This document is also available in: text or RTF formats.

cotehardies-msg - 11/22/18

 

Making 13th century cotehardies. For male or females.

 

NOTE: See also the files: clothing-msg, patterns-msg, houppelandes-msg, clothing-msg, fashion-msg, hose-msg, p-sumpt-laws-msg, textiles-msg.

 

************************************************************************

NOTICE -

 

This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I  have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

 

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

 

I have done  a limited amount  of  editing. Messages having to do  with separate topics  were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the  message IDs  were removed to save space and remove clutter.

 

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make  no claims  as  to the accuracy  of  the information  given  by the individual authors.

 

Please respect the time  and  efforts of  those who have written  these messages. The copyright status  of these messages  is  unclear  at this time. If information  is  published  from  these  messages, please give credit to the originator(s).

 

Thank you,

   Mark S. Harris                  AKA:  THLord Stefan li Rous

                                         Stefan at florilegium.org

************************************************************************

 

Name: Karen Jolley

 

That makes things much easier, now that I know you're male and want a

cotehardie!

One of the best methods of making a cotehardie that fits right is the old way

of pin-the-fabric-on-the-subject's-shoulders and cut away anything that

doesn't look like a cotehardie, but that takes a lot of draping, pattern

drafting and sewing experience.  Doing this with expensive brocade, though

really spif (as is said in Caid...), takes quite a lot of intestinal

fortitude.

Buy the nice Calvin Klein tapered shirt pattern from Vogue (which will set you

back 10 easy bucks, but is the ONLY COMMERCIAL PATTERN THAT GOES UP TO A 17

1/2 NECK!!! and looks the best, besides...) and do a couple of alterations.

 

1. lengthen the 'skirts' to the preferred length.  Most new gentlemen prefer

something roughly knee length or slightly shorter, until they've been around a

little longer and can handle the concept of showing off a well turned leg or

tush.

2. Eliminate the cuff, and lengthen the sleeve to reach the wrist.  Use the

existing slit placement on the arm to make a buttoned closure.

3. Eliminate the part of the collar that usually floops over and hides a tie.

The closest thing to a collar in this period stood up, not up and over.

I haven't tried any of the male Medieval Miscellanea patterns yet, and my dark

remark about the tiny armholes is consistent in all the female ones.

Elizabeth Oakwoode tells me their hosen from the italian pattern works up very

 

* Origin: "In Pursuit of Joining Heralds!"  (WWIVnet Gate) (1:379/15.0)

 

 

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: rorice at bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (rosalyn rice)

Subject: Re: Appropriate fabric for late 14th cent. Coteharde?

Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN

Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 19:46:23 GMT

 

        Greetings from Lothar,

 

        If you want to show off, you should use the fanciest fabric you

can find. Silk brocades were known and used in the 14th c. (and long before),

some modern patterns actually look sort of like Period patterns, but most

don't. "Textiles and Clothing from Excavations in London" has some examples

of the sort of fabrics that they were using for clothing in the time period

you are interested in. There is also a late 14th c. Italian manuscript

that shows the King Arthur legends which shows people wearing brocades of

this sort. The Tres Riche Heures is about 30-50 years too late for what you

want, but it also gives good examples of really snazzy textiles. If you look

at enough books of 14th and 15th c. art you'll get a sense of what textile

patterns are, and aren't Period.

        If you don't want to spring for silk brocade, then you can go with

silk charmeuse, or some other heavy silk, or else a fine wool. Most 14th c.

outer garments were made out of wool, with softer and more richly dyed wools

going for much higher prices. Ideally you want something that is a medium

weight wool with a very soft texture. If you want to make the wool even

softer and more tightly woven, you can fuller it (ask somebody who knows

what they're doing how to do it) but expect lots of shrinkage.

        The nice thing about a very fine wool is that you can cut the dags

that are typical of 14th c. clothing right into the wool without having to

hem them. A tightly woven and well-fullered wool fabric won't ravel easily.

If you get good fabric you can cut very complex dags that defy hemming and

you don't have to worry about them unravelling.

 

        There are three other areas where you can show off: extensive use

of fabric, fancy buttons, and fancy decoration.

 

        By the end of the 14th c. the cotehardie was starting to loosen up

to evolve into the houppelande. Late 14th c. cotes sometimes had standing

collars, angelwing or bag sleeves, and exaggerated chests. All of this used

extra fabric, which was a great way to strut your wealth in front of the

plebes.

        This extra fabric (all made of rich material, richly dyed) would also

likely have been decorated with all manner of embroidery, sewn on metal

plackets, and gems. If you know of an embroiderer with a taste for 14th c.

stuff you might try to cut a deal with them, but expect to pay a lot for

extensive embroidery.

        Finally, any truly ostentatious cote had snazzy buttons. Not only

did lots of buttons mean that you could afford to pay for all those buttons

and pay to have someone finish all those button holes for you, it also meant

that you got a much more tightly fitting garment. (The sleeves might have

been loose, but the cote fit tightly around your body, to show off your

sleek physique.) These buttons usually cloth, but for the truly rich fop

each button could be a piece of jewelry in its own right.

 

        Now, that's just the cote. You also want a placket belt, a ballocks

dagger, some nicely made 14th c. shoes with a rose window patternb cut into

the instep, hose made from the finest "scarlet" (this was fine wool flannel

which could come in blue, or - you guessed it - bright red),  and a fancy

hood with a liripipe. Then you'd really be the model of a 14th c. courtier.

        If you want something a bit more durable, and less flashy, just go

for the prettiest medium weight wool you can find, getting a bunch of nice

simple buttons and letting the garment stand on its own without a whole lot

of decoration.

 

        Don't worry too much about the fact that your persona is Scots.

Fashions in this era tended to be more similar from country to country than

they were different. And, if your persona travelled, he would likely have

followed the French model which seemed to influence most of the rest of

Western Europe.

       

        Before you buy fabric or make a garment though, get together with

a skilled costumer to make a custom pattern. You can't just use an "off the

rack" cote pattern, unless you want to have a crappy looking garment. It

needs to be patterned and fitted to your body, and the craftsmanship has

to be good if you want a really nice looking costume.

        A costumer with a clue will also likely have enough reference books

of period pictures of people in cotehardies that you will be able to choose

the sort of garment that you want.

 

        Lothar (who only aspires to own a 14th c. outfit of the sort that

               he has just described.)

 

 

From: habura at rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Andrea Marie Habura)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: COSTUMING: cotehardie question

Date: 4 Jan 1995 01:49:21 GMT

Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY

 

On Jessa's post:

 

Cotehardies: I think we need to define time-period here, perhaps. Finding

primary source-material for 14th c. masculine attire is definitely

trickier than finding female attire from the same period, because so

many of the %^&( male funeral brasses show the men in armor, not in

"civvies". Nonetheless, there's a little bit of primary stuff out there.

For example, there's the funeral brass of Robert Braunch (1364) that

shows Robert wearing what seems to be a long cotehardie; at any rate,

it fits tightly to the hips and wrists. In the page from the _Romance

of Alexander_ (c.1340) that forms the frontspiece of Newton's _Fashion

in the Age of the Black Prince_, the men are wearing tight, short

cotehardies and deep-caped hoods. Similarly, a page from the Luttrell

Psalter, reproduced on page 4, also shows a man in a tight-fitted

cotehardie. It seems clear that 14th c. fashionable men considered the

cotehardie a respectable outer garment.

 

On the other hand, I can't recall any 15th c. pictures of men wearing

cotehardies, although women seemd to have hung on to the style a little

longer. I'm not particularly well-informed about 15th c. garments, though,

so the fact that I didn't notice them doesn't mean they're not there.

 

Interestingly, there's one loose 14th c. garment that *does* go over

a cotehardie. Newton calls 'em guyts or ghitas, but doesn't know what

exactly they looked like. I tend to wonder of the very drapey and loose

near-caftan like outer garment in the Joan de Northwood brass is a guyt.

(If i can ever figure out what they look like, I know how to embroider 'em.)

 

Alison macDermot

*Ex Ungue Leonem*

 

From: brettwi at ix.netcom.com (Brett Williams )

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: I need help with a cotehardie!

Date: 22 Nov 1995 15:57:13 GMT

 

Lady Sabrina of Wynborn <Elfgir1 at aol.com> writes:

 

>I am posting this in hopes of receiving help from those who are

>knowledgeable about sewing cotehardies.  I am planning to sew an early

>14th century, English cotehardie, and while I've sewn countless tunics

>and other simple garb, I've never attempted a cotehardie.  I have the

>basic 4-piece bodice pattern and the general description of how to sew

>a cotehardie, but I would like to have more specific advice. My main

>concerns are how to fashion the sleeves so that they will button

>correctly along the forearm...

 

After making four or five failures, I finally hit on a cotehardie I

liked and have gone on to make three more in various versions of

'conspicuous consumption'.  I personally use a mundane princess-line

dress pattern to start with, one that has an eight panel bodice as

opposed to a four; primarily as it's easier to fit than a four-panel

and the finished garment's drape in the skirts is both fuller and more

graceful. The control seams for the princess-lines go up to the top of

the shoulder *not* into the armsceye. Please note that this is personal

opinion; the four gore pattern makes a perfectly good, period garment.

 

As for the sleeve, the easiest way to place the buttons correctly is to

split the pattern and shift the seam to where it runs slighly off

center along the outside edge of the arm when at rest.  It's hard to

explain without a diagram and explanatory paragraph.  The modern (eg.

20th century) convention for sleeve cutting places the seam on the

underside of the arm and if buttons are placed along this line, you'll

find that they'll be out there in the way of everything.  They'll catch

on the buttons on the center of the dress (should you have them), bang

on your musical instruments, catch on anything you're carrying, etc.

There's a discussion on sleeve cutting in the 'Flat Pattern' section in

CA 38 suitable for this garment done by Mistress Audelindis de Rheims

and Mistress Caterina da Monticello; see page 25 specifically.

 

Well, my editor has thoughtfully obliterated the rest of your question;

however, a grey and black wool cotehardie would be Very Spiff, as my

household was wont to say.  I am guilty of wearing a single-color

cotehardie made of 17 hards of 45" fabric myself (it's long since

retired these days-- I widened the skirts with inset quarter circles of

fabric to add even more drape <grin>); my usual cotehardie consists of

at least 8 yards of 60" fabric or 12 of 45".  I like to cut a

cotehardie a single panel at a time from selvege to selvege which is

probably not a period technique, but it tends to get a lot of mileage

from one's fabric. This method does *not* work for anything with a nap

or a directional pattern woven into the cloth. For reference, I am 5'6"

and like having my skirts trail fashionably around me.

 

Oh, there it is!

 

>...the best way to shape and sew sleeves so

>that they fit correctly with the bodice of the cotehardie, and the

>best way to do a parti-colored cotehardie (as I plan to sew mine out

>of black and grey wool).  I would appreciate any advice that you have

>to give me!

