Avoiding the 'Diaper' Look

[Mac]

Leo,

It's important to consider the length and function of the garment. The two modern examples you posted are both shorter in the skirt than the CDB garment. They would be suitable for doublets that get covered by another garment, but not as something that is normally exposed to view.

The important landmarks on the CDB are the "vents" on each side. These will fall at about the level of the hip joints. Functionally, the vents allow the skirt to be long enough to cover the groin and gluteal folds while still maintaining a close, tight line. Without the side vents, the skirt would ruck up.

I've always thought of Jean de Vaudetar as the poster boy for how the CDB was supposed to fit. He has buttons to close the the vents, but he's left them open because he was going to have to kneel. We can see how his arse girdle has been forced up a bit on his right. He will have to shove that back into position when he stands back up. We can't tell whether or not his hosen are joined because his outer garment is doing its job. The side vents allow his leg to bend quite fully without rucking the skirt enough to let his king see his junk, or the people at court see his butt.



Mac

[Mac]

Here's that that same sort of garment looks like when less carefully rendered.




Here, the artist has not shown side vents. They may or may not be present, but we can use the arse girdle as a landmark. It must be at the place just above the hip joints. That's the lowest point on the human body where a belt can be worn.



...and, of course, there are all the guys in the Guiron le Courtois and the Queste del Saint Graal Mss.



By contrast, here is the slightly longer skirt that guys wore right about the time the moralists began to complain about the butt and junk flashing. It's long enough that you really have to work hard to be indecent. Again, the height of the arse girdle is out landmark.



...and this is what those kvetching moralists would rather see... a decent skirt that covers a man to the tops of his knees. Note the belts here are being worn a bit higher. That bit of belly sag and the sweep up in back tell us that these belts are at the "blue jean waist".



(I admit, it's sometimes impossible to be sure of the belt location. In general, though, wide belts with big square plaques work better in the low position. They sit badly at the "blue jeans" waist, where a narrower or more supple belt accommodates the curves better.)

Mac

[Sean M]

As usual, sound advice Mac.

Ive spent some hours browsing frescos and miniatures and the earliest joined hose to date I can currently find is 1380's. There's more digging to do but, in the meantime ive found some nice examples of BCSH. Both examples would work with the CDBP center rear pointing location if tailored correctly.
The inner most rear eyelet holes on the hose could be brought together and pointed, leaving only a very thin vertical football shape,(of exposed briaes) for lack of a better description.
There is a painting (15th cent. I think) of a few gents putting a corpse on a plank into an incinerator if I remember correctly. One of the gents looks to have blown out the rear seam in his joined hose. I cant find the painting off hand, but this would give a similar effect of well tailored BCSH in relation to the center pointing location on the CDBP.

I would not call "Thursfield type 2" hosen BCSH because they do not, well, cover the butt. They just cover the bottom inch or so of the glutes. I do not know what she based them on ... like Mac said, the idea in the 14th and early 15th century seems to be that the top of your hosen should be covered by the first garment above them, all the way around.

I have seen similar solutions, but on 15th century doublets with a bottom edge near the 'armour waist.'

[Sean M]

Also ... one of the basic engineering issues is that the small-of-back-to-back-of-knee line gets longer as we raise our knees. Hosen which cover the butt standing will tend to expose it as we mount a horse, drop into a fighting crouch, or do anything else other than stand upright.

This is why 'plumber's crack' appears with modern low waistlines.

As long as the upper garment is at least half the wearer's height long (mid-thigh), the top back of the hosen can nestle under the glutes, and there will be no indecency because the upper garment covers it. When it is only 5/12 the wearer's height (butt-length) the danger of flashing appears, and the hosen should be longer in the centre back and have more points of suspension. By the late 15th century, with the upper garment only about a quarter the wearer's height long (to the armour waist/natural waist) the hosen cover up to the armour waist all around.

Having the hosen extend above the bottom hem of the upper garment prevented any embarrassing flashing as the leg moved through its range of motion. I think that tying the hosen to the bottom edge of the doublet works better once the doublet waist was at 'elbow level'/'the armour waist'/'the natural waist.'

[Sean M]

There are some famous mid-15th century paintings which show the breeches between the legs, like Giovanni di Ser Giovanni, “The Game of Civettino" from the 1440s. I think that some people have them in the back of their minds.



It is important to note that these doublets are shorter than was common at any time in the 14th century (about 4/12 the wearer's height tall, stopping just above the naughty bits) and that we do not see this kind of exposure in 14th century art or hear about it from moralists. 'Daring' in the late 14th century was letting people see your breeches when you kneeled down, or appearing in public with only your hosen covering your crack and your crotch.

