Project of the Day-- Tudor

[mandie_rw]

Well, I did say I wanted to be more sewingly productive, didn't I? I think the fact my entire room is now covered in black fuzzies counts as productive (thanks so much, black velveteen). It was kind of funny, actually: for the first half of the day I sat in front of the television (not something I do often, actually, besides when it's background for handsewing), then I decided to go off and be productive. (And start something else, but whatever. I want to have this gown done for our annual Ren Faire outing in October...I'm pretty sure it'll be done by then, at this rate!)

I dug out all the stuff for my Tudor gown, which was actually a bit funny, because in the Bag of Tudor Goodness, I found a bodice muslin I draped God-knows-when. I actually have no memory of draping it, nor if it fits, and I decided I don't care, because I already draped one last night anyway, before I went digging in the Bag of Tudor Goodness.

Cut out the panels for the skirt, which was fun and neccessitated lots of triple-checking that the naps were all going in the same direction. I actually did manage to sew them all the right way round the first time; believe me, no one was more surprised than me at that happy occurrance. Also sewed the lining of the skirt together - it's yellow cotton (the same as the lining for my medieval gown actually), not because I thought it would look spiffy with the black velveteen (though I do kind of think that!), but because it was the only thing in the Stash that I had enough of to line the skirt with (besides 12 yards of silk taffeta, but clearly I'm not going to use that...)!

The bodice pieces are all cut out, corded, and put together, and now have the lining pinned to the shell and interlining. I decided to put a bit of cording in the gown bodice, even though the kirtle bodice is fully corded, really just for the hell of it and hopefully to minimize wrinkles. Oh, and to add that faint outline of the cords that always shows through the outer fabric. That always adds a lot to a gown. *eyeroll*

I'm making the gown front-lacing, with the lacing in front covered with a stomacher, mainly because I like to be able to put on my own dresses. (And I've seen so many different ways of making Tudor gowns, I can't remember who's done what, nor do I have books on 16thc fashion besides Norris, who is not exactly the most reliable. I'm ignoring him on this; he says Tudor gowns laced in the back. Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense for the clearly front-opening gowns of the second half of the 16thc to have evolved from gowns that were already front-opening, plus there's that one sketch of pregnant women shown in gowns that lace up the front - it's not much of a stretch to think that a piece of fabric could have covered the lacing on a non-pregnant woman.

But maybe that's just me. Anyway, /babble.)

And yes, the sewing done today has all been done on the machine. I was sewing the panels of the skirt lining together earlier, when I thought of all the seams I would have to do, and how long it would take me. And I realized that would not be fun for me. Then I felt guilty for not handsewing the entire damn thing. I had to sit myself down at that point and ask myself who I was sewing for; myself, or the theoretical people who would be more impressed if I hand sewed 250 inches of skirt panels (wait, with the lining, that's 500 inches). I've been hand sewing the pet en l'air because I wanted to, not because I think it's So Much Better To Handsew Everything. I need to not let myself get into the rut of sewing for other people for myself. Not a good thing.

Okay, then! I'll probably continue sewing on this tomorrow...but no guarantees. We all know how large I like to let the My Attention Has Wandered to More Interesting Things Pile get.

Comments

[heidilea.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah--that sketch of Thomas More's Family.

But wow, you got a lot of work done. Here I am, in my new apartment, with barely a new pincushion stitched. I need to get my 18th repaired and finished and 19th accessories started, and hear I am daydreaming about early 20th century (20s & 30s to be specific).

And you got almost a whole gown put together. I suck.

[mandie-rw.livejournal.com]

Awww, you don't suck! :) I just have far too much time on my hands (which I finally used to sew)! Once I start my summer job, I won't be nearly so productive! Of course, that's not for almost another month...*begins more sewing plotting*

And I totally hear you about daydreaming about other eras than the ones I should be working on - today I started thinking very bad, distracting thoughts about the 1870s! Oh, Costuming ADD...

[greeneyedtengu.livejournal.com]

Yeah... I have yet to bust into the handsewing whole garments thing. Nt because I'm not interested, but because... well... I'm lazy. I'm made coifs completely by hand and put trims on completely by hand, but I doubt my poor hands would hold up long enough to do the handsewing required of the Ren-faire crap I make. Blah.

But major points to you for hand sewing the pet en l'air.

And I do agree. Sew things the way you want, not because other people judge sewing machines as somehow inferior.

[mandie-rw.livejournal.com]

Hand sewing is incredibly labor-intensive, and takes far longer than using the machine (except for me when putting in zippers: because I honestly suck so much at putting them in, I rip them out so many times, the time evens out, which is why I put them in by hand!); for some things I like to use the machine, and for others I like to hand sew them...for some reason lately I've been liking to hand sew my 18thc stuff.

Really, though, my philosophy on sewing machine-usage on pre-c1860 costumes is: will using the machine result in a really, really obvious ugly seam? If the answer is no, then I'm okay with it (except when worrying about what Other People Think, apparently)! Especially on things like shifts. I hate making shifts, and always want to get done with them as quickly as possible!

[greeneyedtengu.livejournal.com]

Yeah... I'll get in there eventually, I myself am just afraid of all the people in my life that will then go "See?! Isn't it So Much Better?!!" *headdesk*

[rose-bertin.livejournal.com]

My expertise in the 16th century is in early Elizabethan (as in pre-barrel hoops), not Tudor, but I will tell you that where your dress laced up showed off your rank- if it laced in the front it meant you had to dress yourself, lacing in back meant you had people to do that for you and were therefore rich. So if it's an upper class dress it's going to lace up the back. And to my knowledge stomachers didn't come in until the very end of the 16th century when the barrel hoops came in (if even then). The more open bodices at the end of the period could have developed from a doublet-like bodice that women could wear (in the early Elizabethan period that is), which buttoned down the front. I don't think that style was popular in Tudor times, the preferred look seems to be a bodice which laces up the back and has an uninterrupted front (of course many were decorated with trim and things but you know what I mean). But as I said, that's not my area of expertise.

