Debunking the pin-on sleeve

[Charlotte J]

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, I thought I was clear last time I posted. Long sleeved gowns and kirtles are not the same thing.

David, I wasn't ignoring you. As I mentioned, I haven't been able to respond to everything, and was leaving some of the posts to which I wanted to give more consideration for when I had more time. Please take it as a complement that your note gave me pause and made me stop to think.

I agree that terminology is very tricky. In general, I tend to use the term "dress", because I think that the most accurate description. When writing I used the terms, because as costumers who may create clothing from more than one period, there are conveniences had by pigeon-holing articles of clothing.

There is a lot more variation in style of gowns because they are the outer, publically acceptable layer - the V necked for the wealthy and fashionable, but a plain gown for 'normal people'.

Not necessarily. The style of the v-neck gown often depended upon the wealth and status of the person wearing it, but the garment itself can be found on a variety of classes. I did a reconstruction of a fur-lined v-neck gown, and there's nothing about it that would be considered "upper class". The fabric was very close to "cheap black" in color, and it was lined in squirrel. By the 15th century, squirrels were not reserved for the upper classed in the least.

http://www.mathildegirlgenius.com/FurDr ... essDoc.pdf

On page 13, you'll see the Birth of Merlin illustration, plate 9, showing a variety of classes and people working wearing the gown. I know it's only one example, but this document wasn't written to be a wide survey.

(BTW, Grimstone Bar - I have the skirt fully lined now, and I've been meaning to get back to you regarding a previous discussion. One of these days ,I'll take some pictures so you can see how fabric drapes with fur lining. The drape in 15th century art makes a lot more sense once you play with fur...)

Plain long sleeved gowns are worn over the top of kirtles.

I agree that sometimes this is true. However, in many, many illustrations it is impossible to determine how many layers are being worn and I would not presume to make any rules for this situaion. Heck, I can't prove there *wasn't* another dress under there. Fig. 19 in the article is only one example out of many. Sometimes, like figures 18 and 20, among others, you can see at the cuffs that two long-sleeved dresses are being worn. (Or maybe it's that tricky pin-on sleeve? ) In the 14th century, layers were quite the fashion, but there's enough examples of a single layer, or at least only the appearance of a single layer, being worn on its own, when the wearer is fully dressed. While the shape of the optional outer layers certainly changed throughout the 15th century, there are so many appearances of a plain long-sleeved dress continuing throughout this time, that I don't think anybody can accurately say that a plain long-sleeved dress was *always* worn over a short sleeved dress.

Mixing your original post and the latest:

My take on the pin-on sleeve issue is that in public, women do not show their smock.

I agree that this is rare. There are a few examples, but not enough to convince me that it's proper. It is about as common as the pin-on sleeve though, so I do present it as another option.

They usually wear a gown over their kirtle (the kirtle is essentially underwear). In order to make a kirtle 'decent' without a gown, pin-on sleeves can be added to a short-sleeved kirtle.

and

Whilst I agree with the arguments from Chef and Grimstone against the validity of your argument (from a robust academic standpoint), there is a much simpler counter-argument.

Actually, the simplest argument of all is that a plain, long-sleeved dress was worn alone, over a smock. There are so many images where there is no indication of another dress under this layer, that the KISS approach to this problem may be the best one. That's all that I'm advocating.

[Charlotte J]

Grimstone:

Do you accept that Mary Magdalene might not be the best source for pin-on sleeves? Do you accept any of my other arguments that certain images might be flawed? For example, women in a state of undress in a birthing chamber?

Because you are basing the prevalence of pinned on sleeves in art as an indicator of their actual prevalance in real life. They are not compatible arguments unless you can prove that the balance of portrayals in art is a clear breakdown of the same in real life. Which so far you haven't, more precisely chose not to.

There is no 1:1 ratio. There can't be. I cannot say "well, it makes sense if MM wears them, because most women in real life are emulating MM." That would be crazy. In some ways, a comparison cannot be drawn. It's not as clear as you're making it sound. It's not as if all people laboring or working are wearing pin-on sleeves, and all others are wearing long sleeves, it's a definite mix. If all women who were working in that group of 178 were wearing pin-on sleeves or short sleeves, and all women who were wearing long sleeves were of a higher class, or were "special" of some sort, your demand would be a valid one. That's not the case, therefore, your request is not as simple as you make it sound.

I think you're also missing my point. I show that there are few images of pin-on sleeves, and all but about four have significant flaws that preclude their use as "good" evidence.

Looking at it from a different angle, I could show you images of women working, "plain" women, and background women wearing a plain long sleeve. I can, but it can't be right at this moment, or even today. Contrary to popular belief, women who stay home with their children do not have copious amounts of spare time on their hands. You have been asking me for a significant amount of data, and I can barely keep up with the conversation, much less go through several hundred images again.

