Formal Level of Authenticity for SCA

[David]

I'm not sure I mean the following.

Whatever the various rules, etc of the SCA are, it ain't about reenacting any real period of history. If it were, it would resemble an unvetted timeline event with lots of little households all picking a time and region.

It's really an alternative culture that has seized upon historical elements that fit into an overall preindustrial-tolkein-preraphaelite-sf/fandom-celtophiliac gestalt that is impossible to define but we all know it when we see it (just like pornography). A reenactment group never would have picked clearly modern tape wrapped sticks as its primary fighting style, but it fits nicely if you are unconcerned with historical tourneys and more concerned with having a romantic contact sport (actually, I can think of better romantic contact sports, but you guys know what I mean). Ditto for fantasy kingdoms and whatnot.

Seen in that context, it's easy to see why no one blinks at cell phones at events, popup tents, chatting about computer games, doing 20th century folk dances to out in the open tape players and a host of other farbisms.

The truth of the matter is those of us trying to do historical stuff within SCA are a minority. I will continue to go to events as long as I can get away with such behavior, but let's face it, we're fighting decades of cultural inertia. SCA ain't a loose knit reenactment group gone farby, it's a subculture filled with many members who like history and fantasy novels.

(Ok, I'm packing for a move, I may be grumpier than usual. Sorry about the trolling [but not so sorry I won't post this, heh])

[Tom Knighton]

David

I understand what you are trying to say, but here's my take.


The SCA states that it is a non-profit educational group dedicated to recreating the middle ages. Ok, no big deal. I just can't understand people who join a group that says that as their purpose and then try to be blatantly modern with thier kits. I just don't understand why someone would want to join a medieval group when they have no interest in the middle ages. It just boggles my mind.

If the SCA wants to be a social organization, that's cool. I'll still play. And then I'll even back down about wanting things as historically correct. But change the wording to SAY that we are a social group. Change the non-profit status to reflect that change.

We aren't reenactors. I'll say it, you said it, everyone has said it. We at least can agree on that. We can't be a reenactment group because of the broad timeframe we represent. Not a biggie there either, for me anyways. But what I do have a problem with are the folks who take that and use it as an excuse to make crap and wear crap and then bitch at ME for trying to be more period and not wanting to do non-period things within the confines of the SCA.

Not saying you condone this, since you did say that you weren't sure YOU agreed with what you were saying. But this is how I feel and I really have to say it. Sorry I'm a bit bitchy. It was a really crappy day that is now thankfully over.

Bran

[David]

I just can't understand people who join a group that says that as their purpose and then try to be blatantly modern with thier kits. I just don't understand why someone would want to join a medieval group when they have no interest in the middle ages. It just boggles my mind.

Me too. I mean, if you were to drop by our ECW group some evening, you'd get an earful on musket technique, troop composition, what Prince Rupert SHOULD have done, etc until you began to scream (or decided you really, really needed to join our group).

But SCA? Shoot, a lot of folks in it aren't even sure when the middle ages was, much less what it was like.

So how do they end up in SCA? Simple- they see the SCA at a park or at a college demo and they think it looks like fun. They're told that they need to get a "SCA name", really anything exotic will work. They see folks in all sorts of funny renfairy outfits. So that's their cultural normative.

So is it any wonder that they blink at us when we talk about history? Why shouldn't they? Nobody told them this was a history club, and certainly nobody acted like it was. We can quote Corpora all day long, but it won't change what's out there.

The best we can hope for, and it's good hope, is to have fun at the same events. Do our history thing, and those who want to do that too will come over. But really, we are the outsiders, always will be. What we're doing really isn't SCA. But like I said, as long as I can hang with those who like the same stuff I do and not get bothered too much, I'll keep going to events.


P.S. Bran you ain't being that bitchy. Me on the other hand....well, back to boxes.

[brewer]

While it can be annoying to see the things I hate, Id rather have 2000 of my friends at Lilies than 200 in perfect period camps.

Lead by example, and remember that nobody in a volunteer org likes to follow an a-hole. Be period, be fun, be supportive, be that guy that everyone wants to be like, and the rest will follow. I know, Ive seen it happen in Calontir for years.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the second paragraph, I disagree strongly with the first. My strongest friends in the "dress up in old-style clothes" community are those who share my desire for accuracy. While there are others I love dearly -- like Maeryk, for some stupid reason (:D) and those like him who are striving for accuracy -- I'd rather be surrounded by a living copy of a period artwork than set up my "filters" to keep myself sane.

Does that make me an intolerant ass? I don't think so, because I do set up my "filters," and just go and have fun, never shouting or snarking at anyone.

The problem, as I see it, is that setting a "legal" level of authenticity is kind of an all or nothing approach. Use a candle latern or stumble around in the dark. Wear leather and steel armour or don't fight at all.

In essence, accuracy is an all-or-nothing approach. You're either doing it right or you're not.

The way most of us approach authenticity in the SCA is via growth. We start with a Coleman tent and later acquire something more appropriate. We start with cheap fabrics and patterns and learn to sew more authentic garb.

At the risk of sounding like a pedantic ass, this is the wrong approach, no matter if it is the coporate mindset of the SCA. As has been said over and over on this board, nothing is gained by a purportedly medieval historical education association not only not requiring its members to strive for accuracy but in many cases actively discouraging its members from doing so.

It would be interesting to see if a "scale" of autheniticity could be developed to help people stay on target. That might be a way to encourage progression. As someone who is low on the authenticity scale, I am beginning to see some of the hows and whys to improve. The scale could cover depth (increasing accuracy of a suit of armour) and breadth (grooming, camping, ...).

I have no wish at all to be offensive, but there is so much information out there, it boggles the mind. Kass and I often discuss how little remains to be done in terms of real, ground-breaking research in material culture for most periods of history. All the SCA needs to do is actively foster a desire in its members to perform basic research before they participate in SCA activities. To ignore this is to perpetuate the costume party.

But please show me where it defines "Pre 17th century" dress and "a reasonable attempt" There in lies our problem, no clarification.

"A reasonable attempt" is indeed a problematic phrase, and there the problem of definition lies. As Kass has pointed out, "pre-17th century" is unassailable. An artifact, whether clothing or a cannon, is visibly pre-17th-century. "A reasonable attempt" at either clothing or cannon is less easily solved. I know I am God's Gift to Everything, but I got no answer for this one.

It's really an alternative culture that has seized upon historical elements that fit into an overall preindustrial-tolkein-preraphaelite-sf/fandom-celtophiliac gestalt that is impossible to define but we all know it when we see it (just like pornography). [...] Sorry about the trolling [but not so sorry I won't post this, heh.

Sir, do not apologise. That first sentence won my respect and utter admiration. As for the second, you're no troll. My only reply to your post is "Testify! Preach, brother man!"

And Bran, you've succinctly codified my entire argument. The SCA is an historical education group, not a medievaloid costume party. Make it happen or change the governing documents.