Here's a great resource for portraits from 1500 to 1610:
http://entertainment.webshots.com/album/557253511xAShgE?start=0
(And here's the main page with albums for all periods- amazing!:
http://community.webshots.com/user/gogm1)

BUT, I don't mean to be a costume nazi. If it's being worn to a Ren Faire than stomacher or no you'll probably have a way more accurate costume than 99% of the people there.

[mandie-rw.livejournal.com]

That is a NICE website - pretties!

ohnoes, Costume Nazi!! Run for the hills!!! Kidding, kidding...I do believe we are capable of having a costume discussion, though I will admit I am merciless in Ren Faire costume-snarking (very quietly and only to my friends, of course)!

I probably ought to have mentioned this sketch before, when I put up the sketch of Thomas More's family, but I forgot - Lord knows we haven't got too many views of the backs of gowns in portraits and such (how inconsiderate! Didn't Holbein etc. know that fanatical costumers would be attempting to reproduce the clothing they painted 500 years ago?!), but I do have this one in my rather scanty collection of 16thc images: http://pics.livejournal.com/mandie_rw/pic/0008b7ea

I believe it's from about 1535 (or so the site I got it from apparently told me), England. And I could be wrong - tell me what you think! - but I don't see a back fastening. Of course, neither do I see a front fastening. A side-back lacing could possibly be hidden under the veil (STUPID VEIL, GET OUT OF MY WAY), but I feel like that would mess with the set of the gigantor sleeve too much.

Tell me what you see in that sketch! I do love discussing the whys and wherefores of we-don't-really-know-100%-how-they-did-it clothing!

(And like you said, it's ultimately for a Ren Faire, and really, we should just be happy that I'll be one less wildly-inappropriately-boob-tastic person there! I mean, not that that's exactly possible for me...and actually that lady in the sketch is far more boobtastic than I am, heh.)

[rose-bertin.livejournal.com]

Oh now that's very interesting, I've never seen a back like that before. Well, then again, I don't think I've seen many 16th century backs period. I'd guess that the dress was side lacing, which was done back then. My own ren faire dress is side lacing (also known as a fucking pain in the ass). The bodice is tight enough that there has to be lacing somewhere, the dress couldn't just fit over her head. So I'd guess the only place for it is on the sides.

Since the dress is from so early in the period, perhaps the pleating in the back is a remnant of 15th century styles? Especially because the woman isn't wearing it with any noticeable hoops. But that might be going a bit too far out on a limb.

Another totally random and probably wrong thought- Since the bodice is so tight, the pleating is obviously sewn into place. Perhaps the two outer lines are indicative of two fabric folds, and the center line is simply a closure? As in, the dress laced up the back, but it laced completely closed so the artist just didn't draw super minuscule little x's, instead opting for the more attractive and simple clean line. Then the edges on either side of the back closing were decorated with a fold of fabric each? Which would add a more unified, matching look because of the extra pleating on the back skirt. Does that make any sense at all?

I do love discussing the whys and wherefores of we-don't-really-know-100%-how-they-did-it clothing!

Me too!!!!

[mandie-rw.livejournal.com]

Hmm, lacing on the side is definitely plausible, and would pretty much be hidden by the veil/sleeves - as it is in the picture!

And I think that second thought of yours, about the possible fabric fold, is actually really interesting; I'd never though of something like that! I'd like to see that experimented with in an actual costume and see how it works. (So, you know, that's an open invitation to either of us to do so, with our copious spare time and money!)

And I have one more painting to inflict on you (this time I actually went and LOOKED in the folder labeled '16th century' to make sure there isn't anything else relevant!) - http://pics.livejournal.com/mandie_rw/pic/0008c3g6

(Disclaimer: not my own idea, I read it somewhere on somebody's site, damned if I know where, but...) If you look very closely at the bodice of Jane Seymour's gown, on the right side, you can see little tiny dots, running down the bodice in a line. The idea has been put forth (again, not by me) that those could be the heads of pins, holding a stomacher-type thing in place over lacing. I've never seen them on any other portrait, but it could be like what you said - artists often left out itsy-bitsy details, like fastenings, to make the portrait neater.

Seems to be an intriguing thought as well, and I certainly have no other suggestions as to what the weird little dots could be.

[rose-bertin.livejournal.com]

Ha ha, I actually am making a new 16th century gown soon, but it'll be early Elizabethan, not Tudor. Not that I really have the time to make it, but my old one doesn't fit anymore and I need something to wear to the events my living history group does.

But anyways, on to the portrait. That's a really interesting idea! And one I've never heard before. But you're right, I don't have any idea what else they could be. It would seem kind of odd for them to just be a seam, because why would the artist paint in stitches? And the dots are too far away from each other to be stitches anyways, unless Jane Seymour had a really sloppy dressmaker.

I need to talk to my friend Jeremy about all of this, he is an expert in this period.

[mandie-rw.livejournal.com]

Hee, I love when I know perfectly well I haven't got time to make something, and go ahead and make it anyway. Story of most of my sewing projects, actually... But an early Elizabethan sounds like fun! I kept waffling between a late 1560s gown and a Tudor for this year's ren faire, but since I had the black velveteen, I went with the Tudor. (Hmm, maybe next season...*begins plotting*)

That'd be cool, to get somebody who's actually really knowledgeable's opinion on all this (as opposed to us, lol). For some reason, it really amuses me to imagine those dots being stitches, because Jane Seymour's dressmaker was so crappy. Bet that would've been their last royal commission! *giggle*