Home Page

Stefan's Florilegium

velvet-msg



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

velvet-msg - 4/16/11

 

Medieval velvets. Modern substitutions.

 

NOTE: See also the files: Hst-of-Velvet-art, textiles-msg, felting-msg, silk-msg, looms-msg, piled-fabrics-msg, quilting-msg, weaving-msg, piled-fabrics-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

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

 

From: sclark at chass.utoronto.ca (Susan Carroll-Clark)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: velvet use?

Date: 24 May 1996 13:18:15 -0400

Organization: University of Toronto -- EPAS

 

I remember reading somewhere (danged if I remember where) that the first

*mention* of velvet in a written source in England is in the 1270's or

1280's.  This says nothing about its availability elsewhere before that,

and does not prove they _didn't_ have it before then, but it's a start.

 

Cheers--

Nicolaa de Bracton

sclark at chass.utoronto.ca

 

 

From: tamlyn18 at usa.pipeline.com(Wedevourouryoung)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: velvet use?

Date: 26 May 1996 12:29:43 GMT

Organization: Pipeline USA

 

On May 25, 1996 14:34:58 in article <Re: velvet use?>,

'sparrow at world.std.com (Sparrow)' wrote:

>Do remember if you decide to use velvet in your costuming that medieval  

>velvets were in all probability denser and coarser than the shiny rayon  

>kind most available in fabric stores today. Velveteen may be a more  

>period-correct substitute.

>

>Philippa

Sorry - period velvets were made of silk - light, floating and nearly

weightless - I've used silk velvets, they're awsome. - Rayon-shiny "today"

velvets are CLOSER to period than velveteen, it is only our modern eye

which interprets rayon as undesireable, rayon was invented as a silk

replacement. Velveteen is closer to early fustians, one of the early uses

on wool-cotton blends.   Tudor and Elizabethan fustians are most closly

emulated by narrow-wale corderoy.. see Linthicum,M.C. "Costume in the Drama

of Shakespear and his Contemporaries", Oxford, 1936 (reprinted, NY 1963)

for useful chapters on textiles and colors.

Don't get caught up in the fallacy that because its medieval it has to be

somehow cruder than modern.  Many of the textile and needlework examples

extant are finer than can be replicated by modern machines.  Imagine the

possible quality of all that has NOT survived the ages.

          Tamlin

 

 

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

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: velvet use?

Date: 26 May 1996 21:59:54 GMT

Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

 

I have one citation that's pretty early, from 1295; the record says

"Item, Capa de dono domini Radulphi de Staneford de Indico velvetto,

cum aurifrigio de rubeo velvetto, cum platis et perlis desuper

positis". (EGI Christie, _English Medieval Embroidery, p. 19).

 

Since Latin _indicum_ refers to indigo, I think that this is a

liturgical cape of blue velvet with _something_ involving red

velvet; I don't have a translation for "aurifrigio".

 

There do seem to be a _lot_ of records from the 14th c. mentioning

velvet clothing. I'm afraid I don't have anything earlier than

that 1295 date, though.

 

Alison MacDermot

*Ex Ungue Leonem*

 

 

From: priest at vassar.edu (Carolyn Priest-Dorman)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: velvet use?

Date: 28 May 1996 02:46:07 GMT

Organization: Vassar College

 

Greeting from Thora Sharptooth!

 

Alison (habura at matisse.its.rpi.edu) wrote:

>I have one citation that's pretty early, from 1295; the record says

>"Item, Capa de dono domini Radulphi de Staneford de Indico velvetto,

>cum aurifrigio de rubeo velvetto, cum platis et perlis desuper

>positis". (EGI Christie, _English Medieval Embroidery, p. 19).

>Since Latin _indicum_ refers to indigo, I think that this is a

>liturgical cape of blue velvet with _something_ involving red

>velvet; I don't have a translation for "aurifrigio".

 

According to Agnes Geijer, _A History of Textile Art_, p. 218:  "The Latin

term _aurifrisia_ (gold band) which occurs so frequently in the inventories

can mean a variety of techniques...."  My guess is that the red aurifrigium

(note the reference is singular, not plural) in this inventory means an

orphrey made from a narrow loomwidth of either metallic gold and red velvet or

plain red velvet.

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

Carolyn Priest-Dorman                   Thora Sharptooth

priest at vassar.edu                       Frostahlid, Austrriki

          Gules, three square weaver's tablets in bend Or

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

 

 

From: sclark at chass.utoronto.ca (Susan Carroll-Clark)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: velvet use?

Date: 28 May 1996 12:27:32 -0400

Organization: University of Toronto -- EPAS

 

Greetings!

 

Tamlin said,

: Sorry - period velvets were made of silk - light, floating and nearly

: weightless - I've used silk velvets, they're awsome. - Rayon-shiny "today"

: velvets are CLOSER to period than velveteen, it is only our modern eye

: which interprets rayon as undesireable, rayon was invented as a silk

: replacement.

 

Where have you been able to find rayon velvets? All I can find is acetates....

 

That aside, I think it's important to note that not all velvets

(acetate or otherwise) are equal.  A lot of the cheaper acetates do

not have as many loops per inch, which make them look shiny;  whereas your

really spiff "double" or "triple" velvets have the rich, luxuriant look

that is desirable.  These do not look shiny at all, but rather that dull,

rich glow that you just want to fondle  :-) Personally, I would always

take a cotton velvet over a cheap acetate, but if the better quality

acetates were on sale, I'd grab them.

 

Second, velvet is a type of silk.  Most of the silks readily available today

are light to medium weight, so it's easy to forget that many of the surviving

silk fragments in places like the V&A are quite substantial--medium to heavy

weight. I would imagine period velvets would be similar, in that both lighter

and heavier weights would exist for various uses. (Can anyone confirm my

suspicions?)

 

Cheers--

Nicolaa de Bracton

sclark at chass.utoronto.ca

 

 

From: holsten at nature.berkeley.edu (Donna Holsten)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: velvet use?

Date: 29 May 1996 21:16:13 GMT

Organization: University of California, Berkeley

 

In article <4of9hk$hm at chass.utoronto.ca>,

Susan Carroll-Clark <sclark at chass.utoronto.ca> wrote:

 

>Second, velvet is a type of silk.  Most of the silks readily available today

>are light to medium weight, so it's easy to forget that many of the surviving

>silk fragments in places like the V&A are quite substantial--medium to heavy

>weight. I would imagine period velvets would be similar, in that both lighter

>and heavier weights would exist for various uses.  (Can anyone confirm my

>suspicions?)

