I'm sure this has been asked before but I could not find it in recent posts...
I'll soon be starting on hosen for my landsknecht kit (been wearing a tonlet to hide my horrible slashed cotton breeches). I think I have a fairly good idea of how to do the legs, up to where they point to the upper parts that cover the naughty bits... but I'm not sure how to make the upper part so it's close fitting and wont rip out in the crotch or back. I know I need to use stretchy fabric like felted (is that the proper term?) wool, cut on the bias, but am I correct in thinking that there should be a large gusset in the crotch area somewhere? or is the upper 'trunk' part a bit less close fitting than the legs?
as for the legs, this is how I'm thinking about making them.. many of the woodcuts I've looked at look like these hosen are made in strips. so I'm thinking that to make a pattern, it might work to put on some close fitting sweatpants or long underwear and wrap my legs in strips of ducttape, then cut draw on the seam lines that I see in woodcuts and cut the ducttape hosen off my legs along the lines I've drawn.
does that sound like it would work for making a pattern?
next question is about the lining... is the material lining the slashed hosen a separate pair of lighterweight hosen worn under outer hosen, or is the lining sewn in like a real lining?
that leads into another thing I was wondering about... I sort of assume that linen is what I should use for a lining, but the linen I lined my doublet with was much less stretchy than the wool I used.. so for the hosen, should I make the linen lining slightly more loose fitting than the outer layer of wool?
I guess that's all the questions I have for now.. a few months ago I was working on a doublet for this kit and got a lot of good answers here. hope to someday have it all done enough to post some pictures
questions about hosen
Moderator: Glen K
-
kass
- Empress (Figurehead)
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands
- Contact:
Hi Dweezle,
My information on Landsknecht hosen is rather sparse, but let me answer you with what we know about joined hosen in the 15th century.
Hosen never had a gusset in the crotch. If they are made correctly to fit your shape, they shouldn't need any gussets. You see, there is a tendency to think that in order to prevent something from ripping, we must make it bigger. But the truth is that making it closer-fitting is the true answer. If it fits close to the body, it will move with the body and not tear. I'll talk about how to do this in a moment.
The fabric you need to make joined hose is a four-shed twill wool. Modern fabric stores call this "wool flannel". Don't get anything knit like wool jersey or (Heaven forfend!) anything with lycra in it. You don't need it. Wash your wool in hot water a few times with baby shampoo. This will full (not felt, but close) the wool and make it look correct. It will also enable you to wash later them without worrying about shrinkage.
To fit hosen on your legs, with chalk draw a line parallel with the selvedges (the uncut edges) of your fabric. Draw another line at right angles to this line. Now draw a third line that bisects the intersection of this line. This is the true bias (45 degrees). Wrap the fabric around your leg so that this third line is straight up and down. Pin or baste it closed in back so that the seam runs right up the back of your leg. Sew it as tightly as you can from your ankle to right under your butt. Take your chalk again and mark the point of your crotch on the fabric. Take the leg off, cut away the excess hanging off the back, and cut a "U" shape into the top, the bottom of the "U" should be centered on the crotch chalk mark. Sew the two legs together along these "U"s and try them back on. Continue sewing the back seams closed over your butt, makign sure the seams stay straight and the fabric is as close as possible to your body. I don't know how high the waist is on Landsknecht hosen, so I'll stop there. I think you can probably figure out the rest.
For the legs in strips, simply make the hosen as described above and slash them into strips. Close-fitting sweatpants or long underwear are both made out of knit fabric and you are making your hosen out of woven fabric, so it's not going to make a very good pattern.
I believe what you're calling "the lining" in Landsknecht hosen is a separate pair of hosen worn together so the underneath pair shows through the slashes. As you thought, lining hosen will reduce their stretchiness and really rather muck them up pretty badly. Don't line your hosen. If you make the lining looser, all you're going to have is baggy hosen.
I hope this helps.
Kass
My information on Landsknecht hosen is rather sparse, but let me answer you with what we know about joined hosen in the 15th century.
