[h-cost] Article on where to buy bolt fabrics at wholesale prices
http://www.edelweisspatterns.com/blog/?p=2013 Fran Lavolta Press Books of historic clothing patterns www.lavoltapress.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] (no subject)
Greetings all, I've been mulling this bit of trivia around in my head for the longest time. I think I need to share it and see if any of you know of any support or documentation for this information. Most Unusual Concession to Modesty: The earliest Christians believed that the Virgin Mary was impregnated through her ear and that other women as well had used their ears as reproductive organs. For that reason, an exposed female ear was considered no less an outrage than an exposed thigh, and a woman would not appear in public unless clad in a tight-fitting wimple. Felton, Bruce, and Mark Fowler. Part II, Behavior. The Best, Worst, and Most Unusual: Noteworthy Achievements, Events, Feats and Blunders of Every Conceivable Kind. New York: Galahad, 1994. 428. Print. So, the wimple had to develop for some reason. Is this reason believable? Documentable? Are there any other reasons that would be more legitimate based on available documentation? Laurie Taylor Phoenix ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] (no subject)
Huh, I was under the impression that the covered head (regardless of location or specific era) was from something in Leviticus. You'll have to find someone more aware of things Biblical than I am for further info. In any case, and I havent read the article, linking a fashion trend to what everybody knows sounds like a stretch. I have no evidence or inclination towards of aural insemination, just a hunch that it's a quaint old wives tale written down oft repeated cuz it's so marvelously silly. I'm off to think Ragtime era thoughts. --cin Cynthia Barnes cinbar...@gmail.com On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Laurie Taylor mazarineblu...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings all, I've been mulling this bit of trivia around in my head for the longest time. I think I need to share it and see if any of you know of any support or documentation for this information. Most Unusual Concession to Modesty: The earliest Christians believed that the Virgin Mary was impregnated through her ear and that other women as well had used their ears as reproductive organs. For that reason, an exposed female ear was considered no less an outrage than an exposed thigh, and a woman would not appear in public unless clad in a tight-fitting wimple. Felton, Bruce, and Mark Fowler. Part II, Behavior. The Best, Worst, and Most Unusual: Noteworthy Achievements, Events, Feats and Blunders of Every Conceivable Kind. New York: Galahad, 1994. 428. Print. So, the wimple had to develop for some reason. Is this reason believable? Documentable? Are there any other reasons that would be more legitimate based on available documentation? Laurie Taylor Phoenix ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Wimple origins - was (no subject) - oops, sorry
Just realized that I forgot to put in a subject line. My apologies. Well, I'm just curious and had to ask of more knowledgeable minds. Laurie -Original Message- From: h-costume-boun...@indra.com [mailto:h-costume-boun...@indra.com] On Behalf Of Cin Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:42 AM To: Historical Costume Subject: Re: [h-cost] (no subject) Huh, I was under the impression that the covered head (regardless of location or specific era) was from something in Leviticus. You'll have to find someone more aware of things Biblical than I am for further info. In any case, and I havent read the article, linking a fashion trend to what everybody knows sounds like a stretch. I have no evidence or inclination towards of aural insemination, just a hunch that it's a quaint old wives tale written down oft repeated cuz it's so marvelously silly. I'm off to think Ragtime era thoughts. --cin Cynthia Barnes cinbar...@gmail.com On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Laurie Taylor mazarineblu...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings all, I've been mulling this bit of trivia around in my head for the longest time. I think I need to share it and see if any of you know of any support or documentation for this information. Most Unusual Concession to Modesty: The earliest Christians believed that the Virgin Mary was impregnated through her ear and that other women as well had used their ears as reproductive organs. For that reason, an exposed female ear was considered no less an outrage than an exposed thigh, and a woman would not appear in public unless clad in a tight-fitting wimple. Felton, Bruce, and Mark Fowler. Part II, Behavior. The Best, Worst, and Most Unusual: Noteworthy Achievements, Events, Feats and Blunders of Every Conceivable Kind. New York: Galahad, 1994. 428. Print. So, the wimple had to develop for some reason. Is this reason believable? Documentable? Are there any other reasons that would be more legitimate based on available documentation? Laurie Taylor Phoenix ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] pumpkin bonnet?