[Sean M]

If I like my new hosen I will post sketches of the upper parts (anyone can do the lower parts, it is just draping, fitting, pinning closer, and repeating).

As far as I can tell, nobody who does good hosen to wear with a late 14th century doublet is writing about it.

[Zubeydah]

Mac

Mac - what's the source of this image?
I want to add it to my catalogue of "really cool diapering effects" for scribal stuff...

-zubeydah

[Mac]

It looks like one of the many "grande chronique de France", but I don't know which one. I'll do a little search and see if I can come up with it.

Mac

[Mac]

Here it is http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8 ... m.r=Fables It's not a grande chronique at all. I guess it just comes from a workshop that also did chroniques.

Title :
Traités philosophiques et moraux
Publication date :
1372
Subject :
Miniatures
Subject :
Manuscrits mentionnés dans son catalogue
Type :
manuscript
Language :
latin
Format :
Parchemin. - 9-IIIIe feuillets à 2 colonnes. - Quarante-neuf miniatures dont deux à quatre tableaux sur fonds brodés, accompagnées de riches vignettes et procédant de trois enlumineurs distincts ; la plupart des cartouches qui les renferment ont un liséré aux trois couleurs bleue, blanche et rouge....
Description :
Contient : « A mon commencement soit la grace du Père et du Filz et du Saint Esperit. Amen. Table géneral » ; « Ci commence le prologue de ce livre qui est de l'enseignement des princes [selonc. I. frère cordelier]. Comme la compaignie des princes soit noble partie de l'Eglise, et la vie du menu...
Description :
Appartient à l'ensemble

Mac

[LeoVIIIIV]

Hey guys,
The pics I posted earlier were to show the mechanics of IMO the best option for BCSH in relation to pointing to an upper garment. The CDBP is obviously longer, and yes the hose should be extended, but the principle is still the same. I do think however that the cut on the top of the Thursfield type 2's (I didn't know they actually had a name) would be more likely than tailed hosen (with the point inline with the back of the leg seam.)
Ill have to clarify what I am implying with modern reproduction references henceforth.

Mac, I agree with all your points about the vents etc. And yes, as ive admitted before it would be in a rare circumstance that indecency would be an issue.....hahah kvetching moralists

Sean M I agree on many of your points as well. Although I believe that, even with a mid thigh garment like the CDBP that the hose should extend higher than the gluteal fold, not just for decency's sake but for pointing to the pourpoint/doublet/paltok etc etc. as well. I'm not sure if this is what you meant by "nestle under the glutes".

My main question is, as when i first posted my speculation, is; how did the rear center pointing location (on the CDBP) work in relation to the hose?Ive speculated (as have many others) that joined hose may be an option, and BCSH a more likely option based on the evidence we have for the earliest dating of joined hosen.
Ive recently made patterns for both types and, when i complete my current pourpoint (40 or so hours to go!) ill be putting the patterns through the gauntlet so to speak.
If interested, I can post photos of the results but i dont suspect there is that big of an interest in seeing my backside that many times.

[Zubeydah]

Here it is http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8 ... m.r=Fables It's not a grande chronique at all. I guess it just comes from a workshop that also did chroniques. (snip)
Mac

Thank you, good Sir!

[Mac]

My main question is, as when i first posted my speculation, is; how did the rear center pointing location (on the CDBP) work in relation to the hose?Ive speculated (as have many others) that joined hose may be an option, and BCSH a more likely option based on the evidence we have for the earliest dating of joined hosen.

When I think of BCSH, I keep coming back to images like these.















The thing they all have in common is that the butt flaps terminate in some sort of structure that is different from just an eyelet hole. I think that the center back fastening is special because it's the one that is under the most tension, and the one that you are most likely to want to undo. Unfortunately, this is about as far as I go with this.

Mac

[Mac]

There is a painting (15th cent. I think) of a few gents putting a corpse on a plank into an incinerator if I remember correctly. One of the gents looks to have blown out the rear seam in his joined hose. I cant find the painting off hand, but this would give a similar effect of well tailored BCSH in relation to the center pointing location on the CDBP.

Is this the one you mean? I don't think that haloed fellow is a corpse just yet, but he soon will be.



I'm not sure if we are meant to see this as a seam blow out or as BCSH.

Mac

[Sean M]

Sean M I agree on many of your points as well. Although I believe that, even with a mid thigh garment like the CDBP that the hose should extend higher than the gluteal fold, not just for decency's sake but for pointing to the pourpoint/doublet/paltok etc etc. as well. I'm not sure if this is what you meant by "nestle under the glutes".

