Well accurate or not I like the pattern.
I think I am going to make it just to sleep in.
B and C look so cute and romantic. :-)
Greetings,
Deredere
___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
At 00:54 03/05/2007, you 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.
Owning originals that are Not comfortable for actual modern
and occasion presents.
(Thank you Fran!!)
KSM
- Original Message -
From: Deredere Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
Well accurate or not I like the pattern.
I think I am
In a message dated 5/2/2007 6:54:45 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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. I once draped an HMS
Theatrical costumes need to meet different demands
than reenactment costumes,
and theatrical costumes often need to be made on a
tight deadline to boot.
Comparing the two is like comparing apples and
oranges, and
expecting complete historical accuracy of theatre
costumes is absurd.
On May 3, 2007, at 11:09 AM, MaggiRos wrote:
Not that this keeps us from screaming over the
costumes in something like The Tudors. The budget
demands of a show like don't explain some of the
design choices they made.
I'm willing to give historical fantasy more leeway than something
that
Message -
From: Andrew T Trembley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
On May 3, 2007, at 11:09 AM, MaggiRos wrote:
Not that this keeps us from screaming over the
costumes
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of MaggiRos
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:09 AM
To: Historical Costume
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
Theatrical costumes need to meet different demands
than reenactment costumes,
and theatrical costumes often need to be made
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrew T Trembley
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:02 PM
To: Historical Costume
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
On May 3, 2007, at 11:09 AM, MaggiRos wrote:
Not that this keeps us from screaming over the
costumes in something like
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Sharon Collier wrote:
If you film in Hampton Court Palace or an authentic mock up of it on a
sound stage, the costumes should be stylistically the same. If the
show is filmed with a more fantasy feel to the sets, I can accept more
leeway in the costumes. It jars less if
On May 3, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Robin Netherton wrote:
It occurs to me that the productions that get the most criticism on
this
list are historical drama, particularly those that purport to be
realistic
(say, Elizabeth, which offered film-linked packets for school
history
programs as part of
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
___
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
5061
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
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?
http://store.sewingtoday.com/cgi-bin
, these would do quite nicely if done in the usual muslin
of their counterparts.
Kathleen
- Original Message -
From: Catherine Olanich Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
- 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
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
PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
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
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
things, Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman!
Sg
- Original Message -
From: Sylvia Rognstadmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costumemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
You didn't? Am I just being
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
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
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
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 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
Message -
From: Sylvia Rognstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
On May 2, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Carmen Beaudry wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 5:54 PM, LLOYD MITCHELL wrote
Beaudry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
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
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
Of Carmen Beaudry
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 5:45 PM
To: Historical Costume
Subject: Re: now costume design, was Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
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
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
(or whatever)generation ...
Kathleen
- Original Message -
From: Carmen Beaudry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: now costume design, was Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
I didn't either. As both
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] new Butterick pattern 5061
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
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
