cotehardies-msg - 1/23/08 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