Leo, the Charles de Blois is not mid-thigh length. The skirt is a bit shorter than the part from shoulder to waist ... it is just a difference from 4-6", but enough that the wearer's breeches might show as he bows, kneels, or mounts a horse. Because of that, it needs longer hosen with more points of suspension than the ones found at Greenland.




If the upper garment falls to mid-thigh or lower, like in the painting above, the hosen can stop just below the butt and have just one point of suspension. These scarlet hosen from the Hours of Catherine of Cleeves are cut like the Greenland finds.



If it ends high enough that you don't need to lift your skirt to pee, then the hosen need to come high all around and be relatively 'structured' if you don't want to flash people. Lacing the top of the hosen to the bottom edge of the doublet seems to come into fashion after the skirts have risen higher in the 15th century: I don't see it in art up to 1410, and the Charles de Blois was not fitted for it.




When the upper garment ends just below the butt, you have a few options. My solution looks a lot like Caroline Johnson's version of the Alpirsbach hosen, but with 4-6" cut off the top, no codpiece, and the seam under the crotch left open.

Sarah Thursfield published instructions for cutting hosen which extend 2-3" above the crotch all around and are laced to the bottom edge of the doublet. That was a popular way to join the hosen to the doublet from the late 15th century to the early 17th century, but if they used it in the period I study, we would see it in the art, and we don't.

[Sean M]

My main question is, as when i first posted my speculation, is; how did the rear center pointing location (on the CDBP) work in relation to the hose?Ive speculated (as have many others) that joined hose may be an option, and BCSH a more likely option based on the evidence we have for the earliest dating of joined hosen.

When I think of BCSH, I keep coming back to images like these.

The points tied to the 'mystery loop' in that painting make me wonder if this could be related to the tightening cord which extant hosen often seem to have but nobody really understands. Since we don't have a full suite of trades nearby, Sarah Thursfield's favourite solution is to just sew a brass ring to the flap.

I can't really say anything intelligent to hosen after 1410 though.

[Mac]

The points tied to the 'mystery loop' in that painting make me wonder if this could be related to the tightening cord which extant hosen often seem to have but nobody really understands.

I'm missing something, Sean. Tell me more about this mysterious "tightening cord" thing; it's not ringing a bell.

Mac

[Mac]

Ive recently made patterns for both types and, when i complete my current pourpoint (40 or so hours to go!) ill be putting the patterns through the gauntlet so to speak.
If interested, I can post photos of the results but i dont suspect there is that big of an interest in seeing my backside that many times.

We exist to humble ourselves before the Gods of Fashion.

Of course we want to see that you have come up with.

Mac

[Mac]

For what it's worth.

I searched through my old patterns and found the hosen I was working on back in 1988. They were intended to be BCSH (before we has an official initialization for them). I was just in the process of trying to change the foot over from a stirrup, and still making some adjustments to the upper edge.



The pattern is a bit like one of the ones from Adrien Harmand's Jeanne d' Arc book, but not exactly.


I may or may not have started with Harmand; I can't remember. In any case, I could sit without undoing the center backs, and the butt was not too baggy.

The overall project was based on what I could understand from images in the famous Boccaccio MS in Paris. I had a mock up doublet that did OK from the waist down, but was too "clingy" from the waist up. It was clear that what I needed to do was add a couple of inches from the waist up to free up the shoulders... but then I got distracted and let the project slide. By the time I thought I'd return to it, I was older, fatter, and only dressing up to sell goods at Pennsic; where it's too damned hot to wear a doublet anyway.



Mac

[Sean M]

It could well be that that Boccaccio MS was Sarah Thursfield's inspiration (or the inspiration of whoever designed the pattern in her book). The doublets are crotch-length but are laced to the hosen all around.

The points tied to the 'mystery loop' in that painting make me wonder if this could be related to the tightening cord which extant hosen often seem to have but nobody really understands.

I'm missing something, Sean. Tell me more about this mysterious "tightening cord" thing; it's not ringing a bell.

Mac

Mac, I am sleep deprived and jet lagged, but it looks like the source is Marc Carlson's writeup of the hose on the Bocksten Man. The publication of that find is unobtainable and in a language I can't read ... but he says that they thought it was more complicated than just a reinforced upp edge and a leather tab or a pair of eyelets to take points.

If I find anything else, I will post it. I am not flying on all four engines right now.

