Hi,
I am looking for a site that explains how to emboss leather.
That is something I would love to try.
It is not for historical use.
It is for a fantasy Ares god of war costume for my husband next year.
Greetings,
Deredere
___
h-costume
Can anybody tell me, roughly, what year this pattern might represent?
http://store.sewingtoday.com/cgi-bin/butterick/shop.cgi?s.item.B5061=xTI=10001page=4
Is that Victorian? 20th century? Something else? I kind of like the
nightgown.
Dawn
___
Somebody tell me this guy is NOT showing off his barenaked knees in the
background of this painting:
http://www.formfunction.org/temp/1530dutchcalendar11bathsheba.jpg
Bruegel drew some fieldworkers wearing similar shorts:
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4293000a=31783828f=
NOT Victorian or Edwardian.
Kim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:39 AM
To: Historical Costume
Subject: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
Can anybody tell me, roughly, what year this pattern might
Just a reminder because one more would
round out our car full ever so nicely,
On 4/12/07, Cin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone for an h-costume midday excursion to the Vivian Westwood show
at the DeYoung? Play hookey from work! It would amuse me vastly to
go on Wednesday 9 May and head
Interesting! particularly the Breugel example which, as you say, looks
quite practical. I don't know if it helps answer the question, but
here's the iconography behind that fellow:
The image compresses two sectionsof the David/Bathsheba story, briefly:
David spies Bathsheba bathing, becomes
Hi!
Sorry to be a bit behind with this (and non-historical!), but my child size
dummy is wearing a plum coloured circle skirt with a pink ribbon trim. It is
part of a cheerleading outfit that I promised my daughter for doing well in the
majorette/cheerleading competition she recently took
I think they mean it to be pseudo Victorian or Edwardian, but it is not.
Cindy Abel
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Kim Baird
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:33 PM
To: 'Historical Costume'
Subject: RE: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern
I am not 100% sure but I believe this to be Late Edwardian, probably around
the 1910s or 20s.
There is a very slim chance of it being Regency but I have my doubts.
De
___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 11:38 am, Dawn wrote:
Can anybody tell me, roughly, what year this pattern might represent?
http://store.sewingtoday.com/cgi-bin/butterick/shop.cgi?s.item.B5061=xTI=1
0001page=4
Is that Victorian? 20th century? Something else? I kind of like the
nightgown.
I think
- Original Message -
From: Dawn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:38 AM
Subject: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
Can anybody tell me, roughly, what year this pattern might represent?
I don't have a dummy. I need one. Anyone got any
recommendations/advice/types to avoid?
Sharon C.
The thread hes been discussed several times -- check the archives.
Uniquely You, IMHO, is the best purchased form.
--cin
Cynthia Barnes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This reminds me of...
One thing I am sure of is that the armseye of the upper garments will not be
as high as the originals nor the bottoms as capacious . These would grace
any stage quite nicely.
Owning originals that are Not comfortable for actual modern wear, in a
'Costumesituation,
They are all found in earlier books/mags of the mid 19th C. like Godeys, and
Petersons. Generic intimate garments meant for the boudoir...adapted for
the modern fit and aesthetic.
kathleen
- Original Message -
From: Elizabeth Walpole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL
On May 2, 2007, at 5:54 PM, LLOYD MITCHELL wrote:
This reminds me of...
One thing I am sure of is that the armseye of the upper garments will
not be as high as the originals nor the bottoms as capacious . These
would grace any stage quite nicely.
That sounds like a veiled insult to
This reminds me of...
One thing I am sure of is that the armseye of the upper garments will not
be as high as the originals nor the bottoms as capacious . These would
grace any stage quite nicely. Owning originals that are Not comfortable
for actual modern wear, in a
On May 2, 2007, at 5:54 PM, LLOYD MITCHELL wrote:
This reminds me of...
One thing I am sure of is that the armseye of the upper garments will not
be as high as the originals nor the bottoms as capacious . These would
grace any stage quite nicely.
That sounds like a veiled insult to
On May 2, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Carmen Beaudry wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 5:54 PM, LLOYD MITCHELL wrote:
This reminds me of...
One thing I am sure of is that the armseye of the upper garments
will not be as high as the originals nor the bottoms as capacious .
These would grace any stage
From: Sylvia Rognstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 18:18:07 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
Received: from www1.indra.com
Note quite. Having been a costume designer for over 30 years, I long ago
learned to suit the desired look with a present aesthetic...ie., comfort.
For the reinactor, how many of them are going to be parading about in their
undies meant for the boudoir? Every time I tried to put my antique on
(snip about percieved insult to theatrical designers)
You didn't? Am I just being overly sensitive? I often feel like
historical re-enactors and reproducers of accurate historical costumes
look down their noses to a certain extent at theatrical costume designers
because the latter don't
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 8:18 pm, Sylvia Rognstad wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Carmen Beaudry wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 5:54 PM, LLOYD MITCHELL wrote:
[snip]
I sure didn't take it as such.
Melusine (who started out in theater and still does theater costume
part time)
You didn't?
I didn't either. As both a historian and a costume designer, I see
no reason to be embarrassed about the very good reasons why accuracy
is often compromised on the stage. I still groan when I watch films
with terribly bastardized fashions, but I can often tell why they did
it. Telling
Me neither, I came from a theatrical background as well. I didn't take it that
way, and I figure if people can't see the difference between entertainment and
factual reproduction, (and value and necessity for each), they aren't very
bright, and aren't worth bothering over!
O, meanie me!
On May 2, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Paula Praxis wrote:
F
On May 2, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Carmen Beaudry wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 5:54 PM, LLOYD MITCHELL wrote:
This reminds me of...