Hosen never had a gusset in the crotch. If they are made correctly to fit your shape, they shouldn't need any gussets. You see, there is a tendency to think that in order to prevent something from ripping, we must make it bigger. But the truth is that making it closer-fitting is the true answer. If it fits close to the body, it will move with the body and not tear. I'll talk about how to do this in a moment.
The fabric you need to make joined hose is a four-shed twill wool. Modern fabric stores call this "wool flannel". Don't get anything knit like wool jersey or (Heaven forfend!) anything with lycra in it. You don't need it. Wash your wool in hot water a few times with baby shampoo. This will full (not felt, but close) the wool and make it look correct. It will also enable you to wash later them without worrying about shrinkage.
To fit hosen on your legs, with chalk draw a line parallel with the selvedges (the uncut edges) of your fabric. Draw another line at right angles to this line. Now draw a third line that bisects the intersection of this line. This is the true bias (45 degrees). Wrap the fabric around your leg so that this third line is straight up and down. Pin or baste it closed in back so that the seam runs right up the back of your leg. Sew it as tightly as you can from your ankle to right under your butt. Take your chalk again and mark the point of your crotch on the fabric. Take the leg off, cut away the excess hanging off the back, and cut a "U" shape into the top, the bottom of the "U" should be centered on the crotch chalk mark. Sew the two legs together along these "U"s and try them back on. Continue sewing the back seams closed over your butt, makign sure the seams stay straight and the fabric is as close as possible to your body. I don't know how high the waist is on Landsknecht hosen, so I'll stop there. I think you can probably figure out the rest.
For the legs in strips, simply make the hosen as described above and slash them into strips. Close-fitting sweatpants or long underwear are both made out of knit fabric and you are making your hosen out of woven fabric, so it's not going to make a very good pattern.
I believe what you're calling "the lining" in Landsknecht hosen is a separate pair of hosen worn together so the underneath pair shows through the slashes. As you thought, lining hosen will reduce their stretchiness and really rather muck them up pretty badly. Don't line your hosen. If you make the lining looser, all you're going to have is baggy hosen.
I hope this helps.
Kass
-
white mountain armoury
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10538
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: the Taiga
Kass, i was wondering if you have evidence against the use of a gusset.
Thursfields book has 15th cent hose with a gusset, but her book is thin on documention.
I have been pouring through tons of art searching for a croth shot of any hosen, im aware there are extant hosen bottoms, but im un aware of any tops.
Im amazed at how many flemmsih fannys ive looked at in the past month to no avail, but you would realy need to have a pic of some one spread eagled in order to see if there was or was not a gusset
Thursfields book has 15th cent hose with a gusset, but her book is thin on documention.
I have been pouring through tons of art searching for a croth shot of any hosen, im aware there are extant hosen bottoms, but im un aware of any tops.
Im amazed at how many flemmsih fannys ive looked at in the past month to no avail, but you would realy need to have a pic of some one spread eagled in order to see if there was or was not a gusset
-
kass
- Empress (Figurehead)
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands
- Contact:
I've looked at my share of Flemish fannies too, WMA, and there's not a gusset in sight. 
I don't know Thursfield's book. Or is that "The Medieval Tailor's Assistant"? If so, she does a lot of things in a modern costuming fashion, not how they were done in period.
There are actually no extant hose bottoms from the 15th century. Only from the 14th and 16th. For 15th century, we look at all the available pictorial evidence and kinda shoot between the two extant periods. There are also a couple extant pairs of 16th century hosen that look like 15th century hosen (hip-high joined hose). They have no crotch gusset.
You know, the guys in my group didn't think this would work either until I convinced them to try it...
Here's a conglomeration of pictures I've gathered showing 15th century hosen of all types. Lots of butts in the air, but not a gusset to be seen: http://www.reconstructinghistory.com/15thc/hosen.html
Also, there is absolutely no need for a gusset. If you make hosen in the manner I describe, they will act just like the hosen in the pictures -- they will come down your hips when you bend over. And if it quacks like a duck...
As I said earlier, adding more fabric isn't always the correct solution to the problem.
Kass
I don't know Thursfield's book. Or is that "The Medieval Tailor's Assistant"? If so, she does a lot of things in a modern costuming fashion, not how they were done in period.