[Sean M]

The Companie of St. george also has a version of Harmand's mid-15th-century hosen. http://www.companie-of-st-george.ch/cms ... e_Download

I don't think they line the upper parts of their hosen with linen, but such a lining appears in documents by the 1390s, and appears on many mid-15th-century paintings. I think it will help the hosen 'stand up' around the loins, and it could well appear as soon as hosen start to cover the butt. If you notice, modern trousers are lined all around the butt, we just call the lining pockets

[Mac]

The Companie of St. george also has a version of Harmand's mid-15th-century hosen. http://www.companie-of-st-george.ch/cms ... e_Download

Thanks for that link, Sean! I had seen that document before, but not lately.

The author makes an interesting claim about codpieces..

It is also possible to make a codpiece that is
completely sewn into place, and does not open.
There is no evidence that codpieces were opened
before 1465-1470.

That strikes me as counter intuitive, but I can not find any examples that give it the lie. Can it really be the case that the droppable codpiece is not invented till the late 15th C. ?! If so, it goes to show how we can labor under misconceptions without ever suspecting it.

I don't think they line the upper parts of their hosen with linen, but such a lining appears in documents by the 1390s, and appears on many mid-15th-century paintings.

As far as I can tell, white linen(?) linings are pretty typical whenever the artist can be relied upon to show us any detail in rolled down or otherwise untrussed hosen from the early 15thC on.

Mac

[Mac]

The Companie of St. george also has a version of Harmand's mid-15th-century hosen. http://www.companie-of-st-george.ch/cms ... e_Download

Thanks for that link, Sean! I had seen that document before, but not lately.

The author makes an interesting claim about codpieces..

It is also possible to make a codpiece that is
completely sewn into place, and does not open.
There is no evidence that codpieces were opened
before 1465-1470.

That strikes me as counter intuitive, but I can not find any examples that give it the lie. Can it really be the case that the droppable codpiece is not invented till the late 15th C. ?! If so, it goes to show how we can labor under misconceptions without ever suspecting it.

I don't think they line the upper parts of their hosen with linen, but such a lining appears in documents by the 1390s, and appears on many mid-15th-century paintings.

As far as I can tell, white linen(?) linings are pretty typical whenever the artist can be relied upon to show us any detail in rolled down or otherwise untrussed hosen from the early 15thC on.

Mac

[Sean M]

As far as I can tell, white linen(?) linings are pretty typical whenever the artist can be relied upon to show us any detail in rolled down or otherwise untrussed hosen from the early 15thC on.

Mac

Johann Hyll also approved of hosen with a bias-cut linen lining:

First hym nedeth to have a paire of hosen of corde wtoute vampeys And the saide hosen kutte at ye knees and lyned wtin wt Lynnen cloth byesse as the hose is

In Roger Mortimer's household in 1393/4, a pretty common requirement for a pair of hosen was a yard and a quarter of cloth and a half ell or quarter ell of linen. My working assumption is that the lining was only in the 'breeches area.'

I can't prove that these existed before 1393/4, but Leo might want to experiment with them.

[Mac]

I keep coming back to this idea that the early codpiece might not have been the sort of "drawbridge of masculine support" that I had presumed.

By the time we have the tall hosen and short doublets of the late 15th C, it's clear that the codpiece takes the form of at deeply contured flap that tied up at the corners. ..



...but the earlier codpiece is not nearly so easy to interpret. They have a sort of almond like profile, and seem to be highest in the middle, where they tie with a single point.







Is it possible that these codpieces are attached permanently at their sides to the hosen? Are the lines that seem to delineate them just wrinkles in the fabric? ... like the wrinkles we see in contemporary braies?





And that brings me to this enigmatic fellow. We can clearly see that his hosen have a pouch, and it is easy to understand that it would be the codpiece if we saw him from the front. The seam lines of his hosen are like those that come from the Harmand pattern, and the pattern recommended by the Company of St George, but there are no side seams attaching the cod. It's as though the codpiece is is formed from a continuation of the same fabric that makes up the hosen. Without mocking it up in fabric, I can't be sure, but in my mind, I think would work.



So, it this one of the branches of the evolutionary tree of codpieces?

But before I finish here, there are two more strange things to consider...

The first is the Spanish fashion of tall, narrow codpieces which do not conceal present a uniform color. I presume that we are seeing their braies, but perhaps it is a lining.



The second poses a more difficult problem to understand. Here we have a fellow with one of the early codpieces that is tall in the middle; but turn you attention to his undone butt. What we can see is the typically triangular flap with a reinforced point that characterizes butt covering split hosen.