>Nicolaa de Bracton

 

Well, never having *felt* or weighed a period velvet, I can't say for

*sure*.  But, I do know that the early velvets at the V&A, for example,

looked (from 12 inches away, through a glass case) much more like

upholstery velvet than velveteen, and more like velveteen than "modern"

velvet.  And, in fact, there are plenty examples of period velvets with

several different heights/thicknesses of pile.

 

I recently wove some silk fabric for a pair of Byzantine outfits.  It

was made out of *heavy* silk, and looks *nothing* like what the modern

eye thinks silk fabric should look like.  So, yes, period velvets were

silk, but, no, they weren't necessarily as light-weight as modern silk

or artificial velvets.

 

Joanna

 

 

From: nancykd at wam.umd.edu (Nancy Dalton)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Period Velvet?

Date: Tue, 04 Jun 96 17:41:33 GMT

Organization: University of Maryland College Park

 

sdunham2 at aol.com (SDunham2) wrote:

>Period Velvet was usually cotton, much like the today's upolstry fabric.

>Brighid

 

I'm not disagreeing with the above, simply adding some information.

 

Actually the brocaded velvets that were made in Spain and Italy

beginning in the 15th century were generally made of silk and

sometimes gold or silver.

 

I also came across a modern textile definition for velvet and

velveteen.  Velvet is a fabric with extra warp looped and then cut.  

Velveteen is when the weft is looped and cut. (abridged definitions)

I'm not sure what that would mean as far as either one being in

period. Does anybody out there know?

 

Being reminded every day how much more there is to learn,

Nancy Dalton

aka Earnwynn van Zwaluwenburg

 

 

From: sclark at chass.utoronto.ca (Susan Carroll-Clark)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Period Velvet?

Date: 5 Jun 1996 13:16:15 -0400

Organization: University of Toronto -- EPAS

 

Greetings!

 

>Period Velvet was usually cotton, much like the today's apolstry fabric.

 

And your source, m'lady?  All of the velvets I have viewed in museums were

silk velvets or "half-silk velvets"--the other half being linen or

hemp in the weft.

 

"At first, only plain, solid cut pile velvet apprears to have been manufactured

in late 13th century silk weaving centres...."

"...plain velvets captured a sizable market in 14th century London.

Many of these were probably half-silk velvets, which means that they

had a weft of linen or hemp concealed beneath the silk pile and were

consequently cheaper to manufacture and buy".

 

(Crowfoot at al., _Textiles and Clothing c.1150-c.1450_ (Medieval

Finds from Excavations in London: 4;  London: HMSO, 1992, p.127.)

 

(Incidentally, the same page cites the first reference to velvet in England:

1278, when Adinettus, the king's tailor, bought him a velvet bed furnishing

for 100s in Paris).

 

It should be mentioned that this work does not record a _single_ instance

of a cotton or cotton-blend cloth appearing in a London find from this period.

It is my understanding that cotton, while more prevalent in the Middle East,

was not common in Europe because linen was so much cheaper at the time.

 

However, many surviving velvets seem to be similar in weight to some upholstery

velvets--especially those made for bed furnishings, and so forth.

 

Cheers--

Nicolaa de Bracton

sclark at chass.utoronto.ca

 

 

From: Elaine Ragland <er37 at columbia.edu>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Period Velvet?

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 17:22:20 -0400

Organization: Columbia University

 

On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Paula Peterka wrote:

 

> "Velvet" was by definition made of silk, both warp and weft.  There

> were other napped fabrics, fustian and kersey among them, that used wool

> for warp and linen for weft (or vice versa, I forget).  Having actually

> played with silk velvet (but not bought, sadly), I can say that it is

> shiny, and does look more than rayon and acetate than I would care to

> think about.  I generally use cotton velvets (or velveteens) because

> they're cheaper per yard, more durable, breathe much better, and have the

> nice matte finish that looks more "period" to our eyes.  Most portraiture

> I have seen shows velvets with a matte finish (subject I would guess to

> limitations in the media - I don't know, it just looks that way to me).  I

> would not recommend to anyone that they make clothing from upholstery

> velvet, especially the kind backed with rubberizing.  Upholstery velvet

> doesn't drape as well, and won't breathe.

>

> Paula Peterka, Crazy Lady in charge of all those Germans!

> aka Anjabeth Blode, Weib des Hauptmanns des TeufelsAlpdrucken Fahnlein.

 

I came across wool velvet in a New York fabric store once.  I didn't

recognize it at once and I stroked it--which was a mistake since I am

allergic.  Anyway, it occurred to me that they must have had wool velvets

in period, although I cannot remember any references.  I take it from your

posting that they would not have called this "velvet", since that term was

reserved for silks?  Any clue what they would have called it instead?

 

By the way, it was heavier than rayon velvet, draped alot like a cotton

velvet, and did not have a sheen.  I wonder if any of the velvets seen in

Renaissance portraits are really wool?

 

                                Melanie de la Tour

 

 

From: mrcseverne at aol.com (MrCSeverne)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Period Velvet?

Date: 7 Jun 1996 07:21:41 -0400

 

Paula_Peterka at AirNSun.blkcat.com (Paula Peterka) writes:

 

> Having actually

>played with silk velvet (but not bought, sadly), I can say that it is

>shiny, and does look more than rayon and acetate than I would care to

>think about.  I generally use cotton velvets (or velveteens) because

>they're cheaper per yard, more durable, breathe much better, and have the

 

>nice matte finish that looks more "period" to our eyes.  Most portraiture

 

>I have seen shows velvets with a matte finish (subject I would guess to

>limitations in the media - I don't know, it just looks that way to me). I

>would not recommend to anyone that they make clothing from upholstery

>velvet, especially the kind backed with rubberizing.  Upholstery velvet

>doesn't drape as well, and won't breathe.

 

A couple of notes:

  Not all silk velvet is similar to the lightweight rayon and acetate

dress velvets; like so many things, it comes in various grades, from

light-as-a-whisper to heavy-as-carpet.  I have even seen silk velveteen

(and it was *truly* luscious...) The heavier grades of silk velvet really

do look like the period pictures, with that matte sheen and the

lit-from-within look that only silk can achieve. Good heavyweight cotton

dress velvet, lightweight cotton upholstery velvet (and yes, avoid the

backed stuff like the plague...), or a grade of rayon or acetate velvet

which is referred to as "double velvet" will all work nicely.

As far as I am concerned, the real thing to strive for is an overall

effect which looks and behaves correctly... if you make a voluminous gown

of lightweight velvet, even if it is pure silk, it will not drape

correctly, and will not have the body or substance required to achieve the

right look.  If you can get a good "next best" from cotton, why not use

it?  