There are actually no extant hose bottoms from the 15th century. Only from the 14th and 16th. For 15th century, we look at all the available pictorial evidence and kinda shoot between the two extant periods. There are also a couple extant pairs of 16th century hosen that look like 15th century hosen (hip-high joined hose). They have no crotch gusset.
You know, the guys in my group didn't think this would work either until I convinced them to try it...
Here's a conglomeration of pictures I've gathered showing 15th century hosen of all types. Lots of butts in the air, but not a gusset to be seen: http://www.reconstructinghistory.com/15thc/hosen.html
Also, there is absolutely no need for a gusset. If you make hosen in the manner I describe, they will act just like the hosen in the pictures -- they will come down your hips when you bend over. And if it quacks like a duck...
As I said earlier, adding more fabric isn't always the correct solution to the problem.
Kass
-
kass
- Empress (Figurehead)
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands
- Contact:
I've never been one for woosey statements, Gwen. 
Being that currently there is no material evidence for any hosen in the 15th century, yes, my considered opinion is based on pictorial evidence, understanding of period sewing techniques as demonstrated on other garments, understanding of how garment fitting works, and trial and error.
That and I think this Medieval Tailor Book is looney...
There are, however, a couple 16th century pairs of hosen that resemble greatly the 15th century style. And they don't have crotch gussets. You don't need them. Why make another seam (a point of stress)?
Yeah, it's "dangerous" to say never. But I also would hazzard to say they never wore panties on their heads.
Kass
Being that currently there is no material evidence for any hosen in the 15th century, yes, my considered opinion is based on pictorial evidence, understanding of period sewing techniques as demonstrated on other garments, understanding of how garment fitting works, and trial and error.
That and I think this Medieval Tailor Book is looney...
There are, however, a couple 16th century pairs of hosen that resemble greatly the 15th century style. And they don't have crotch gussets. You don't need them. Why make another seam (a point of stress)?
Yeah, it's "dangerous" to say never. But I also would hazzard to say they never wore panties on their heads.
Kass
-
Gwen
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1201
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Ramona, CA 92065
- Contact:
No, no, not referring to MTA at all. Just wondering if you knew something I didn't, that's all.
I've seen a couple of images that look like the wearer's hose could have a crotch panel, Gerry E. pointed them out to me years ago and that's what I based my pattern on. Europeans tend to use the same approach, they just have problems getting good wool to make their hose out of.
Having made a few of my own in my time I've nothing against strong statements, but as you pointed out to me last week "If Kass said so it must be so". I'd be hard pressed to make such a definative and all encompassing statement as "hosen never had a gusset in the crotch".
But that's just me I guess. *shrug*
Gwen
I've seen a couple of images that look like the wearer's hose could have a crotch panel, Gerry E. pointed them out to me years ago and that's what I based my pattern on. Europeans tend to use the same approach, they just have problems getting good wool to make their hose out of.
Having made a few of my own in my time I've nothing against strong statements, but as you pointed out to me last week "If Kass said so it must be so". I'd be hard pressed to make such a definative and all encompassing statement as "hosen never had a gusset in the crotch".
But that's just me I guess. *shrug*
Gwen
-
white mountain armoury
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10538
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: the Taiga
Hey Kass, thanks for the images, my only question is that none of those pics with the exception of the 3rd row 1st pic offer a view that would allow you to even see where the gusset would go. In order to actually see the placement the wearer would need to actually need to spread his legs grab his ankles and bend way over. I have put my gusseted pair on and have stood in alot of positions in order to see whay type of contortion is needed to even see such a private area.
My other question is can you point out what is loony about the medieval tailors assistant.
I will try a pair with no gusset and see for myself.
My other question is can you point out what is loony about the medieval tailors assistant.
I will try a pair with no gusset and see for myself.
-
kass
- Empress (Figurehead)
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands
- Contact:
I'm reasonably certain that if the guy's bending far over had a gusset, you'd see it...
What's looney about The Medieval Tailor's Assistant. It starts out so good. She uses all this primary documentation about stitches and fabrics and construction from the Museum of London books and you really think she's got it going on. And then you look at her pattern drafts (particularly the women's) and there are modern bust darts, plackets where there's no reason to have one, weird piecing, and the resulting garments don't look like the originals.