[DavidS]

OK. You dismiss the pictures that you see as unclear or 'dubious'.
You then use the argument that we don't know if some of the pictures you do use are long sleeved gowns worn over short sleeved kirtles or not, yet this is essentially what you are basing your argument on - that the long sleeved dress is an alternative to the short-sleeved (worn with pin-on sleeves) not an addition to it. Surely then, you should also be dismissing all the pictures of long sleeved dresses that could be a gown rather than kirtle? I'm aware that in reality this makes the argument untenable as it will leave you with too few pictures, but to be comparing like with like, you need to find which of your long sleeved dresses are directly comparable to the short-sleeved kirtle (i.e. the ones which you can clearly see a smock underneath, such as the Agnes Sorel 'Madonna' - long sleeved, and clearly not an overgown, but then again probably dismissable by you as it's a Madonna not an ordinary person!). I fear you are, in the main, comparing different types of garment.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that V necked gowns have a range in status, I was making the general point that there is a variety of gown style, including plain, round-necked long sleeved dresses. As for fur (a completely different topic), the type of fur (other than black or white lamb) is restricted depending on yearly income.

[chef de chambre]

As for fur (a completely different topic), the type of fur (other than black or white lamb) is restricted depending on yearly income.

Not to mention time of year, and this is readily supportable in the daily parcels account of John Howard, but that is a different discussion for a different thread.

[DavidS]

Indeed! Ah, the Howard Household Accounts - such a valuable resource so rarely used.

[earnest carruthers]

"In some ways, a comparison cannot be drawn. It's not as clear as you're making it sound"

But you have managed to provide percentages, figures, ostensibly facts relating to what should and shouldn't be.

I gave a sample figure that at least gave a social break down for one place which attempted to illustrate the scale of the types of people not represented in art. Even though highly specific, was a real fact to actually play with. Where are yours to base a percentage use of pin-ons to reenactors? you gave them for the arts, fair enough, but to extrapolate to real life is quite frankly leaping in the dark.

"Do you accept that Mary Magdalene might not be the best source for pin-on sleeves? "

I addressed that earlier, you have interpreted her depictions as being symbolic of one set of ideas when we know that her depictions vary from being in highly classical contexts, as part of donor portraits in a variety of styles. Those styles are not all the same nor exhibit the same intent.

An example of this is how the virgin mary is portrayed either on her own or as part of the trinity, depending on whose painting you look at they are either classical (bibilical), within the era painted but separated by her outfit where the others (donors) are in clothing for the era, or she/they are in a completely contemporaneous setting and only the context of the whole book or text supporting it gives the game away.

Eg Robert Campin's virgin and child before a firescreen.
http://keptar.demasz.hu/arthp/art/m/mas ... virgin.jpg

No traditional gilded halo, this is suggested by a firescreen, if you were not aware of the symbology or careful juxtaposition you would not be penalised for thinking it was a study of a wealthy woman feeding her child.

There is barely the hint of blues that give the game away in other pics.


So merely saying that images of Magdalene are unacceptable or even acceptable is not a valid statement as it s too vague, it may be for one version and may not for another. You have to take the images one case at a time, this is done for every other clothing reference so why not with these? In some cases MM is a women, everywoman in others specifically herself. This is not new nor my own discovery but the way it is.

Painters had no compunction in mixing metaphors, mixing historicity and characters, not a big deal as long as we are smart enough to separate the fantasy from the reality. I could run off a list of images that do exactly that yet are used as references for clothing.


"Do you accept any of my other arguments that certain images might be flawed? For example, women in a state of undress in a birthing chamber?"


Flawed? in the sense that you are taking for granted what they actually mean.

Ok so you show one or more images of a woman in a birthing chamber but then I showed you a hell of a lot outdoors and in public, but because you drew an arbitrary (and erroneous) line at 1490 you discounted them.

The point is that you have not established what is wrong with the reeanctor women and have merely used visual imagery to back up your theory.
You have also placed your personal interpretations on social values, ie public and private, when it has been relatively easy to counter that, again by showing completely appropriate public contexts for a women to be wearing pin-on sleeves.

I am not for one minute saying they should be worn by all reenactor women, unless they are in the course of tasks that warrant them, also they are not the only form of task related garments which are worn specfically, eg aprons, which by your logic appears to also fit in this Private public space, when we also see quite readily they are in use wherever needed.


Your argument in essence consists of:

There are too many pin-on sleeves in reenactment -(with nothing to substantiate that claim - that is your opening shot.)

There are not that many depicted and those that are are often in a 'private' setting or on saints - (yet there are lots more - but they don't suit your argument, but they exist.)

Ergo it is wrong or misrepresented because the 'actual percentages' in art (a very very small portion by implication) do not match the (unsubstantiated) number in reenactment.

In a nutshell an argument without any basis or backed up claims, merely backing up an opinion with quite narrow parameters, some of which you have speculated yet not elaborated nor proven nor included alternatives.

