The Armour Archive

I have a beautiful 15th c. silver belt buckle from Gaukler, and I had a friend weave a belt for it. I'm blown away by the work that she did, and I want to make sure that this lovely belt is protected while I wear it. It's very wide, 3.5", and so I'm afraid that it will buckle (har har, no pun intended) and crease along the length while I wear it, while I bend and such. She wove it from 60/2 silk, practically thread, so it's got the feel of a thick fabric as opposed to a more sturdy belt.



Here's what I'm wondering. I'd like to back it with something in order to increase the stiffness a little. Would it be a problem to use a light leather? Should I stick with silk, like taffeta?

IIRC, most of the extant tablet woven belts are narrower, so they wouldn't have the same problem. I'm just not quite sure where to look. I can't wait to use it (and would like to at the end of July) but I'm kind of terrified of ruining it.

I'm for leather, sewn to the original fabric - just make sure it's really flexible and thin. You might consider deerhide?

Alternatively, sandwich buckram or horsehair between the woven belt and a silk backing - although this will be more quick to develop wear patterns than leather.

Let me be honest and admit my wide belts for my Burgundian are solid leather, which I can't thoroughly document, but which looks excellent and wears well.

Gwen

I'd go with something the same color (red velvet?) to back it with, and maybe a canvas liner for the stiffness.

Period? Beats me.

note that the "stiff"modern silks are often heavily weighted with metal salts to give that effect and that they degrade much quicker than unweighted silks as well.

Remember that Sunlight is a major factor in the decay of silk---silk tents and banners are very conspicuous consumption indeed!

Charlotte J wrote:IIRC, most of the extant tablet woven belts are narrower, so they wouldn't have the same problem. I'm just not quite sure where to look.

http://larsdatter.com/belts.htm
http://larsdatter.com/wide-belts.htm

I don't think I've found evidence for backing, either on the wide or the narrow tablet-woven belts. (You know what? I bet Gina B would know. Do you have her contact info?) V&A 4278-1857 seems to be backed with a plain fabric of the same color as the belt itself, but there's no notes on that, or whether there's some sort of interlining/stiffening, either.

Also -- it's not like these wide belts were used to hold things (like pouches, etc.), so that of course should not be a factor -- I wonder if it's also a matter of wearing the belt too low, if it's creasing? Been noticing that these sorts of 15th century sets seem to be worn (by modern folks) with the belt closer to the waist, rather than the somewhat higher level shown on the illustrations.

Karen Larsdatter wrote:

Charlotte J wrote:IIRC, most of the extant tablet woven belts are narrower, so they wouldn't have the same problem. I'm just not quite sure where to look.

http://larsdatter.com/belts.htm
http://larsdatter.com/wide-belts.htm

I don't think I've found evidence for backing, either on the wide or the narrow tablet-woven belts. (You know what? I bet Gina B would know. Do you have her contact info?) V&A 4278-1857 seems to be backed with a plain fabric of the same color as the belt itself, but there's no notes on that, or whether there's some sort of interlining/stiffening, either.

Also -- it's not like these wide belts were used to hold things (like pouches, etc.), so that of course should not be a factor -- I wonder if it's also a matter of wearing the belt too low, if it's creasing? Been noticing that these sorts of 15th century sets seem to be worn (by modern folks) with the belt closer to the waist, rather than the somewhat higher level shown on the illustrations.

Of course, you're right, there are wider extant belts. I was looking at them this morning (should have edited after my quick post last night!), but no backing jumped out at me so I didn't bother. I'm not seeing what you're seeing on that V&A belt being backed - it just looks like the fabric after part of the brocade rotted off?

I also do wear my belt in the correct place, directly under my bust (which is also higher after I moved to a straight front gown) but knowing that I get underbust wrinkling on my gowns makes me nervous. I’ve been assuming that I’m a bit heavier than your average medieval lady, and afraid that it might cause a problem.

You know, I should probably just wear my dresses and a strip of fabric of the right width around for a day and see if I have any creasing. I'm mostly assuming that my solution is possible a non-period one, and I'd just like something workable that'll protect the belt!

I kind of wonder whether this is the sort of thing where we shouldn't be thinking of the belt functioning the way a modern belt (or a narrower belt) might, but rather -- well, kind of like the sash on a chemise à la reine and related gowns of the late 18th century. It's not the sash that's holding the dress together, or in any way supporting or bringing in the garment; that's all done with layers underneath, and the belt sort of rides on top.