If this were a book like Hunnisett's "Period Costume for Stage & Screen: Patterns for Women's Dress, Medieval-1500", I wouldn't have a problem with it. But why go so far with the medieval sewing techniques, etc. just to drop the ball on construction.
I understand completely that an author might want to simplify a garment in order to make it more comprehensible to the beginning seamstress. But she doesn't make them simpler. She makes them more difficult and they don't make the same garments as we see in medieval art.
So I think she's a loon.
Kass
What's looney about The Medieval Tailor's Assistant. It starts out so good. She uses all this primary documentation about stitches and fabrics and construction from the Museum of London books and you really think she's got it going on. And then you look at her pattern drafts (particularly the women's) and there are modern bust darts, plackets where there's no reason to have one, weird piecing, and the resulting garments don't look like the originals.
If this were a book like Hunnisett's "Period Costume for Stage & Screen: Patterns for Women's Dress, Medieval-1500", I wouldn't have a problem with it. But why go so far with the medieval sewing techniques, etc. just to drop the ball on construction.
I understand completely that an author might want to simplify a garment in order to make it more comprehensible to the beginning seamstress. But she doesn't make them simpler. She makes them more difficult and they don't make the same garments as we see in medieval art.
So I think she's a loon.
Kass
-
white mountain armoury
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10538
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: the Taiga
Thanks Cass, there are definatly some weird piecing, i didnt see any busted darts in her book, but i was not looking for them.
I do agree that that one fellow is bending over far enough to see the gusset, or lack there of, im just noticing that that is the only pic ive ever seen that even offers a view of that area, So im not sure that saying "never" is not a slight leap.
Im going to do a pair with no gusset and compare the range of motion.
I do agree that that one fellow is bending over far enough to see the gusset, or lack there of, im just noticing that that is the only pic ive ever seen that even offers a view of that area, So im not sure that saying "never" is not a slight leap.
Im going to do a pair with no gusset and compare the range of motion.
-
kass
- Empress (Figurehead)
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands
- Contact:
Have fun with your experiment. My "leap" is based on experiments that showed that wool bais twill hosen cut without a gusset act like the hosen in the pictures when you do what they do in the pictures.
It's also based on this very modern idea that tight clothing needs a gusset to make it not tight. It doesn't. It need to be even closer-fit to the body. The hosen I've seen with crotch gussets always look droopy to me.
I believe in not extrapolating something's there if there's no evidence of its existence. If a tailoring book or a picture or an extant garment showed a crotch gusset, I'd believe it. But being that there is no such evidence, and there is evidence to the contrary in similar hosen of the following century, I'm sticking with "never".
Until I'm proven wrong, of course.
They say you can't prove a negative. But the burden of proof is not upon the person who doesn't believe in it.
Kass
It's also based on this very modern idea that tight clothing needs a gusset to make it not tight. It doesn't. It need to be even closer-fit to the body. The hosen I've seen with crotch gussets always look droopy to me.
I believe in not extrapolating something's there if there's no evidence of its existence. If a tailoring book or a picture or an extant garment showed a crotch gusset, I'd believe it. But being that there is no such evidence, and there is evidence to the contrary in similar hosen of the following century, I'm sticking with "never".
Until I'm proven wrong, of course.
They say you can't prove a negative. But the burden of proof is not upon the person who doesn't believe in it.
Kass
-
white mountain armoury
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10538
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: the Taiga
Hey Kass, im diging around your site and am reading your hosen instructions and will give them a try, i realy am concerned about hte fit, but the onlyt way i guess ill know is to give it a try.
Alot of people have diff concepts of "fit" some people think if they can get the buttons closed then it fits.
From looking at your site im looking at the back pic of your Moy gown and seeing issues with the "fit" or atleast how it fits you.
Do you think you nailed the "fit" of that gown? or are there some errors, please jkeep in mind im not flaming your site or your work, both are great !!, but ive been spending alot of time studying the fit and drape of medieval clothing in period art and in modern reproductions, and am trying to get a better grasp on how these clothes looked when worn. We have spent a fair amount of time getting my doublet tailored to the point where i think the fit is perfect, id like to get my hosen to match.