  And on another track entirely, I really do trust the painters (for an

excellent discussion on the realistic depiction of clothing in Italian

Renaissance painting, check out Elisabeth Birbari's "Dress in Italian

Painting: 1450-1500.  Having studied both painting and clothing, I feel

that painters like Van Eyck, Titian, Raphael, daVinci (et cetera, ad

nauseam...) who can render glass, stone, flesh, and a myriad of other

surfaces with such lifelike realism can surely manage to portray a velvet

dress in all of its glory.  In these pictures, the subtle play of light on

the pile and the fulsome weighty drape of the fabric are both readily

evident, and the realism of the textures which surround the clothes makes

the rendering of the clothing absolutely believeable.

 

For an excellent discussion of the realistic depiction of costume in

Italian Renaissance painting, check out Elizabeth Birbari's "Dress in

Italian Painting: 1460-1500"  For all that she is more interested in

construction than in fabrics, her discussions of the realism which allows

for successful reconstruction of garments from pictures is enlightening

and very thorough.

 

     Colin

 

 

From: sdunham2 at aol.com (SDunham2)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Period Velvet?

Date: 8 Jun 1996 01:51:21 -0400

 

The attendants at my wedding were all clothed in Cotton Velvet, which was

bought as uplostery fabric.  Other than the fact that they were HOT the

gowns were comfortable, had plenty of sheen, and no ruberized backing.

 

A quote from my History of Costuming by Donna Bartz - Early

Gothic1200-1350AD- "Material-Northern-heavy, but not stiff.

Southern-softer.  Fabric imported from Italy and Sicily to the North was

also softer-silk or silk blend.  Most sought after wool from

Flanders-usually scarlet and green with dot, circle, or square patterns.

Had Cotton, Wool, Silk (Satin and Velvet weaves), linen, gold or silver

cloth."   From memory I recalled my Costuming Instructor saying that they

had Cotton Satins and Velvets so I looked it up (I'm not sure if the

Cotton and Velvet weave is referring to Silk alone or to Cotton, Wool, and

Silk).

  

Home grown Linen was cheaper than imported Cotton from India, but Cotton

was cheaper than imported Silk from China.  Linen was also usually used

for undergarments, since they were replaced more often than the more

expensive over dresses, etc.  I could see Linen as a base in a Pile fabric

since you wouldn't see it.

 

Brighid

________________________________________

|                                      |

|          Lord Aldric of Galway       |

|                        &             |

| M'lady Brighid O'Seachnasaigh        |

|______________________________________|

 

 

From: rhayen at aol.com (Rhayen)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Cotton Velvet, how does it stack up?

Date: 10 Jun 1996 00:56:22 -0400

 

HI...just borrowing this puter for a while,,,,i'm a manager at a fabric

store and as such can tell you that cotton velvets are just as period as

their silk counterparts, and are much easier to care for...all my velvet

garb is of the cotton variety,,,it's much more comfortable than acetate

and rayon which dont breathe, much less expensive than silk (even if you

could find it), and the more you wash it (yes...it is machine washable),

the better it looks....

                                                               Robin

 

 

From: foxd at silver.ucs.indiana.edu (daniel fox)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Period Velvet?

Date: 9 Jun 1996 02:47:20 GMT

Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

 

Someone asked about velvet as opposed to velvet weave, so.....

 

Velvet weave is a piled weave, that is it is a pile with a ground weave.

 

It is woven on a loom with two back beams and a special cage-like cloth beam too keep the fabric from being crushed.

 

The ground which is not necessarily of the same fabric as the pile; this is

the part that is most often the linen mentioned as being a part of velvet

cloth.

 

The ground is woven, in plain velvet it's usually a plain or tabby weave, then

the pile, a fine rod with a groove in it is woven after the next ground weft

so that a loop is made when the pile weft is woven.

 

If the loop is left in it is a looped velvet, mostly, however, it is sliced

along the groove in the rod.

 

Velvets can be woven solid, with a double pile weft, in patterns with the

ground showing (voided velvet), with gold and silver patterning, and in

period with a stamped design.

 

The first mention we have of velvet dates, according to Linthicum, to the 1

1200's.

 

Most period velvet appears to have been silk.  I seem to recall, though it

could be a later definition of the fabric, that cotton velvet is called

"fustian."  (It may also mean wool velvet.)

 

Some of the confusion about velvet's dating seems to be because some researchrs

referedd to fabric foundin early period graves as being "velvet-like" when

they were in fact felted wool, which is an entirely different process.

 

Audelindis de Rheims, OL

 

 

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 00:00:02 -0400

From: Paula_Peterka at AirNSun.blkcat.com (Paula Peterka)

Subject: Re: Period Velvet?

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

 

Greetings from Paula!  Brighid (Sdunham2 at aol.com) recently wrote:

 

S >From: sdunham2 at aol.com (SDunham2)

S >

S >The attendants at my wedding were all clothed in Cotton Velvet, which

S >was bought as aplostery fabric.  Other than the fact that they were HOT

S >the gowns were comfortable, had plenty of sheen, and no ruberized

S >backing.

 

HOT you can deal with, especially if there's plenty of water around.  I

once helped dress a lady who was wearing a Tudor gown made from upholstery

velvet that WAS backed with rubber. (*Yuck*) We were doing a promo 4th of

July parade, in Maryland where the humidity can get nasty.  I felt very

sorry for her, and we kept pouring water down her throat and fanning her

during the parade.  The fact that several of us were playing

ladies-in-waiting for the day made it a lot easier. :)

 

S >A quote from my History of Costuming by Donna Bartz - Early

S >Gothic1200-1350AD- "Material-Northern-heavy, but not stiff.

S >Southern-softer.  Fabric imported from Italy and Sicily to the North

S >was also softer-silk or silk blend.  Most sought after wool from

S >Flanders-usually scarlet and green with dot, circle, or square

S >patterns.

S >Had Cotton, Wool, Silk (Satin and Velvet weaves), linen, gold or

S >silver cloth."   From memory I recalled my Costuming Instructor saying

S >that they had Cotton Satins and Velvets so I looked it up (I'm not sure

S >if the Cotton and Velvet weave is referring to Silk alone or to Cotton,

S >Wool, and Silk).