I'm trying to explain what I mean and it's getting convoluted in my head. Like, now I am thinking I want to tell you about tablecloths, and why the medieval tablecloths are (generally) pure white, and why they're clearly very neatly pressed, etc. And that it's a sort of reflection of refinement and elegance beyond mere quotidian function.

And then I realize that I am perhaps reading way too much into this sort of thing. Sometimes a belt is just a belt.

In any case -- I'd say, think of the wide girdle more like the sash on a chemise à la reine. I think it's less about the functional role of the belt, and more meant for the sort of elegant lady who maintains the sort of excellent posture that does not require her to bend -- or at least, that wishes to appear to be as such. It's a form of good comportment, I suppose.

I see what you're saying, and I agree, to an extent. My dress will be a fitted V-neck gown, and in that situation, the belt is used mostly as an applied decoration, as it were. It is not necessary for support and shape. However, earlier iterations of the dress and belt required that it was there to hold pleats into place.

Karen, I think you have the right of it in terms of the current SCA cultural meme right now. I see a lot of houppelandes out there that don't appear to have proper supportive under layers, and so the belt fails to function as it ought. As a side note, it also creates a very funny bust shape when you try to do that, and inclines to make even the most attractive bustline look a bit saggy, because the fit just doesn't do what it should.

Gwen

That's a very beautiful belt and I understand your concern. I'm sure Gina B would know the definitive answer, however even though the silk is fine, by being tablet woven it will be stiffer and more wrinkle resistant that you think, especially if being worn under the bust rather than round the waist. I don't have medieval proportions either so I know what you mean.

Personally I would not back it with anything - the Rogier van der Weyden (1400-1464) painting of Mary Magdalene http://www.codart.nl/exhibitions/details/961/ shows Mary Magdalene wearing a belt that I have seen re-created with modern silk. It has no backing, neither does the painting appear to show any backing for the belt. (Sorry this image is incomplete.)

I know that some cloth belts had silver or pewter mounts on them to stop them creasing but Mary's belt doesn't appear to have any mounts on either side, though they could be on the inside solely around the body.

I have a narrower cotton tablet woven belt that I use as a gown belt. It is much softer than the silk belt I have seen, the weaving is quite loose - I did it when I was fairly inexperienced, it does crease, however just running my thumb inside the belt is enough to straighten it out. I do think that posture and what you do will make a difference and doing an experiment with a piece of cloth is unlikely to produce the right result.

The thing to remember with the tablet weaving is the construction is completely different to any other form of cloth. it is in effect a series of cords led together with a weft, it has a very linear structure unlike most fabric and will naturally be crease resistant in one direction while creasing relatively easily across the width and down the length if not very tightly woven.

Thanks fot the heads-up Karen!

First, that is a beautiful piece of weaving!

Having woven quite a few of these very fine girdles with filament silk, I understand your concern (and have to say congrats for having such a lovely buckle and strap end for it - I've had clients who wanted to use cast bronze on similar belts...far too heavy!)

I would have to agree with Karen. A girdle of this type really is for the lady, and she is not going to be bending and putting strain on her fine silk girdle - her headdress alone would stop anything of that sort. And in re-enactment and living history, we do tend to forget this as we so often have other things to do that a woman of this status simply would not do. (An 18th century ribbon is much finer than can be easily bought today, but still successful as sashes...)

I don't know of any extant girdles of this type which have been lined, though some have been mounted to protect them. (And, if anyone knows of any, I'd love to add the info to mine). Artistic sources when showing the front and back of these girdles never show anything which could be classed as a stiffener or lining - instead the long end flows just as you would expect from fine silk.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it isn't backed ONLY where the girdle is around the body!

One painting, [1511, The Gift of Kalmthout, Gowin van der Weyden http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/w/weyden/goossen/kalmthou.html] shows a woman wearing what appears to be two girdles - one a reddish colour and very thick (possible leather?) over which a blue/black 'silk' girdle is worn. Perhaps this is the real answer?

A will from 1420 mentions a girdle lined with leather -
"Also I geue to the forsayd John Forster a gurdill of black y-lined with red leather" [FJ.Furnival, as quoted in Fingerlin]

Now - there's no indication that this is 1] a wide girdle or 2] that it is even a woman's girdle. It is being given to a man and so could easily be a sword belt.