>Thank you very much!

> 

>Lady Sabrina of Wynborn

> 

>Residing in Calontir and Artemesia (it's a long commute)

 

If you're going to divide it quarterly, just mark your pattern pieces

carefully-- draw out your planned divisions and mark the patterns with

orientation (right side grey, right side black, etc).  A Really Spiff

idea is to divide the sleeve quarterly to match or offset the color it

lies next to on the bodice. I would piece the fabric together first,

make sure the seam for the color division lined up properly along the

top of the arm (the modern center of the sleeve cap position), then cut

out the sleeve itself with the afore-mentioned offset for the buttons.

Sounds complicated, but it really isn't.

 

I hope this helps-- any more questions, feel free to ask.

 

Ciorstan MacAmhlaidh

 

 

From: dpeters at panix.com (D. Peters)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: I need help with a cotehardie!--LONGISH

Date: 23 Nov 1995 10:35:56 -0500

 

In <48t5e4$13i at jan.et.byu.edu> Lady Sabrina of Wynborn

<Elfgir1 at aol.com> writes:

 

>Greetings to all.

>I am posting this in hopes of receiving help from those who are

>knowledgeable about sewing cotehardies.  I am planning to sew an early

>14th century, English cotehardie, and while I've sewn countless tunics

>and other simple garb, I've never attempted a cotehardie.

 

The earlier fourteenth-century gown was not tightly fitted, and

consequently should be easier to assemble than the later model.  The

slinky, form-fitting model is actually late fourteenth century.

 

>I have the

>basic 4-piece bodice pattern and the general description of how to sew

>a cotehardie, but I would like to have more specific advice. My main

>concerns are how to fashion the sleeves so that they will button

>correctly along the forearm...

 

The most effective way that I've seen to get sleeves that

"turn out right" is to use the sleeve pattern from the Pourpoint of

Charles de Blois.  A diagram of this sleeve exists in several sources,

but the one that I have close to hand is _The Chaucerian Handbook_ (Vox

Clamatis Monographs I, Will McLean and Jeffrey L. Singman, eds.), which

may be available from the editors or from merchants such as the Stuffy

Purist.

 

Unfortunately, according to my costuming mentors, particoloring at that

time would have been worn by servants (as livery) or by lowlife types

like jongleurs (like ME!).  If you want to be as authentic as possible,

you might want to reconsider the particoloring, BUT particoloring *is*

pretty, and says "medieval" to most eyes....Something some friends and I

were considering was making particolored fourteenth-century clothes in

our household's livery colors.  As household members, we decided that

made us the Duke's servants, sort of...:-)

 

Please forgive me if I unintentionally offend any other clothiers by the

following; it isn't my intention to disparage anyone's best efforts, but

I've never seen gowns made from princess-seamed bridesmaid's dress

patterns that look like anything but bridesmaid's dresses.  Modern

patterns don't take into account the way that fabric moves when cut on

the bias rather than the straight grain--just add more interfacing and

try not to worry about it.  Or, they might look all right on very slender

girls, but not on other body types.  Try to work from patterns based on

surviving artifacts if you can--most of the surviving garments are,

admittedly, Scandinavian, but that will be closer to the fourteenth

century Anglo-French style than Simplicity or Butterick.

 

Another plug for _The Chaucerian Handbook_:  it includes patterns for

gowns and shoes and hoods, all based on surviving artifacts.  If you want

to do later fourteenth century, this book has assembled just about all

the information you'd need for a well-rounded persona.

 

One final suggestion:  if you play in Calontir, see if you can find

anyone who knows how to make the "Standing Stones Clone Dress" (so called

because at one point a number of ladies from Standing Stones were

wearing them)--I believe that the lady who pioneered the design did

teach some Calontirii the method before she left the kingdom.

 

Here are a couple other books to look for:

 

Newton, Stella Mary.  _Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince_  1980,

   Boydell Press. {covers the years 1340-1365}

 

Crowfoot, Elisabeth, et al. _Textiles and Clothing; Medieval finds from

   Excavations in London_ (Museum of London).  1992, HMSO

 

If you have any other questions, please feel free to e-mail me.

 

Hope this helps.

D.Peters

 

 

From: kruella118 at aol.com (Kruella118)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: I need help with a cotehardie!--LONGISH

Date: 26 Nov 1995 06:57:21 -0500

Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

 

Greetings,

I respectfully have to disagree w/the lady who states you cannot find a

good cotehardie pattern out of simplicity or butterick. I have seen many

people begin w/this kind of pattern & graduate on to period research &

methods. I have been the pattern deputy for my Barony for 3 years. My

advice to you would be to get as close as you can to the cotehardie in

pattern & have a friend help fit you w/cheap fabric to create a pattern

that looks good on YOU! We are here to recreate but we are also here to

play dress-up! If you look good that's 1/2 the battle. If you are a large

sized lady then play around w/a 6 or 8 paneled cotehardie-yes you can

document it. Also-princess seams are period. The important thing is to

look fabulous & play beautifully. Have fun. If you need a pattern number

for a cotehardie look-a-like feel free to e-mail me.

 

Good luck-Pasha

 

 

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: I need help with a cotehardie!--LONGISH

From: amethysta at eric.stonemarche.org (Amethysta of Kensingto)

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 95 17:39:41 EST

 

Pasha writes:

 

> I respectfully have to disagree w/the lady who states you cannot find a

> good cotehardie pattern out of simplicity or butterick. I have seen many

 

Have to agree with you there. If anyone is interested, try Simplicity

8603. It is a princess line-type dress, and all it need to make it into a

cotehardie is a foot more material on the bottom, buttons on the sleeve

and replace the zipper with lacings. I used this pattern for my bride's

maid's dresses, so now instead of having a gaudy dress that they will

never wear again, they all have purple linen cotehardies!

 

       Amethysta

 

 

From: dpeters at panix.com (D. Peters)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: I need help with a cotehardie!--LONGISH

Date: 29 Nov 1995 20:21:13 -0500

 

Kruella118 <kruella118 at aol.com> wrote:

 

>...princess seams are period.

 

My costume mentors have told me that the earliest visual documentation

for princess seams is a painting of the Virgin and Child (in which, BTW,

the Virgin is believed to have been modelled after Agnes Sorel, the

king's mistress....) from the later fifteenth century.  The lady

originating this thread was asking for early fourteenth century clothing,

which is loose and not particularly fitted (think of the

pictures in the Manassa (sp?) Codex).  I was trying to find the lady

something closer to what I thought she had in mind.

 

>The important thing is to

>look fabulous & play beautifully.

 

After many long years I finally have garb that makes me look like a

medieval sculpture, but what I look *fabulous* in is a suit.  Does

this mean I can wear my doublebreasted pinstripe to Twelfth Night?

:-) :-) :-) :-) etc.

 

>...get as close as you can to the cotehardie in

>pattern & have a friend help fit you w/cheap fabric to create a pattern

>that looks good on YOU!

 

Humor aside, if you're going to go to that much work to get a modern

pattern to fit your figure (as well as get rid of anachronistic darts,

etc.), why not start with a period design?  Someone else has already

gone to the trouble of reconstructing a pattern from surviving

fourteenth-century garments; I would think that adjusting it to fit

would take no more work than adjusting a Simplicity pattern.

 

I have seen gowns made from commercial patterns that were altered until

they fit the wearers like a glove, and they still didn't give the wearers

a medieval silhouette.  Admittedly, since the "preferred" silhouette from

the late fourteenth-early fifteenth century emphasized the belly and hips

(two areas most modern women would rather not emphasize), this may have

been a conscious choice.

 

Much recreative research is guesswork; we are fortunate when mundane

scholars remove some of the burden for us....

 

Best of luck, and have fun (that *is* why we're here, isn't it :-))

 

D.Peters

 

(When I post about Period Spanish Music, people think I'm male; when I

post about Cotehardies, people think I'm female.  Isn't ambiguity great?)

 

 

From: "Jeffrey L. Singman" <jsingman at umich.edu>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Cotehardies (and Chaucerian Hbk)

Date: 28 Nov 1995 15:13:57 GMT

Organization: University of Michigan

 

I was making one of my (relatively rare) strolls across the Rialto, and

noted that D. Peters makes mention of the Chaucerian Hbk. As far as I

know, there are no unsold copies of the old edition remaining. However,

the new and improved version, entitled 'Daily Life in Chaucer's England'

can be ordered from Greenwood Press (they have an 800 number, and are

only a [free] phone call away--two if you count phoning 800

Information). The new edition is hardbound, US$45, and, quite frankly,

worth every penny if you really want to do 14c (I would even recommend

it for 13 and 15c use, since most of the contents remain relevant, and

no equivalent text exists for those periods). I'll be glad to furnish

further details to anyone who wants them... Yrs collectively, JLS

 

 

From: lyon at infi.net at infi.net   (Lyon)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: cotehardie trim ?

Date: 1 May 1996 19:20:28 GMT

Organization: Pryde Concepts

 

Where is the proper placement of trimor embroidery on a cotehardie?

Would it be on just the neckline or neckline, sleeves and hem?

andreah at cpsnet.com

 

 

From: habura at marcus.its.rpi.edu (Andrea Marie Habura)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: cotehardie trim ?

Date: 2 May 1996 19:11:52 GMT

Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

 

Lyon asks about the appropriate placement of trim and embroidery on

cotehardies.

 

(For a second, I thought you had meant "trimor embroidery"--and I was

getting all excited about a new technique. :) )

 

There's actually several answers. Brace yourself.

 

First, the problem: there isn't much surviving clothing from this era,

so I'm going mostly on pictorial evidence and on wardrobe inventories.

 

Band patterns: This category would include trim, woven bands, and

band embroidery. There's evidence for these placed on cuffs,

neckline, and hem of cotehardies, plus on the borders of cloaks and on

the armholes of a loose garment I think might be identified with

a "ghita". (Above info is for women.) For men, I have evidence for

cuffs and hem.

An interesting subclass of this type of ornament is a sort of gold

"lace"; it consists of what appears to be a narrow band with a sort

of trefoil-shaped picot "fringe". The band is sewn onto the garment

and the fringe is left to dangle over the edge. I have seen this trim

on the short sleeves and hem of a man's cotehardie, on the hem of

a gambeson, on a man's hood, and on a sideless surcoat. I don't know how to

make this kind of trim, but it's pretty.

 

All-over patterns: This would include embroidery worked on the fabric of

the clothing. There's evidence for this on men's cotehardies, cloaks,

and houppelandes, and on womens' cotehardies, ghitas, cloaks, and

houppelandes. It looks *really* cool, and I'm in the process of

doing some for a houppelande for my husband--but be warned, it is

a *lot* of work.

Oh, right: such embroidery also appears on accessories like hoods, hats,

pouches, shoes, and so on.

 

I apologize for not providing direct citations. Usual excuse: I'm at work,

my books aren't. If you'd like references for books to look at, please

let me know.