My analogy to Jacks in reenactment still stands as an example of this line of thinking, true in one sense but still wrong in reality.

[DavidS]

Oh, I missed the jack analogy the first time round - very good.

[James B.]

Ok so you show one or more images of a woman in a birthing chamber but then I showed you a hell of a lot outdoors and in public, but because you drew an arbitrary (and erroneous) line at 1490 you discounted them.

GB

Could you explain to me what 16th century clothing has to do with 15th century clothing? Just because they are similar does not mean that what is true in 1515 is true in 1470.

Food for thought, English stained glass window dated about 1460-70

<a href="http://home.armourarchive.org/members/f ... ull/14.jpg" target=_new><img src="http://home.armourarchive.org/members/f ... ull/14.jpg" width=395 height=400>
</a>

[chef de chambre]

Ok so you show one or more images of a woman in a birthing chamber but then I showed you a hell of a lot outdoors and in public, but because you drew an arbitrary (and erroneous) line at 1490 you discounted them.

GB

Could you explain to me what 16th century clothing has to do with 15th century clothing? Just because they are similar does not mean that what is true in 1515 is true in 1470.

Food for thought, English stained glass window dated about 1460-70

<img src="http://home.armourarchive.org/members/f ... ull/14.jpg" width=395 height=400>

Very simply, working peoples clothing (especially in Flanders), changed very slowly - excruciatingly slowly, and between the years, say 1440 - 1560 (certainly within the range of 1515), there is very little evidence of change in common labourers dress, especially in Flanders. One needs only look to Brughel, who paints Landeschnechts of his day, massacering infants in a village of people wearing dress, essentially unaltered in cut (save for toes of shoes), of their great-great grandfathers day, or ditto dancing around at a brides ale, attired ditto. If you were more familiar with Flemish minatures, Flemish art, and Flemish culture of the late middle ages and early Renaissance, you would be aware of this. The stuff crops up in written documentation as well, with references to odd or older items of equipment.

[Jeff J]

" - (yet there are lots more - but they don't suit your argument, but they exist.)

She used all she could find within the sources she had available. She included every image she found. Feel free to provide more. You are being deliberately insulting by saying she did not include images in her survey if they do not suit her theory. This is unacceptable behaviour on your part.

BTW, why all the strident indignation on this issue? Charlotte has a few sets of pin-on sleeves herself, but before she made her next dress, she wanted to see what kind of sleeves she should make based on what was most common and appropriate for the scenario. So, she did some research, surveyed available source material, found a trend she thought was interesting and wrote up what she found compared to personal observations of LH groups. Now she's getting a lot of shit for sharing - WAY beyond a few comments. It's not a freakin' doctoral theseus, fer chrissakes. Gives a person lots of incentive to share information in this community.

[Maeryk]

Jeff, as one of the people who bitches loudest about "bad interpretation" or "bad documentation" in the SCA you should be able to see why people are commenting.

ESPECIALLY since this is to be used for an A&S competition.

I can prove conclusively through period art that women gave birth through the base of their spine, and not vaginally. That doesn't make it so, though, now does it?

Maeryk

[James B.]

Chef

Again while there are many things alike in Brughel's work with our era I can't justify that as the same. I see differences in the clothing in Brughel compared to say Van der Weyden's St. John Alter piece. It would be like saying Wranglers of today work for a 1950s movie.

BTW I have many art books and downloads from the early 16th c, 4 on Brughel, I am an artist after all

[Gyszel]

I have personal theories on why this fashion is popular, but I don't know how to go about explaining why without referencing individuals. I can tell you that I've worn them, they have been popular in my own group, and that I have seen standards for other very respected 15th c. LH groups that list the pin-on sleeve as a requirement. In the SCA, it's known in this kingdom as "Atlantian Business Casual."

How does that work with the goal of the article? I'm not aiming to write a paper to be published in a journal proving how "wrong" I think reenactors are. I'm just hoping to convert a few people from their pin-on sleeves to long ones, in order to create a more realistic balance.

Okay, I guess I feel that your personal bias of your location gives great holes to this as an SCA-wide document. Let me tell you why:

In my local group of approximately 60 active SCA members, I was the first to wear pin-on sleeves of any kind, when reconstructing a Flemish gown (which you state is out of period for your paper anyway). So, best case we've got 1:60 or maybe 0:60 for the pin-on sleeve style around here...which is well within your proposed 2% representation.

Maybe you just need to define your scope a bit better in your intro, and take SCA reenactors out.

Just a thought!

Gyszel

[Jeff J]

Jeff, as one of the people who bitches loudest about "bad interpretation" or "bad documentation" in the SCA you should be able to see why people are commenting.

ESPECIALLY since this is to be used for an A&S competition.

I can prove conclusively through period art that women gave birth through the base of their spine, and not vaginally. That doesn't make it so, though, now does it?