Van Der Weyden's Portrait of a Lady also has a detail which might be another answer - if you look at the sides, there appears to be stitching and an small protuding area on the girdle running from top to bottom. Perhaps a bar of some type has been stitched either side to stop rolling? This is what Jane is referring to I think. Many people feel more comfortable doing this.

Or perhaps this girdle has been lined and these stitches are the only ones used?

A tightly woven band, worn at the correct place (not immediatly under the breast - leave a 5mm or 1cm at least) won't roll or curve if the wearer behaves like a lady. And don't wear the belt too tight. It is more likely to both curl and rip if you do.

Likewise, though not of any help to you now, there is evidence for the weaving (The Malatesta girdle) to be done slightly differently - with a warp thread through a central hole, which makes the band thicker. A narrow girdle in the MoL has double the threads through each hole, another strengthening technique, but more pieces survive that do not use either technique.

But in reality, you have a beautiful piece of work there, and frankly I wouldn't touch it. Wear it carefully, practice your posture, and if you are really concerned about your gown, it might be worth discussing the option to stitch the folds in place (Jane - I think there's some speculation this may have been the case?) or use the two-belt method above - at least there's some possible evidence for that.

And, it is worth remembering that there are so many buckles which have been found that have simply been lost from the belt - implying the belt has ripped away.

Stitching folds in place on these gowns has both advantages and disadvantages - the pleats stay in place much better if there is something to hold them. The images of this type of gown the pleats are all very regular and smooth. Which is where the conjecture of pleats being sewn into place comes in. In practice, unstitched pleats make the garment wearable by more people and make them more adjustable for height, weight, body shape etc, however you need a good, patient dresser to get beautiful even pleats and the belt has to be tight to hold the pleats in place - this is where a double belt might work. On the other hand if the stitches are sewn into place to be worn by one person with stable weight then a simple belt could be worn that would hide any stitches that go through all layers of the fabric.

It's tricky - I don't know of any extant gowns of the pleated style (If someone does, please share) in the re-construction of these garments we rely heavily on contemporary imagery and written information - where such exists.

The only problem I have with sewing the pleats into a gown is how easily can it be put on/taken off - to be honest I haven't tried - this might explain the depth of the 'V' front. The only other thought I've had that might work with these pleated dresses is that perhaps there was some kind of tape sewn internally that either drew up the pleats with a series of cords (like curtain heading tape) or simply held the pleats in place. Certainly tapes have been used to hold pleats and folds in place since in place since at least the 18th century but that doesn't mean they were used earlier.

Tudor (Renaissance) gowns had their pleats sewn into place but these gowns opened all down the front - which could be a development of gowns with sewn pleats being impractical in wear and then the front being divided to make them practical...

Double thickness belts are known; I am unsure about leather and woven together but I have speculation below.

If you look in Dress Accessories and I believe the York Finds book (or PDF) you will find double layer leather belts from 14th-15th century. Typically they are a girdle with a thin leather wrapped over the top and most cases the layers are stitched together on the edge of the under layer while other the wrapping is stitched to itself and the seam is against the body to be hidden.

Looking at Karen's site you can see this layering in several cloth belts. The first belt from the Colmar treasure, first half of the 15th century has two layers of woven belts
http://www.musee-moyenage.fr/pages/page ... 1_u1l2.htm

The second belt from the Colmar treasure, first half of the 14th century you have listed, looks like a velvet front with a leather back and some sort of woven edging in gold silk. Looks like it might be a leather core as rivets are seen in some places and a tablet woven area in others with no rivets shown.

Front:
http://www.greydragon.org/trips/Paris%2 ... age047.jpg

Back where the rivets are exposed:
http://www.greydragon.org/trips/Paris%2 ... age051.jpg

Both sides seen:
http://www.greydragon.org/trips/Paris%2 ... age053.jpg

Then the last image looks like there is another tablet woven belt backing it in sections, no rivets seen:
http://www.greydragon.org/trips/Paris%2 ... age050.jpg


The third belt listed as Belt from the Colmar treasure, silver-gilt mounts (alternating between women's heads and roses) on silk, first half of the 14th century clearly has two layers to it, the under layers looks to be tightly woven with a less tightly woven belt over it:

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/C72 ... 006679.jpg

Another images of the one of the above belts? Two woven layers: http://www.greydragon.org/trips/Paris%2 ... age052.jpg


This belt "Lady's belt, silk with silver and garnets, end of the 15th century" looks layered as from the way the edges fold and give a pucker: http://www.kostym.cz/Anglicky/2_Detaily ... _01_01.htm



However quite a number of the wide belts clearly have no reinforcement to them and are one single cloth layer.