 

Alison MacDermot

*Ex Ungue Leonem*

 

From: gfrose at cotton (Gregory Frank Rose)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Cotehardie fastenings

Date: 31 May 1996 00:30:08 GMT

Organization: University of Mississippi NDES

 

Greetings, all, from Katerine Rountre.

 

Linette de Gallardon asks about cotehardies and how they close.

 

: BUT, I find an awful lot of depictions of groups of people with

: cotehardies, showing only sides and fronts, but showing no lacings or

: fastenings at all.  By process of elimination, these dresses could be

: fastened in the back.  Or they could be sewn on every time the dress was

: donned (someone else's suggestion, I don't think it's very practical).  Or

: it could merely be (misleading) artistic license.

 

It is in fact possible to make a cotehardie that fits quite

closely, and yet has no lacing.  I know: I got lazy before one

Pennsic and made several.  What motivated me, was that I had

previously discovered that I didn't have to unlace mine to get

in and out of them.

 

Whether this is what was in fact done, I have no clue.  But it is

at least possible.  I too would love some real information on this

one.

 

Cheers,

-- Katerine/Terry

-- gfrose at cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu

 

 

From: bhw at psyc.nott.ac.uk

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Cotehardie fastenings  

Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 14:02:18 +0100

Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, The University of Nottingham

 

Kim Pollard wrote:

>

>         How in the world do you get into a cotehardie without lacings or

> fastenings of some fashion?  I'd love to know this secret--as would many

> others out here, I'm sure <grin>!

 

I'd offer two data points (but without the references to hand -

let me know if you want me to dig out details):

 

There is at least one period picture I have seen of someone sewing up

their sleeve seam so it fits tight to the wrist. I have read about

this practice too.

 

I've also seen a thirteenth century garment (in a museum in Spain)

where the lacing on the side was designed to effectively "sew" the

seam closed when it was pulled tight. I have used this myself on

a later period bodice and it works well - it _looks_ like there

is no fastening but the fit is tight.

 

Caitlin

 

 

From: gfrose at cotton (Gregory Frank Rose)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Cotehardie fastenings

Date: 1 Jun 1996 23:27:19 GMT

Organization: University of Mississippi NDES

 

Greetings, all, from Katerine Rountre.

 

Kimberly asks:

 

:       How in the world do you get into a cotehardie without lacings or

: fastenings of some fashion?  I'd love to know this secret--as would many

: others out here, I'm sure <grin>!

 

Pull it on and off over my head.  It takes a little wiggling, and

once done, requires reaching down the neckline and adjusting what

needs adjusting, but it isn't particularly difficult.

 

I don't wear mine like second skins; for one thing, I'm aiming earlier

in the century than that, and for another, on someone of my, er,

bountiful nature, it wouldn't be particualrly aesthetic.  But I

wear them well enough fitted that they will support what, in the

mundane world, I have to resort to mail order to get supported, since

stores don't carry my size (number, yes; letter, not likely).

 

Part of the secret is probably that I wear underdresses with them,

and that the underdress, while less fitted than the overdress,

is fitted enough to get things more or less fixed in place, while

providing a better surface to pull over.

 

Cheers,

-- Katerine/Terry

   gfrose at cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu

 

 

From: bhw at psyc.nott.ac.uk

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Cotehardie fastenings

Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 11:57:56 +0100

Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, The University of Nottingham

 

Susan Carroll-Clark wrote:

> >I've also seen a thirteenth century garment (in a museum in Spain)

> >where the lacing on the side was designed to effectively "sew" the

> >seam closed when it was pulled tight.

>

> Wow!  Was this an actual extant piece of clothing?  If so, I'd

> LOVE to hear more!

 

Yes, it was. It's in the Real (ie. royal) Monastery in Burgos. They

have a room of clothes taken from 13th century tombs, most in good

condition. I was there 7 years ago, and you only see it on the

(compulsory) guided tour for about ten minutes so I have only

fairly brief notes but surely there must be a detailed study

published somewhere? The main other thing I recall being struck by

were the number of patterned items (mostly stripes or simple shapes).

I can look at home for what else I noted down, but I should say that

its not a time/place that I'm so familiar with, so I might have

missed some important things.

 

Caitlin

 

 

From: mhague at calweb.com (Jackp0t)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern

Date: 20 Nov 1996 08:06:54 GMT

 

Finnian MacLeod (finnian at flash.net) wrote:

: I find myself stymied. I went looking for a basic pattern to make of all

: things, a cotehardie.  But at every turn I can only find people trying to

: either sell me a pattern (at a stiff price no less) or offering the finished

: product (absolutely gorgeous and also exorbitantly priced).  

:

: Is there ANYBODY out there who can provide me with an affordable pattern or a

: comparable source for said pattern?

 

If you are a decent seamstress you may want to check out McCalls pattern

7957. It is a basic princess seamed dress that will need lengthening, but

reads well as a start to a cotehardie.  I have not yet made one (the

pattern is still sitting there on 6 yards of fabric) but it looks very

simple. I believe I found the pattern on sale for $2 but it is normally

about $6.

 

-Martie    --    mhague at caleweb.com     --   http://www.calweb.com/~mhague

 

 

From: Eleanore Hewitt <elhewitt at ucsd.edu>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern

Date: 20 Nov 1996 17:20:18 GMT

 

The costumers here in Caid frequently use a slightly modified version of

what is to be found in regular commercial pattern books as princess-line

dresses. These have seams that come up over the bust and out at the arm

hole with a similar seam up the back.  One of our most experienced

costumers made a pattern for me that is almost exactly like the ones to

be found in Simplicity, McCall and Butterick (except, of course, that it

fits ME).

 

 

From: sunrise686 at aol.com

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern

Date: 21 Nov 1996 05:06:40 GMT

 

I use McCalls 6895.  You could check thrift shops for it as I think it is

discontinued. That's were I found mine.  I have heard it discussed that

this is not exactly period because of the way the side-front panel is

done. It is only a small change you would need to make.  However, since I

have seen the Jean Hunnisett version of the Greenland Dress ("Period

Costume for Stage and Screen: Patterns for Women's Dress, Medieval-1500"),

I disagree, since they look very similiar.  So this should be a pretty

good version.  

 

Eleanor Courtenay

 

 

From: Diana Habra <dch at inreach.com>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 05:31:00 -0800

 

Finnian MacLeod wrote:

 

> Is there ANYBODY out there who can provide me with an affordable pattern or a

> comparable source for said pattern?

>

> Finnian

 

Hello Finnian,

 

I am assuming that you mean a woman's cotehardie.  If so, what is good as a first-time cheater pattern is to find a closely fitted, princess line pattern in your modern fabric store.  Those are the ones with a seam over the right & left bust, side seams, and two back seams that mimick the front ones. This creates a six "panel" dress.  While this is by no means a correct, historical cotehardie pattern, it is a good start and you will come close.  The actual pattern from the "bog dress" has somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 "panels".  It's not that hard to adapt the modern pattern to make it historically correct should you want to next time.  Just find someone who has made one that way and ask their assistance.

 

Hope this helps you.  And I apologize if you need a man's cotehardie pattern.  I haven't done one and all I know is that they are usually short and sometimes had dagging on the bottom edge.  As far as fit, I haven't a clue....

 

Lady Roseline d'Anjou

Kingdom of the West

 

 

From: a013957t at bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Kellen Harkins)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern

Date: 22 Nov 1996 21:44:20 GMT

 

Yes try and track down a princess line type pattern, but the key

difference is that you ( and I know there is one out there) would be

more period to find a pattern where the side front seams go up into

the shoulders rather than the arm holes.  I don't remember the

pattern number but I believe it is still available... To get a more

period stayle flare in the skirt, you can add gores in between the

panels on the bottom.  These are basically a triangle type shape.  

Someone who has more experience or references could probably help more

but this should give you a start...  If I'm not mistaken the male style

has fairly straight lines, with a similar gore style on the skirt...

 

Ah, but the best part of cotehardies is sewing ten zillion button holes!

--

Kelley / Lady Kellen Oddsdottir/A woman with many faces....

 

Kellen Harkins

a013957t at bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us

 

 

From: Katherine Penney <katherinex_penney at ccm.jf.intel.com>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:14:41 -0800

Organization: Intel Corporation

 

Lady Roseline d'Anjou wrote:  (some *snips* for brevity's sake)

> I am assuming that you mean a woman's cotehardie.  If so, what is good as a

> first-time cheater pattern is to find a closely fitted, princess line pattern

> in your modern fabricstore.  Those are the ones with a seam over the right &

> left bust, side seams, and two back seams that mimick the front ones.  This

> creates a six "panel" dress.

*

If you're going to have a way in and out of this dress, you need 7 or 8

panels, you'll need a front or back opening.

*

> by no means a correct, historical cotehardie pattern, it is a good start and

> you will come close.  The actual pattern from the "bog dress" has somewhere in

> the neighborhood of 12 "panels".  

*

There are several "bog dresses", the one I think you are referring to

has 1 panel, 10 gores, 2 sleeves, and is very easy to make.

*

> It's not that hard to adapt the modern pattern to make it historically

> correct should you want to next time.  Just find someone who has made one that > way and ask their assistance.

*snip*

 

*sigh* WHY do it wrong the first time if if it's just as easy to do it

right?

_Please_ don't buy a modern princess style dress pattern.  

 

Modern patterns have things like zippers, boning, and shoulderpads that

are sometimes very hard to compensate for.  Plus, you have to modify the

pattern to be full length, unless you are lucky enough to find a full

length version...  You'll surely have to modify the sleeves, which will

probably be way too puffy...

 

I made my first cotehardie 3 years ago (I have made six, 5 different

cuts), and I patterned the first on a princess style dress that I had.

The dress wanted a zipper, and, of course, I couldn't give it one.  It

was difficult and I had to rework the dress twice before it fit right.  

 

Raiments sells a pattern set for $18 for half a dozen cotehardies and

about as many surcotes. Their address is 3749 E. Colorado Blvd. Pasadena

CA. 91107 (818) 585-2994 Fax (818) 432-4530.

 

Their cotehardies took about half the time to create, saved 1/3 the

fabric and were SO SO much better looking.  The pattern came with

several pages of documentation, and fabric and trim choice information.  

 

I have also made a 10 gore gown like the one that was featured in TI

last year.  It was wonderful, and the dress I mademanaged to win an A&S

competition for me... (Thanks Mairi!) :)  You can probably borrow that

copy of TI from someone if you can't afford to buy the patterns...  

 

If I were to do it all over again, I would DEFINATELY skip over the

mundane pattern, invest the $18, and do it right.  The seams are in the

right places, you don't get torpedo boobs, AND you know you've done it

right.

