Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The circle of life (and Spanish)

The Freescholar/White Scarf meet was such fun, I was wistfully thinking about slapping on some armour tonight and fighting, damn the consequences.

Alas, pain last night, all night, and bad enough this morning that I am uncontrollably close to tears and thinking I'm ugly and stupid (side effect of no sleep) means no fighting unless things get better.  

Fuck this shit.  I am somewhat tired.

I did, however, enjoy my discussion with kass_rants in yesterday's post's comments section this morning (make sense?  Don't worry) was fun - it's the little things that keep you going, sometimes.  I love it when people question my stuff, as long as they're not assholes about it (which the lovely Kass never is); it forces me to keep evolving my work and refining it - I never want to stop and say "that's good enough" - that's the day I fossilize into place.

But the meet this weekend - I has pictures!  Typing hurts, but it was fun, I saw lots of people, and I'm really impressed by our younger generation.  I know I'm an irrelevant old fogey when it comes to rapier, but I do care about where we're going, and I appreciate it when people at least pretend they're listening to me.  :)


Everyone fighting (or talking about it, at least)

Protege Brian                                    Our Fearless KRM                              Our lovely hostess, theblueleader

Artistic randomly un-posed photo of people

Proof that Freescholars and Provosts can occupy one room without spontaneously bursting into flame

A mass gathering of Provosts (seasonal; rare).

It was also a good weekend at the farm; we have vulture eggs again:

They're back in the old barn that's falling to pieces.  I went to get a photo of the eggs, and thought both parents were out - I knocked, the way I usually do, to warn them, but still managed to surprise one of them, who hopped away quickly, but didn't leave the barn, which is a good sign.

This nesting pair is a lot more comfortable with our presence; we try not to do anything to scare them off, so I hope they'll hang around more and more (I also hope they'll confine their mass pooping to the barn roof).

I promised photos of the epic squirrel nest (one without flash, one with):

It's made almost entirely of plastic and fibreglass insulation - talk about recycling!  I haven't seen any movement, so I'm guessing they're not using it any more, but there's evidence that squirrels have been using the woodshop for years - there are gnawed corn cobs in the rafters.

We have other stuff, but it's mostly skulls, so probably not that interesting to anyone but me.

All in all, it was a lovely weekend; the dogwoods are in full  bloom, I got to see people I haven't seen in yonks, and I had a good time.


Apr. 29th, 2008 03:39 pm (UTC)
I just had another thought, while trying to puzzle out how to incorporate the front point - what if there's no tie if the skirt is open at the front, but that the lacing of the bodies incorporates the front skirt lacing holes? Then there's no point spoiling the line of the bodies.

It is simplicity itself to lace up the skirt using the same lace as the bodies - and you simply add in the lacing holes at the right height.

I can't believe I didn't think of this before.
Apr. 29th, 2008 03:50 pm (UTC)
It makes perfect sense to me, L. If you recall, the lacing holes on the Pflatzgrafin Dorothea's bodys don't descend with the point in front. The last set of holes are at waist level before the point. So the front of the petticote laced to it goes either under or over the point without actually attaching to it. On the Effigy Bodyes, the eyelets are at the top of each tab slit, so they don't go around to the front either. It looks like the eyelet holes are staying level with the waist. Lacing the Effigy bodys closed in front would close the petticote laced to it as well.

Additionally, go here and page down to the woman sitting with her bodice unlaced:

I think this petticote is sewn to the bodice and doesn't have any closures of its own. (Bob thinks it's separate, but what does he know!)
Apr. 29th, 2008 03:55 pm (UTC)
I think I agree with you (sorry Bob!) - the fold of the petticoat really makes it look attached.

I guess the Netscher lacemaker does lacing similarly with her petticoat but simply puts the opening of the skirt on the side where the side points will hold it closed.

OMG, I *looooooove* history n' junk. 8)
Apr. 29th, 2008 03:58 pm (UTC)
Don't you think Netscher's lacemaker could have pocket slits in the side seams of her petticote that gape open regardless of the fact that her bodice underneath is front- or back-lacing? All I know is that my petticotes look like this when I sit down because they have pocket slits at the side seams.
Apr. 29th, 2008 04:00 pm (UTC)
It's possible - how early are pocket slits in play?

I know some of the jerkins from the Mary Rose have pockets; what I don't know is whether women were doing something similar (with a suspended purse inside the top petticoat, rather than outside).

I can see I'm going to be spending some quality time with my books!
Apr. 29th, 2008 04:06 pm (UTC)
Well fitchets can be seen in illustrations as early as the mid-14th century. And in the 15th century, we see women wearing purses suspended from belts worn under their gowns. Did they have access slits? I don't know. But leaving open the top 8" of a side seam isn't a huge leap in technology.

I'm going to have to look at my pictures too. I put pocket slits in everything and I can't imagine I'd just make it up. I rarely wear pockets!

Remember too that Netscher's lacemaker dates to the 1660s. That's on the cusp of a whole 'nother period.
Apr. 29th, 2008 04:28 pm (UTC)
That's true - I use some of the later pictures for Jamestown, since they said they go up to about 1660, especially for material culture references (since so few exist for J'town).

I usually do obscure furnishings research for them, though - Odd Questions R Us. :)
Apr. 29th, 2008 04:31 pm (UTC)
I sense that we're both going to rush to our piles of books tonite and meet back here tomorrow. =)
Apr. 29th, 2008 04:56 pm (UTC)
Heh. Ready, set...
Apr. 29th, 2008 04:59 pm (UTC)
(no subject) - reasdream - Apr. 29th, 2008 07:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kass_rants - Apr. 29th, 2008 07:47 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - reasdream - Apr. 29th, 2008 07:50 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kass_rants - Apr. 29th, 2008 09:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - attack_laurel - Apr. 30th, 2008 09:49 am (UTC) - Expand
Apr. 29th, 2008 04:01 pm (UTC)
I totally agree with ...
*drumroll* ....
KASS! (Sorry Bob, but the continuation of the front edge is a dead give-away)
Apr. 29th, 2008 04:09 pm (UTC)
*beams* *preen* *beams some more*
Apr. 29th, 2008 07:49 pm (UTC)
Would you be willing to hypothesize when lacing petticote to bodies started? (asks the girl who really doesn't go past 1530s)
Apr. 29th, 2008 09:08 pm (UTC)
Difficult question to answer off the top of my head. My instincts tell me it's a late 16th century phenomenon and that before the 1580s or so, they were wearing petticote bodys (skirts sewn to tops). But there is nothing extant so I can't say for sure when that line is (or even if there is a "line" per se).

Let me do a little checking and get back to you about this.
Apr. 30th, 2008 09:53 am (UTC)
I agree - it seems to be a late century thing, but it's a toss-up as to when it started - all we can really do is date it to the Pfaltzgrafina bodies.

It also seems like the sewn waistline persists all through this period as well - the lacing may be an adaptation of men's dashions, since the clothing styles flow from male to female throughout the period (women appropriating Dutch cloaks, doublets, etc.).

Latest Month

April 2017


Powered by LiveJournal.com