 

I certainly didn't mean to say that I thought there were no Cotton, Wool,

Linen, or various blended velvets (or more specifically, napped, pile

fabrics).  In Janet Arnold's Patterns of Fashion she writes about extant

pieces she has examined made of cut and uncut velvets, that have linen

warps and silk wefts, or that have blended fibers in both, and that have

metallics shot through.  I was remarking on a piece of sumptuary

legislation that I remember reading that was more of a "truth-in-labeling"

sort of law. I.E. for the fabric to be sold as "Velvet", it must be made

of silk warp and weft.  This fabric may be sold at no more than X

shillings per el, and may be worn only by A, B, and C classes of people,

or people who earn more than Y pounds per year or above.  Cloth made in a

similar style but of a linen warp and a silk weft must be called

"Ghijklmn", and may be sold at no more than Z shillings per el, and may be

worn only by D, E, and F classes of people, or people who earn more than W

pounds per year or above.  I'll see if I can find the photocopies I made

of the Henry/Elizabeth-specific laws, and post the actual details.  It

makes for very interesting reading.

  

S >Home grown Linen was cheaper than imported Cotton from India, but

S >Cotton was cheaper than imported Silk from China.  Linen was also

S >usually used for undergarments, since they were replaced more often

S >than the more expensive over dresses, etc. I could see Linen as a base

S >in a Pile fabric since you wouldn't see it.

 

Which always makes it fun to explain to visitors/mundanes "No, no, cotton

is very _expensive_, it comes from the East by caravans.  You see, I'm

rich to be able to afford it.  Flax grows _everywhere_, so linen is very

cheap.  Only the peasants wear rough linen!" :)

 

S >Brighid

 

Paula Peterka, Crazy lady in charge of all those Germans!

aka Anjabeth Blode, Weib des Hauptmanns des TeufelsAlpdrucken Fahnlein

 

 

From: priest at vassar.edu (Carolyn Priest-Dorman)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Period Velvet?

Date: 12 Jun 1996 13:46:56 GMT

Organization: Vassar College

 

Greeting from Thora Sharptooth!

 

I've been following this thread with interest, and I think it's time to point

out one essential detail of velvet construction that may not be clear to

everybody.

 

Paula/Anjabeth Blode (Paula_Peterka at AirNSun.blkcat.com) wrote:

 

>In Janet Arnold's Patterns of Fashion she writes about extant

>pieces she has examined made of cut and uncut velvets, that have linen

>warps and silk wefts, or that have blended fibers in both, and that have

>metallics shot through.  I was remarking on a piece of sumptuary

>legislation that I remember reading that was more of a "truth-in-labeling"

>sort of law. I.E. for the fabric to be sold as "Velvet", it must be made

>of silk warp and weft.  This fabric may be sold at no more than X

>shillings per el, and may be worn only by A, B, and C classes of people,

>or people who earn more than Y pounds per year or above.  Cloth made in a

>similar style but of a linen warp and a silk weft must be called

>"Ghijklmn", and may be sold at no more than Z shillings per el, and may be

>worn only by D, E, and F classes of people, or people who earn more than W

>pounds per year or above.

 

The weave that makes something "velvet" (as opposed to some other type of pile

weave) occurs in the _warp_, not the weft.  This point was made by Audelindis

recently, but in slightly more technical language.  So if one has a half-silk

velvet, such as the ones described in _Textiles and Clothing_ (the Museum of

London book by Crowfoot, Pritchard, and Staniland), the silk must be found at

least in one of the two warps, as the supplementary (velvet) warp.  The

elements that aren't silk (linen, in these cases) are more likely to be found

in the weft than in the warp.  As Crowfoot et al. say on page 127:

 

        plain velvets captured a sizeable market in 14th-century London.

        Many of these were probably half-silk velvets, which means that they

        had a weft of linen or hemp concealed beneath the silk pile and were

        consequently cheaper to manufacture and buy.

 

The half-silks they go on to discuss have a main warp of twisted silk, a pile

warp of untwisted silk, and a linen weft.

 

I can't find a cite for it offhand, but I believe that the difference between

velvet and velveteen is that the pile in velveteen occurs in the weft thread,

not the warp thread.  Does anybody know for sure?

 

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

Carolyn Priest-Dorman                   Thora Sharptooth

priest at vassar.edu                       Frostahlid, Austrriki

          Gules, three square weaver's tablets in bend Or

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

 

 

From: ldy_ceit at primenet.com (K.A. Clay-Dewey)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Cotton Velvet, how does it stack up?

Date: 29 Jun 1996 00:17:02 -0700

 

rayotte at badlands.NoDak.edu (Rayotte) wrote:

>How does our modern cotton velvet stack up to period velvets?

 

Well, it washes much easier, and in the desert this is very important.

It is less expensive, as period velvets were usually silk.

My SCAdian wedding dress was a cotton velvet sideless surcoat with a

siler lame center inset and black fake fur edging, the whole thing has

been thrown into the washing machine and hung on the line to dry, at

least once a year since 1983. It is still wearable and comforable. Of

course, the wedding was in November, and I only wear it in the winter.

I would assume that the period velvets, if they were of silk, would at

least be more wearable during the majoriy of the year, rather than

just in the winter. BUT I can wear mine to outdoor events and not

worry if it gets dirty.

 

Be careful what you ask for, your just MIGHT get it!

 

 

From: Cynthia Virtue <cvirtue at ricochet.net>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Questions on Velvet

Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 19:49:47 -0700

Organization: Virtue Ventures

 

Sandor posted:

> Here's one for any Clothing Laurels out there....

> How far back can velvet be documented, and what sort of colors was it

> typically found in?

 

If a non-laurel may play:

I have seen with my own eyes, patterened fabric from about 1475 that was

a ground of gold with cut velvet motifs of dark green or dark blue; this

was in a cope at the Chicago Museum of Art, whose proper name I always

forget, last Autumn. I have seen another cope at the same place, of

raspberry velvet, that had a slight nap, which was not laid out with the

nap all running the same direction, unlike modern construction.

 

I have heard it said that velvet for much of our period was of a shorter

pile than our modern day velvet, and could be made of linen or silk.  As

for color, follow some illustration from the time period in question,

and your friend should be fine.

 

As an additional piece of advice: be sure to have her wear an undergown;

that way the velvet will rarely need to be cleaned, and sweat will not

change the color.

 

As a digression, I think it's interesting that folks will specify

"Clothing Laurel" or "Armoring Laurel" but not "Sword Knight" or "Melee

Knight."  This is, however, intended merely as a philosophical aside.