[Maeryk]

While there are others I love dearly -- like Maeryk, for some stupid reason () and those like him who are striving for accuracy -- I'd rather be surrounded by a living copy of a period artwork than set up my "filters" to keep myself sane.

HEY NOW! You havent seen my soft kit (or hell.. my pavilion) in YEARS! Whatchoo tryin to say, mokeyboi?

Man.

I shoulda let you blow yourself up with that pound of powder under your arm when you asked for my cigarette that day..



Maeryk

[brewer]

God, what a stupid thing to do.

See!? Just because I'm a reenactor doesn't mean I'm not a doofus!

[Geoffrey of Blesedale]

WOW! Quite the discussion! Just what I was looking for.

In my view, a "reasonable attempt" would be something that looks like what it is supposed to represent from about 20-30 feet away. A wall might be painted plywood, but at 1st glance at 20' looks like rock. Blue jeans inder a tunic- bad no matter, the legs still look blue. BLACK denim, or even black sweats, will better blend into the image.

So long as we have to wear bargrills over our faces for otherwise-period open face helms, SOME plastic showing should be tolerated. Just ask it be painted brown or silver to pass for leather or steel. The torso can be easilly covered by a fighting tunic or surcoat, but these weren't always period, either, depending on persona.

I personally am making an effort to look period. I have plastic, made from (horrors!) pickle buckets. But for events and demos, I have a "gambeson" to cover it and loose sweats to hide the legs. Sure, I may have a weight advantage, but I will be wrapped in a blanket, giving me a heat disadvantage. Here are pics, before and after covering (minus leather mitten gauntlets). I think I can reasonably pass for a fighter from northern England, c1200, who is too poor to afford anything beyond a gambeson.



[img]http://home.earthlink.net/~jdb967/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/torso2.jpg[/img]



[img]http://home.earthlink.net/~jdb967/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ready2.jpg[/img]

[chef de chambre]

WOW! Quite the discussion! Just what I was looking for.

In my view, a "reasonable attempt" would be something that looks like what it is supposed to represent from about 20-30 feet away. A wall might be painted plywood, but at 1st glance at 20' looks like rock. Blue jeans inder a tunic- bad no matter, the legs still look blue. BLACK denim, or even black sweats, will better blend into the image.

So long as we have to wear bargrills over our faces for otherwise-period open face helms, SOME plastic showing should be tolerated. Just ask it be painted brown or silver to pass for leather or steel. The torso can be easilly covered by a fighting tunic or surcoat, but these weren't always period, either, depending on persona.

I personally am making an effort to look period. I have plastic, made from (horrors!) pickle buckets. But for events and demos, I have a "gambeson" to cover it and loose sweats to hide the legs. Sure, I may have a weight advantage, but I will be wrapped in a blanket, giving me a heat disadvantage. Here are pics, before and after covering (minus leather mitten gauntlets). I think I can reasonably pass for a fighter from northern England, c1200, who is too poor to afford anything beyond a gambeson.



[img]http://home.earthlink.net/~jdb967/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/torso2.jpg[/img]



[img]http://home.earthlink.net/~jdb967/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ready2.jpg[/img]

Hi Geoffrey,

The internal workings of the Society and what it decides to do are none of my business, as I am a reenactor and not a member. Butting in to make commentary however, I think here we can see with your hard kit you have certainly made an attempt to make it resemble what it is supposed to have looked like. If all society members made an attempt similar to yours, I think there would be far less complaints from those interested in meeting the Societys basic standards, and far fewer reasons for complaint. From my understanding of words using the dictionary, and the Spirit of the society rule as laid down, you have met the requirement for a reasonable attempt at pre-17th century clothing by keeping all your hard kit in context to the time and place you are supposed to represent. Bravo to you! I think the people in this debate are concerned with soft kit every bit as much as hard kit, but going as far as you have, with in essence no motivation supplied by the Society itself, and you motivation being internal, I would assume you have done some effort toward this as well.

My question for you is are you content to remain at the level you are at now? Do you see reasonable room for improvement? In the society, you will have no one pushing you to do better, you must supply the motivation yourself.

[Ivo]

Hello.

Sometimes I wonder whether all the money, energy, and work used for concealing inappropriate materials, apologising for inaccurate patterns and trying to announce the easiest way out as painstaking effort shouldn´t have been invested into reading or purchasing a couple of books, a few hours on the ´net or in a library, a few square feet of leather, a few yards of wool and linen and a tiny bit of interest rather for the middle ages than for what all the other guys are doing.
And- if you do things "the right way" from the start, you´ll end up with comfortable, wheather- proof, cool looking garb or functional armour PLUS authenticity debates are no longer an issue or even a threat to you.

Economize!

This might be repetitive, but hey:
In most cases we don´t need to re- invent things. There´s plenty of evidence as to clothes and accessories.
And we don´t need to find fabrics that look like, the very materials the folks used back then are still accessible.
And they WORK, far better than modern any stuff.

That´s the short and the long of it.

As to the fighting: To make armour SCA legal it seems they inevitably become a bit beefier than the originals, just because the originals didn´t have to take that amount of bash- up and punishment in their regular lifetime (?).
BUT: Although more massive, it is well possible to work most of the documentable armour styles to historic patterns. And they can be manufactured without looking like "best from the scrapyard plus a bucket wrapped around a man" with blindingly colourful cellfoam protruding from all angles and gaping articulations.
And if the period chosen is not that armour- intensive, modern protections can be hidden under accurate clothing as well. At least, that´s what European dark ages re- enactors do.

Probably some serious costume contests could solve one or the other tough case?!;o)

Regards

Ivo

[Jehan de Pelham]

Many folks, myself included, have invested a great deal of money, time, and effort on inappropriate efforts. This can have the unfortunate effect of investing them in their error, and sometimes makes them hardened in it. I would have preferred not to have wasted my money and time. But at least I have greater ownership over where I am now as compared to where I was ten years ago.

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus

[Reinhard]

Over the years this has been discussed a few times, and a phenomenon has naturally arisen to deal with the desire for almost-LH authenticity standards. These are, of course, the various households and tourney companies that do stalwart service in SCA education (we need it more than the public!) and leading the way for people to adopt a more historical approach at their game.
Inertia is the enemy, I have a few friends who publically say they're of no real portrayal, they just want to be great stick-fighters. This is a few people saying what a vast majority think.
The way ahead, in my humble opinion, is a two tiered system.

Keep stick fighting as Heavy Combat, don't change it at all.

Create a Super Heavy Combat which involves period armour styles, realistic armour cracking blows (no wraps and snaps) with proper follow through and realistic weaponry for defeating armour. Ensure that the rules demand a period portrayal.

