15thC is different
than in the 14thC early 15thC. The busk effect of Robin's straight-front
GFD style is no longer necessary to get the right look; the popular
silhouette
is one where the bust is very rounded, and sticks out rather than
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something I do see, however, is some gowns have something under
the lacings, or another colored gown under the laced gown. You show
some that are deliberatly widely spead as a style feature. But it
fits with MM being shown in undress.
Some
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, was there such thing as a maternity dress in either
this or the GFD era? Or did women loosen and adjust what they had?
I haven't made a definitive search, but this is something I would have
noticed if I had ever run across a
Along those lines, there's a painting theme that might be useful to you in
this discussion: the Visitation, or Mary meeting Elizabeth while both are
pregnant.
http://www.paintedchurch.org/salsbvis.htm
Here is one without excess draping, but it's the hands on the
stomachs that is the most
- Original Message -
From: Robin Netherton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some of the examples Elena showed appear to be fitted overgowns, not
supportive undergowns that would be worn over a chemise and potentially
under a more formal overdress.
Yup!
As Carol also notes, some of Elena's images
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, E House wrote:
As Carol also notes, some of Elena's images are in fact of Mary Magdalen
or other saints, and so can't be used to determine general usage outside
of Magdalen (or saint) figures.
Absolutely. I included them for two reasons: first, since the
painting
- Original Message -
From: Robin Netherton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The shrine is well-reproduced in various books on Flemish painting; you
can come over to my house and check out my collection if you like, as I
have a near life-sized image of each panel in my museum catalog from the
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] 1450 - pregnant?
I should note that the term GFD seems to be applied much more broadly
these days than I ever intended when I began lecturing on the Gothic
fitted style 20
Hi everyone (especially Robin),
On a Mary Magdalene list, we've been discussing paintings where she
looks pregnant. Of considerable discussion is this one:
http://www.abcgallery.com/W/weyden/weyden37.html
From what I remember of Robin's Gothic Fitted Dress info, the gown
should lace
17 matches
Mail list logo