---

Lady Cynthia du Pre Argent, Minister of Silly Hats, Crosston

 

 

From: Sharon Palmer <palmer.74 at osu.edu>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Questions on Velvet

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 04:15:35 -0500

Organization: WOSU

 

MdmMalice1 wrote:

> Hmmm..if I recall my terms correctly "velvet" is a fabric treatment or

> style.  So you could have velvet anything. Silk velvetted.  Or whatever

> you chose to work with I suppose.  Now..this is just from memory, but I

> seem to recall that 'velvet' is really only a fabric with a raised loop on

 

I saw an article describing a modern weaver reproducing period velvets.

Her production was an _inch an hour_ on a modern loom.  True velvet

was expensive because of the effort, not just the material.

 

Velvet is a supplemental _warp_  A small rod was placed in the shed

and an inch or so later, the loops are cut along a groove and the rod

reused.

 

Ranvaig       mka Sharon Palmer     palmer.74 at osu.edu

 

 

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:00:18 -0700

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

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

Subject: Re: Another interesting find...voided velvet, anyone?

 

Kreuzhaus at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 97-08-17 20:03:45 EDT, brettwi at ix.netcom.com (Brett and

> Karen Williams) writes:

>

> <<  To my extreme interest, there's a two page article towards the end of

>  the 'meat' of the issue, on how to perform a chemical void on velvet

>  fabric. The French term is de'vore', for _devour_.Evidently one must

>  have specifically a silk/rayon velvet of 82% rayon (pile) 18% silk

>  (backing) in order to have the chemical goo work-- which, when applied

>  to the wrong side of the fabric and given a little heat, causes the

>  fabric to go bald on its right side. The author goes on to outline a

>  basic silkscreen techique and a way to do contact-paper stencils, too.   >>

>

> I saw in a clothing catalog a beautiful silk/ velvet scarf that must have

> been done using this method. (I had wondered at the time...)  It was burgundy

> velvet on very dark green silk base and they chose a geometric print.  From

> the photo it seemed to give fairly good resolution, good enough for large

> brocade patterns (as in the young Elizabeth portrait)  The scarf I saw was

> pricey, but how much for the goo kit ??? With much interest,

>                        Adriana

 

It isn't a kit, merely an article on the basics of the technique as a

jumping-off point for designing one's own voided silk/rayon velvets like

the expensive voided velvet scarves currently in the Donna Karan

collection. Since Threads is a thoroughly mundane magazine for sewing

techniques, I was actually a little surprised to see the article there.

The text of the article has no historical references whatsoever-- I made

the connection through my own twisted mind! There are a couple of

pictures of voided silk scarves.

 

The goo in question is called "Fabric Etch", which is available through

Nancy's Notions and probably through Clothilde, too. I would imagine

that the larger, better stocked sewing/craft stores might carry it as it

can be used for etching cutwork on different types of fabric, but I'd

give them a call first to find out. Keep in mind that the article is

specific that one must use silk-backed rayon velvet (82% rayon, the

pile; 18% silk, the fabric).

 

I am reluctant to post the list of sources to the list as I don't want

our list administrators to run afoul of the University's advertising

policies. Threads *is* available in any major bookstore-- and it's the

issue on the stands right now.

 

ciorstan

 

 

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:17:00 -0700

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

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

Subject: Re: Another interesting find...voided velvet, anyone?

 

AMY.VENLOS at ey.com wrote:

>

> I may have missed some of the "thread" of this, but how might this method be

> applied to period materials (i.e., not rayon blend fabric)? Or isn't period an

> issue here? No prob, just wondering.

>

> Hana Lore

 

Your question raises some interesting points, that are, in my opinion,

up to one's individual idea of the slippery slope of absolute

authenticity vs. tolerable substitutions due to lack of affordable and

even available modern materials. And of course, the important statement

in your post is, "Isn't period an issue here?"

 

Quite frankly, I don't know how Fabric-Etch reacts to other fibers.

Since it doesn't react to silk, then evidently silk's right out.

Apparently Fabric-Etch was designed to perform a quick-and-dirty cutwork

void.

 

Fabric-Etch serves no truly useful SCA purpose. It is, however, a means

to an end in approximating a period fabric which, when available at all

in a suitable design, is astronomically expensive. The silk-rayon blend

velvet at issue, from the samples I've seen, doesn't look like the

typical rayon or acetate velvet hung on little hooks in the average

fabric store-- it's closer to velveteen, which itself is a decent,

though not perfect, affordable approximation of a period velvet fabric.

When the rayon pile is etched away, there's a plain ground of silk tabby

there to see.

 

I personally cannot afford a fabric upwards of US$60 per yard (which is

the neighborhood my best guestimate of how much a voided silk velvet

might start). Nor do I have the inclination to weave an authentic voided

or even uncut velvet (presuming I had the proper equipment on my loom

and the knowledge-- and especially the time). If I can find a fabric

that is very close in appearance to a period non-voided velvet, and,

with a non-period technique, said fabric can be made to look even more

like a period fabric, then I don't see a difficulty. Such is the

assessment I made on my personal slippery slope.

 

Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

ciorstan

 

 

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 13:37:23 -0700

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

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

Subject: Re: Voided Velvets

 

Nancy Lynch wrote:

> Were velvets voided in period and if so, how was that accomplished and

> where might it have been available?

>

> TH Lady Lughbec ni Eoin

 

According to Mistress Audelindis' Compleat Anachronist #38, the first

mention of velvet in Linthicum is as follows: velvet weavers' guild

formed in Florence in 1247; first English mention of velvet is 1277.

 

At any rate, to answer the second paragraph, Lady Lughbec, voided

velvets were just about the highest-end luxury fabrics around (my

personal opinion says that the by then increasingly rare technique of

dyeing with murex for Imperial purple would have been an even more

expensive cloth...). The way velvet is made is thusly: a ground cloth is

woven out of linen or silk or wool-- in between every weft shot of the

ground, a supplementary weft is inserted. The supplementary weft was

pulled up into little loops as the weft was inserted into the fabric;

the next ground weft was beaten in, thus stabilizing the supplementary

weft. The little loops of the supplementary form a pile. The pile could

have been silk, or could have been wool.

 

Incidentally, modern chenille 'yarn', which looks like a little velvet

worm, is made this way. The mill's machine weaves a small velvet fabric

and when the pile is sheared, there's the chenille's pile. It is fragile

because there isn't a whole lot of ground fabric under its pile.

 

NB: a supplementary weft is just that, extra weft. A supplementary

weft's presence is for (usually) a decorative function. It does not

actually 'form' cloth-- the primary weft does that.