Why should a Heavy Combat fighter change? His lightweight torso armour is good at what it does, as is his lightweight flick-stick. A bargrille is prefered over an eyeslot, even a ridiculous 25mm eyeslot, because it does the job well and gives high visibility combined with good SCA protection. The Heavy enjoys his game and should be allowed to play it, I have no authority to stop people playing their fun game.

In wars, they can fight together, it's just that the Heavies can't damage the Superheavies unless they use a pollweapon against them. This is starting to look like a real war, with massively armoured knights forming the kernal of the killing machine, supported by infantry that exploit the slow and massively armoured spearhead.

Try this system of another tier that stresses historicity combined with advantages on other facets, you will see a steady migration towards it by people who desire to 'succeed at the game' and it will provide an avenue for those who desire to be historical to tread that is not denigrated by those who couldn't be bothered.

[Ron Broberg]

The problem, as I see it, is that setting a "legal" level of authenticity is kind of an all or nothing approach. Use a candle latern or stumble around in the dark. Wear leather and steel armour or don't fight at all.

In essence, accuracy is an all-or-nothing approach. You're either doing it right or you're not.

Then we all fail. Or do you maintain that your recreation is 100% accurate. Accuracy can be obtained within a reasonable margin of error by a series of reiterative approximations, each more accurate than the last. (although I recognize it might not be the most cost effective method in the long run).

The way most of us approach authenticity in the SCA is via growth. We start with a Coleman tent and later acquire something more appropriate. We start with cheap fabrics and patterns and learn to sew more authentic garb.

At the risk of sounding like a pedantic ass, this is the wrong approach, no matter if it is the coporate mindset of the SCA. As has been said over and over on this board, nothing is gained by a purportedly medieval historical education association not only not requiring its members to strive for accuracy but in many cases actively discouraging its members from doing so.

I thought I was suggesting ways that the SCA could encourage authenticity.

It would be interesting to see if a "scale" of autheniticity could be developed to help people stay on target. That might be a way to encourage progression. As someone who is low on the authenticity scale, I am beginning to see some of the hows and whys to improve. The scale could cover depth (increasing accuracy of a suit of armour) and breadth (grooming, camping, ...).

I have no wish at all to be offensive, but there is so much information out there, it boggles the mind. Kass and I often discuss how little remains to be done in terms of real, ground-breaking research in material culture for most periods of history. All the SCA needs to do is actively foster a desire in its members to perform basic research before they participate in SCA activities. To ignore this is to perpetuate the costume party.

Whilel I stongly agree the amount of information has greatly increased in the last ten years, it is not always organized well for random SCA members to find. I still haven't found any patterns for sixteenth century kegutsu. Or for that matter, fifteenth century European boots. Google on "pattern", "boots", "fifteenth century" and you won' t find any boot patterns for the fifteenth century. I am suggesting that the SCA as an organization could take a lead in oraganizing the available information for its members.

[Ivo]

As to 15th century boot patterns: Try a book entitled "Shoes and Pattens".

Regards

Ivo

[Ivo]

Oh, and if Babelfish can help you with German- English translation (I´ve never tried for obvious reasons), try:

http://www.mittelalterschuhe.de/

Regards

Ivo

[brewer]

Then we all fail. Or do you maintain that your recreation is 100% accurate. Accuracy can be obtained within a reasonable margin of error by a series of reiterative approximations, each more accurate than the last. (although I recognize it might not be the most cost effective method in the long run).

I maintain nothing of the sort, and to make such a statement is an attempt to diverge from the argument.

I maintain only that whether a widget is accurate is not debateable.

For example, a pike was an ash pole at least fifteen feet long, tapered from middle to both ends, mounted with an iron, leaf-shaped blade from four to eight inches long, attached to the pole by two cheeks which extended three feet down the pole, through which rivets were passed, to affix the point to the shaft.

A 15' pine pole mounted with a rubber copy of a pike head is not a pike, but we use them in C17 reenactment tacticals.

A fiberglass pole-vault pole, wrapped in strapping tape, mounted with a cylinder of foam, is a devestatingly effective approximation of a pike in SCA combat, but is not a pike.

No one can argue that the first example only is the accurate example. It is also evident that there is a "ramp up" through these examples. But that doesn't make the second or third examples accurate, even though they're on the ramp.

The only time "Accuracy can be obtained within a reasonable margin of error by a series of reiterative approximations, each more accurate than the last" is when one is researching something entirely new, such as when Kass made her discoveries regarding the Shinrone gown. It took several iterations of the replica before she was satisfied. An important point to note, however (and most pertinent to the topic of this thread), is that she started from as accurate a point as could be found: twill wool, wool thread for stitching, measurements made from the original garment, etc. She didn't make the garment from an SCA website or A&S pattern, she flew to Ireland and handled the original. That's going the extra mile for authenticity. Now she's written on her website, published articles, published a pattern, and disseminated her knowledge the best she can.
Now there is no excuse for reinventing the wheel.

And still the SCA is encouraging new members to make bed-sheet t-tunics. And you wonder why I'm frustrated?

I thought I was suggesting ways that the SCA could encourage authenticity.

You were. I was pointing out that the corporate mindset of the organisation prevents you or anyone else from succeeding.

Whilel I stongly agree the amount of information has greatly increased in the last ten years, it is not always organized well for random SCA members to find. I still haven't found any patterns for sixteenth century kegutsu. Or for that matter, fifteenth century European boots. Google on "pattern", "boots", "fifteenth century" and you won' t find any boot patterns for the fifteenth century. I am suggesting that the SCA as an organization could take a lead in oraganizing the available information for its members.

As Ivo has stated, there are such things. One need only practice an academic approach to research to find them. Just because they're not a simple web-search away doesn't mean they're not organised. It just means one cannot expect instant gratification.

[Tom Knighton]

I just wanted to add to what brewer said for a bit. In particular about web searchs.

I have taught a begining research class here locally, mainly because it was what I knew. Everyone knew much of what I was saying, but one thing they didn't think about was web searchs. Any butthole with a little bit of HTML, or a program like FrontPage, can build a website. They can put anything that they want on that website with no regard for whether it is accurate or not. They can post a pattern and call it a 15th Century boot, but it truth it's just something they made up that looks quasi-15th Centuryish. Hell, I can post a website that has "evidence" that the Celts invented the steam engine. Doesn't make it so.

Books, on the other hand, are a bit different. While there are some who get books published with inaccurate information, they are much fewer. Also, since i never use just ONE book to back up any assertion if I can help it, I can avoid this trap.

Now, I understand that Ron was suggesting that the SCA gather this information...and if they did that and were careful about what they posted then we could avoid that. But think for a moment about your local group. Many know nothing about the middle ages, they are just there to fight. Others know a bit about this and that. One or two may even be really knowledgable. This is true, more or less, in all SCA groups. So who will gather the information? Whoever volunteers. That could be the stick jock, or the guy who thinks that its just important to have fun, screw authenticity so he gets the easiest patterns and such, not the most accurate.