Alot of people have diff concepts of "fit" some people think if they can get the buttons closed then it fits.
From looking at your site im looking at the back pic of your Moy gown and seeing issues with the "fit" or atleast how it fits you.
Do you think you nailed the "fit" of that gown? or are there some errors, please jkeep in mind im not flaming your site or your work, both are great !!, but ive been spending alot of time studying the fit and drape of medieval clothing in period art and in modern reproductions, and am trying to get a better grasp on how these clothes looked when worn. We have spent a fair amount of time getting my doublet tailored to the point where i think the fit is perfect, id like to get my hosen to match.
-
kass
- Empress (Figurehead)
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands
- Contact:
Give it a try, WMA, and tell me what you come up with. "Fit" means that the fabric lays nicely without wrinkles or puckers and that you can move without tearing the seams. Hosen have to be fit close to the leg or they simply won't work. Good luck with it. It's not always the easiest thing, fitting yourself. Having a well-tailored doublet is a good place to start.
Which brings me to the subject of the Moy gown. I didn't fit the back. A friend did. And she made a dog's breakfast of it too. I, of course, couldn't see any of this as it was on my back. When asked, another friend who took the picture told me everything looked fine. It's a conspiracy I tell you!
I've been so busy with other projects that I haven't refit the gown. But I'm presenting a paper on it next May at the Kalamazoo Medieval Congress, so it *will* get fixed.
Kass
Which brings me to the subject of the Moy gown. I didn't fit the back. A friend did. And she made a dog's breakfast of it too. I, of course, couldn't see any of this as it was on my back. When asked, another friend who took the picture told me everything looked fine. It's a conspiracy I tell you!
I've been so busy with other projects that I haven't refit the gown. But I'm presenting a paper on it next May at the Kalamazoo Medieval Congress, so it *will* get fixed.
Kass
-
white mountain armoury
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10538
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: the Taiga
Thanks Kass, that is exactly what i figgured with the gown, i have a bear of a time trying to fit some armour pieces ive made for myself because there was just no way to hold the piece, mark it and see everything that needs to be seen. Ive even gone as far as to line 3 mirrors up so i can bounce my reflection to i can see my own ass, gee i sound like narcissus
Anyway just wanted to make sure we were on the same page, i see so many itmes that dont fit or drape correctly and it makes me wonder
Thnx
[This message has been edited by White Mountain Armoury (edited 10-06-2003).]
Anyway just wanted to make sure we were on the same page, i see so many itmes that dont fit or drape correctly and it makes me wonder
Thnx
[This message has been edited by White Mountain Armoury (edited 10-06-2003).]
-
kass
- Empress (Figurehead)
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands
- Contact:
All I can say is duct tape doubles are a wonderful thing. I've had one for two years and now I can fit all my own stuff. It's like a dream come true!
A hidden bonus is that I looked at the double and saw how hunched my shoulders were getting from sitting at a computer all day and decided to start working out again. So it helped my health and my fitting technique.
Kass
A hidden bonus is that I looked at the double and saw how hunched my shoulders were getting from sitting at a computer all day and decided to start working out again. So it helped my health and my fitting technique.
Kass
-
white mountain armoury
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10538
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: the Taiga
Kass
You wrote "And then you look at her pattern drafts (particularly the women's) and there are modern bust darts" Can you please point out where the problem darts in MTA womens garments are? On page 23 Thursfield states "Womens garments do not have darts. . ." and goes on to state that shaping is achieved through the vertical side seams. I have only studied the mens patterns. If the womens patterns are contradicting the text then this is a real problem in the book. My interest is that my wife is going to make some garments from the book. Any points of discussion you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
You wrote "And then you look at her pattern drafts (particularly the women's) and there are modern bust darts" Can you please point out where the problem darts in MTA womens garments are? On page 23 Thursfield states "Womens garments do not have darts. . ." and goes on to state that shaping is achieved through the vertical side seams. I have only studied the mens patterns. If the womens patterns are contradicting the text then this is a real problem in the book. My interest is that my wife is going to make some garments from the book. Any points of discussion you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
-
kass
- Empress (Figurehead)
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands
- Contact:
If she doesn't mention darts in the text, she sure shows them in the construction. In her "modeling a toile for a woman" instructions, she most definitely tell you to make "verticle darts".