 

So now that there's the basic velvet technique explanation, there are

several ways the weaver can make more elaborate velvet cloth. The weaver

can omit cutting the little loops open, which is termed 'uncut' velvet

(it is  rare to find modern uncut velvet-- not that it isn't out there,

it's just as much a high-end expensive fabric as it was then. I don't

frequent fabric stores where the average bolt is $150/yd!). The weaver

can make a fabric with textural differences of cut vs uncut velvet, for

example. Not only that, the weaver can form patterns in the cloth by

selecting areas where the ground fabric shows through due to the

omittance of the supplementary weft that forms the velvet pile. That's

called voided velvet. The pile on voided velvet can also be cut or uncut

or combinations thereof.

 

If you look in Janet Arnold's "Patterns of Fashion", 1560-1620, there

are surviving garments made of velvets executed in these techniques, as

well as plain ol' velvet. Keep in mind when looking at the photographs

that a lot of the garments' velvet pile has worn away or otherwise

disappeared with age. For example, compare the portrait of Erik Sture

wearing the suit he was murdered in, in 1567, and the physical state of

the suit (which was stored in Uppsala Castle, complete with weapon holes

and bloodstains) as shown in a detail photograph on the same page

(figures 93 and 94). The velvet pile of his suit looks pretty ratty to

non-existent today-- but Erik's portrait shows an entirely different

effect.

 

ciorstan

 

 

From: catrionkat at aol.com (CATRIONKAT)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Velvet Origins

Date: 14 Sep 1997 23:49:28 GMT

 

      In the book,  Museum of London Textiles and Clothing, it shows the

earliest use of velvet in England in the late 1200's as furniture covering,

then, as clothing.  It was in wide use in Italy, Spain, and England by the

1300's.  It was available in solids and in patterns such as stripes,

checks, and plaids by the 1300‚s.  The book does not seen to state where it

originally came from.  It does mention that velvet was made partially from silk.

     This is only one reference.  I am sure your local library or book

store has several other books on costuming and textiles that might be a

better source.

 

     Modern velvet is made of nylon/rayon and it will stay matted down in

places such as under the arms of the garb or the seat the pants(a

semi-permanent butt imprint!).  If these things bother you, I would suggest

using a 100% cotton velveteen.  It is a natural fiber, it is washable

(although it does bleed a bit), it does not get matted wear marks from

normal use, and as an added bonus, it is generally less expensive.

 

 

From: merrimacga at aol.com (MerrimacGA)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Velvet Origins

Date: 3 Oct 1997 04:19:03 GMT

 

Regarding velvet:

 

LadyKris at mindspring.com (Kris Lewis) wrote:

>>My beloved husband and I were talking about plans for our costumes for

>>SCA the other day.  I had heard that (as a material) it was developed

>>by the Chinese, based on the fur of the Shar Pei breed of dogs.  Now

>>that I have thought about it, I'm thinking that it may have been made

>>to resemble the velvet on the antlers of deer.  Totally confused, we

>>were wondering if anyone can offer some info on this fabric from a

>>historical point of view.

 

This won't be much help, just further confirmation but I have a book

titled "Fashion, The Mirror of History" by Michael & Ariane Batterberry

which has this to say:

 

"The origins of velvet are uncertain, but it is known that the cut silk

pile of velvet was meant to imitate the sensuous texture of clipped fur."

 

Also:

 

Grolier's Encyclopedia, 1995, says under the topic of costume:

 

"THE MIDDLE AGES...Romanesque and Early Gothic: 1000-1350...After the

Crusades, for example, rich fabrics such as satin, velvet, and brocade,

became available in Europe for a price...Late Gothic: 1350-1500...The rich

colors and textures of velvets and brocades, as well as the jewel-studded

girdles and pendants in vogue, re-created the brilliance of stained glass

and illuminated manuscripts."

 

Webster's College Dictionary says under the word velvet:

 

"...[1275-1325; ME velvet, velu(w)et...ML vil(l)utus; L vill(us) shaggy

nap...]"

 

The Chronicle of Western Fashion by John Peacock:

 

Mr. Peacock's earliest given example of velvet in costume is a "Frenchman

c. 1335-1340: ...front-opening tunic of stamped velvet with matching laced

sleeves..."

 

Costume Patterns and Designs by Max Tilke:

 

Several references most particularly: under Spain (c. 1492), "So-called

tunica boabdils of the last Moorish king of Granada. It is made of red-wine

velvet...From the Musee National, Madrid."; under Ecclesiastical Costume,

"Brownish-red velvet pluvial...15th to 16th centuries (Copenhagen Arts and

Crafts Museum).". The other references are presumably between approx. the

11th - 17th centuries (the average period of Tilke's studies in the book).

However, the "earlier" references aren't dated so it isn't certain how

early they are. They are from a wide range of areas including China,

Macedonia, Central Asia & Mongolia, Siberia and, of course, Europe.

 

There are three other references I would recommend checking out: The

Encyclopedia of Textiles by Jerde, A Survey of Historic Costume by Tortura

& Eubanks, and a second book with the title The Encyclopedia of Textiles (I

can't remember the author's name but it can be found at Barnes and Noble

online). Unfortunately, I don't have any of these books at the moment. (It

would cost about $225 to get all three. <sigh>) I have read (more like

devoured) the Tortura book (excellent excellent book) and have perused the

Jerde book (it appears to be good).

 

--Mary

merrimacga at aol.com

 

 

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 12:22:48 -0800

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

To: "sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu" <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu>

Subject: Silk/Rayon velvet source

 

Does anyone remember last summer/early fall when I was blabbing on about

doing a burnout on silk/rayon velvet to make one's own cut velvet in

imitation of period velvets one cannot obtain for anything less than,

oh, say, US$150/yd? Well, I happened to find a website source for the

particular silk/rayon velvet that the technique recommended, however I

believe the fabric is undyed.

 

http://www.microweb.com/nature/silk2.html

 

I have no affiliation with these people, nor am I a customer. The

appropriate fabric for the burnout technique is 82% rayon, 18% silk

blend at the very bottom of the page.

 

ciorstan

 

 

Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 00:33:21 -0800

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

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

Subject: Re: Silk/Rayon velvet source

Message-ID: <34B33DD1.CE622AB9 at ix.netcom.com>

 

Cynthia Long wrote:

> > Does anyone remember last summer/early fall when I was blabbing on about

> > doing a burnout on silk/rayon velvet to make one's own cut velvet in

> > imitation of period velvets one cannot obtain for anything less than,

> What is a burnout on velvet?  Is it similar to embossing?