As for the SCA encouraging authenticity, even if they start doing so there will be members who will still try to discourage it. Some folks think that authenticity and accuracy are curse words. They think that if you suggest they use linen and wool, you are trying to force authenticity down thier throats. There are folks who ask for a class on period fabrics, but what they want is a class on SCA fabrics, and trying to actually teach what they asked for is look at the same way. Until that changes, a pure top down approach won't work.

Don't get me wrong, I still want the BOD to define reasonable attempt. Then at least people will have a point that they can't be "less" than. This should rid us of t-tunics and jeans as "garb". But it won't change everything by itself. It is also the attitudes of people, particularly those with some authority on the local and kingdom level, that has to be accepting of authenticity. Some are already there, but many more aren't.

Sorry for my ramblings.

Bran

[Ron Broberg]

Then we all fail. Or do you maintain that your recreation is 100% accurate. Accuracy can be obtained within a reasonable margin of error by a series of reiterative approximations, each more accurate than the last. (although I recognize it might not be the most cost effective method in the long run).

I maintain nothing of the sort, and to make such a statement is an attempt to diverge from the argument.


I maintain only that whether a widget is accurate is not debateable.

I am new to this board and this train of thought. I could be wrong, but it appears to be the heart of the argument.

I would guess, and for the sake of the argument I will so guess, that you do not have a single garment of hand-woven cloth in your kit. For you the difference between a hand-woven and machine-woven material is insignificant. Yet, clearly, one is more authentic than the other. Why would you choose a less authentic material?

Or to ask the question in another manner, what criteria do you use to categorize a given modern object as to its autheniticity?

The only time "Accuracy can be obtained within a reasonable margin of error by a series of reiterative approximations, each more accurate than the last" is when one is researching something entirely new

So if you replaced your machine woven material with hand woven material you would not be more authentic? I don't see how that could be.

... such as when Kass made her discoveries regarding the Shinrone gown. It took several iterations of the replica before she was satisfied. An important point to note, however (and most pertinent to the topic of this thread), is that she started from as accurate a point as could be found: twill wool, wool thread for stitching, measurements made from the original garment, etc. She didn't make the garment from an SCA website or A&S pattern, she flew to Ireland and handled the original. That's going the extra mile for authenticity. Now she's written on her website, published articles, published a pattern, and disseminated her knowledge the best she can....

.... I was pointing out that the corporate mindset of the organisation prevents you or anyone else from succeeding.

To the best of my knowledge, Kass is an SCA member. Obviously the SCA does not prevent people from succeeding.

As Ivo has stated, there are such things. One need only practice an academic approach to research to find them.

Therein lies the problem. The SCA is not an organization of 30000 academicians. Nor should it be. If 99% of the authenticity research has been done but is not readily available, then let the SCA organize that information so that it is available without an "academic" approach. To decry the SCA for encouraging bed sheet T-tunics but resist a suggestion of having the SCA publish more period information seems ... odd.

Ivo - thanks for the cool link. I guess I can't expect English no matter which side of that continent I'm reenacting.

[Ron Broberg]

I have taught a begining research class here locally, mainly because it was what I knew. Everyone knew much of what I was saying, but one thing they didn't think about was web searchs. Any butthole with a little bit of HTML, or a program like FrontPage, can build a website. They can put anything that they want on that website with no regard for whether it is accurate or not. They can post a pattern and call it a 15th Century boot, but it truth it's just something they made up that looks quasi-15th Centuryish. Hell, I can post a website that has "evidence" that the Celts invented the steam engine. Doesn't make it so.
...
Now, I understand that Ron was suggesting that the SCA gather this information...and if they did that and were careful about what they posted then we could avoid that. But think for a moment about your local group. Many know nothing about the middle ages, they are just there to fight. Others know a bit about this and that. One or two may even be really knowledgable. This is true, more or less, in all SCA groups. So who will gather the information? Whoever volunteers. That could be the stick jock, or the guy who thinks that its just important to have fun, screw authenticity so he gets the easiest patterns and such, not the most accurate.

It might not be the most accurate at the start, but with 30000 (and a hand full of interested LHers) doing peer review, mistakes are going to be corrected quickly. While many don't care, many do. And those many eyes could make an "official" collection very accurate. Maybe members can nominate a pattern for review. Comments are collected and the piece judged. If judged as authentic (or authentic enough ), it gets posted to the official list. After a few years, review the piece against the then current research, and modify it if it needs to be changed. And, yes, screw authenticity if a simple modification determines the difference between a DIY project and a laurel level masterpiece. Better, yet, make sure that both patterns are available and explain the difference.


The concern that I am addressing is precisely the one that Bran identifies as to the lack of research authorities on a pariticular topic at the local or even Kingdom level. Chances are pretty good, though, that the there is someone somewhere in the SCA who does have that expertise. The question should be, how do we get that expertise out into the SCA at large so that those who do care can learn?

[David]

More 15th century boots- found it with a dogpile search, and numerous SCA and reenactment sites link to it. Marc is also an SCA member. I believe much of his source material is from Shoe and Pattens, the book Ivo mentioned. Excellent book, highly recommended.

http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-ca ... OEHOME.HTM

When I hang around SCA, I frequently hear the "we don't knows". Actually, a lot of time it's "I don't know" which is more than ok, it's the starting and motivating point for many of us. The problem is when we assume because we haven't seen something, that the info ain't out there. It's particularly galling when long time members tell this to newbies. Witness the frank downright pighead reluctance of SCA rattan sparrers to accept the concept that A) there are period fighting manuals B) No they aren't just for rapier C) No they weren't just fanciful moves D) Many of the writers were highly respected at the time E) Different systems echo the same fundamentals F) Just because a move doesn't work with a rattan stick doesn't mean it doesn't work G) Research into these manuals has been going on for decades, heck all the way back to Burton H) Und so weiter..... (if you really want to see more of these arguments, click on over to the "Medieval Combat and Weapons" section on the Archive)

Frankly, the only reason anyone gets to "C" even is what can only be regarded as cultural insistance on doing the (mostly wrong) way it's always been done. And this is why two-teired systems like Reinhards will always fail within SCA (side note, Reinhard, to defeat armor, the manuals recommend going around it or bringing your opponent to the ground, not just hitting hard. But your heart's in the right place)

But, let's imagine for a moment that SCA rattan was in fact an accurate representation of medieval combat, and that everyone wore accurate kits for the time period and region said combat represented.

Sorry, but it still wouldn't be historical reenactment. Newsflash- no duct tape wrapped rattan sticks were used for training purposes in the middle ages. Renaissance too. Not saying it wouldn't be worthwhile- I find the study of Western Martial Arts very rewarding. If you go to a WMA convention, you'd see folks wearing modern protective gear and using modern simulators (like aluminum swords), but VERY serious about the study of their art. But it's not reenactment, it's learning about a specific art form.