James, these are beautiful examples of narrower cloth belts. The problem with the all silk, tablet woven, gown belts is that they do not survive well, even though their buckles and strap ends do. Wide examples like this are rare and from contemporary illustrations we see that these belts worn on the rib cage below the bust are generally plain, where pattern is determinable the patterns tend to be of the type that is easily produced using a double faced tablet weaving technique.

While I agree with everything you have said for these narrower belts with the examples you have furnished, not one of them matches the belt that Charlotte has.

Personally I think her worries about creasing are unfounded and the belt would be best used exactly as it is now, an opinion supported by Gina who is a published author in the field of silk narrow wares from the medieval period.

Jane's Wardrobe wrote:While I agree with everything you have said for these narrower belts with the examples you have furnished, not one of them matches the belt that Charlotte has.

Yes exactly why I have my disclaimer at the end about the wide belts. I only wanted to put our there that the technology existed though I have no specific example for wide belts.



Also as a modern concern one would need to be careful with what leather got used because dyes and even undyed leathers can stain if wet. Vegetable (oak) tanning for instance will seep out tannins when wet that could stain the cloth.

They are beautiful images - thank you, I have only seen black and white images of those, and certainly without such detail.

'Narrow girdles' such as these, I do believe were more often layered, lined, enforced - and probably all of these methods. These commonly were (such as the examples you have posted) covered in mounts, and often would have other items hanging from them. As such, it is more common to see these techniques - as well as the weaving techniques which result in the thicker band. In modern use I have had narrow girdles I have made lined after the mounts have been added (as one example you've posted) simply to protect the garment, which frankly makes perfect sense!

I have also seen (and can't think off-hand the reference, a conservation book) a 'Mary girdle' relic, which had been mounted onto another - and then encased - but each these changes were made as repairs at intervals, in the same way as a museum might mount textiles today. (So, it's worth finding out if any lining has been put on 100 years later) But again, even this is of the 'narrow' type.

The question with the wide decorative girdle is less positive. As you have said again while I'm writing this!

Thank you Jane - yes, it was the curtain 'tape' idea that I remember someone discussing a few years back. Though I think it was a variation of this - using eyes and a drawstring on the inside of the gown. As you say, it can be very difficult getting the pleating 'correct' on your own - though again, it leads back to who's wearing something that difficult to put on - someone with servants?...

Gina – thank you for sharing your experiences with the belt. I’m actually not using pleats in this gown – it will be slim fit – but I was thinking that women 20 years before the period I’m portraying might have had some issues with tension. I’ve made stitched down pleated gowns for my husband, and based on those, I’d still expect at least a little pressure on the belt, more than I thought this weave could handle, but I’ll bow to your much greater experience!

With respect to using a stiffener only around the body… it’s certainly an argument against any sort of lining, violating the “keep it simple” principle. I’ve been sitting here trying to think of ways to only stiffen it around body portion, but leaving the rest to hang free, and it just seems to complex to be workable or correct.

But you’ve also given me the idea, what with the separate belt idea, that I should probably just try it the way it is now, and then if it’s a problem, after the fact I can make a leather belt to go underneath, or just stiffen that section. Part of my paralysis on putting the belt together has been the thought that any stiffener would have to be integral and inserted into the buckle and strap end, and thus permanent. I’ve been plagued with indecision. I was originally leaning towards over-engineering it, laboring under the assumption that if I had a problem, I wouldn’t be able to fix it later. But now I have some better solutions.

Luckily, I’ll be generally wearing this belt in more formal environments – not running around after the kids or at a reenactment. The silver buckle is too high-end for camping out with Grey’s (with which we’re inactive right now anyway), and my first time wearing it will be in a nicely climate controlled hotel for Costume College where I’ll have nothing heavier to lift than my wine glass.