 

Good luck,

Constance Fairfax

 

 

From: Brett and Karen Williams <brettwi at ix.netcom.com>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:09:37 -0800

 

McCalls has one in print right now-- saw it in the book less than a week

ago. I'd note the pattern number, however I have a drawer full of

various versions of (cough) eighteen years of 'the perfect cotehardie'

pattern and restrained myself. ;)  I would add that in order to fit the

shoulders correctly, one must omit the shoulderpads and the *allowance* in

fabric to go over those offending shoulderpads.  This is easily done by

carefully taking in the garment along the control seam from the bust point up

and over the top of the shoulder and down to the corresponding point on the

back of the shoulder.

 

Sewing cognoscenti should recognise right off the bat that I'm talking about

altering a princess dress with control seams that go to the top of the

shoulder rather than into the armsceye. Mundanely speaking, I'd never buy a

princess dress pattern that *did* have the control seams going over the bust

into the armscye-- if it's the least bit off in fit (which is determined in

the cutting phase) it's next to nigh impossible to fix. The shoulder control

seams are much more forgiving. The usual caveat of My Humble Opinion gets

inserted here. :)

 

And to add a last tantalizing bit, Simplicity 9417 is a basic t-tunic dress

that has an apron thingie designed to be worn over it-- which can be altered

by spreading to a nice, basic sideless surcote. I don't know if it's still in

print; it's c. 1995. The dress could be lengthened to a decent level, too.

 

ciorstan

 

 

From: hrjones at uclink.berkeley.edu (Heather Rose Jones)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern

Date: 24 Nov 1996 18:55:42 GMT

Organization: University of California, Berkeley

 

sunrise686 at aol.com wrote:

: I use McCalls 6895.  You could check thrift shops for it as I think it is

: discontinued.  That's were I found mine.  I have heard it discussed that

: this is not exactly period because of the way the side-front panel is

: done.  It is only a small change you would need to make.  However, since I

: have seen the Jean Hunnisett version of the Greenland Dress ("Period

: Costume for Stage and Screen: Patterns for Women's Dress, Medieval-1500"),

: I disagree, since they look very similiar.  So this should be a pretty

: good version.  

 

It's hard to know exactly what you mean by "very similar", but I would

venture that if Hunnisett's version of the Greenland Dress looks "very

similar" to a modern princess-line dress pattern, then it's a rather poor

representation of the Greenland Dress. The primary difference is that

modern princess-line patterns taper _in_ from the bust to the waist, while

the various Greenland garments made with multiple gores run essentially

straight from the bust to waist (and then flare out). (There are also

major differences in the sleeve construction, of course.)

 

Now, I'll agree that as far as modern patterns go, a princess-line pattern

is as close as you're going to get to medieval cotehardie-type cuts, but

I'd rather that people didn't make the mistake of thinking they're

functionally identical.

 

Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn

 

 

From: sunrise686 at aol.com

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern

Date: 25 Nov 1996 00:52:51 GMT

 

I was referring to the right-front panel being similiar in the McCalls

pattern and the Jean Hunnisett pattern.  Never stated that a princess line

pattern was period.  Hunnisett's pattern is very close to the Greenland

dress, except for the right-front panel, and where it connects to the

front panel.  

 

 

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: piusma at umdnj.edu (Matthew Pius)

Subject: Re: Cotehardies

Organization: Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 05:34:45 GMT

 

mhar at straths.strathcona.vic.EDU.AU (Megan Hargreaves) writes:

>I have found a cotehardie pattern in a costuming book, but

>I am not sure that it is the right type, and if it will

>come out looking authentic.

>It has only 4 panels and everywhere else I have looked I have

>seen up to 8 panels allowing for front or back openings.

>Can anyone help??

 

       A dress in 4 pieces would be period for slightly earlier periods

than the 8 piece.  This is of course a generalization and I'm sure

someone could come up wih a case for which it is not so, but 4 pieces is

simpler than 8 which makes it (in my mind) earlier.  Whether you call it

a cotehardie or not is kind of a matter of nomenclature nit-picking.

 

       The difference between the two patterns is that having the

vertical seams that cross the bust point allows you to fit the dress much

more closely to the contours of your body than you can with only CB, CF,

and side seams.  You may also find that the skits of a 4 piece gown need

gores put in between them and that the 8 piece one does not.  But many

people will put gores in the seams of the 8 piece patterns, too.  Mostly

it depends on the width of your fabric and how much you can flare the

seams of the pieces.

 

                                       -Ibrahim al-Rashid

                                               (mka Matt Pius)

 

 

From: cromabu at aol.com

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern

Date: 3 Dec 1996 01:50:02 GMT

 

        With the greenland dress you have to take into account the bust, waist, & hip sizes of the wearer. If the wearer is small busted than it can be straight. But, if the wearer has a large size bust then the princess line pattern will work better. Having the latter problem (where clothes are concerned that is) I have had a great deal of trouble making a lot of patterns fit right, both modern as well as period paterns(especially period patterns).Your best bet is to make a slopper out of muslin (it's cheap) & it can make a nifty linning also. Remember that when making any thing with layers you need to make each successive layer larger, I have found that a scant 1/4 inch all around your pattern is enough for each layer.                       

                                                                     

Try it for yourself.

                                            Lady Cate

 

 

From: gayeates at chat.carleton.ca (Graham A. Yeates)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Cotehardies

Date: 2 Dec 1996 17:23:35 GMT

Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

 

Matthew Pius (piusma at umdnj.edu) wrote:

> mhar at straths.strathcona.vic.EDU.AU (Megan Hargreaves) writes:

> >I have found a cotehardie pattern in a costuming book, but

> >I am not sure that it is the right type, and if it will

> >come out looking authentic.

> >It has only 4 panels and everywhere else I have looked I have

> >seen up to 8 panels allowing for front or back openings.

> >Can anyone help??

 

>       A dress in 4 pieces would be period for slightly earlier periods

> than the 8 piece.  This is of course a generalization and I'm sure

> someone could come up wih a case for which it is not so, but 4 pieces is

> simpler than 8 which makes it (in my mind) earlier.  Whether you call it

> a cotehardie or not is kind of a matter of nomenclature nit-picking.

 

>       The difference between the two patterns is that having the

> vertical seams that cross the bust point allows you to fit the dress much

> more closely to the contours of your body than you can with only CB, CF,

> and side seams.  You may also find that the skits of a 4 piece gown need

> gores put in between them and that the 8 piece one does not.  But many

> people will put gores in the seams of the 8 piece patterns, too.  Mostly

> it depends on the width of your fabric and how much you can flare the

> seams of the pieces.

 

>                                       -Ibrahim al-Rashid

>                                               (mka Matt Pius)

 

Just one more wee comment from someone who has tried both:  If the wearer

has much of a bust the best fit will come from an eight panelled

cotehardie with the control seams going to the armhole (this is also more

period as far as I can tell, though in period control seams often did not

actually pass over the bust point).  There are a number of modern patterns

that can be easily adapted for this type of dress.

If you want a fitted but a bit earier type of look and are busty go to the

back laced gown ( the cote's ancestor) which is llike your 4 panelled cote

pattern but laced up the back (Sorry about the obviousness- first cold

ofthe season!) but make it in a Very soft, relatively loose woven wool or

wool-blend (After making a mock up, so you don't muck up (sewing

humour!)). I have a dress like this and it looks lovely on almost anyone

(with a nip and tuck at the sides) and it is largely due to the drape of

the fabric.

Good luck!

Lady Helen of Greyfells on her lords account (sorry ladies)

MKA Helen Dolbey (Mundanely a couturier)

Questions? Please send privately I'm not on here much- Thanks

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Evan QuickTongue

MKA Graham A. Yeates

Email address: gayeates at chat.carleton.ca

 

 

From: smilingyy at aol.com

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Cotehardies

Date: 3 Dec 1996 07:56:16 GMT

 

from Allison Poinvillars de Tours  at home at allilyn at juno.com

re: cotehardies

Both 4 gore and 8 gore cotehardies can be found in period, but if you can

do the 8 gore, it fits and looks best.  Some are laced down the back, some

buttoned down the front with many close set buttons--jeweled, bone,

metal--these are meant to be decorative as well as functional.  The 14th

C. over-the-bust seam does not end in the armhole.  It rises straight up

to the shoulder seam.  Look in the Style pattern book for one of

these--most modern 'princess' seams do swerve into the armhole. The sleeve

should be a 2 piece sleeve.  You may be able to adapt one from a suit

pattern, but again, their seams were not exactly in the same locations as

our modern version.  Check the art section of your local library for

paintings, manuscript illustrations, etc., for the country and time you

wish to copy.

Any new costumer should try to buy back copies of Seams Like Old Times, a

costume newsletter edited and mostly written by, two Laurels in the

Midrealm. Their work is excellent, and there is much on sleeves,

cotehardies, etc.  I'm away for the holiday, don't have their address, but

will be home with some of my reference books in mid-December.  Don't have

much Internet access, but do have e-maIL and lots of costume reference

books.

Happy garb-making.

Allison.

 

 

From: sunrise686 at aol.com

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Cotehardies

Date: 7 Dec 1996 06:40:44 GMT

 

I dug out an old article from "Seams LIke Old Times' and they stated that

any of the three could be period.  We have to take into consideration that

the gowns found were probably for smaller-breasted women.  It boils down

to using which ever pattern works best for you.  

 

Eleanor Courtenay

 

 

From: Maggie Mulvaney <mulvanem at fp.co.nz>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Cotehardies

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:35:23 -0800

Organization: Fisher & Paykel Screencraft

 

Shawn-Dana (Katya) wrote:

 

> Forgive my foolishness, but what makes a cotehardie a cotehardie? Why not

> base it on a Viking 10-gore? It's documentable.

 

That's actually a good question. This thread has discussed

several different types of gown, with little in common except

that they're all gored.

 

Personally, I define 'cotehardie' as a garment that is gored,

fitted (at least nominally) to the body, and has _fitted sleeves_.

Please note, this is not a scholarly definition - just my own

working definition. By that definition, cotehardies co-existed

with 'tunics', but that is not a problem to me. YMMV.

 

There is actual documentation on cotehardies, including extant

examples. The Greenland finds of Hjerolfsnes included several

garments. There are a couple of books that describe the find,

I'm sure someone else has a reference more handy than I do.

The HMSO book on 'textiles and clothing' also shows some

examples and additional documentation.