Could it be a calash that you're looking for? It's a 18th c thing. Can we have a picture of the item you're trying to date? --cin Cynthia Barnes cinbar...@gmail.com On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Suzanne sovag...@cybermesa.com wrote: Hello 19th century experts! I'm trying to date a bonnet which was donated to the museum where I work -- but 19th century bonnets are not my area of expertise. The donors called this a pumpkin bonnet from early 1800s but I have doubts about that, and the only similar examples I found in a quick internet search were American Civil War era. I'm inclined to go with a circa 1860 date but I'd be delighted to hear from someone who actually knows something! :-) The bonnet is made of brown silk, constructed in concentric rows of thick ruching, with tiny bows at the top center of each row, and a short bavolet. It's softer and more spherical in shape than this one (because the back is less defined and the bavolet is not as heavily gathered): http://darlinganddash.com/bonnetcardboard.html I don't yet have a picture of our bonnet -- but go ahead and make suggestions anyway. No matter what, I'll learn something! Thanks, Suzanne ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] (no subject)
I think sometimes we try to apply too much they did this because to fashion. Can't something be worn because its thought to be becoming and fashionable in its time? Just look at how necklines go up and down. Why is it OK to have an open neckline in 1500 but not in 1600? Why do skirts go from being OK to show ankles in the 1830's to dresses being floor length again in the 1860's? Why wear tall cone shaped hats in the 1400's? Why the tall hairstyles in the 1700's? Why the large drum shape skirts in the 1600's and a bustle shape in the late 19th century. Its simply all because the fashions changed. People tweeked what was being worn until it got to the point where it looked like something else. Perhaps something was being done and the daring new fashion was to do it the opposite way. Maggie Halberg -Original Message- From: Beteena Paradise bete...@mostlymedieval.com To: Historical Costume h-cost...@indra.com Sent: Fri, Mar 23, 2012 6:49 pm Subject: Re: [h-cost] (no subject) 1 Corinthians has a passage that says that if a woman doesn't cover her head, her hair should be cut off. And if she doesn't want to have her hair cut off, then she should cover her head. But I always thought that the grown woman was required to cover her head because her hair would be arousing to men. Teena From: Cin cinbar...@gmail.com To: Historical Costume h-cost...@indra.com Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [h-cost] (no subject) Huh, I was under the impression that the covered head (regardless of location or specific era) was from something in Leviticus. You'll have to find someone more aware of things Biblical than I am for further info. In any case, and I havent read the article, linking a fashion trend to what everybody knows sounds like a stretch. I have no evidence or inclination towards of aural insemination, just a hunch that it's a quaint old wives tale written down oft repeated cuz it's so marvelously silly. I'm off to think Ragtime era thoughts. --cin Cynthia Barnes cinbar...@gmail.com On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Laurie Taylor mazarineblu...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings all, I've been mulling this bit of trivia around in my head for the longest time. I think I need to share it and see if any of you know of any support or documentation for this information. Most Unusual Concession to Modesty: The earliest Christians believed that the Virgin Mary was impregnated through her ear and that other women as well had used their ears as reproductive organs. For that reason, an exposed female ear was considered no less an outrage than an exposed thigh, and a woman would not appear in public unless clad in a tight-fitting wimple. Felton, Bruce, and Mark Fowler. Part II, Behavior. The Best, Worst, and Most Unusual: Noteworthy Achievements, Events, Feats and Blunders of Every Conceivable Kind. New York: Galahad, 1994. 428. Print. So, the wimple had to develop for some reason. Is this reason believable? Documentable? Are there any other reasons that would be more legitimate based on available documentation? Laurie Taylor Phoenix ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] pumpkin bonnet
We have two calashes so I'm familiar with ugly. (Most of our collection is post-1850... and strongest in the 1880-1980 timeframe… but we have a few representative pieces from earlier decades.) The brown silk bonnet is smaller, and squishable, and I'm beginning to wonder if it lost its lining somewhere along the way -- or could it be a child's bonnet? It's just so darn shapeless! We took some photos but it turned out too orange-y so I'll try again next week. Thanks, Suzanne On Mar 23, 2012, at 1:00 PM, h-costume-requ...@indra.com wrote: Subject: Re: [h-cost] pumpkin bonnet? Date: March 22, 2012 10:25:02 PM CDT To: Historical Costume h-cost...@indra.com Reply-To: Historical Costume h-costume@mail.indra.com At 07:29 PM 3/22/2012, you wrote: Hello 19th century experts! I'm trying to date a bonnet which was donated to the museum where I work -- but 19th century bonnets are not my area of expertise. The donors called this a pumpkin bonnet from early 1800s but I have doubts about that, and the only similar examples I found in a quick internet search were American Civil War era. I'm inclined to go with a circa 1860 date but I'd be delighted to hear from someone who actually knows something! :-) The bonnet is made of brown silk, constructed in concentric rows of thick ruching, with tiny bows at the top center of each row, and a short bavolet. It's softer and more spherical in shape than this one (because the back is less defined and the bavolet is not as heavily gathered): http://darlinganddash.com/bonnetcardboard.html I don't yet have a picture of our bonnet -- but go ahead and make suggestions anyway. No matter what, I'll learn something! Thanks, Suzanne Your description sounds like it might be an ugly from the first half of the 1800s or late 1790s. An ugly was worn to protect the relatively high coiffure and cap when travelling; it could very well look something like a pumpkin. It was usually constructed with caning (or wires). Joan Jurancich joa...@surewest.net ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] (no subject)
Sounds like a tremendous load of cr34 to me. Unlike Cin, I do read the Bible and there's nothing remotely suggesting anything like a wimple; only advice for women praying to cover their heads in modesty. Cover can mean almost anything. Sounds as if the authors were manufacturing facts out of silly putty. ==Marjorie Wilser @..@ @..@ @..@ Three Toad Press http://3toad.blogspot.com/ On Mar 23, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Laurie Taylor wrote: Greetings all, I've been mulling this bit of trivia around in my head for the longest time. I think I need to share it and see if any of you know of any support or documentation for this information. Most Unusual Concession to Modesty: The earliest Christians believed that the Virgin Mary was impregnated through her ear and that other women as well had used their ears as reproductive organs. For that reason, an exposed female ear was considered no less an outrage than an exposed thigh, and a woman would not appear in public unless clad in a tight-fitting wimple. Felton, Bruce, and Mark Fowler. Part II, Behavior. The Best, Worst, and Most Unusual: Noteworthy Achievements, Events, Feats and Blunders of Every Conceivable Kind. New York: Galahad, 1994. 428. Print. So, the wimple had to develop for some reason. Is this reason believable? Documentable? Are there any other reasons that would be more legitimate based on available documentation? ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