By the way – I have a few very detailed pictures of the Portrait of a Lady image, from a trip to the National Gallery a few years ago. This one shows the belt the best:

http://www.mathildegirlgenius.com/galle ... 211?full=1

I’ve always seen a bit of “poochiness” in the fabric at the sides, and perhaps with the fur trim in the front, but maybe I’m just looking at it wrong. Though, I’d never noticed the stitching and bar that you mention! Very subtle - that’s fantastic, and would help explain the stiffly straight sides, without resorting to the “artistic license” theory.

Jane –

Thank you for your input! On the subject of pleated gowns, there is the houppelande in Prague Castle. I can’t seem to find it with a quick google now, but I know that James has the link, and I’ll try to dig it up later. That particular houppe doesn’t seem to have any of the permanent pleating, that I know of, anyway.

I’ve made a couple of pleated gowns for my husband, though none for myself, preferring a slimmer fit around my waist (and preferring the 1460s to the 1440s). In one of the gowns, I attached the pleats to a band around his waist. It functions quite well, though there would still be a little bit of stress around the edges of a very wide belt. The gown completely opens down the front, so he does not have a problem getting into it.

In another gown, I attempted to pleat the channels around cotton tow “cords”. I borrowed the idea from a stuffed-pleated chemise in the book Textiles and Conservation (? – My notes are at home – and this was a few years ago). I was mostly happy with the way the stuffed channel pleats looked, but there was still a bit of give, and a little pressure on the belt. Again, the gown opens all the way down the front. Recently, I’ve been looking a lot at earlier 15th c women’s houppelandes, and enough of them open all the way to allow the gown pleats to be sewn down without worries of getting in and out. And later on, there’s an image of a V-neck gown open to somewhere below the knees, allowing it to be snug fit through the body, but still easy to put on.

Oh, and about the curtain pull idea – there are a few men’s gowns which I think look like they might have this. Again – I have the notes on which ones at home, but I can say with relative certainty that I’m thinking of men’s gowns in tapestries. The main belt seems to be hanging a bit, low on the hips. But there seems to be a narrow cord around part of the waist, yet some of the pleats appear to stand out on their own, certainly not held by a cord or belt *over* them, but something under or through them.

It's tricky - I don't know of any extant gowns of the pleated style (If someone does, please share) in the re-construction of these garments we rely heavily on contemporary imagery and written information - where such exists.

There's a linen dress in Textile Conservation by Mechtilde Flury-Lemberg (1988) from the 15th century with padded pleats radiating from the neckline, like this engraving. The pleats were padded, stitched almost closed over the padding, and the six pleats were covered in a panel of green silk on the inside. The dress is kept in the Liebfrauenkirche in Trier. I realize the placement of pleats is not exactly analogous to the gown Charlotte will be wearing but I think it is germain to the discussion.

Tracy

ETA: between starting composing this note and finishing it Charlotte posted- I'm in error about her particular dress but the idea stands-

azure d'or wrote:Karen, I think you have the right of it in terms of the current SCA cultural meme right now. I see a lot of houppelandes out there that don't appear to have proper supportive under layers, and so the belt fails to function as it ought. As a side note, it also creates a very funny bust shape when you try to do that, and inclines to make even the most attractive bustline look a bit saggy, because the fit just doesn't do what it should.

Gwen

But you know me, and what a stickler I am for fit and proper layers. In my particular case, I don’t think that wearing it differently will make much of a difference…

(And I’ll admit – the “when I bend” part was a euphemism for “I’m a bit fat and I have little bends all of the time”…)

Tracy Justus wrote:

It's tricky - I don't know of any extant gowns of the pleated style (If someone does, please share) in the re-construction of these garments we rely heavily on contemporary imagery and written information - where such exists.

There's a linen dress in Textile Conservation by Mechtilde Flury-Lemberg (1988) from the 15th century with padded pleats radiating from the neckline, like this engraving. The pleats were padded, stitched almost closed over the padding, and the six pleats were covered in a panel of green silk on the inside. The dress is kept in the Liebfrauenkirche in Trier. I realize the placement of pleats is not exactly analogous to the gown Charlotte will be wearing but I think it is germain to the discussion.

Tracy

ETA: between starting composing this note and finishing it Charlotte posted- I'm in error about her particular dress but the idea stands-

That's the dress and book I was looking for in the post above to Jane! Thanks for posting!