I know, I know, "The SCA is not a reenactment group". Hey, I said that too in an earlier post. But why the funny names, the costumes, the insistance (even if publically denied) that what they're doing is how things were really done?

Ideally, SCA would settle down and decide if it's one of the following A) A LARP, B) A theme costume party, or C) A multi period reenactment group akin a private "timeline" event. The problem guys like Bob the Beer Guy have (Bob, correct me if I'm misunderstranding you) is that it is really "B" but pretending to be "C".

Me, I wish it was "C" and when I go to events, I hang out with those who feel the same way. At times, particularly in private encampments at wars, we make it "C". But I doubt very, very, very much that will become the norm. Amazingly enough, there's actually folks that prefer "B" or even "A". It's not a work or money thing- the info is out there, and aside from armor, accurate kits cost less than anyone should be able to afford (if you can't afford $50-60, you need a second job, not a hobby).

It's a liking for the farbed out way things are. It's a like of filk music over actual kickbutt medieval music, a like of shiney polyester sacks over a hand made wool dress, "road warrior" armor over a decent brig, etc etc etc. But rather than have the guts to admit it, they'll whine about lack of info and authenticity n----s. Sheesh......

Any wonder a lot of us throw up our hands? We can't fix the world, just our corner of it. And if we are visible enough, like minded folks will come over and have fun. I regard this as the best way, coupled with doing lots of stuff (for me these days, most of my activities) outside of SCA to avoid frustration. Then you can see SCA events as what they are- big parties where you can meet a least a few folks who might give a rat's keister about the incredibly obscure stuff you're interested in. Or not.

[Reinhard]

(Reinhard, to defeat armor, the manuals recommend going around it or bringing your opponent to the ground, not just hitting hard. But your heart's in the right place)

Out of thread:
Sorry, my poor phrasing. I meant more period combat ideas
and more realistic attacks.

[Tom Knighton]

And, yes, screw authenticity if a simple modification determines the difference between a DIY project and a laurel level masterpiece. Better, yet, make sure that both patterns are available and explain the difference.

The first part of this statement is part of the problem with the SCA. People instantly believe that to be accurate means that you have to do laurel quality work. I'm sorry, but most clothing WAS do it yourself projects, from my limited knowledge. Armour was purchased by most, sure...but brig is simple to make and accurate. The access to tools we have alone makes many period tasks more accessable to the do it yourselfer.

While I have no problem with the second part of the statement, it's the idea that accurate = difficult. I'm currently in the research part of my new outfit. It will all be hand stitched....every piece of it. I've even started looking at period stitches to see what I should do. This says to many that I am an accomplished tailor. They are dead wrong. I know a little bit about sewing, and I know how to thread a needle. I'll learn how to do the stitchs myself and then put together the tunic, chausses, braises, and undertunic all by my lonesome. That constitutes a do it yourself project. It's also going to be accurate, at least based on current knowledge. A couple of years from now, it could be a farby piece of crap. I'll deal with that when the time comes, and that part isn't important to the conversation.

Accuracy may be a journey, not a destination. However, to many people give bad directions. What is almost as bad is the number of people who think that the trip is just to difficult to take.

Bran

[Geoffrey of Blesedale]

Ivo wrote:

Sometimes I wonder whether all the money, energy, and work used for concealing inappropriate materials, apologising for inaccurate patterns and trying to announce the easiest way out as painstaking effort shouldn´t have been invested into reading or purchasing a couple of books, a few hours on the ´net or in a library, a few square feet of leather, a few yards of wool and linen and a tiny bit of interest rather for the middle ages than for what all the other guys are doing.
And- if you do things "the right way" from the start, you´ll end up with comfortable, wheather- proof, cool looking garb or functional armour PLUS authenticity debates are no longer an issue or even a threat to you.

Let me just say this: we in the SCA are all assumed to be fighting as if we are wearing an iron spangen and maille armor. Full plate is further from that than what I have. Under your line of reasoning, stainless steel is a poor choice since that is not a period material. And your line of reasoning assumes we all wish to run around in late-period armor. Not all of us do. For those, like myself, who wish to portray a pre-plate or pre-hardened leather period, our choices are limited. I HAVE done enough research to know that what I have IS period in appearance for my persona (1200 England, too poor for maille) as far as possible under SCA rules. To assume one who does not make a completely period kit of completely period materials is wasting time and effort is arrogant and condescending.

Reinhard wrote:

Keep stick fighting as Heavy Combat, don't change it at all.

Create a Super Heavy Combat which involves period armour styles, realistic armour cracking blows (no wraps and snaps) with proper follow through and realistic weaponry for defeating armour. Ensure that the rules demand a period portrayal.

Why should a Heavy Combat fighter change? His lightweight torso armour is good at what it does, as is his lightweight flick-stick. A bargrille is prefered over an eyeslot, even a ridiculous 25mm eyeslot, because it does the job well and gives high visibility combined with good SCA protection. The Heavy enjoys his game and should be allowed to play it, I have no authority to stop people playing their fun game.

In wars, they can fight together, it's just that the Heavies can't damage the Superheavies unless they use a pollweapon against them. This is starting to look like a real war, with massively armoured knights forming the kernal of the killing machine, supported by infantry that exploit the slow and massively armoured spearhead.

The heavies can't damage the superheavies? Again, this goes against the premise of fighting as if we are in spangens and maille. It would also require the blending of two different periods on the battlefield. Do we really need that? And it says "If you're not fighting in super-fancy, late-period, nice-and-shiny armor, you're not good enough to be on the field." More arrogance. THAT will hurt the SCA more than any elvin ears or fairy wings ever will.

[Alcyoneus]

You could probably do it as a special tournament though.

[Pig-Face]

Sorry, but it still wouldn't be historical reenactment. Newsflash- no duct tape wrapped rattan sticks were used for training purposes in the middle ages.

No kidding. Although I doubt that any person "back in the day" had to worry about getting sued by someone because of a splinter in the eye.
So, while I'd personally rather use "real" wasters, I can turn a blind eye to the duct taped rattan. Not much choice in that matter, as I see it.

Let me just say this: we in the SCA are all assumed to be fighting as if we are wearing an iron spangen and maille armor. Full plate is further from that than what I have. Under your line of reasoning, stainless steel is a poor choice since that is not a period material.

Hold on there - the "assumed armor" thing is only there to even the playing field, not to set a certain period upon us. Of course, I personally find it ridiculous for a 1400's persona and a 600's persona to be on the same battlefield. I see that as the foremost reason why the sca looks like some fantasy game. Not sure what could be done about it, but maybe something should be done about it.

The heavies can't damage the superheavies? Again, this goes against the premise of fighting as if we are in spangens and maille.