Maeryk

I shouldn't be addressing the validity of the comments (aside from expressing concern that Chef considers later-period art as a valid source if the art is depicting someone from a location he considers "backwards" ). Charlotte can make her own defense of her observations, but the line between commenting and accusation of deliberate distortion of facts through ommission has been crossed.

[DavidS]

But 1515 is just as comprable to 1470 as 1455 is. There was no massive change because the calendar jumped to 1500 - oh yes, the Tudors came in and suddenly the world was enlightened - ha!

Nice picture (the stained glass), but as Charlotte herself admits, there isn't a way of telling whether this is a picture of an over-gown or a kirtle, so if pictures which are in any way ambigous are being excluded from the analysis, I guess this will be one of them.

This is not a personal attack, but flawed arguments are dangerous to re-enactment. I'm not actually saying that the hypothesis is wrong, but the arguments presented do not go any way to prove or disprove.

[Jeff J]

Maybe you just need to define your scope a bit better in your intro, and take SCA reenactors out.

Especially the martyrs.

[Charlotte J]

But 1515 is just as comprable to 1470 as 1455 is. There was no massive change because the calendar jumped to 1500 - oh yes, the Tudors came in and suddenly the world was enlightened - ha!

In our group, and in my experience, we will use evidence leading up to our time period, but anything more than a few years after doesn't prove anything. YMMV, of course.

Nice picture (the stained glass), but as Charlotte herself admits, there isn't a way of telling whether this is a picture of an over-gown or a kirtle, so if pictures which are in any way ambigous are being excluded from the analysis, I guess this will be one of them.

Look closer. It's a v-neck gown.

This is not a personal attack, but flawed arguments are dangerous to re-enactment. I'm not actually saying that the hypothesis is wrong, but the arguments presented do not go any way to prove or disprove.

I agree. I consider the commonality of the pin on sleeve to be flawed, and the arguments behind it to be defending something because of a pre-conceived notion.

[Maeryk]

but the line between commenting and accusation of deliberate distortion of facts through ommission has been crossed.

Well, I don't know if "deliberate distortion of facts" is the right way to go. But it _is_ somewhat.. (trying to do this in a totally non-insulting simply outside observer way.. I'm really _NOT_ attacking you, or Charlotte!!), self serving?? to eliminate several methods of proving the existance of something to focus in ONLY on artistic interpretation as the basis for a judgement.

I think that is what CHef, and others, are getting at. Yes, art may depict it one way, but art tended to be done on specific sets of people, or on specific memes, and if there _are_ other indications of prevalence of an item, it is almost academically dishonest to eliminate/ignore them as basis of study.

Art =/= photograph.

Maeryk

[earnest carruthers]

Jeff J.

"She used all she could find within the sources she had available. She included every image she found. Feel free to provide more. You are being deliberately insulting by saying she did not include images in her survey if they do not suit her theory. This is unacceptable behaviour on your part. "

I realise that, hence the problem with making such a big statement, the premise was big the back up was not. Sorry if that doesn't fit easily with you, but it still stands that if someone proposes a given theory it will be scrutinised at a range of levels. There is an intent to inform or otherwise let us know her arguments with this thesis, so what is happening is just that. It so appears that it does not 'as yet' stand.


"Feel free to provide more.:"

I have. Not only that but other rationales and contexts to consider. Which is contributing to the issue, just because it is in opposition to it does not make it less valuable or pertinent.

"You are being deliberately insulting by saying she did not include images in her survey if they do not suit her theory. This is unacceptable behaviour on your part."

No, this is fact as stated by Charlotte, she cut off at "1480-1490" that is an arbitrary cut off, also she could not possibly supply all the images, who said she could, however her sampling was selective and limited or was it not?

"but the line between commenting and accusation of deliberate distortion of facts through ommission has been crossed."

Dramatic but you are the only one here to have said that.

What was true and will remain true is that the premise, the parameters, the sample group, images were all put there consciously, they were not accidents, deliberate ommissions? no, not enough of a sample group and too narrow a set of parameters.

We asked about considering other factors like actual usage, numbers of people what actually might use them in real life, Charlotte categorically said that she considered them to not affect the thesis.

But what is interesting in all this is that even us naysayers have spent a lot of time adding to the discussion, we have provided other sources to draw upon, other ways of looking at it, they are not gospel any more than the subject at hand is.

"It's not a freakin' doctoral theseus, fer chrissakes. "
I am no academic yet have relatively straightforwardly put across a range of comments that challenge it.

"Gives a person lots of incentive to share information in this community. "

With due respect Jeff, this was an article and point of view (argument), not 'information' in the shared sense.

You fail to see there has been a lot of information put in a result. Or is the mark of a published (which is what it is) work merely that it gets accepted with a nod or even worse ignored?

If people didn't give a crap they wouldn't have bothered as much.