One thing I am sure of is that the armseye of the upper garments
will not be as high as the originals nor the
I didn't go so far as to read the instructions. Alas...
Presently working in miniature, I struggle nightly in trying to create my
doll costumes using all the pieces that would have made the shapes if I were
doing them for people; it is hard indeed to compromise, but I have not yet
bent to
On May 2, 2007, at 6:30 PM, LLOYD MITCHELL wrote:
Note quite. Having been a costume designer for over 30 years, I long
ago learned to suit the desired look with a present aesthetic...ie.,
comfort. For the reinactor, how many of them are going to be parading
about in their undies meant for
I'm actually developing a lecture for next year on why and when you
would or would not want to be completely accurate with a costume.
It's just in the ruminating stage right now, but I'd welcome any
thoughts from y'all.
That sounds like a very good topic for a lecture. I look forward to
I didn't either. As both a historian and a costume designer, I see no
reason to be embarrassed about the very good reasons why accuracy is
often compromised on the stage. I still groan when I watch films with
terribly bastardized fashions, but I can often tell why they did it.
Telling
I didn't go so far as to read the instructions. Alas...
Presently working in miniature, I struggle nightly in trying to create my
doll costumes using all the pieces that would have made the shapes if I
were doing them for people; it is hard indeed to compromise, but I have
not yet bent to
On May 2, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Carmen Beaudry wrote:
I didn't either. As both a historian and a costume designer, I
see no reason to be embarrassed about the very good reasons why
accuracy is often compromised on the stage. I still groan when
I watch films with terribly bastardized
Sylrog, I have only come to h-costume since about when It began in the
'90s. My only connection before that was the items accumulating in my
private collection which were all the contact with the realities of the past
re color, fabrics, and fit. I was working very hard to translate this real
Thoughts:
-30 second costume changes.
-$300 costume budget for the whole show-12 actors.
-Director's vision-often more artistic than historically accurate, so you
try and compromise.
-Lack of a crew to make everything you envision. Sometimes it just comes
down to not enough time. You put
Chuckle...And I bet you didn't try to enter that one in a contest? Except,
perhaps And how many Zippers did you manage to get in on this one?
Makes me think of the first time I remember the leather store on the board
walk of Provincetown !!
Kathleen
- Original Message -
From: Carmen
In a message dated 5/2/2007 8:39:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm actually developing a lecture for next year on why and when you
would or would not want to be completely accurate with a costume.
It's just in the ruminating stage right now, but I'd welcome
Chuckle...And I bet you didn't try to enter that one in a contest?
Except, perhaps And how many Zippers did you manage to get in on this
one?
Makes me think of the first time I remember the leather store on the board
walk of Provincetown !!
Kathleen
Nope, and you couldn't see the zippers
She wrote a book, too, Geisha, By Liza Dalby
ISBN #0-394-72893-9. Mine was published by Vintage Books, division of Random
House, in 1985.
Originally published Berkeley: University of California Press 1983
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
On May 2, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Melanie Schuessler wrote:
Of course, actor safety, comfort, and the ability to do quick-changes,
dance moves, sword fights, or whatever else needs to happen in the
show also often have an impact.
Out of lurkdom for a moment.
First, thanks for all the insight
What a great point! Anne Hollander does introduce this kind of connection
in her (eye-opening) book, Seeing Through Clothes. Many, many times I go
back to read the parts that discuss past fashion always being interpreted in
terms of the present aesthetics.
I am greatly amused with the
Anne, when and where is this to be held? Now that I am mostly retired, i
might even be able to get away in the Fall. Yikes!
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [h-cost]Theatrer vs Historic (was:new
Attar girl! My first and constany stagewnen I was beginning was a
semi-thrust arrangement. Mos of the time, the audience was a mere 2' away
from the front row, and only 2' high. No room to cheat. I was always proud
of my hems!
Kathleen
- Original Message -
From: Carmen Beaudry
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Sharon Collier wrote:
Thoughts:
-30 second costume changes.
-$300 costume budget for the whole show-12 actors.
-Director's vision-often more artistic than historically accurate, so you
try and compromise.
-Lack of a crew to make everything you envision. Sometimes it
I feel the same Robin.
Re the detail bit of faking it...another moment of epiphany for me was the
first show I got to do in our Olin Theater. I endured all the mineuture of
prep I wa used forthe small theater and in viewing my first procenium show,
none of the little details mattered a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Somebody tell me this guy is NOT showing off his barenaked knees in the
background of this painting:
Bruegel drew some fieldworkers wearing similar shorts:
but I had assumed this was a comfort thing rather than
style thing. But notice they have the same points
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Melanie Schuessler wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 9:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Midwest Region of the Costume Society of America's symposium
next fall
is on all aspects of costume, including theater and reenactment.
I'll be giving a paper on the impact of
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Cin wrote:
I'm actually developing a lecture for next year on why and when you would or
would not want to be completely accurate with a costume. It's just in the
ruminating stage right now, but I'd welcome any thoughts from y'all.
With all due respect to your gracious
On May 3, 2007, at 12:16 AM, Robin Netherton wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Melanie Schuessler wrote:
I'll be giving a paper on the impact of historic re-enacting on the
study of clothing history in the recent past. And I'll be talking a
bit about how re-enacting blends theatre and history.
From: Sharon Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
She wrote a book, too, Geisha, By Liza Dalby
ISBN #0-394-72893-9. Mine was published by Vintage Books, division of Random
House, in 1985.
Originally published Berkeley: University of California Press 1983
Yep, I've got that one, also the book she
48 matches
Mail list logo