> Merouda the True of Bornover

> Barony of Madrone

> Kingdom of An Tir

 

In a word, no, if I interpret your definition of 'embossing' the same

way you have. Velvet burnout is a way to get voided velvet. At the risk

of sounding like I'm whining a little (I've been throwing the shuttle

too much lately and one of my wrists is bothering me...) here's what was

said:

 

(I was talking about Threads magazine, the issue before the present one)

 

> Karen Williams) writes:

> << To my extreme interest, there's a two page article towards the end of

> the 'meat' of the issue, on how to perform a chemical void on velvet

> fabric. The French term is de'vore', for _devour_.Evidently one must

> have specifically a silk/rayon velvet of 82% rayon (pile) 18% silk

> (backing) in order to have the chemical goo work-- which, when applied

> to the wrong side of the fabric and given a little heat, causes the

> fabric to go bald on its right side. The author goes on to outline a

> basic silkscreen techique and a way to do contact-paper stencils, too. >>

> I saw in a clothing catalog a beautiful silk/ velvet scarf that must have

> been done using this method. (I had wondered at the time...) It was

burgundy

> velvet on very dark green silk base and they chose a geometric print. From

> the photo it seemed to give fairly good resolution, good enough for large

> brocade patterns (as in the young Elizabeth portrait) The scarf I saw was

> pricey, but how much for the goo kit ??? With much interest,

> Adriana

 

It isn't a kit, merely an article on the basics of the technique as a

jumping-off point for designing one's own voided silk/rayon velvets like

the expensive voided velvet scarves currently in the Donna Karan

collection. Since Threads is a thoroughly mundane magazine for sewing

techniques, I was actually a little surprised to see the article there.

The text of the article has no historical references whatsoever-- I made

the connection through my own twisted mind! There are a couple of

pictures of voided silk scarves.

 

The goo in question is called "Fabric Etch", which is available through

Nancy's Notions and probably through Clothilde, too. I would imagine

that the larger, better stocked sewing/craft stores might carry it as it

can be used for etching cutwork on different types of fabric, but I'd

give them a call first to find out. Keep in mind that the article is

specific that one must use silk-backed rayon velvet (82% rayon, the

pile; 18% silk, the fabric).

 

I am reluctant to post the list of sources to the list as I don't want

our list administrators to run afoul of the University's advertising

policies. Threads *is* available in any major bookstore-- and it's the

issue on the stands right now.

 

ciorstan

 

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:17:00 -0700

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

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

Subject: Re: Another interesting find...voided velvet, anyone?

 

AMY.VENLOS at ey.com wrote:

> I may have missed some of the "thread" of this, but how might this method

be

> applied to period materials (i.e., not rayon blend fabric)? Or isn't

period an

> issue here? No prob, just wondering.

> Hana Lore

 

Your question raises some interesting points, that are, in my opinion,

up to one's individual idea of the slippery slope of absolute

authenticity vs. tolerable substitutions due to lack of affordable and

even available modern materials. And of course, the important statement

in your post is, "Isn't period an issue here?"

 

Quite frankly, I don't know how Fabric-Etch reacts to other fibers.

Since it doesn't react to silk, then evidently silk's right out.

Apparently Fabric-Etch was designed to perform a quick-and-dirty cutwork

void.

 

Fabric-Etch serves no truly useful SCA purpose. It is, however, a means

to an end in approximating a period fabric which, when available at all

in a suitable design, is astronomically expensive. The silk-rayon blend

velvet at issue, from the samples I've seen, doesn't look like the

typical rayon or acetate velvet hung on little hooks in the average

fabric store-- it's closer to velveteen, which itself is a decent,

though not perfect, affordable approximation of a period velvet fabric.

When the rayon pile is etched away, there's a plain ground of silk tabby

there to see.

 

I personally cannot afford a fabric upwards of US$60 per yard (which is

the neighborhood my best guestimate of how much a voided silk velvet

might start). Nor do I have the inclination to weave an authentic voided

or even uncut velvet (presuming I had the proper equipment on my loom

and the knowledge-- and especially the time). If I can find a fabric

that is very close in appearance to a period non-voided velvet, and,

with a non-period technique, said fabric can be made to look even more

like a period fabric, then I don't see a difficulty. Such is the

assessment I made on my personal slippery slope.

 

Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

ciorstan

 

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 13:37:23 -0700

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

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

Subject: Re: Voided Velvets

 

Nancy Lynch wrote:

> Were velvets voided in period and if so, how was that accomplished and

> where might it have been available?

> TH Lady Lughbec ni Eoin

 

According to Mistress Audelindis' Compleat Anachronist #38, the first

mention of velvet in Linthicum is as follows: velvet weavers' guild

formed in Florence in 1247; first English mention of velvet is 1277.

 

At any rate, to answer the second paragraph, Lady Lughbec, voided

velvets were just about the highest-end luxury fabrics around (my

personal opinion says that the by then increasingly rare technique of

dyeing with murex for Imperial purple would have been an even more

expensive cloth...). The way velvet is made is thusly: a ground cloth is

woven out of linen or silk or wool-- in between every weft shot of the

ground, a supplementary weft is inserted. The supplementary weft was

pulled up into little loops as the weft was inserted into the fabric;

the next ground weft was beaten in, thus stabilizing the supplementary

weft.

The little loops of the supplementary form a pile. The pile could have

been silk, or could have been wool.

 

Incidentally, modern chenille 'yarn', which looks like a little velvet

worm, is made this way. The mill's machine weaves a small velvet fabric

and when the pile is sheared, there's the chenille's pile. It is fragile

because there isn't a whole lot of ground fabric under its pile.

 

NB: a supplementary weft is just that, extra weft. A supplementary

weft's presence is for (usually) a decorative function. It does not

actually 'form' cloth-- the primary weft does that.

 

So now that there's the basic velvet technique explanation, there are

several ways the weaver can make more elaborate velvet cloth. The weaver

can omit cutting the little loops open, which is termed 'uncut' velvet

(it is rare to find modern uncut velvet-- not that it isn't out there,

it's just as much a high-end expensive fabric as it was then. I don't

frequent fabric stores where the average bolt is $150/yd!). The weaver

can make a fabric with textural differences of cut vs uncut velvet, for

example. Not only that, the weaver can form patterns in the cloth by

selecting areas where the ground fabric shows through due to the

omittance of

the supplementary weft that forms the velvet pile. That's called voided

velvet. The pile on voided velvet can also be cut or uncut or

combinations thereof.