Oh! One more question – since I don’t have belt mounts, I don’t have eyelets either. I was thinking of just making hand bound eyelets, since the weave is so fine and I don’t want to just poke right through it. Gina – what have you done with the finer-woven belts you’ve made? Or did they spring for metal eyelets? I should maybe beg Gaukler to make some, but I’m quitting my job to stay home with the kids and that much silver would certainly stretch the budget…

It does seem as if the Portait of a Lady belt doesn’t have any sort of metal eyelets, but it doesn’t show if there’s any sort of fabric protection there at all.

Tablet weaving is incredibly strong, there's an 18th C example in the Royal Armouries in Leeds where it is being used on the girdle strap of a saddle for a horse!

That photo is brilliant and to me it looks very clearly like a tablet woven fabric. It's difficult to say whether there are stitches visible that could be holding a bar in place, I've had a look through my reference material and can't find the references I thought I remembered of very plain bar mounts that would have been used as cloth belt stiffeners, however half my reference books are still in storage. It is something you could consider for the body section of the belt if you do find it wrinkling. Though I would be reluctant because you would increase the possibility of excess wear by each mount.

Silk is not as fragile as most people think - it really depends on how it is treated and how it has been worked. This belt is going to be a lot sturdier than you imagine.

I didn't put any eyelets in my tablet woven gown belt but the weave was loose enough to allow the prong of the buckle to go through the weave and I was able to ease the threads back into place afterwards - I certainly wouldn't use metal eyelets and I wouldn't punch holes, I'd be very reluctant to work anything permanent - Over to you Gina...

I should clarify again – by worked eyelets I mean the ones that you use an awl for, pushing aside the threads slightly and working the blanket stitch on the edge to hold them open. I wonder if they’d pull on the warp, though.

And by metal eyelets, I mean something like in this image, not modern metal grommets. Oof, what a way to ruin an outfit!

http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/w ... mthou.html

I’m with you on the strength of silk – ounce per ounce, I believe it’s stronger than steel, tensile strength, anyway.

Gina, I'm inclined to go with you generally, but this does bother me a bit:

I would have to agree with Karen. A girdle of this type really is for the lady, and she is not going to be bending and putting strain on her fine silk girdle - her headdress alone would stop anything of that sort. And in re-enactment and living history, we do tend to forget this as we so often have other things to do that a woman of this status simply would not do. (An 18th century ribbon is much finer than can be easily bought today, but still successful as sashes...)

The very portrait you site has the Magdalene seated, curled up reading, and at least with me, this would put a strain on my girdle (I'm 5'2", about 108 pounds, so on the slim side, especially through the torso). I do agree she wouldn't be scrubbing floors in her gown, but I think you'd have to restrict movement to rigid standing (which some headdresses, admittedly did do, although I find my own truncated hennins allow me plenty of freedom) or some very demure sitting. Given that we have pictures of such women dancing, at outdoor banquets

It seems to me that the gown really must have relied on under structure to keep the shape effective.

Of note, I can recall seeing a couple of pieces of artwork intended to be deshabille, where the lady, in a similar houppelande to that in the Van Der Weyden picture, apparently had the garment open to the waist or just below, revealing a front laced kirtle. It seems apparent that the front of the over garment laces using hidden eyelets or lacing rings from the waist point upward, thus making it easy to get in and of it.

azure d'or wrote:The very portrait you site has the Magdalene seated, curled up reading ...

I'm looking at The Magdalene Reading. She's actually seated fairly straight -- butt on a cushion, back against a cupboard -- her head is tilted slightly.

Also, again, I suspect this goes back to the whole issue of where one wears such a belt. It appears that the belt is worn really around the chest -- roughly where the bottom edge of a modern bra would hit, maybe a little lower. Now, granted, I'm a tall girl (six feet even, and long through the torso), but even then, when I bend over, I'm not bending my ribcage. I guess if I were really hunching over, maybe. But I still see the image above as a woman who's sitting fairly straight, good poise and all that -- sitting and reading, but not really curled up.

(I was also thinking this had something to do with the inherent elongation of mannerism, but then I remembered that actually this is early for mannerism, and then I remembered, "duh, like Giovanna Cenami is a triumph of photographic proportionalism?" and then I was like, "um, this digression is totally not adding to the conversation at all, so if there are any other voices in my head that want to pipe up, it had danged well better be relevant."

