Surcoat Length

RenJunkie · Post by **RenJunkie** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:22 am

How far down the leg should a surcoat that goes over armour reach? Say for about 1330. This is just to hide armour, and it's easier for me to make. Not that I think it'll see much use at practice, but if it ever is needed at an event to hide the ooogliness of the armour...

Thanks,
Christopher

hrolf · Post by **hrolf** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:53 am

In general, surcoats started in the late 12th/early 13th as very long - like mid-calf or longer - and as time progresses, got shorter and shorter and eventually turned into t-shirt length closely fitted jupons. Or coats of plates.

Kenwrec Wulfe · Post by **Kenwrec Wulfe** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:56 am

Look at the effigies at www.gothiceye.com

That will give you a good idea of the transition of surcoat length and use.

1330s, if I remember right, even had examples of surcoats that were knee length in the back and mid thigh in the front. I believe it was to all for the show of layers of clothing and mail...which showed your wealth.

Like these:

RenJunkie · Post by **RenJunkie** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:49 am

Sweet. That's what I needed. Thanks, guys!

Christopher

wcallen · Post by **wcallen** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:27 pm

Yea, kind of like our interpretation of that:

<img src="http://www.allenantiques.com/images/mini-Geoffrey-1340-overall.jpg">

Sort in the front, long in the back.
The waist is roughly where the top belt is sitting.
Very different lengths for other periods.
The look of the brasses is a little odd because the proportion of the images doesn't really match human proportions. We just started building the layers from the inside out and ended up with what we got.

Wade

RenJunkie · Post by **RenJunkie** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:27 am

Oh. I thought that was just the shell on a CoP. So the red dags are the shell, and the sorta maize color is the surcoat?

I am deeply envious, BTW. Never got costumes that cool growing up. Or even now...lol

I'm probably going to end up going a bit earlier to when it was all one length. Match it up to mid-thigh on me, should be close to the knees on anyone shorter than myself. Ease of construction (one pattern front/back), and no chance of it riding up and revealing hideous armour underneath...lol

Just out of curiosity, when did front hemlines start to rise above rear lines?

Thanks,
Christopher

Ernst · Post by **Ernst** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:31 pm

RenJunkie wrote:Just out of curiosity, when did front hemlines start to rise above rear lines?

The Netherlands KB manuscript KA 20 dated c.1325-1335 shows even, knee-length hemlines with long side slits in all the surcoats. Wade's example for his son was based on the Bodleian's Romance of Alexander which was presented in 1344. I'm not certain the fashion isn't peculiarly English, or was introduced earlier in England than the continent.

Claude Blair distinguishes the short-front version by labeling it a cyclas. Surcoat is simply a compound of sur-, meaning over or on top of, as in a surcharge, and coat, so an overcoat. Medieval sources often refer to the earlier knee to ankle-length versions as ciglatons or syklatouns, of which cyclas seems to be a literal and figurative contraction.

RenJunkie · Post by **RenJunkie** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:13 pm

That's cool, Ernst. I always though of a cyclas as sort of a later tabbard/cloak hybrid. But I can totally see that.

Was the short front common in the HRE by any chance? Or did they prefer the one length version?

thanks,
Christopher