James B


My point about using 1515 images has mainly been answered, however it was more to do with sleeves being used in tasks rather than the rest of the clothes as such. I see them as merely extra sleeves (for outer wear as well as not) and their history is somewhat much broader than the mid 15thC.

The other problem with using visual art to track use is this:
There is a lot less the further back you go. ie do we say that no one used pin-ons before 1402?

Do we really believe that specific dates for some things are where they magically appear and disappear?

Also by the same rigid token 1450 - 1480 has almost as much distance as 1480 - 1515 so in theory it has to cut both ways, wouldn't you agree? <sorry missed Meyrick's version of same>.

[DavidS]

I have looked carefully, thanks, and my interpretation is that she has a neck-kerchief - is that what you're interpreting as the collar?
I'm not defending any preconception, I'm happy for pin-on sleeves to be debunked, but your argument is unsupported and needs developing in order to answer anything. I also enjoy a good debate!

[James B.]

Also by the same rigid token 1450 - 1480 has almost as much distance as 1480 - 1515 so in theory it has to cut both ways, wouldn't you agree? <sorry missed Meyrick's version of same>.

I see major fashion changes about 1450 and again about 1490. You are also talking about a 30 time frame with ours in the middle and a 45 year time frame starting 10 years after ours. So your art is 55 years after our time frame. 15 years up our down is not as distant as 55 years after.

While there is not drop dead time culture and use do change for things.

[Black Swan Designs]

BTW, why all the strident indignation on this issue? Charlotte has a few sets of pin-on sleeves herself, but before she made her next dress, she wanted to see what kind of sleeves she should make based on what was most common and appropriate for the scenario. So, she did some research, surveyed available source material, found a trend she thought was interesting and wrote up what she found compared to personal observations of LH groups. Now she's getting a lot of shit for sharing - WAY beyond a few comments.


Jeff, your comment is *hilarious*! Maybe you missed these threads?

HE Journal Started out as a notice that a new Journal was available, ended up with 36 comments on my interpretation of arming points.

Hanging sleeve gown. Started out as a "hey, look what I just made" post, took only 8 posts to turn into a critique of a lack of fur lining, finally grinding to a halt 44 posts later.

To be fair, excessive commentary seems to be the way things go around here. Any thread on any topic at all is open to "strident indignation" and "shit for sharing". I'm told that's what these boards are about.

Gwen

[chef de chambre]

Jeff, as one of the people who bitches loudest about "bad interpretation" or "bad documentation" in the SCA you should be able to see why people are commenting.

ESPECIALLY since this is to be used for an A&S competition.

I can prove conclusively through period art that women gave birth through the base of their spine, and not vaginally. That doesn't make it so, though, now does it?

Maeryk

I shouldn't be addressing the validity of the comments (aside from expressing concern that Chef considers later-period art as a valid source if the art is depicting someone from a location he considers "backwards" ).

That is not what I said, and it is a misrepresentation by you to say that. What I said boils down to this - in that region, the very primary source Charlotte has decided to exclusively use (art), shows a markedly slow rate of change - in peasant and common labourers dress - over the span of more than 100 years.

My point is (in this one thing you addressed), that the 1515 images most certainly are relevant due to this, and you can see the similarities in images used in the same theme (books of hours) when you study them. There are almost no changes in the standard seasonal themes of books of hours produced in Flanders, and only small changes in the images themselves (things like blunt toes to shoes), when examining labourers at work - since we see the fashions of the upper class change in the normal course one expects to see in the same sources, I would say this is evidence for small changes in the dress of labourers and peasants - in such a comparitively small span of time, even though larger changes are occuring amongst the wealthy.

Charlotte can make her own defense of her observations, but the line between commenting and accusation of deliberate distortion of facts through ommission has been crossed.

I really don't see it. Myself, I have politely commented from the beginning that there were holes in the thesis, with how it is arranged, how evidence is presented, and what is considered good evidence, and what is considered bad. It has been addressed very competantly and in greater detail - from the basis of no data being presented for the initial assumption and theme of the author (that is, too large a percentage of reenactors are wearing pinned on sleeves than appear in art - no data is given for the numbers of reenactors who do, to the numbers of reenactors who don't), to the point that the data is not considered region by region (addressing France, Flanders, England and German art seperately, as should properly be done - at least a nod be given to), to some arbitrary categories created, and the arbitrary fashion in which some evidence has been dismissed.

Were it me, I would go back, and re-write my paper, and re-think my basic assumptions, and re-examine the evidence with the input from other sets of eyes. I have done the very thing myself, the first paper I presented for critical review came back to me with more red than black 'ink', and a whole lot of questions for me to re-examine certain assumptions I had made. I would rather have had the input, and had my work thought the better of, than to stubbornly defend what was rapidly proving to be indefensible.