Why not? We as "heavies" certainly have a big advantage over archers.
All we have to do is touch them? Those poor saps, how unfair.
So, the fact that not everyone can afford plate means that the one's who can afford it should play on a lower level?? That makes no sense to me.
In the real days, you would do just that - wear what you could afford.
Did it effect your survival? Most likely, yes. Why can't we play by more realistic rules by which armor class DOES matter? Armor as you wear it!
Or maybe we do need more specific period battles.

It would also require the blending of two different periods on the battlefield. Do we really need that?

"Two" different periods? Try at least 8-10. So yes, we already have it.
That is part of the problem, as I stated above.

Anyway, Geoffrey of Bleasdale - I salute you for doing a fine job on hiding your specific armor, for your period. Spread your knowledge!
One thing though...what's up with the shoes?

[brewer]

I am new to this board and this train of thought. I could be wrong, but it appears to be the heart of the argument.

I would guess, and for the sake of the argument I will so guess, that you do not have a single garment of hand-woven cloth in your kit. For you the difference between a hand-woven and machine-woven material is insignificant. Yet, clearly, one is more authentic than the other. Why would you choose a less authentic material?

Or to ask the question in another manner, what criteria do you use to categorize a given modern object as to its autheniticity?

You, while making a good argument, are missing the point on a variety of levels. Specifically, you are allowing the best to be the enemy of the good.

I'm not saying that only hand-woven cloth made from fibers spun from bred-back sheep are the only accurate alternative, although to do so is kewl beyond words. I'm saying that it's better to use authentic fibers and weaves, which are commercially available, to construct garments than to use modern synthetic fabrics, or fabrics like cotton broadcloth which were unavailable in the SCA's period. It's better to camp in a tent, with furniture, which appear to be appropriate to your persona's period, than to camp in a nylon North Face pimple with Coleman folding chairs. It's better to wear armour on the field appropriate to your persona -- even if it means covering SCA-legal armour with clothing if your persona is too early for plate -- than to wear SCA Sport armour.

To the best of my knowledge, Kass is an SCA member. Obviously the SCA does not prevent people from succeeding.

To be honest, she's not a member, and neither am I. We come to play, to wear more pretty, upper-class stuff than we wear in reenactment, and to hang out with our friends. But we had to take a significant break from the SCA recently because she was catching too much heat from the people who consider authenticity threatening, and who were making her life miserable. Funny that an organisation which purports to practice courtesy and chivalry could act so badly, but there you are.

As Ivo has stated, there are such things. One need only practice an academic approach to research to find them.

Therein lies the problem. The SCA is not an organization of 30000 academicians. Nor should it be. If 99% of the authenticity research has been done but is not readily available, then let the SCA organize that information so that it is available without an "academic" approach. To decry the SCA for encouraging bed sheet T-tunics but resist a suggestion of having the SCA publish more period information seems ... odd.

I have no wish to resist such a suggestion, and didn't realise that I was arguing against it. If it seemed I was, I apologise.

That said, I argue that the SCA doesn't have to be an organisation of 30k academicians. It is unnecessary for every member to practice advanced research skills. I do expect, however, some facility with research, especially if one claims to be researching something. The average undergraduate college student should have the capability to do good research; hell, the average high school student should have that ability. And that means more than, to use the salient example, Googling "15th century shoes" and using whatever pattern pops up. It means having the intellectual integrity to search further than the first convenient answer, of establishing a hypothesis ("How were 15th century shoes constructed?") and conducting research to support the hypothesis. A 10th-grade book report contains more research than most of the A&S contest entries I've seen, and to change that, we need more than a collection of links questionably assembled and maintained.

[kass]

Thank you for answering the question of my SCA membership, darling. The short story is that I was a reenactor doing 15th and 17th century before I ever went to an SCA event. Then I played in the SCA for about two years, published articles, taught classes, and shared my research with all and sundry. Then as Bob says, I caught alot of heat for helping people, so I stopped going to events for about three years. But make no mistake: I did my research on Irish and Japanese textiles BEFORE I started participating in the SCA. So I'm afraid the SCA can neither take credit for producing me nor holding me back.

I have something to say about the how accurate is accurate line of thought. Geoffrey brought up the idea of a 10' rule of sorts. I am wholely in support of this kind of idea. I have a friend who does the most amazingly perfect-looking Elizabethan upper class that you've ever seen. But if you saw her getting dressed, you'd see that her undergarments are modern, her closures include hidden zippers, and the fabric she uses is far from accurate. But when she's dressed, she looks like a portrait. And since her goal is to "be" an Elizabethan noblewoman, not to study Elizabethan-era tailoring, I think she's doing something wonderful. In Geoffrey's terminology, she passes his rule.

A nylon tent never passes this rule. A canvas tent with a collapsable skeleton, however, does. If I don't see it, I don't care it's there. Wooden boxes that hide modern coolers also pass the rule. So does anything else you can hide or disguise.

We hide modern things all the time in reenactment. I certainly don't see any reason to hold the SCA to a higher standard than reenactment!

But in response to Ivo and Jehan and others who were discussing the insane amount of money people waste on items that they later discover aren't appropriate, I have to share a story with you. I was teaching my Authenticity 101 class this past weekend and my handouts suggest that people use only wool, silk and linen for their clothing. Then I go on to name a bunch of fabrics that are not natural fibres but their names may be misleading. I mentioned Tencel, which is a brand name of acetate fibre, much like rayon. And this woman sitting near me started yelling, "I just bought ## meters of Tencel to weave garb! I'm not throwing it out just because you said so." This being an SCA class, I said, "You go right ahead and weave the best garb you can."

Why in the name of all that's holy would someone, ANYone, seek out Tencel threads and buy them to weave GARB?!?!?!??! I was so shocked, the significance of what she was saying didn't hit me until the ride home.

Of course she was also doing "blackwork" with purple cotton thread on aida cloth (a synthetic backing cross-stitches use) so I guess I shouldn't have been so surprized.

Did I just contradict myself? Perhaps. But if you're going to go the extra mile to WEAVE your garb, why on earth would you buy fibres you KNOW are wrong and do all that work to weave something you could buy in any fabric store?

<sigh> It's obvious to me that I just don't get the SCA mindset...

Kass

[Gwyneth]

Marianne darling,

Pleeeease come to Arkansas! Most of the SCA folks here are prepared to worship the ground you walk on - I have already achieved demigoddess status just for knowing you through this board.

Everyone -

Slow and steady progress folks. Rules and criticism are not the way to go. If you make authenticity fun, then others will want to play. I have found that most folks are intimidated by the word "authenticity". So, I quit using it in classes I teach. Instead, I point out the practical benefits of using period materials and construction methods - for instance, you stay cooler and look better in a linen dress than a cotton one, and it lasts longer so you don't have to sew as often (BIG benefit to the non-sewing gifted). I hardly ever use the word "period" either - I just burble on about how much easier it was to hem my linen veil than my cotton one. Plus, I find something nice to say about every single piece of garb made by another person - even if it is just "my, I bet that took a lot of work!" I don't think I have ever said anything negative about any garb - even the gold lame Gypsy-esque monstrosity that showed up at one ball in recent memory........oops, guess I just did, eh?