I don't have the book, just some scanned pages, but I believe I'm referring to the "flat fronted kirtle" on page 86. There is a big problem with this construction -- it's a 16th century style with modern bust dart placement. She's pretty much swiped Drea Leed's "Flemish Peasant" kirtle from her Elizabethan Costuming Page. But for 15th century, this just isn't right. And there should be no darts at the side bust...
Her statement that working class people wore undyed or light shades is unfounded. Her construction using heavy linen or canvas for the bodice and lightweight cloth for the skirt is pulled out of thin air. And her supposition that the "flounce" at the bottom of the kirtle was intended to hold out the skirts of the overgown is not based on any facts. This "flounce" is more often than not a fabric "guard" (that can be removed and cleaned or replaced to protect the hem of the garment) or the fur lining of an overgown spilling out onto the front of the gown skirt.
She does a pretty decent job on the men's stuff. And then she really goes fantastical on the women's. I think this is a shame because women certainly need good information too.
I'd be more than happy to discuss the problems with the book with your wife, Lorenzo. I've written up "don't do that; do this" directions to correct Thurfield before and I think people have found them useful.
Kass
I don't have the book, just some scanned pages, but I believe I'm referring to the "flat fronted kirtle" on page 86. There is a big problem with this construction -- it's a 16th century style with modern bust dart placement. She's pretty much swiped Drea Leed's "Flemish Peasant" kirtle from her Elizabethan Costuming Page. But for 15th century, this just isn't right. And there should be no darts at the side bust...
Her statement that working class people wore undyed or light shades is unfounded. Her construction using heavy linen or canvas for the bodice and lightweight cloth for the skirt is pulled out of thin air. And her supposition that the "flounce" at the bottom of the kirtle was intended to hold out the skirts of the overgown is not based on any facts. This "flounce" is more often than not a fabric "guard" (that can be removed and cleaned or replaced to protect the hem of the garment) or the fur lining of an overgown spilling out onto the front of the gown skirt.
She does a pretty decent job on the men's stuff. And then she really goes fantastical on the women's. I think this is a shame because women certainly need good information too.
I'd be more than happy to discuss the problems with the book with your wife, Lorenzo. I've written up "don't do that; do this" directions to correct Thurfield before and I think people have found them useful.
Kass
Thanks Kass! The flat fronted kirtle is one of the garments my wife was thinking about. When we were making my wifes toile we spent a lot of time on the shoulders and underarms as she is busty and wrinkles kept forming in the front of the bust area. We eventually got it figured out without darts. That was lucky I can see now. I'll see if I can tease some more specific questions out of her when she decides on precisely which garments she will make out of the nice pieces of linen we just got at the L.A Fabric district!
-
kass
- Empress (Figurehead)
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: St. Croix, US Virgin Islands
- Contact:
Also take a look at Tasha's page, Lorenzo (www.cottesimple.com). She does late 14th, early 15th century before the waist seam came around, but she's got some great info on her site on how to fit an support a large bust in a period manner.
Kass
Kass
-
FrauHirsch
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4520
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: San Diego, CA, USA
- Contact:
Originally posted by kass:
Hosen never had a gusset in the crotch.
In the pluderhosen shown in Janet Arnold, the codpiece creates a gusset. Pluderhosen unslashed are basically tight hose. This gusset also can be seen in some paintings I believe.
I believe what you're calling "the lining" in Landsknecht hosen is a separate pair of hosen worn together so the underneath pair shows through the slashes.
Several of the extant landsknect hosen show linings, at least one is leather and at least one of the extant hose is knit.
Some of the pluderhosen in Janet Arnold have inner linings as well.
If you have more questions on landknecht, I recommend subscribing to the yahoo group GermanRenCostume, of which I am list owner.
Juliana
Hosen never had a gusset in the crotch.
In the pluderhosen shown in Janet Arnold, the codpiece creates a gusset. Pluderhosen unslashed are basically tight hose. This gusset also can be seen in some paintings I believe.