[Charlotte J]

I think I already said this here, though it could have been at FS. I would not have posted this if I hadn't welcomed comments and feedback. I've been enjoying reading them, thinking about my points, and responding. I don't consider this "shit for sharing", except any allusions that I may have ignored data that didn't fit my thesis, that I'm "stubbornly defending what is indefensible", that I didn't bother to have others read the paper before I posted it, or that somehow the paper is horribly flawed because I didn't do a master's level amount of work and research for it. Consider that there is only one of me, and several of you piling on (a LOT of) feedback all at once. I don't have the time to spend all day responding to everything, but will try to get to it eventually. If I cannot keep up, it's not because my thesis is "indefensible".

Bob, I find it somewhat insulting that you suggest that I am "stubbornly defending" myself, instead of allowing me to respond to the points brought up. Perhaps I honestly believe that the arguments presented don't hold as much water as you think. I fully expected a lot of pushback - my thesis goes against commonly held beliefs. However, I do expect you to give me the courtesy of a) giving me the time to respond and b) not being condescending. Please do me the courtesy of not asking me to "prove" that you are being condescending. I'd rather get back to the meat of the discussion.

Thank you.

[earnest carruthers]

James
"I see major fashion changes about 1450 and again about 1490. You are also talking about a 30 time frame with ours in the middle and a 45 year time frame starting 10 years after ours. So your art is 55 years after our time frame. 15 years up our down is not as distant as 55 years after."

But by putting in a time frame there are ends of each to consider 1515 fashion for yokels is not hugely different from 1490 - 25 years whereas 1450 - 1490 is 40 years. It is just an argument about a rang of arbitrary dates which do not magically change things overnight.

Tell me what the fundamental differences are between
http://www.spamula.net/blog/i16/dacosta04.jpg

and any image of a working woman doing the same thing 30 or more years earlier.

Apart from the shape of the neck and minor details you can hardly claim a massive difference.

"While there is not drop dead time culture and use do change for things. "

Yes, but are you telling me that the other uses for pin-on sleeves only came about from 1515 and that people were not using them for those reasons because so far they have not been seen by any of us? really? Which is why this is not about fashion but the use of a 'tool'.

FWIW I had no idea this was a big deal until it was brought up, I don't see many women wearing them, when I do they tend to using them with good reason. Hadn't even thought about it to any great degree and certainly nt seen it is a 'commonly held belief'.

Whichever way you look at it there has been a positive outcome.

[Jeff J]

[HE Journal Started out as a notice that a new Journal was available, ended up with 36 comments on my interpretation of arming points. {/quote]

For myself, i wanted to know more because the feature under discussion in the image supplied in the article for what you said was "obvious" wasn't obvious in the version you posted in the article. You didn't explain that until significantly later. To anyone looking at the pic in the journal on-line, it wasn't obvious, and as such, open to interpretation. Notice that my participation in the discusion in that thread stopped when you said that you clarified that you had a better picture to work from, and that I remained polite throughout. .

Hanging sleeve gown. Started out as a "hey, look what I just made" post, took only 8 posts to turn into a critique of a lack of fur lining, finally grinding to a halt 44 posts later.

To be fair, excessive commentary seems to be the way things go around here. Any thread on any topic at all is open to "strident indignation" and "shit for sharing". I'm told that's what these boards are about.

Gwen

Glad to provide amusement. Though I suspect I'm being called to task for saying something and giving insult where I never intended to. I'm not good at being subtle at insults. (exanple: Bascot is an A$$hole!) If I have provided offense, I'm sorry. I can't get to the other example, at the moment, so i'll take it as given that a similar thing happened as the points thread and again here. But yeah, the discussions here tend to be overly adversarial and impolite.

Chef, I see the validity of your point about some features continuing, but even so, shouldn't we try to keep the upper limit for such interpolations a little closer than 30 or so years past the end of the period under discussion?

Grim - OK, maybe you're not being insulting by intent. The back-up was a hundred fifty images, in which a small percentage of sleeves were conclusively pin-on. Statistics of lot sampling say that a survey of a thousand images within the same time period would likely yield the same percentage. If, as Chef says, women's fashions in certain areas changes slowly in this aspect, then the same result is also likely until 1515. The core premise that pin-on sleeves aren't common in the late 15th C. is still valid.

[James B.]

Yes, but are you telling me that the other uses for pin-on sleeves only came about from 1515 and that people were not using them for those reasons because so far they have not been seen by any of us? really? Which is why this is not about fashion but the use of a 'tool'.

What I am saying is what if pin on sleeves changed from a not so common thing to a common thing from 1471 to 1515. In your images it is clear common Flemish women of 1515 used the pin on sleeves all the time but because the pin on existed in 1471 does that mean it was as common as 1515?

Char analyzed tons of images far more relevant to the time frame she is talking about so I see her conclusion as being a bit more legit than drawing one from 45 years later.