Karin, I suspect my solution is going to be to pull out some Burgundian this weekend and see what it takes to crease my belt.
As a tiny girl who is mostly leg, I suspect it will be easier for me, but even so.

I do think realisitically, a woman in any kind of comfortable seated position, such as the Magdalene is in (and I do think it's supposed to represent a moment of quiet reflection and - not relaxation exactly, but perhaps release is the proper word), would be inclined to curve and likewise potentially crease her belt.

Even with restrictions based on everything from tight kirtle to heavy headwear, I think there's a fallacy in the notion that there was no point of relaxation for upper class medieval women - and we do see them doing active things as well in illustrations, from feasting to riding on horseback to dancing to hunting and hawking.

Formal, court settings might require long term, elegant posture, but real people eventually do have to move, and garments need to support movement. Unless she's wearing an unseen supportive structure comparable with a 17th or 18th century piece of corsetry, there's going to be some movement to that spine.

Even with restrictions based on everything from tight kirtle to heavy headwear, I think there's a fallacy in the notion that there was no point of relaxation for upper class medieval women - and we do see them doing active things as well in illustrations, from feasting to riding on horseback to dancing to hunting and hawking.

Oh no, far from it. But I would say that what we today class as relaxation would be, for many, classed as frankly slovenly in any other period. There is no need to be in a rounded-shoulder stance just to be relaxed. Good posture is not something we are encouraged to have today, which is why even a corset can't get Keira Knightly standing correctly and why I actually read comments that Kate Middleton was 'sitting oddly' at the wedding because her posture was perfect!!

But it is back to the point that I really don't think these girdles were the actual support - they are not (imho) meant to be used as a corset-type device, and I think that is where many go wrong. Dancing, hawking, horse riding (as a lady) are all activities which can be done with good posture, and good posture can be very relaxing. If however, your stance is rounded, your breasts will be lower, stomach protrude more and your movement - in any direction - more likely to ruin the look. And that type of posture would not be acceptable in a lady. Stand straight, shoulders back and bend from the knee (all 'lady-like' qualities) and the 'look' stays far more intact.

And I have often demo'ed as a silkwoman, in gown and widish girdle - not as fine as that, but as a merhant I couldn't - and haven't had a problem with my girdle curling.

And to throw a spanner in the works generally, this paper Bras in the 15th Century? A Preliminary Report Presented at NESAT this year (and no, I was not there, so can't answer anything about it really!) Is probably going to change everything anyway...

Eyelets. There are some beautiful eyelets which survive, some on belts, and there are girdles which appear to have none. So, the choice is yours. Many just poke the pin of the buckle through. With such fine silk, I would not recommend this method if, for any reason, your buckle pin has sharp bits (as can often happen these days), strong or not, metal can still cut through fine silk with time. But most of the time, tablet weaving is strong enough to not need an eyelet so long as the belt is not pulled tightly (which would put undo strain on the weave - casuing stretching, and buckling).

I've not seen any sewn eyelets on woven bands, but who knows - again, the evidence is scant.

Whatever you choose, never ever cut the weave. Use an awl to clear the space for an eyelet or the buckle pin first. Tablet weave, being warp-faced doesn't stand up as well to just having a hole cut out of it as evenweave would.

Well, I think we all agree that the girdle shouldn't be used in the modern sense of the word, that is, to shape the body, and that additional support is needed. I probably shouldn't have mentioned my weight, as I'm not pulling it in, it just makes me a little less smooth and less like the ladies with the ultra flat belts in the images, my hips and bust creating a more pronounced hourglass than I'm used to seeing in the art.

To me, I guess the real question is still how volumes of fabric would affect that vertical straightness, but after trying it over modern shirts this morning, it behaved much better than I was expecting. It's not a gown with a supportive kirtle underneath, but maybe the magic of tablet weaving *will* overcome curvature issues due to the fabric!

I'll, of course, post my results once it's all done. Gwen, I'm looking forward to seeing how it works for you! It's funny, I keep thinking it'll be easier for me to crease *my* belt being quite the opposite of a tiny girl.

And to throw a spanner in the works generally, this paper Bras in the 15th Century? A Preliminary Report Presented at NESAT this year (and no, I was not there, so can't answer anything about it really!) Is probably going to change everything anyway...