 

muireann

**********************************************************

* MMY             *                    mulvanem at fp.co.nz *

* Maggie Mulvaney * http://www.nmia.com/~entropy/maggie/ *

**********************************************************

 

 

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 01:53:26 -0700

From: Brett and Karen Williams <brettwi at ix.netcom.com>

To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu

Subject: Re: Books about costuming

 

If Eloise is looking specifically for cotehardies, here's some additional

pointers:

 

To give you an idea of what the dress looks like, there's a webpage with

pictures taken from Norris contained therein. While, IMHO, Norris' drawings are

somewhat contaminated by his early 20th century ideas of feminine figure and his

less than historian-level concern with accuracy of details, his illustrations

are nonetheless clear ideas of the shape of the garment one is after. They do

have the drawback of  little usefulness for flat pattern/cutting:

 

http://pip1.pipcom.com/~tempus/cotnor.html

 

All of the publications I cite presume familiarity with alteration and drafting

skills, which directly translates to an experienced seamster. If you need help,

or are looking for specific patterns for your size, that's another issue to be

addressed on request... ;)

 

In Tournaments Illuminated issue 116, Fall 1995, is an article on a way to cut a

10-gore dress, which makes a very nice cotehardie. There was some discussion on

the Rialto about this dress method that I can most likely find via DejaNews if

anyone is interested-- apparently there is an error in the measurement

methodology that can lead one to end up with the Dress That Can Hold Godzilla

And Mothra Destroying Tokyo Underneath. I can't find my copy at the moment-- I'm

hoping that Muireann will pop in and cite the issue in which her article on

cutting basic tunics appears, which is excellent. Once upon a time, Issue 87 of

TI had therein an article I wrote on constructing a Tudor/Elizabethan/Cavalier

corset from one's own measurements, but I think it's out of print these days.

There is an even earlier TI article from Robert Trump (Master Robert Sartor

etc.) on cutting an Elizabethan shirt, but it's somewhere in the garage...I

think.

 

ciorstan

 

 

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 05:22:08 GMT

From: mmy at fp.co.nz (Maggie.Mulvaney)

To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu

Subject: Re: Books about costuming

 

On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 01:53:26 -0700, Ciorstan wrote:

>In Tournaments Illuminated issue 116, Fall 1995, is an article on a way to cut a

>10-gore dress, which makes a very nice cotehardie. There was some discussion on

>the Rialto about this dress method that I can most likely find via DejaNews if

>anyone is interested-- apparently there is an error in the measurement

>methodology that can lead one to end up with the Dress That Can Hold Godzilla

>And Mothra Destroying Tokyo Underneath. I can't find my copy at the moment--I'm

>hoping that Muireann will pop in and cite the issue in which her article on

>cutting basic tunics appears, which is excellent.

 

Thanks, Ciorstan! :)

 

It was winter 1996, Issue 117. There is a direct relationship between

that type of tunic and the fitted cotehardie, but it involves a friend

or a dressmaker's dummy and lots of pinning... I did go to the trouble

once, and now have a pattern which I can use. You still have to

develop the sleeve, too, since that's fitted. It's kind of a practical

introduction to costume evolution.

 

There are commercial patterns made from the the Hjerolfsnes garments,

too. They were developed by the Copenhagen Design school, and are sold

through the National Museum in Copenhagen (they are on-line). One for

a woman's gown, one for a man's, hoods are included.

 

http//:natmus.min.dk/IXGB.HTM

 

/mmy

************************************************************

* MMY             *               Maggie.Mulvaney at fp.co.nz *

* Maggie Mulvaney * http://www.fpnet.co.nz/users/m/maggiem *

************************************************************

 

 

Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:50:02 -0700

From: Brett and Karen Williams <brettwi at ix.netcom.com>

To: "'Arts & Sciences List'" <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu>

Subject: Spreading a Pattern

 

In phefner200 at aol.com (Phefner200) writes:

> 

>Does anybody know where I might get patterns for cote-hardies and

>sideless surcoats? I have a pattern for these from Medieval

>Miscellaneous, but I had some real hassles with their Italian Ren. I'd

>like to try another pattern if possible. ---Isabelle

 

The Medieval Miscellanea cotehardie and surcote patterns are all

right (the usual Ciorstan Caveat about the MM fit of armsceye pieces

notwithstanding), but they don't make a garment to my personal

taste. The four-piece method of princess dress just isn't full enough in

the skirts.

 

If you're not comfortable using the "guess-and-by-God-it-worked!"

method of cutting [:)], then seek out any number of the commercial

patterns for a princess line dress with a jewel or boat neckline

style. HOWEVER, do get one that has the control seams that go up to the

top of the shoulders rather than into the armhole-- it's much easier to

fit the dress and is not as blatantly OOP. My current favorite pattern

is a McCall with shoulder pads (feh), which was relatively easy to

alter out by careful taking in of the shoulder control seams from the

bustpoint upwards. I made the McCalls version with about 8 yards of 45"

fabric, pieces cut as if with a nap due to a one-way pattern woven into

the cloth. Each piece was lengthened out to the width of the fabric at

the appropriate length for my height. The finished gown has decent

drape in the skirts as a result.

 

The actual cut of the cotehardie is the 10-gore dress of much

discussion from Tournaments Illuminated, as drawn by Crowfoot, et

alia, in Medieval Textiles, however that's a more difficult

drafting/alteration project to undertake than a princess-dress.

The important thing with a cotehardie gown is that fitting the dress

properly to the body intending to wear it is the key to success--

and therein lies the difficulty.

 

>Would you be willing to share that McCall's pattern number?  With my

>luck, I'd surely guess wrong.  :-)

> 

>Magdalen of Cheshire

>Barony of the South Downs, Meridies

 

Sorry, Lady Magdalen, there was no intent to be coy when I wrote

the first article. My two year old daughter had just gone galumphing

off with the envelope and hid it in one of her special hiding places.

 

It's 5743, copyright 1992, so it might be out of print.  I should

point out that I tend to search the discount pattern bins in search of

The Perfect Cotehardie Dress Pattern and have a lot of 'em stashed

from over the last eighteen or so years. If this particular pattern is

indeed out of print, not to worry-- all three mainstream pattern

manufacturers seem to recycle this particular classic dress in every

season's release. What you're looking for is long, plain sleeves, simple

neckline, no collar or other silly frills. Change the back zip to

a faced and reinforced eyelet lacing. View A of this particular

pattern is supposed to fall at mid-calf; the finished hem width of the

garment is, for a size 16, 153 inches. If the mid-calf is lengthened to

a proper lady's length, there's even more width to the skirts than a

mere 153 inches.

 

I usually avoid Simplicity, though-- their patterns tend, overall,

to call for less fabric (and hence less conspicuous consumption-like

drape) than the other pattern folks. This seems to be why their

garments seem to scream 'homemade' more so than others. McCalls

generally run a wee tad large.

 

With that caveat in mind, there's Simplicity 9417, a tunic and

(!!!) sideless surcote that's designed to tie on over the dress. With a

minor amount of fiddling with the surcote (I'd widen the skirts out by

slashing the pattern and spreading), there's a good guideline for

a surcote. Oh, and lose the tie and connect the skirt panels, o'

course. This particular pattern was just released this spring (1996), so

there's a good chance it's still there in the stores. The front neckline

of the surcote is a little low for my personal taste, but that's easily

adjusted, too. The tunic itself is a short-sleeved classic early

period t-tunic, done with a slight dolman bagginess under the sleeve.

The drape to the garment is typically scanty Simplicity, though. As a

point of comparison, the finished hem of the Simplicity tunic is also at

mid calf, and is a paltry 79 3/4 inches.

 

It occurred to me that this Simplicity pattern could be used to

base a ten-gore dress upon, with a snip here and a split there...hrm.

Hrm. Hrm!

 

>>In article <4v7une$nda at dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>

>>brettwi at ix.netcom.com(Brett Williams) writes:

>>It's [McCall's] 5743, copyright 1992, so it might be out of print.

> 

>Indeed, as you suspected, I couldn't find it anywhere.  I did,

>however, find another (albeit Simplicity) pattern that might work.  I

>would be interested in hearing opinions on #8345; it is described as a

>"fit and flared dress with princess seams; cap sleeves and back

>zipper." The front seams do go all the way to the shoulder, and the

>sleeve appears to be easily alterable to a long one.  The mid-calf

>length dress shows a dress width of 129 1/2".

 

Sounds about right, then. I withdraw my usual snarky criticsms of

Simplicity, for this one instance. ;)

 

I said earlier:

 

>>>With that caveat in mind, there's Simplicity 9417, a tunic and (!!!)

>>>sideless surcote that's designed to tie on over the dress. With a

>>>minor amount of fiddling with the surcote (I'd widen the skirts out

>>>by slashing the pattern and spreading), there's a good guideline for

>>>a surcote.

> 

>This one I found.  Now I need some advice, as I have never "slashed" a

>pattern before --- only shortened or lengthened.  

 

It's not too difficult once the concept is explained, so I'll do

my best. However, this is a hard one to do without 'visual aids', so

I'll tender the suggestion to take a good look at Mistress Audelindis'

reprints of Seams Like Old Times in the two (now three?) Compleat

Anachronists. She explains the technique of slashing and spreading

correctly, in detail. It needs to be done in even proportions

across the garment (or garment piece) or the garment ends up looking

funny and the skirts don't drape properly. She also gives good, clear

illustrations of improperly cut and draping skirts so you know

what you're avoiding.

 

I will try to get the technique across without her splendid

drawings, though. Mistress Audelindis, I know you're out there.....

care to comment?

 

>How many length-wise slashes should I make?

 

That depends on the total projected proportion of width you

propose to give the finished garment. In the case of the Simplicity

surcote, I'd do at least three spreads and additions-- one in the

'center front' and 'center back' of the finished garment, one each of

the 'center' of the original piece as drafted by Simplicity, and I'd add

a chunk to the sides. If you take a look at the 10-gore dress diagram in

a late issue of TI, the parallel can be mentally drawn by the 10-gore

dress' insertion of a gore in the center front panel of the garment. The

surcote we're after, though, has a totally different drape point

and should have the top of the virtual 'gores' you're inserting into

the pattern pieces commence from just under the neckline. If you're

really new at this, think of a gore as a triangle that you're adding, on

paper, to the pattern you've been provided that ultimately shows

in the finished garment without seams. The trick here is to spread the

pieces in such a way as to ensure that the curved sides of the surcote's

armsceyes don't get pushed out so far that it becomes the Surcote

Under Which Godzilla And Mothra Could Easily Destroy Tokyo. So, you want

your gore/triangles fairly narrow at the top.

 

>Where should they begin --- at the approx. waistline?  

 

No, no NO! See above. :) If you start your widening at the

waistline you'll throw the skirt proportions subtly off. The garment

will end up looking like one of those neat things that looks like a

surcote but has Something Subtly Wrong With It.

 

>Is there any limit to how far I can "spread" the pattern before it

>gets distorted and will not give me a true floor-length hem?

 

The only distortion you'll get by spreading in the manner I've

suggested is if you give it *too* much spread. See above. I

usually piece the sides of my surcotes as the spread of the fabric

doesn't accomodate the full sweep of skirt.

 

        1

     ___*_

     \  1 {        <- an abysmal attempt at an ascii neckline

     |  1  |2

     /  1  |       So, I conjecture the original Simplicity surcote

   4/   1  |       piece looks something like this. I know my ascii

   |   1  |       art's out of proportion, but I hope you'll

   |   1  |       understand anyway. I'm not even going to attempt

   |   1  |       drawing the hem curve in.

   |   1  |

5   |   *  |     3

 

1. Cut the pattern piece in half from * to *. Spread apart on the

line marked as ones and pivot the pieces on the shoulder seam. Do not

change the seam of the shoulder, nor should you change the armsceye.