Most folks in my local group *want* to look more authentic, but just simply don't know how. Or, the practical benefits of using a particular material have to be proven to them. Case in point: we did a cotehardie fitting day this past weekend at my house. All but one person brought cotton or cotton blend fabric (I had suggested they get linen, but they didn't). So, we commenced to fitting them and found that the cotton simply didn't work as well as the linen. We had a LOT of fun, plus we learned something - using a non-period fabric for a period fitting technique is a lot more work than we really want to do. The general consensus was to use linen next time.

The big victory in that story is that the ladies who participated are actually talking about a next time, instead of going back to T-tunics and Celtic/Ren Fair stuff. And this was accomplished by making it fun, rather than barring them from participating because they didn't bring a period material or criticising them for bringing cotton for the fitting. Showing folks *why* non-period materials are not as good works better than a lecture or a statute prohibiting a particular thing. It takes more of a time committment and is slower than just passing a rule, but the effects are longer-lasting and you have more people to play with afterwards.

Most SCAdians act the way they do out of sheer ignorance. They simply don't know how much better looking and simple their lives could be if they just did things in a more period way. Don't approach them in malice, but in friendly innocence. An ingenue can get further with this crowd than a cynical know-it-all. Bat your eyelashes a lot and burble on about how fun and easy authenticity is - works for me!

Gwyneth

[Ivo]

Hello.

Ivo wrote:

Sometimes I wonder whether all the money, energy, and work used for concealing inappropriate materials, apologising for inaccurate patterns and trying to announce the easiest way out as painstaking effort shouldn´t have been invested into reading or purchasing a couple of books, a few hours on the ´net or in a library, a few square feet of leather, a few yards of wool and linen and a tiny bit of interest rather for the middle ages than for what all the other guys are doing.
And- if you do things "the right way" from the start, you´ll end up with comfortable, wheather- proof, cool looking garb or functional armour PLUS authenticity debates are no longer an issue or even a threat to you.

Let me just say this: we in the SCA are all assumed to be fighting as if we are wearing an iron spangen and maille armor. Full plate is further from that than what I have. Under your line of reasoning, stainless steel is a poor choice since that is not a period material. And your line of reasoning assumes we all wish to run around in late-period armor. Not all of us do. For those, like myself, who wish to portray a pre-plate or pre-hardened leather period, our choices are limited. I HAVE done enough research to know that what I have IS period in appearance for my persona (1200 England, too poor for maille) as far as possible under SCA rules. To assume one who does not make a completely period kit of completely period materials is wasting time and effort is arrogant and condescending.

[/quote]

Geoffrey, I was not going to attack you.
If you had been so kind to read and quote my entry in full, you could easily have noticed the last paragraph:

And if the period chosen is not that armour- intensive, modern protections can be hidden under accurate clothing as well. At least, that´s what European dark ages re- enactors do.

I probably should have said "if the period or station of the persona to be portrayed is not that armour intensive, modern or at least legal protection..." sort of thing.
To my line of reasoning, yes I assume that stainless is a poor choice if used for visible protection for being inaccurate. If hidden to serve strictly for protective purposes to make a "un- armoured- look" kit battle legal, it´s not that important.

Does the remark that non- period materials are generally a poor choice for period portrayal when more appropriate materials are readily available already give me an arrogant air?

Regards

Ivo

[Hugo T.]

The problem does not come from the lack of research/effort from SCA members. Hell, everybody expects the beginner to BE a beginner! And if you are confortable with your current level of "authneticity", nobody can force you to do better. The issue is more clearly illustrated thus:

The combat rule demands that some sort of armor (hard kit) be worn while fighting. The object is to insure the safety of the participants. The accuracy level of this hard kit is not defined, but minimum has been established. No far, no problem; people are willing to llive with that. The problem lies in the fact that shortcuts have been CREATED by this SCA requirement, i.e. the plastic armor. Everybody is willing to disregard the little anachronisms linked to safety levels in combat, as long as they do not brak the feeling of medieval. But to develop a whole new type of armor taking advantadges from the limitations of fighting style is a whole different animal. We are not talking about safety shortcuts anymore, this is blamant disregard for the medieval and clear acceptance that the fighting is not medieval anymore, but a modern sport.

The sad thing is, putting together this plastic hard kit requires time and money... and a good deal of both too! The thing to realise here is that if you are willing to take that road, you are not playing medieval anymore, but you are playing SCA. And no amount of A&S classes will change that mindset.

The soft kit, at this point, is an afterthought. You need something to wear to get in the event. Same as you did not do the legwork for the hard kit you so carefully put together, you won't make the special effort to get appropriate fabric and all the rest you need to make a decent portrayal. YOu'll go with a realtively cheap favric (cotton is STILL cheaper than wool), and get a basic T-tunic pattern. You're all set!

People really interested in clothing may be interested in medieval clothes, but most of the time, they are interested in Disney princess and movie stars look, not the real thing. Hence the prom dress and the shiny satin. There are some people willing to go the distance and research accurate clothes and recreate them as faithfuly as possible, but they are few... Here again, if the look you are after is Strider, you are not playing medieval, you're looking for a venue to dress up.

Closing comment: these are NOT bad things. You are totally entitles to these behaviors within an organisation such as SCA, although you have to realise that the thing that drives you is not the medieval anymore...

And one last thing, my comments are not directed to anybody here. I feel that the people who make the effort to post here are not the typical SCA members, and that they do not represent a significant sample of its population. You are all probably that happy few truly interested in things medieval.

I'll be happy to receive your comments.

Hugo

[Aaron]

Geoffrey of Bleasdale,

Nice presentation! VERY effective use of covered plastic. You might want to consider writing a picture-driven article for the Archive!

You received an authenticity compliment from Chef, WHILE WEARING PLASTIC...frame it and call it an honor! I look forward to the day when Chef will compliment me on my authenticity, and we're friends! Hopefully I can have the armour finished by May...

-Aaron

[David]

Hugo is absolutely right. There SCA is filled with folks who are uninterested in history, they're more interested in SCA sport combat or fantasy portrayals. As I said before, they PREFER what they do (plastic armor and princess dresses) to what most on this forum like and do.

Whatever it says in the corpora, they are the majority. In general, the old "lead by example" thing is worthless. Why would they follow where they don't want to go?

The thing is, and an important thing it is, is that the SCA has a sizable minority of folks in it who are actually interested in history. I wouldn't go to events if it didn't. It's important to be somewhat visible in our attempts so that others can see who also might be interested.

This ain't converting the heathen, it's finding the believers.

P.S. I think the discussion of reenactment vs. sport vs. WMA combat is a worthy one so I'm starting a sidebar discussion if anyone is interested.