 

If you look in Janet Arnold's "Patterns of Fashion", 1560-1620, there

are surviving garments made of velvets executed in these techniques, as

well as plain ol' velvet. Keep in mind when looking at the photographs

that a lot of the garments' velvet pile has worn away or otherwise

disappeared with age. For example, compare the portrait of Erik Sture

wearing the suit he was murdered in, in 1567, and the physical state of

the suit (which was stored in Uppsala Castle, complete with weapon holes

and bloodstains) as shown in a detail photograph on the same page

(figures 93 and 94). The velvet pile of his suit looks pretty ratty to

non-existent today-- but Erik's portrait shows an entirely different

effect.

 

<the end>

 

Incidentally, I talked a bit about how velvet pile is formed-- the

method above is how *velveteen* is made, not velvet. True velvet

(regardless of the fiber content) is formed with supplementary warp,

pulled up through the regular warp on loops over metal rods and sheared

(or not sheared) as the fabric is formed.

 

ciorstan

 

 

To: Authentic_SCA at yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: corduroy

Posted by: "jubileel_insaneone" isabelladangelo at gmail.com  

Date: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:39 am (PST)

 

Most sources state that corduroy was first made in Manchester, England

in the (late?) 17th c. It was a popular "working class" fiber in the

18th c. So, too late for SCA purposes.

 

Uncut corduroy is, basically a velvet/een. (They have a lot of it a

Joann's and I've gotten it for a little over $2 a yard before there.

Great stuff if you just want the look without spending a lot more on

authentic fibers.) I've heard the argument that, since uncut corduroy

is (like) velvet, that corduroy is really just cut velvet but, as far

as I have seen, there aren't any cut velvets that are only done in

stripes in any pre-17th c portraits/drawings/wills/ect.

 

-Isabella D'Angelo

 

 

To: Authentic_SCA at yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: corduroy

Posted by: "borderlands15213" borderlands15213 at yahoo.com

Date: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:53 am (PST)

 

--- In Authentic_SCA at yahoogroups.com, Catherine Olanich Raymond

<cathy at ...> wrote:

> > as far

> > as I have seen, there aren't any cut velvets that are only done in

> > stripes in any pre-17th c portraits/drawings/wills/ect.

>

> I know of one that's late 16th. It's labeled "uncut velvet," but it looks as

> though it has horizontal ribs:

>

> http://realmofvenus.renaissanceitaly.net/workbox/tex16-48.jpg

> --

> Cathy Raymond <cathy at ...>

 

If I recall correctly on this point, the difference between velvet and

velveteen is the direction of the ribbing before cutting: velveteen

makes the pile by looping the weft threads, in which case the ribs

should have been running parallel to the selvedges, and velvet makes

the pile by looping the warp threads, with the ribs formed

horizontally before cutting.

 

I'm less sure of my recall on the source for this next point, but I

*believe* it was mentioned and illustrated in the MOL "Clothing and

Textiles" volume. (If not, I apologize for not being able to cite the

source.) There was, earlier than the sixteenth century, a pile fabric

with horizontal ribbing stair-stepped in three levels:

low-medium-high-medium-low-medium-high-medium-low, and so on. I am

completely at a loss, though, as to whether the "low" level was

low-pile, or no-pile.

Not much help, I know, and not corduroy, either, but it might be worth

looking at.

 

It does seem to me, though, that if you're using a very fine wale

corduroy, it would be less obviously modern fabric if you can use it

with the wale running from side to side instead of up-and-down as we

use it today. (I know that affects how it behaves, too.)

 

Yseult the Gentle

 

 

To: Authentic_SCA at yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: corduroy

Posted by: "gedney at OPTONLINE.NET" gedney at OPTONLINE.NET

Date: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:35 am (PST)

 

The transplanted Flemish and Dutch protestant 'Walloons" in Norwich in the second half of the sixteenth century were responsible for introducing to England a lot of innovative fabrics, collectively called at the time the "newe draperies." these included the introduction or refinement of fabrics such as bayes (baize), and Mockadoe ( a heavy kind of napped "velvet" made with a linen warp and piled worsted -combed, not carded, wool- warp, trimmed and stamped or burnt with design). I think that if you were looking for a period verion of Corduroy, that it might be found in the "newe draperies..." although many of these cloth types were not meant for clothing... mockadoe, from what I can tell, went mostly to furniture covering, for example...

 

Capt Elias

 

 

From: "emma at huskers.unl.edu" <emma at HUSKERS.UNL.EDU>

Date: July 23, 2010 12:05:31 PM CDT

To: CALONTIR at listserv.unl.edu

Subject: Re: [CALONTIR] Silk velvet RE: [CALONTIR] Denver Fabrics

 

[CALONTIR at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of otsisto

<<< What is the difference between "velvet" and "velveteen"?

I have always understood that the difference is in the height of the pile. >>>

 

That is *a* common difference, but not actually *the* defining difference.

 

Quick vocab review:

The warp is the long threads that are stretched on the loom. (if your warp is too tight, your loom may warp)

The weft is the thread that goes back and forth through the warp.  Sometimes also called "woof" or "filler."  

Pile is the word for the fuzzy bit that sticks up: velvet, velveteen, terry cloth and carpets all have pile.  While flannel does have something that sticks up, it's just fibers and not whole yarns, so we just call it a nap.

 

Velvet is woven with a supplementary warp, which is looped up as it is woven, and is later cut into the fuzzy pile.

Velveteen is woven with a supplementary WEFT, which isn't so much looped up as allowed to skip over bundles of warp threads, and are later cut into a fuzzy pile.

 

Velvet and velveteen can be long or short (but longer-pile velveteen is more likely to organize itself into rows along the warp--we call it corduroy), cotton or silk or rayon or wool.  In theory, you can't be sure which you have without examining it *very* closely to determine which direction the supplementary pile thread is going (warp or weft), but in practice, if you've got a piece of short-pile, cotton something, it's almost certainly velveteen.

 

Finally, my two cents on the use of cotton velveteen in the SCA: It really doesn't look more like period velvets.  Cotton does not and will not have the sheen of silk.  BUT, period velvets tended to have a shorter and much denseer pile than modern velvets do, and modern velvets tend to have too much of a synthetic shine that reads as modern.  It's not that cotton velveteen is closer to a period velvet, it's that it's less obtrusively modern than most cheap synthetic velvets.   There are modern velvets that would be excellent for reproduction garments.  You tend not to find them in chain fabric stores.  Velveteen is also significantly more washable than velvet tends to be, which is important for those of us firmly in the middle classes, playing at gentility.

 

Jane

 

<the end>



Formatting copyright © Mark S. Harris (THLord Stefan li Rous).
All other copyrights are property of the original article and message authors.

Comments to the Editor: stefan at florilegium.org