You're merely moving the pieces apart and changing how they will lie

across the grain of the fabric.

 

2. From the center front neckline, draw an added gore to widen

the skirts out at point 2 to 3. You will probably have to draft

facings for the neckline-- I personally like rolling the hem of the

armscye and facing the neckline. I lay the surcote out on a scrap of

fabric after sewing (and pressing!) the shoulder seams and cut away what

doesn't look like a facing. Whatever you decide to do to finish the

armsceye, be sure you staystitch it before it stretches due to it lying

predominantly across the bias. Don't worry about bias and skirts.

 

3. Fill in the missing skirt piece by drawing out an additional

gore from point 4 to however far you're zooming your projected skirts

(a new point 5). If you have to piece your skirts from yardage/scraps

because you've run out of width, that's fine-- and a perfectly period

technique.

 

You will have to draw a proper curve for the skirt hem. Here is

where Audelindis' work is Really Useful.

 

>I apologize for all the questions, but I'm a relatively new *alterer*

>of patterns, and I can't afford to experiment much.

> 

>Magdalen of Cheshire

 

No apology necessary-- this is fun!

 

Lastly, and perhaps aside from the main thrust of this article-- I

bought a ten-yard roll of 45" pattern paper for about five dollars

at Michael Levine's, in the Garment District in Los Angeles.

Wonderful stuff, marked in inch grids. If you can find it, invest. Cheap

butcher paper works, too, for pattern drafting like this, or if you have

a tame doctor around, some of the patient paper they roll out on

examining tables-- or 'kraft' paper from an art store. If you're

reluctant to cut into patterns, trace 'em off onto cheaper paper, put

'em away in their envelopes (whoever designed the folding machines for

paper patterns was on Serious Drugs, no?) and annihilate your tracings

without regret. An easy way to 'trace' a pattern is to cut it out, take

a piece of white soap and gently rub from the pattern off the edge onto

your lower piece of paper (which has to be a darker color, obviously).

You get a negative image-- and the beauty is you have to cut *away* the

soapy parts. Oh, yeah-- I iron out my paper patterns with no steam

before I lay 'em out the first time. Hate those stupid fold lines.

 

Once you get to the cutting point, use an old sheet as a muslin.

If you have reservations about fitting the more complicated cotehardie,

trace off the pattern pieces to just below the hips and make it up in

something that cost less than $1.50/yd (or even that hideously

awful and vile print you received furtively thrust into your arms in a

plastic grocery bag with averted and guilty eyes from a relative who

will NEVER admit that she spent good money on it!). Alter away, then cut

and use the finished muslin for your final pattern. This, of course,

presumes a lot of time spent-- however, I'll gently point out that my

first five cotehardies were abysmal failures because I, in my pride,

couldn't be bothered to take that careful step of fitting a muslin

first. Silly me!

 

Hope this helps!

 

>M'lady, I humbly thank you for your good advice and the time you must have

>spent just typing it out!  I am in your debt.  :-)

> 

>Magdalen of Cheshire

 

You're very welcome.

 

But on second reading of my post this morning, I forgot to mention

something:

 

After you split the pattern piece up the line of ones as drawn in

my abysmal ascii art, spreading the pieces out will result in a jog

in the shoulder seam. You know if you're spreading it too far by the

depth of the v. It should be slight. Simply 'round off' the shoulder

seam by drawing a straight line from seam allowance to seam allowance.

This has the effect of lengthening the shoulder seam slightly, so if

you're really conservative, pinch out the extra length on the pattern

piece before you cut (measure the length of the shoulder seam before

alteration and Make It So after the adjustment). Essentially,

you've just installed a dart and smoothed it out where no dart existed

before or after.

 

Don't be afraid to admit that you have reservations doing this the

first time-- I did, hence the recommendation of the sacrifice of a

sheet. Pivot and slide alterations and radical changes in drape

are advanced garment design skills.

 

I highly recommend Nancy Zieman's pivot and slide method of

alteration, which goes into this technique in greater detail than either

Mistress Audelindis or myself. Mrs. Zieman is the owner of Nancy's

Notions and usually has any number of books currently offered in her

catalog, one of which addresses pivot and slide exclusively. I would

give the title, but I don't own a copy. :)

 

ciorstan

 

 

Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 20:30:17 -0500

From: pnomail at bratshb.uwc.edu

To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu

Subject: Pattern spreading and altering

 

Dear ciorstan,

 

If you will allow me to augment your description of pattern spreading I

would like to try.  

 

Conventional pattern alteration reasoning goes something like this:

The human body is pretty predictable.  It is also 3 dimensional.  A pattern

that needs to be increased or decreased should be stretched or shrunk in

more than one spot.  A person gains weight in more than one spot and pattern

alterations should reflect this.  If a person takes a size 38 pattern on the

chest, and a size 44 in the waist, adding only to the seam allowances will

also stretch the armseye (hole your arm goes through sometimes ending in a

sleeve) and possibly the neck.  The additional fabric should be added

through out the pattern in many small pieces, not one large chunk.  Since a

size 6 human female casts a smaller shadow from any side than a size 16, the

size 16 is proportianately bigger.  The sides are bigger.  The back is

wider. The distance from bust point to point (the technical sewing term for

a measurement you probably don't want your dress maker taking if using

correct anatomical terms) is bigger, all of these differences are reflected

in the patterns.  

 

So to sumarize many small alterations are preferred to one big one for fit.

Of course, for time and convience, the fewer the better, so there does need

to be a reasonable balance.  

 

The slash and slide method by Nancy Zieman basically splits the pattern

piece in the middle adjusting at the STITCHING LINE, not the cutting line,

and pivoting the various parts of the pattern to the right fit and shape.

It is a simple method and IMO vastly easier than the one previously taught

in sewing classes.  Sometimes an alteration needs two or more splits if

there is a large difference.  

 

I would like to point out that in a conventional princess seamed dress, if

you cut the pieces 1/4" wider or narrower, you add (or subtract) 1/2" from

each seam, and so add or subtract 3" from the entire dress, so alterations

add up quickly.  

 

Also the modern patterns are sized for women 5'7" with a B cup.  Those

larger or smaller may find some frustration in bust fit if it is not cut to

accomodate.

 

If one is altering a pattern tissue paper, pattern paper, old grocery bags,

unprinted newsprint, etc are good choices.  If one is preserving a much

loved and overused pattern, cheap iron on interfacing will support the pattern.

 

If you are attempting to alter a modern pattern to a period dress, like

ciorstan described, and are feeling clumsy, I will offer this reminder and

encouragement. You have grown in your sewing far enough to attempt pattern

drafting or partial drafting, because this is what a flat pattern alteration

of this magnitude is, so congratulations you have reached a new level of

sewing. Many never get this far.

 

Drucilla

 

 

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:03:43 -0700

From: Brett and Karen Williams <brettwi at ix.netcom.com>

To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu

Subject: Re: Spreading a Pattern

 

EXCMairi at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 97-09-28 18:53:31 EDT, you write:

>

> << HOWEVER, do get one that has the control seams that go up to the

> top of the shoulders rather than into the armhole-- it's much easier to

> fit the dress and is not as blatantly OOP. >>

>

> I just don't understand this whenever I read it.  If you have ever done any

> work with the Greenland finds, as depicted in the Museum of London Textiles

> book (the basic pattern for a cotehardie), the seam at the side that connects

> with the first gore ends up looking like it goes into the armhole, NOT into

> the shoulder.  The main body piece is basically a large rectangle that is the

> width from shoulder point to shoulder point - there is seam dividing the

> front of the dress.

>

> Linda Blowney

 

This is absolutely true-- however... there are two points of contention

here.

 

Most of us, I daresay, do not have the skill to draft an armsceye.  I,

too, have reluctance to get into the armsceye when I'm fooling with a

pattern. Where it would be absolutely authentic to do as you say with

respect to the construction of the dress-- how many of us truthfully

have the flat pattern skill to make an armsceye drape correctly after

creating a complex curve to fit over the bust? The ideal 10-gore dress

doesn't allow, really, for a big difference in measurement from the

waistline and bust *if one is doing a snug fit*, and just the slightest

change in taking in or letting out that side panel control seam can

distort the armsceye. I'm lucky-- I'm sorta sausage waisted

(shortwaisted and not much difference in measurement between waist and

hip), however one more hourglass-like would have a hard time getting a

rectangular center front panel and rectangular side gores to fit

anything more than loosely.

 

Additionally, a modern armsceye control-seamed princess dress is

absolutely and utterly unforgiving of cutting errors with respect to

that complex curve over the bust. It is much more difficult a

proposition to fit-alter such a curve as its placement is closer to the

bust point than the center side.

 

I don't have armsceye drafting skills, though I've sewed since I was

eight and to some extent abandoned patterns completely about fifteen

years ago when doing early SCA clothing. This is why I personally

compromise with a princess-line pattern for a cotehardie and fiddle. And

buy more princess-line patterns. And fiddle. ;)  Which is not to say

that I'm arguing against going the authentic way when making a 10-gore

dress-- it's more like I'm admitting realistically what my sewing and

drafting skills will competently handle. Even the 10-gore dress article

in TI, while wonderful for making up the body of the dress, seems to

skim over the problem of creating the armsceye. For field wear, I am

guilty of wearing a more t-tunic constructed gown under a simple

sideless surcote rather than a many-paneled 10-gore dress.

 

And the second contention-- Agnes Sorel's control seams go into the

shoulder line, if memory serves.  I am guilty of thinking of a

specifically later-period form-fitting cotehardie when recommending a

princess-line pattern rather than an earlier one without making that

distinction clear. That is the garment I think of when I think

'cotehardie', rather than a more loose 10-gore dress as found in

Greenland.

 

But more to the point, Lady Mairi-- what would you recommend as a

starting point for an individual to create a form-fitting cotehardie,

using a pattern, who doesn't have the flat-patterning skill to create

the complex curve over the bust or the armsceye? The more commentary we

have on the list, the better our discussion will be.

 

ciorstan

 

 

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:00:28 -0500

From: pnomail at bratshb.uwc.edu

To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu

Subject: Re: Spreading a Pattern

 

I'm going to gracelessly stick my nose in here.

 

>Most of us, I daresay, do not have the skill to draft an armsceye.  I,

>too, have reluctance to get into the armsceye when I'm fooling with a

>pattern.

True. An armseye is difficult to draft.  A sewing curve, (plastic thingy

about 12"x9" available at fabric stores) is rather like a french curve, and

will help match the armseye seams.

 

To test fit make the bodice from shoulders to hips in scrap/cheap fabric of

a similar hand and construction as the material you are lusting over as a

gown. I mean, use woven material assuming you are wanting a woven gown.