I believe what you're calling "the lining" in Landsknecht hosen is a separate pair of hosen worn together so the underneath pair shows through the slashes.
Several of the extant landsknect hosen show linings, at least one is leather and at least one of the extant hose is knit.
Some of the pluderhosen in Janet Arnold have inner linings as well.
If you have more questions on landknecht, I recommend subscribing to the yahoo group GermanRenCostume, of which I am list owner.
Juliana
-
Egfroth
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4577
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
- Contact:
God, I love this stuff. I have no personal interest in making 15th century hose or women's clothing, but I just love listening in to conversations between people who know their stuff, and are prepared to discuss it in detail, quoting sources, and not indulging in flame wars. There should be more if it.
------------------
Egfroth
"I hope all your chooks turn to Emus and kick your dunny down."
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos
------------------
Egfroth
"I hope all your chooks turn to Emus and kick your dunny down."
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos
-
woodwose
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Lucerne-in-Maine, Barony of Endeweard
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by kass:
<B>Hi Dweezle,
Close-fitting sweatpants or long underwear are both made out of knit fabric and you are making your hosen out of woven fabric, so it's not going to make a very good pattern.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the way I was thinking that it would work is that the close fitting sweatpants or long underwear will be rendered un-stretchy by the application of a generous layer of ducttape after I put them on.
they would then be cut off from my body, following lines of seems that are shown in period drawings.
The ductape would still be on the outside of the fabric, just as it was when the fabric was on my legs, so the fabric would not go back to it's normal shape. that -should- (I think) make a fairly accurate two dimensional model of my legs. add seam allowance to that model, and I think I might have a pattern.
when the stretch of the knit fabric is removed while it is on my body, how will this now non stretchy form fitted fabric shell not make a good pattern for something of the same shape, but in woven fabric (which unlike the formerly-stretchy-ductape-covered-stuff, does have some degree of stretch on its bias)?
<B>Hi Dweezle,
Close-fitting sweatpants or long underwear are both made out of knit fabric and you are making your hosen out of woven fabric, so it's not going to make a very good pattern.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the way I was thinking that it would work is that the close fitting sweatpants or long underwear will be rendered un-stretchy by the application of a generous layer of ducttape after I put them on.
they would then be cut off from my body, following lines of seems that are shown in period drawings.
The ductape would still be on the outside of the fabric, just as it was when the fabric was on my legs, so the fabric would not go back to it's normal shape. that -should- (I think) make a fairly accurate two dimensional model of my legs. add seam allowance to that model, and I think I might have a pattern.
when the stretch of the knit fabric is removed while it is on my body, how will this now non stretchy form fitted fabric shell not make a good pattern for something of the same shape, but in woven fabric (which unlike the formerly-stretchy-ductape-covered-stuff, does have some degree of stretch on its bias)?
-
white mountain armoury
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10538
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: the Taiga
Kass, she does not tell you to make verticle darts, fabric is pinned like a dart when constructing the womens toile, but its only to deal with some slack in the fabric in between the shoulders. there are no darts in the final article of clothing, the darts are only pinned in toil during its patterning.
There are also no darts or refrences to darts anywhere in the flat fronted kirtle construction section, infact she points out that darts are not used and that the tailoring is handled elsewhere. Saying she swiped someones pattern is a little harsh, and saying she modified it with darts is just not accurate.
On a hosen note mine were put together without a gusset, but a gusset was in the original plan so there was some fabric we would have liked to put back. But even with the small additional restriction i still get nice comfort and fit, and a decent range of motion. The next pair will be patterned without a gusset and ass you said they should work out nicely.
The above mention of plunderhosen with acodpiece acting as a gusset sure sounds slick as well.
[This message has been edited by White Mountain Armoury (edited 10-19-2003).]
There are also no darts or refrences to darts anywhere in the flat fronted kirtle construction section, infact she points out that darts are not used and that the tailoring is handled elsewhere. Saying she swiped someones pattern is a little harsh, and saying she modified it with darts is just not accurate.
On a hosen note mine were put together without a gusset, but a gusset was in the original plan so there was some fabric we would have liked to put back. But even with the small additional restriction i still get nice comfort and fit, and a decent range of motion. The next pair will be patterned without a gusset and ass you said they should work out nicely.