Slashing starts in the late 15th c but by far is more common 3 decades later, so how much slashing do you have in garments in 1510? That is the same kind of point I am making about the Flemish art.

[Charlotte J]

OK. You dismiss the pictures that you see as unclear or 'dubious'.
You then use the argument that we don't know if some of the pictures you do use are long sleeved gowns worn over short sleeved kirtles or not, yet this is essentially what you are basing your argument on - that the long sleeved dress is an alternative to the short-sleeved (worn with pin-on sleeves) not an addition to it. Surely then, you should also be dismissing all the pictures of long sleeved dresses that could be a gown rather than kirtle?

I'm sorry, I don't see it as the same at all. In the case of the ambigous sleeve, we are presented with two options, that have about the equal amount of evidence. We have to make a choice between one or the other.

In the case of the plain long sleeved gown, where the hem falls to the ground, and there is nothing peeking out from under the cuff, there is nothing to lead me to the belief that there is something under that dress. The simplest solution is that there is no other dress. You have to make an assumption to believe otherwise. If we strip away all of our pre-conceieved notions about kirtles, gowns, and what we believe to be the "one" way of dressing, a simple gown just looks like one more option.

I'm aware that in reality this makes the argument untenable as it will leave you with too few pictures, but to be comparing like with like, you need to find which of your long sleeved dresses are directly comparable to the short-sleeved kirtle (i.e. the ones which you can clearly see a smock underneath, such as the Agnes Sorel 'Madonna' - long sleeved, and clearly not an overgown, but then again probably dismissable by you as it's a Madonna not an ordinary person!). I fear you are, in the main, comparing different types of garment.

I'm not dismissing MM simply because she is MM. I'm dismissing those as valid because the pin-on sleeve seems to be such a *thing* with her. About half of the pin-on sleeve images that I found are of Mary. There are a couple of explanations as to why she might be wearing such a fashion. I wouldn't use her as evidence that this was a common fashion. If I had 19 different images, including 10 different saints, and a few other women thrown into the mix, I wouldn't be so suspcious of the saint. When one saint is so overwhelmingly represented, it tells me that it means something (in that Devil's Tower kind of way... ).

That brings up another small point. A friend of mine pointed out that the woman at the well image gave her biblical vibes. I'm so glad that she did, because it reminded me of the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well, a Bible story that would be well known to 15th century people. Jesus told her what she was, that she'd had five husbands, and was sleeping with a man to whom she was not married. She's a "fallen woman". The woman at the well is wearing pin-on sleeves, much like MM is, also known as a fallen woman. Maybe there's a connection? I got the illustration from a modern calendar, with no context. I couldn't say for certain, but I now have a shade of doubt about that particular image meaning anything for a woman of good repute.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that V necked gowns have a range in status, I was making the general point that there is a variety of gown style, including plain, round-necked long sleeved dresses. As for fur (a completely different topic), the type of fur (other than black or white lamb) is restricted depending on yearly income.

Yes, different topic, but one dear to my heart. It seems by the 15th century that the divisions of certain furs for certain classes falls apart somewhat, or at least shifts significantly from the 14th century. Are you familiar with the book The English Fur Trade in the Later Middle Ages? It discusses the sumptuary laws, and how economic factors give us clues as to how this panned out. For example, “From the late fourteenth century there was a marked fall in the price of squirrel skins. This may have been the result of the increased supplies available, which thus contributed to the declining popularity of squirrel furs among wealthy men and women, or in itself the response to a falling demandâ€Â

[Charlotte J]

Statistics of lot sampling say that a survey of a thousand images within the same time period would likely yield the same percentage.

I want to be blindingly clear on this point.

I looked at thousands of images to find 178 women in 115 images wearing a plain dress, or non-v-neck gown. That includes 1,616 images from the Web Gallery of Art. There were probably at least that many manuscript images and miniatures at gallica.bnf.fr. I looked through 13 different books, a few of them containing nothing but images from this time period.

Out of these thousands of images, I found 19 pin on sleeves.

[chef de chambre]

I'm not dismissing MM simply because she is MM. I'm dismissing those as valid because the pin-on sleeve seems to be such a *thing* with her. About half of the pin-on sleeve images that I found are of Mary. There are a couple of explanations as to why she might be wearing such a fashion. I wouldn't use her as evidence that this was a common fashion. If I had 19 different images, including 10 different saints, and a few other women thrown into the mix, I wouldn't be so suspcious of the saint. When one saint is so overwhelmingly represented, it tells me that it means something (in that Devil's Tower kind of way... ).

Okay Charlotte, here is an example. Perhaps the reason it is a "thing" with her (Mary Magdelene) , is because she is the portrayal of 'everywoman', as Grimstone has pointed out.

You have yet to address the point I have made regarding regional distribution of images, which sleeves varients could *possibly* be catagorised by.