Sew the seams on the outside, stay stitch the neck and armseye and fiddle

with the fit.  Or better get a friend whom you trust not to stick you with

pins and have her/him adjust the fit.  Muslin, gingham or fabric that is so

hideous you can't believe you bought it, is a good "sacrifice" for these

test garments, called slopers or muslins in the sewing world.  Another good

source is the salvation army and other resale shops.  (I found 3 yards of

cotton corduroy, 60" wide for 60 cents.  It's cheaper than pattern paper,

and I can actually wear my test in public, but that's a different garment.)

 

Once you have a comfy and correct fit over the bust, true the seam line at

the armseye.  Truing is where you adjust the curves so they are smooth.

This is where one needs either a steady hand and a bit of luck or a sewing

curve, or a drafting french curve.  Then add the seam allowance.  

 

Then set the sleeves in, and adjust them so the sleeve cap is smooth.  It it

works, it's legal, unless your dress falls apart with you in it.

 

Good luck.

 

> rather than a more loose 10-gore dress as found in Greenland.

If memory serves correctly, the greenland dress is 12 gores not 10.  There

are two side panels in both front and back, the front and back and the 2

center gores.  Of course I could be wrong.  I've been that way before.

 

Drucilla

 

 

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:34:39 -0400 (EDT)

From: EXCMairi at aol.com

To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu

Subject: Re: Spreading a Pattern

 

<< Which is not to say that I'm arguing against going the authentic way when

making a 10-gore dress-- it's more like I'm admitting realistically what my

sewing and

drafting skills will competently handle. Even the 10-gore dress article in

TI, while wonderful for making up the body of the dress, seems to skim over

the problem of creating the armsceye. >>

 

Reply, part 2!  

 

FYI, the reason why the armsceye is not particularly addressed in the TI

article is that the gores at the side of the dress create the armsceye for

you. For those who might not know what we are talking about, the Greenland

finds (14th-15th century) have numerous gores in each side and additional

ones possible at the front and the back (to put it in a nutshell - there were

numerous examples found, many had different configurations of # of gores,

etc., etc.).   This basic cut is discussed in the MoL Textiles book as the

way cotehardies were constructed in period.

 

At the risk of sounding like an authenticity nut, the period way sometimes

really is the easier way!

 

Mairi

 

 

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:38:40 -0400 (EDT)

From: EXCMairi at aol.com

To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu

Subject: Re: Spreading a Pattern

 

The other trick to getting a good arm-hole fit is to take a mundane blouse or

dress that you are comfortable and just trace the arm-hole curve.  If it

ain't broke, don't fix it!

 

Mairi

 

 

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:43:44 -0400 (EDT)

From: EXCMairi at aol.com

To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu

Subject: Re: Spreading a Pattern

 

<< And the second contention-- Agnes Sorel's control seams go into the

shoulder line, if memory serves.  I am guilty of thinking of a

specifically later-period form-fitting cotehardie when recommending a

princess-line pattern rather than an earlier one without making that

distinction clear. That is the garment I think of when I think

'cotehardie', rather than a more loose 10-gore dress as found in

Greenland. >>

 

The 10-gore style shown in the MoL Textiles volume is exactly the form-fitted

cotehardie you are thinking of.  The seam appears to go into the armscye.  If

I were going to use a modern pattern to start with (not that I agree that

would be easier, frankly - I have taught the 10-gore style to people who

can't even make a t-tunic and they were successful), I would still go for one

with the seam ending in the arm-hole.

 

Baroness Mairi

 

 

Subject: Re: ANST - Houppelande documentation

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 97 16:11:16 -0000

From: -Jax- <jackson2 at apple.com>

To: "Ansteorra" <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>

 

Jovian:

Check out this Web Address:

< http://www.pipcom.com/~tempus/cotehardie.html >

 

It's the Cotehardie Home Page, I kid you not.

 

-Erik Wulfriksson-

  House of Brick

 

 

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 23:46:54 -0700

From: Brett and Karen Williams <brettwi at ix.netcom.com>

To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu

Subject: Re: Cotehardie armscyes & seams

 

gcarnegi wrote:

> > >In a message dated 97-09-28 18:53:31 EDT, Ciorstan writes:

> > >And the second contention-- Agnes Sorel's control seams go into the

> > >shoulder line, if memory serves.

>

> The painting of Anges Sorel, which is part of The Melun Diptych, is at

> http://sunsite.auc.dk/cjackson/fouquet/p-fouquet3.htm

> The date of the panels is 1453-54.  Take a second look at the painting.

> Because of the mantle, you really can't tell if the seam does go into the

> armscye or not.

 

You're right. And your URL is the largest reproduction of that painting

I've ever seen. Now that I've seen a much better reproduction of the

picture, I withdraw my contention that the control seam goes to the

shoulder-- I was in error.

 

As a side issue: I may sound like I'm whining a little --hehheh-- but

the Manneristic way the painting's done looks to me like severe

anatomical distortion in the armscye/bust area, and Agnes' left eye,

upper cheek and brow. No woman's chest, barring a modern breast-implant

surgery that would most likely be the centerpiece of a malpractice suit,

looks like that. I would love to hear a cultural/art history style

analysis of this particular panel to try and understand why the painter

might have excuted so much of the painting in a realistic manner, then

distorted the woman's upper chest area so dramatically.

 

ciorstan

 

 

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:46:38 -0700

From: "gcarnegi" <gcarnegi at quiknet.com>

To: <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu>

Subject: Cotehardie armscyes & seams

 

Hello Ciorstan, Mairi, and everyone

 

> In a message dated 97-09-29 12:12:30 EDT, Baroness Mairi writes:

> >In a message dated 97-09-28 18:53:31 EDT, Ciorstan writes:

> >And the second contention-- Agnes Sorel's control seams go into the

> >shoulder line, if memory serves.

 

The painting of Anges Sorel, which is part of The Melun Diptych, is at

http://sunsite.auc.dk/cjackson/fouquet/p-fouquet3.htm

The date of the panels is 1453-54.  Take a second look at the painting.

Because of the mantle, you really can't tell if the seam does go into the

armscye or not.

 

> > I am guilty of thinking of a specifically later-period form-fitting

> > cotehardie when recommending a princess-line pattern rather

> > than an earlier one without making that distinction clear. That

> > is the garment I think of when I think 'cotehardie', rather than a

> > more loose 10-gore dress as found in Greenland.

> The 10-gore style shown in the MoL Textiles volume is exactly the

> form-fitted cotehardie you are thinking of.  The seam appears to go

> into the armscye. If I were going to use a modern pattern to start with

> (not that I agree that would be easier, frankly - I have taught the

> 10-gore style to people who can't even make a t-tunic and they were

> successful), I would still go for one with the seam ending in the

arm-hole.

 

The pattern for the cotehardie in MoL's Textiles and Clothing is from Paul

Norlund's Buried Norsemen at Herjolfsnes. There were actually 21 pieces of

body clothing found at this site. If you find a copy, this is a great book.

 

 

All of the dresses that slip over the head, with or with out CF & CB gores,

have the gores beginning in the armscye. This includes the dresses with

pleated bodices.  These dresses all seem to follow the body closely down to

the hip and then flare.  To my eye, these dresses belong to the cotehardie

family.

 

The two cotes with center CF openning are made of 8 panels total and have

seams which run from the middle of the shoulder seam to the hem both in

back and in front.  There doesn't appear to be any of the shaping to the

body as with the dresses mentioned above.  One cote still has a small

standing collar (no. 63). The other cote (no 64)may have had a small

standing collar but the find was in such ruin, the author was uncertain.

Looking at these two cotes, I'd throw them in with the hoppelande family.

 

As to whether it is easier to releave a bust dart into the armscye or into

the shoulder seam is a matter of preference. You can technically releave a

dart anywhere in a 360 degree circle around the pivot point. This includes

the back shoulder dart too- most people forget that one.

 

I tend to move most of it into the armscye with some going into the CF seam

and then grade both the armscye and the CF seam, controlling the fullness

through the chest  to acheive the squashed bosom (mono bosom) support that

I associate with this style.  This also assumes that you have a CF seam to

work with.

 

I think you get better control if you split the dart into two.  This is

especially true if the pattern is for someone with a large chest.

I've even seen one student releave it in 4 small darts (these looked more

like puckers) spread between a point 2" down from the shoulder seam and

1.5" from the underarm notch.  It worked very well for her but she also had

a smallish bustline to work around.  

 

The cap height on the Greenland dresse's sleeves is not very high...

around 3" with at least one sleeve having no cap at all.  However the seams

are not under the arm, they run up the back or on top of the arm.  They all

have gussets inserted to add fullness so I guess you could say they all

have a cap at that point. Some of the sleeves are short (to about 2" shy of

the inside of the elbow), the rest were full length.  I didn't see any of

the cuffs over the knuckles- curious

 

At least two of the dresses had pocket slits which were edged with what

sounds like a small tablewoven braids.  Very cool!

 

I have a small handout on how to make standard cotehardie- could the

orginal poster please reply to me so I can forward it

 

Thanks all for letting me ramble-

 

Dame Gwyndolynn Anne the Obscure, OL

West Kingdom

 

 

From: Eloise Beltz-Decker <eloise at ripco.com>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: undergarments for ladies cotehardies

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:58:25 -0500

 

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Carole & William wrote:

> I am looking for viable sources to make undergarments that will make my

> cotehardies look right.  (Brassiere straps are just a little out of

> place!)  If someone could guide me to either hard or electronic

> documentation I would be most grateful.

 

        That's easy. The same person that fit you for the cotehardie, get

them to fit you a bit tighter, with your breasts held up and towards the

middle; when the pinned-together four or eight pieces of fabric can

support your boobs adequately and the seams are straight, draw on it in

pen or marker to show where the seams go. Take it off, cut out (leaving

seam allowance past the lines - my #1 screw up! :-), make up in sturdy

fabric. Lace down front, back, or sides as you choose.

--

Eloise Beltz-Decker

 

 

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 19:02:25 -0500

From: Karen at stierbach.atlantia.sca.org (Larsdatter, Karen )

To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu

Subject: Re: Tippet sleeves?

 

Anna de Byxe asked:

> Does anyone ut there know where I can get a hold of a pattern for

> tippet sleeves for my mid-14th century dress?

 

You could try the "Sleeves Site" on the Cotehardie Homepage

(http://pip1.pipcom.com/~tempus/sleeves/index.html).

 

Tempus also has a good pattern for a separate tippet on the

Cotehardie Patterns page

(http://pip1.pipcom.com/~tempus/cotehardie/patterns.html) -- it's

the first pattern on the page, for a man's cotehardie.