Ah yes, I would have KILLED to be there. I am completely obsessed with getting a copy of this paper. I've already launched a project with the "panties" found (thank you Beatriz Nutz for good published photos!) - making them and trying them on different female bodies, having people wear them during their menstral cycles ( myself included) with rags, and even making a few for men, so that I can look at the physics of the garment and try to determine whether it's reasonable to assume they were in daily use or simply used at a particular time of the month - or whether they might be a man's garment (I think this is unlikely, but you have to experiment).

I think the bra hypothesis makes sense, as there is very distinctive art from the same era and same region where women alternately look flattened as if they are wearing kirtles, and distinctly lifted and separated, similarly to modern bra garments.

The one photo I've seen, which is obscured, the garment is laid out on a table - looks quite like a modern bra. I really am counting days till publication.

And yes, Gina, I'm in total agreement with you on posture. One of the reasons I love my 14th and 15th century garments so much is that they incline me naturally towards a decent posture.

Gwen

Char, since you and I have the same body shape through our torsos, I would have the same dilemma. Perhaps a picture best illustrates:



Is that the basic gist? Our waists begin rather high. We are not belly-button-waisted women. The curve outwards towards the hips can easily begin within 3-4 inches of the bottom of the bust. Very simple issue and a realistic concern when it comes to a really wide belt like yours coupled with the curves you have. I believe the belt is likely to warp in a convex shape eventually, without any stiffening. Perhaps this is something that you could live with...? I don't know. If you go with the stiffening idea, best of luck. I want to see how it all turns out! And knowing you, there will be gorgeous pictures.

-Tasha

But I thought the belt (or at least this style here) was to be worn high, more around torso, and not against the curve of the waist?

By the way, that is a STUNNING belt, and I cannot wait to see pictures of it with the gown.

Rana wrote:But I thought the belt (or at least this style here) was to be worn high, more around torso, and not against the curve of the waist?

It is, but as my body curves, well, pretty much *everywhere*, it's tough to find 3.5" of straight space all the way around in one spot. Actually, 3.5" is just about the exact amount of space between my breasts and my natural waist, so it fits quite nicely there, but again, still not perfectly straight.

Though, even beyond the body (because I already stand as well as I can and wear it in the right spot), the fabric issues alone from other parts of the century would cause a curve similar to what Tasha posted, especially when worn with my hips and bust. Even if you sewed the pleats down to a band, the fabric of a very wide houppelande wouldn't lay perfectly straight and flat under a wider belt. There would almost certainly be more stress on the belt at the edges, and less in the middle. Again, this isn't my issue in this case, as the dress will be smooth, but one has to wonder if the fabric belts of the period handled it as well as they were painted, or if they were stiffer, supported by bar mounts, could be explained by artistic convention, or something else entirely.

Since I'm working on a early 15th century clothing guide right now, I've been looking a lot at these, so I threw together some examples. Second quarter century would probably be just as illuminating, but it's not what I've been staring at for the past week.

http://wp.bymymeasure.com/526/houppelan ... th-century

But I'm going to run with "the belt can handle it" idea for now, and see where it takes me.

Rana wrote:By the way, that is a STUNNING belt, and I cannot wait to see pictures of it with the gown.

Heh. I can't wait until I have the gown to take pictures of it with. I have the fabric, at least.

Charlotte J wrote:

Rana wrote:But I thought the belt (or at least this style here) was to be worn high, more around torso, and not against the curve of the waist?

It is, but as my body curves, well, pretty much *everywhere*, it's tough to find 3.5" of straight space all the way around in one spot. Actually, 3.5" is just about the exact amount of space between my breasts and my natural waist, so it fits quite nicely there, but again, still not perfectly straight.

Oh, gotcha! Yes, I am short-waisted too.

Charlotte J wrote:Since I'm working on a early 15th century clothing guide right now, I've been looking a lot at these, so I threw together some examples. Second quarter century would probably be just as illuminating, but it's not what I've been staring at for the past week.

http://wp.bymymeasure.com/526/houppelan ... th-century

I am soo excited to see this! I've been interested in making a "Good" houppeland, but all my previous efforts (OK, that one) was frankly unacceptable to wear. Will your 15th Century guide be like your cotehardie series? Seriously, that is the bom...