You also dismiss placing short and pin on sleeves into the same catagory, and pin on sleeves are nothing more than short sleeved dresses with sleeves pinned on. It isn't sound to do so, when the *possibility* remains that these dresses with short sleevews could have been intended to be worn with long sleeves, as appropriate to task or situation.

If you've been looking at thousands of images, how did you manage to miss "Tres Riches Heurs" of the Duc de Berry, which is perhaps the most famous medieval book of hours of all, nevermind the most famous 15th century book of hours?

By not addressing these various considerations in your paper, it is incomplete. This isn't a smack at you, it is pointing out a fact.

[earnest carruthers]

Jeff
"If, as Chef says, women's fashions in certain areas changes slowly in this aspect, then the same result is also likely until 1515. The core premise that pin-on sleeves aren't common in the late 15th C. is still valid. "

Only on the basis of comparing what female reenactors are supposed to be wearing compared to featured in art.

The places where those sleeves are used are not representing the range of use by any means.

Why is there this assumption that the art is representing a real demographic?
It doesn't, it never has so why is it being used to that effect?

Beyond a comparison from art to reenactors there is nothing else there just wide extrapolation.

Otherwise that kind of logic goes like this:

Most art shows religion and rich people (mostly true - certainly high art)
therefore society was propped up by very few farmers. We have to exclude any association with the annunciation because it is religious and a story, leaving even fewer farmer/shepherd types to base our society on.

Regardless of reenactment that is using the same principle, which we are pretty clear was not the case. So why is that logic ok for one idea not not another?

[earnest carruthers]

James
"What I am saying is what if pin on sleeves changed from a not so common thing to a common thing from 1471 to 1515."

Only by referrring to images do you make that assumption, it is not enough.

Also I only put up images from a single source from 1515 - Simon Benig, I have no real interest in the 16thC however I cannot if I take my era seriously see it in mere terms of what is presented in art.

Your assumption does not take into account more secular portrayals of people, more realistic images (in general). The social demographics did not change from 1470 - 1515, there were as many milkmaids in 1470 as 45 years later, still milking the same way, with the same kit (with or without pin ons - they are not mandatory). That is the crux of it, not so much the presence in art so much as how it stacks up with other evidence. Otherwise we make such assumptions at our peril.

Why do people wear electric blue cloth? or bright reds or any number of really bright colours? reason being is they are emulating a painting, not what it might actually mean. The colours used on a panel are invariably not the same materials that

a) actual cloth is coloured with

b) if they are then they are nor used in the same quantities as would be required to do it for real so are used with impunity. In a miniature everyone can wear ultramarine or kermes, even the milk maid.

c) they are not always following the rules, ie they bend them because "let's face it the painting would be really dull if we only had them in orangey madder and cheaper yellows rather than a nice kermes which I can make up from my relatively cheap pigments"


Copying a painting without reference to any sort of other evidence will only produce a visual simulacrum of a painting not a lot else.

How would you sort out colour information from a 19thC black and white photo OOI?

[Jeff J]

Only on the basis of comparing what female reenactors are supposed to be wearing compared to featured in art.

OK. let's start the survey right here:

- What sleeve configuration sleeve do the women in your group wear?
- What social class so they purport to be reenacting?
- What is their basis for chosing this Configuration?
- Made or Purchased?
- If purchased, from Whom, and what was Their source document?
- If made, from what pattern or source document?
- Social class and activity of the woman in that source?

By Name, please, so that we may preclude double-counting.

[James B.]

Your assumption does not take into account more secular portrayals of people, more realistic images (in general). The social demographics did not change from 1470 - 1515, there were as many milkmaids in 1470 as 45 years later, still milking the same way, with the same kit (with or without pin ons - they are not mandatory). That is the crux of it, not so much the presence in art so much as how it stacks up with other evidence. Otherwise we make such assumptions at our peril.

I assume nothing. I only pointed out the problem with using 1515 art to show something as common 45 years prior. The glass window I posted is within the time frame we reenact and even one of those rare English pieces and shows a long sleeve on the woman.

[AZPapillion]

OK. let's start the survey right here:

- What sleeve configuration sleeve do the women in your group wear?
- What social class so they purport to be reenacting?
- What is their basis for chosing this Configuration?
- Made or Purchased?
- If purchased, from Whom, and what was Their source document?
- If made, from what pattern or source document?
- Social class and activity of the woman in that source?

By Name, please, so that we may preclude double-counting.

Group Name: Lord Grey's Retinue
Sleeve Configuration for simple dresses:
Short - when lower class/ working
Long - any of the classes
Pin -on - Usually lower/working class - when wanting to look nicer or keep warm
Make or Purchase: Make ourselves
Documentation - http://www.replications.com/greys/Stand ... othing.htm
Social Classes - All for the simple dress, upperclass (gentlewoman) for the fur dress http://www.replications.com/greys/Portr ... sehold.htm

A VERY quick summary for so much work.

I would love to see what other groups do!

Kim