 

Karen Larsdatter

 

 

From: Jennifer Carlson <talana1 at hotmail.com>

Date: September 21, 2006 12:53:21 PM CDT

To: ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org

Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Ansteorra Digest, Vol 5, Issue 55

 

Lady Penelope wrote:

> The book I read was Support and Seduction:  the history of corsets  

> and bras by Beatrice Fontanel.

>   I cannot remember whether it was the 14th or 15th century, but women

> would bare one breast.  Also, the silhouette in the 13th or 14th century

> was very small breasts and big stomachs.  Women would add padding around

> the middle to obtain the silhouette.

 

I'll confess right off that I'm not familiar with this book, and will check

it out at the first opportunity.  But I have to say that padding is not

necessary to obtain the 13th-14th century silhouette.

 

If you ever get the opportunity to attend a gothic gown (sometimes called

the cotehardie) class by Robin Netherton, who is THE expert on this

particular fashion, do so.  She's frighteningly informative and funny.  And

she also does a magnificent class/slideshow that illustrates how we can do

careful research and make perfectly reasoned conclusions that are ultimately

dead wrong, because of a tiny misinterpretation by someone up the research

chain we used.

 

The gothic gown, so popular in the 13-15th centuries, starts at the

beginning of that era fitted only around the bust, and as time progresses,

becomes more fitted down the torso, until it is so fitted that it starts to

reform the silhouette.  This results in the pouter-pigeon mono-bosom up top,

and what appears to be a sway-back and big belly below.

 

What's really happening with the back and abdomen is that the close fitting

down the back and at the sides forms the garment into the small of the back,

and at the same time emphasizes all the curves in front down to about the

navel. These are curves that today you won't see displayed on a woman very

often. One of the comments Ms. Netherton gets again and again is that the

women who wear this style have men staring at their backs, and that they

never realized how sexy the curve of a woman's back can be.

 

The reason the stomach can appear to pooch out is not a result of padding or

even, as I've heard some assert, a desire to look pregnant (though some of

the depicted women might have been so, certainly).  If you've ever worn one

of these garments, properly fitted, this is the way you will want to stand.

The construction of the back and sides supports you well enough that you

naturally relax into this stance, which is the opposite of the

stand-up-straight-and-hold-in-your-stomach training most of us grew up with.

 

And if you want to know what some of us think the real inspiration for this

posture is, take a look at any gaggle of teenage girls, SCA or mundane, and

notice how they stand: shoulders back, tummies forward.

 

Now, as for padding the bosom - well, "gay deceivers" have probably been

around as long as girls (and boys) have realized that some girls got more.

But this style of gown, fitted properly in the chest, will put cleavage on

an ironing board.

 

Talana

 

 

From: Nancee <nancee at MERMAID.HOMEIP.NET>

Date: January 14, 2010 1:27:11 PM CST

To: CALONTIR at listserv.unl.edu

Subject: Re: [CALONTIR] Looking for resources on buttons

 

Thomas von Holthausen wrote:

<<< May I sit in on that conversation, also.  

I am also considering making a tight fitting cotehardie.  

 

Why is this style of coat called "hardy"? >>>

 

Because it goes on top. Over coat.

 

 

From: Nancee <nancee at MERMAID.HOMEIP.NET>

Date: January 14, 2010 1:46:03 PM CST

To: CALONTIR at listserv.unl.edu

Subject: Re: [CALONTIR] Looking for resources on buttons

 

Thomas von Holthausen wrote:

<<< Really?

That is a cool thing to know. >>>

 

Wanna here something else cool? Houppeland, surcote and cotehardie all mean about the same thing. Great coat, top coat, over coat. It's the top layer, worn when you wanted to be fully dressed.

 

QM

 

 

From: Nancee <nancee at MERMAID.HOMEIP.NET>

Date: January 14, 2010 1:54:17 PM CST

To: CALONTIR at listserv.unl.edu

Subject: Re: [CALONTIR] Looking for resources on buttons

 

<<< I know that a man's Cotehardie is a bit different from the ladies but the only thing I have seen in illuminations and things that the woman's cotehardie is worn over is the underdress or shift. >>>

 

I'm going to share my favorite analogy.

 

The layers work like this:

 

shift/chemise

kirtle/shirt

cotehardie/cote

 

Think of a man's full dress suit in the 1950s. He wore an undershirt, a dress shirt and suit jacket. The undershirt was basically underwear, but he could wear it around the house or to do manual labor. The dress shirt could be worn alone, even outside the house, but it was less formal and would not be warm on a chilly day. With the jacket on, he is fully dressed and ready to go to work at the office, a wedding or other similar occasion--he could also wear it if it was a little too chilly for just his shirt.

 

The undershirt is like the shift (male or female)--it is basically underwear, but you can wear it in the privacy of your home, and you see men in the fields or doing other manual labor in just a shift. As with a dress shirt, put on the kirtle (male or female), and you are fully dressed for informal occasions. The cotehardie is like the suit jacket. It makes you fully dressed and ready for dressy occasions--it is also warmer.  You may wear a mantle or cloak on top (like a man's overcoat) for more warmth, but it does not add or detract from the formality of the clothes.

 

None of this takes into account hat, shoes or braes and hosen. But, the analogy actually fits those garments as well.

 

:)

 

QM

 

 

From the FB :SCA Garb" group:

 

Jennifer Bechamp

7/25/15

I have a question about cotehardies. With a close fitted garment like that, what is the best way to fit the sleeves? I've been having trouble with getting close fitting sleeves to still allow a free range of motion without pulling the back too tight across the shoulders. The body of the dress fits well but when I add the sleeves it restricts my movement and I can't quite figure out what I am doing wrong.

 

Emily Aqualime

How big an armscye did you make?

 

Jennifer Bechamp

20 inches around, ten inches long on each side.

 

Emily Aqualime

http://cottesimple.com/articles/tailoring-grande-assiette/

 

Emily Aqualime

Do you have any gussets in the underarm or back?

 

Jennifer Bechamp

I am using an underarm guesset. 4 inch square

 

Emily Aqualime

You'll probably want a triangular gusset in back (see above link, scroll way down for an example)

If you post a photo or two showing what's going wrong it will help others with more experience than myself tell you exactly what needs fixing

 

Kimiko Small

Mistress Charlotte Mathilde Johnson's very helpful article on fitting sleeves.

http://www.mathildegirlgenius.com/Documen.../SleeveClass.pdf

 

 

Wendy Misuinas

9/18/15

I'm teaching a beginning class on the Gothic fitted dress....lace front, bust supportive outer garment. I got chatised for saying in my class descrption that this is "popularly referred to as a cotehardie" because that term is reserved for buttoned front closing gowns, and laced front gowns are kirtles, which are undergarments. Am I going nuts to think that while some SCA garb makers may choose to use cotehardie exclusively for button fronts, others will use it interchangeably with lace fronts? Also that I have seen lots of lace front dresses clearly being worn as outer dresses, not as undergarments.

 

I am teaching mostly beginners (adults) and SCA time period is not my strongest (18th century is). I don't want to get bogged down in terminology but I don't want to create confusion either.

 

Beatrice Domenici della Campana

Yes, I have heard any of these gowns referred to as a cotehardie. I've never heard of a "lace-front" versus "button-front" distinction (though this isn't my period of expertise, I know enough that I refer to the garment as a GFD rather than a cotehardie).

 

Charlotte Mathilde Johnson

The modern usage of the term "cotehardie" seems to differ so much from the period usage, that saying "popularly referred to as..." seems just fine to me. Those people who are telling you that a cotehardie is only "X thing" are also not using the term in a period correct way.

People get really hung up on terms when they shouldn't.

 

Charles Mellor

Even Merriam and Webster eventually give in to "Common Usage". I've given up on trying to tell people the supportive layer is NOT called a cotehardie. Too many people are calling it that, at this point.

 

Kate Tuley

The difference is also linguistic; "kirtle" is a Germanic word, "cote" or "cotehardie" is Romance. The Complete Costume Dictionary lists "sorquenie" as the laced undergown worn beneath a cote. (https://books.google.com/books?id=gbIsJ2tZJS4C&pg=PA275....) You can search for other terms at the google book site. Things can get pretty dicey when you're using terms from multiple languages used across multiple centuries, i.e. the CCD includes "cettelle" for as a Spanish term for "kirtle" from 1450-1550, and "rok" as the Dutch (see also buis). I've seen cote, cotte, cotta...and that's a word that eventually becomes "coat," like that's not remotely dependent on the timeframe the term's used. In my experience reading Middle English and Old French, terms like "cote," "kirtle," "gunne," even "bliaut" are much the way we use words like "dress" and "coat" in modern English, and by modern I mean going back a ways, Jane Austen used "coat." Two hundred years later, we still say "coat," but are usually referring to something a bit different, because we're stilling using it as "that garment thing, you know, you wear it over a shirt, it has sleeves? That thing?"

 

Charlotte Mathilde Johnson

According to the "Encyclopedia of Medieval Dress and Textiles of the British Isles, c. 450-1450", a "cotehardie" is "A 14th-century overgarment, usually lined, initially worn by men and eventually by both sexes. Although modern authors commonly use the term cotehardie to refer to a predominantly female fitted dress style that became popular in the 14th century, evidence from the period indicates that the term had no such association, and instead referred to an overgarment that was typically fur-lined and primarily worn by men."

 

There's more, and there are a couple of examples for women, but again, they seem more like outer warmth layers that were loose and unfitted.

The modern usage doesn't really match up with the period usage.

 

Rachel Case

I was not chastising you at all, my intent was to clarify the supportive garment you are teaching college students to make. You said "fitted dress with a laced front popularly known as a cotehardie." In my own research and garb construction, I have seen that term used as the buttoned outer garment, although it did sometimes lace up. Honestly, most folks start out with the fitted kirtle, then learn about layering later.

 

Antonia Di Benedetto Calvo

A cotehardie, properly, is an overgarment, not a laced supportive garment. People *do* use the word cotehardie for what is really a kirtle (or one of its many many synonyms). As this is for a *class*, I think I may see a small opportunity for education here... smile emoticon

 

I don't think you have to go too nuts about terms. I point out all the time that a jerkin is a jerkin, not a doublet without getting too hung up on all the possible words for jerkin in other European languages.

 

Stacy K Davis

Don't let people push you around, about stupid stuff.

Cotehardie is a commonly used word for that garment. Many of the terms we use for period garments are interchangeable, and many are not the terms that were used in period. As long as everyone knows what type of dress you are talking about, the terminology is unimportant.

 

The dress you are talking about was called a cotehardie in the SCA for decades, until what's-her-name popularized her term "gothic fitted dress." (No, really, I can't remember her name right now, not being rude.)

 

Kirtle is used for MANY different types of dresses, and in my opinion is a very confusing term. Myself, I prefer to refer to dresses based on layers - skin-layer dress, under-dress, over-dress. That makes it easier to understand. However, for dresses like the 14th century garment, I often call it a cotehardie or GFD.

 

Rachel Cundiff, OL

Barony of Darkwater, Trimaris

 

<the end>