The above mention of plunderhosen with acodpiece acting as a gusset sure sounds slick as well.
[This message has been edited by White Mountain Armoury (edited 10-19-2003).]
-
Gwen
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1201
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Ramona, CA 92065
- Contact:
Her statement that working class people wore undyed or light shades is unfounded.
I’m not about to defend Thursfield, but I thought I’d throw this out there to add more grist to the mill:
-------------
“...even the dull blue of peasant wear would be a pleasant change for peasants when considered alongside Pastoureau’s description of their everyday garments:
Lcs habits quotidiens de l’homme ordinaire sont fait de teintes naturelles (tissus no teints), de gris, de bis, de bruns, d’ecrus, ou de teintes sales et passées. L’homme du moyen Age est une homme gris, qui vit dans un décor rougc ou ocrc rougc.
[The everyday clothes of the common man are made of natural colors (undyed fabrics) of gray, black, brown, off-white or of coarse and dull colors. The man of the Middle Ages is a gray man, who lives in a setting that is reddish or pale brownish yellow.]
In fourteenth century England, John Gower acknowledges the usual natural and dull colors of ordinary peasant dress at the same that he indicates that the peasants of his day did not always adhere to this color scheme. He envisions an ideal past, a “former age', in which all peasants wore garments made of the gray cloth:
Du gris furent lour vestemcnt:
Lors fuist le monde au tiele gcnt
Et son estat bien ordiné.
[Their clothing was of gray material. At that timc the world was well-ordained for people of their estate.]
(Hodges, L. [i]Chaucer and Costume: The secular pilgrims in the general prologueâ€
I’m not about to defend Thursfield, but I thought I’d throw this out there to add more grist to the mill:
-------------
“...even the dull blue of peasant wear would be a pleasant change for peasants when considered alongside Pastoureau’s description of their everyday garments:
Lcs habits quotidiens de l’homme ordinaire sont fait de teintes naturelles (tissus no teints), de gris, de bis, de bruns, d’ecrus, ou de teintes sales et passées. L’homme du moyen Age est une homme gris, qui vit dans un décor rougc ou ocrc rougc.
[The everyday clothes of the common man are made of natural colors (undyed fabrics) of gray, black, brown, off-white or of coarse and dull colors. The man of the Middle Ages is a gray man, who lives in a setting that is reddish or pale brownish yellow.]
In fourteenth century England, John Gower acknowledges the usual natural and dull colors of ordinary peasant dress at the same that he indicates that the peasants of his day did not always adhere to this color scheme. He envisions an ideal past, a “former age', in which all peasants wore garments made of the gray cloth:
Du gris furent lour vestemcnt:
Lors fuist le monde au tiele gcnt
Et son estat bien ordiné.
[Their clothing was of gray material. At that timc the world was well-ordained for people of their estate.]
(Hodges, L. [i]Chaucer and Costume: The secular pilgrims in the general prologueâ€
Gwen, your citations of undyed or 'natural' colored clothing also lend credence to the idea that everyday people may have done the same with linen (not just the natural colors of wool), right?
For a long time I have somewhat unconsciously applied the idea that "dyed cloth equals fashion layer", while now I'm beginning to wonder if (in the case of linen, particularly) people of all classes were also comfortable wearing it as a fashion layer, undyed. We know the Middle Eastern cultures did this as there are quite a few examples out there of undyed bast-fibre garments with enough decorative elements applied to make it clear that they were meant to be seen. (Egyptian and Persian, for example.) This by itself is not proof of anything European, but it shows it's not beyond the pale of possibility.
Interesting topic.
-Tasha
For a long time I have somewhat unconsciously applied the idea that "dyed cloth equals fashion layer", while now I'm beginning to wonder if (in the case of linen, particularly) people of all classes were also comfortable wearing it as a fashion layer, undyed. We know the Middle Eastern cultures did this as there are quite a few examples out there of undyed bast-fibre garments with enough decorative elements applied to make it clear that they were meant to be seen. (Egyptian and Persian, for example.) This by itself is not proof of anything European, but it shows it's not beyond the pale of possibility.
Interesting topic.
-Tasha