"Captains in open fields on their foes rushing,
Gentlemen second them with pikes a-rushing.
Engineers in the trench, earth, earth uprearing,
Gunpowder in the mines pagans up-blowing"

[Charlotte J]

Most folks in my local group *want* to look more authentic, but just simply don't know how. Or, the practical benefits of using a particular material have to be proven to them. Case in point: we did a cotehardie fitting day this past weekend at my house. All but one person brought cotton or cotton blend fabric (I had suggested they get linen, but they didn't). So, we commenced to fitting them and found that the cotton simply didn't work as well as the linen. We had a LOT of fun, plus we learned something - using a non-period fabric for a period fitting technique is a lot more work than we really want to do. The general consensus was to use linen next time.

The big victory in that story is that the ladies who participated are actually talking about a next time, instead of going back to T-tunics and Celtic/Ren Fair stuff. And this was accomplished by making it fun, rather than barring them from participating because they didn't bring a period material or criticising them for bringing cotton for the fitting. Showing folks *why* non-period materials are not as good works better than a lecture or a statute prohibiting a particular thing. It takes more of a time committment and is slower than just passing a rule, but the effects are longer-lasting and you have more people to play with afterwards.

Gwyneth-

Congrats on a successful cotte fitting workshop! They're fun, but tiring, aren't they?

Can you let me know what your completion rate is, after a few months? I've done 4 workshops, and had varying success with people actually fitting a gown. My first workshop about half went on, second and third workshops were much lower, AFAIK. My last workshop has been doing pretty well, but with this group I've been having follow up work evenings. You mentioned that you are having follow up classes as well. Do you expect that anybody in your group will be able to also go out and teach? Or at least do it on their own?

Curious,
Charlotte

[kass]

Pleeeease come to Arkansas! Most of the SCA folks here are prepared to worship the ground you walk on - I have already achieved demigoddess status just for knowing you through this board.

I don't usually get further South than Alexandria, Virgina, but with that kind of invitation, I certainly am tempted! (glad I could assist in your personal demigoddessness too, Gwyneth <wink>).

Slow and steady progress folks. Rules and criticism are not the way to go. If you make authenticity fun, then others will want to play. I have found that most folks are intimidated by the word "authenticity". So, I quit using it in classes I teach. Instead, I point out the practical benefits of using period materials and construction methods.

Although I don't avoid words like "authenticity" and "period", I see what you mean, Gwyneth. I stopped using the word "perfection" because a friend said it might be intimidating, even though I was using it to say none of us will ever get there, but it's still our goal.

But as David said, I'm also not trying to convert the masses. I'm trying to find the believers who just don't know how to "believe" yet. I call my class "Authenticity 101" for a reason -- if you have no interest in authenticity at all, don't come to the class. The class stresses heavily the fact that being authentic in the SCA is a choice and that that choice in no one's but your own.

I find two techniques to be really effective in getting people to dress more authentically: (A) showing them that doing things the authentic way is more comfortable in all weather, simpler, cheaper, etc. than the inauthentic way and (B) always looking fabulous. I have seen many, many new people who don't research what they want to wear, but who see someone they think looks good and say, "I want to look like her/him!" If you are someone who looks good AND period-accurate, you'll get people copying you, and that's a good thing.

And about using period materials for more comfortable, longer-lasting clothes, I said this is a class last weekend: if wool and linen were simply the period way but not good fabrics to work with, I wouldn't be so evangelical about encouraging people to use them. But since they are such superior fibres AND they're correct for the period, there's no reason to go through all the trouble of making something out of a modern fabric that will fall apart, make you sweat/freeze, and just look awful.

The big victory in that story is that the ladies who participated are actually talking about a next time, instead of going back to T-tunics and Celtic/Ren Fair stuff.

My favourite comment is (usually from men): "I can't believe how comfortable my period clothing is!" That's the real selling point. If they're comfortable, they'll wear it and they'll make more like it.

Kass

[Ron Broberg]

I am new to this board and this train of thought. I could be wrong, but it appears to be the heart of the argument.

I would guess, and for the sake of the argument I will so guess, that you do not have a single garment of hand-woven cloth in your kit. For you the difference between a hand-woven and machine-woven material is insignificant. Yet, clearly, one is more authentic than the other. Why would you choose a less authentic material?

Or to ask the question in another manner, what criteria do you use to categorize a given modern object as to its autheniticity?

You, while making a good argument, are missing the point on a variety of levels. Specifically, you are allowing the best to be the enemy of the good.

No... I am arguing against allowing the best to be the enemy of the good. Our definition of good may be different, however

I'm not saying that only hand-woven cloth made from fibers spun from bred-back sheep are the only accurate alternative, although to do so is kewl beyond words. I'm saying that it's better to use authentic fibers and weaves, which are commercially available, to construct garments than to use modern synthetic fabrics, or fabrics like cotton broadcloth which were unavailable in the SCA's period. It's better to camp in a tent, with furniture, which appear to be appropriate to your persona's period, than to camp in a nylon North Face pimple with Coleman folding chairs. It's better to wear armour on the field appropriate to your persona -- even if it means covering SCA-legal armour with clothing if your persona is too early for plate -- than to wear SCA Sport armour.

We have found common ground here. My modest proposal is to have the SCA provide a roadmap for such conversions.

To the best of my knowledge, Kass is an SCA member. Obviously the SCA does not prevent people from succeeding.

To be honest, she's not a member, and neither am I

My apologies to the good lady. I have seen her post on several SCA mailing lists and misunderstood her relation to the organisation.

... we need more than a collection of links questionably assembled and maintained.

Now it is you who is arguing to let the best be the enemy of the good. I propose, and perhaps with no really good evidence, that the SCA can maintain a library of good patterns and construction methods to improve the appearance of the general population. Similarly, it can provide a checklist of garments and material possessions that a generic noble couple of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries might possess. These lists and patterns should be such that the average member could make the item or afford to acquire it. It has been stated that the information is already available and it has also been argued that many in the SCA are seemingly unable to perform research at a high school level to find it. So it seems to me that the SCA can (1) improve access to the material, (2) improve the research skills of its members, or (3) do nothing.

[kass]

Ron,

No appology necessary. I take no offense at being mistaken for an SCA member.

The SCA can certainly assemble a bunch of juried links or patterns or whathaveyou. They have done so in previous versions of the Known World Handboke. But the most recent handbook I've seen still is using poor information that has been decidedly superceded by the Internet SCA community. Some Kingdoms have brilliant A&S sites that list tons of links to good information for beginners and non-beginners alike. Others have nothing at all. I would think the corporate site (sca.org) should have a list of links for the beginner as well as photos from Society-level events so people could see the reality of what an event looks like. But that seems like it just gets done on Kingdom and mostly local sites, not corporate.

Why they aren't doing this officially and on a Society level isn't a question I can answer.

Kass