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>
Edited by Mark S. Harris	velvet-msg	Page 23 of 23