How is it that he has a codpiece and split hosen? This is deeper than we have heretofore believed.

Mac

[Sean M]

Mac, I wish I had brain-space to think about clothing after 1410, but I have a thesis to finish and a long list of projects to complete. Here are the best four pictures I know for breeches worn with garments similar to the Charles de Blois.

Guillaume de Mauchaut MS


- Works of Guillaume de Machaut, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, MS. Français 1584 fol. Dr, painted between 1372 and 1377. This guy is one of the cool kids, and you can see that his grey cote ends partway down his butt, and the grey hosen disappear under it. He is one of the 'cool kids.'

Trés Belles Heures


- The Trés Belles Heures of Jean de Berry, MS. nouvelle acquisiton français 3093 fol. 189r, painted between 1380 and 1385. The thug bringing Christ before Kaiphas seems to wear hosen like the long pair from Greenland, because the butt sags and threatens to expose his breeches even when he is standing. Don't be like this guy!

Guiron le Courtoise


- BNF Nouvelle acquisition française 5243 Guiron le Courtois, fol. 51r, painted in the 1370s. When these guys sit down, a tiny bit of breech is visible at front (so there is no codpiece).

Schloss Runkelstein
??? http://realonline.imareal.sbg.ac.at/det ... vnr=004459 (click for high-resolution photos on imareal)

- The frescos of the Badestube at Roncolo/Runkelstein. These were probably completed between 1388 and 1407, when the Brothers Vintler got involved in a struggle between Duke Ferdinand and the Tirolean nobility. The cool kids don't show any breech, even when leaning back against a railing or bending forward with the head below the pelvis. Lost an hour searching for good photos, will take some next time I am there.

[Mac]

This is a great image, Sean! I think what we are seeing here, though, is BCSH. Following that taillor's axiom that wrinkles point toward the tension, we can see that the left hose is supported at (at least) two points; one up near the hip, and another in the back.



If this were a single point hose, the support would be over the hip, and any slack or sag should be directly opposite that. That is to say, we should not be able to see it in this view.

I am thinking that the most likely thing to go with the CDB garment is Butt Covering Split Hosen. Here are a couple of examples that support that idea.

This guy is a bit later. The presence of points on the outside suggests that this is a doublet, rather than an outer garment, but the cut is similar to the CDB. The twin droops in his but suggest hosen with a split tail. It's subtle, but I think it's evidence.



This one's a bit earlier. The ruffian on the right is wearing what looks like an outer garment; it's nice fabric and the hem is dagged. He clearly has BCSH, which he has let the backs of down to assist him in his labor.



Here, the villain on the left is wearing a slightly later and shorter skirted garment, but yet he still feels it's OK to wear BCSH. The thug on the ground has on something a bit earlier, and more like the CDB garment. Unfortunately, he has taken his hosen of entirely. In the interest of the discussion, I feel obliged to suggest that this might be because he had joined hosen, and could not just roll them down.



This late 14thC puking guy has hosen that cover his butt. It's hard to tell if they are joined of separate, but I think that the way they are sagging suggests that the butt is split.



These energetic housbreakers are both wearing hosen of interest. The one on the left clearly has individual legs, and I think the central point of the skirt indicates that it's an outer garment. The on on the right, though, is almost certainly wearing an outer garment, as he wears an arse girdle with a purse over it. It's clear that his hosen have a split butt.



These images, and some more that might be relevant are in my board on split butt hosen. That's a section of a larger board on hosen wherein I am trying to gather material that sheds light on the development of hosen in the late middle ages.



Mac

[Mac]

And, now I'm going to waffle a bit. I had just said that I think the CDB garment goes with BCSH, but I've just looked at this image again and now I'm wondering if that's right.



The issue is the three points near the center back. They are too close to one another. Furthermore, (if my memory serves) the center one is a sort of odd man out.... being made of leather, where the others are linen.

I now wonder if the center back point is a working life addition. If that's right, then the garment originally had six, more or less evenly spaced points, with none in the center. This sounds more like something to support hosen with a joined butt... although it would let the middle sag a bit.

If that's right, the center back point may have been added to accommodate the two tails of split butt hosen. That seems a bit weird, doesen't it?

Unless.... the original configuration presumes that the two tails of split butt hosen crossed one another to produce an overlap. I have absolutely no evidence for this, of course.... but lets just presume this scenario for a moment. Let's say that the earliest form of split butt hosen presumed an overlap, and that the CDB garment was set up for that. We see from the iconography, that later doublets which are used in conjunction with BCSH have a single point, and that it's generally higher than the rest. Perhaps that is the system that "won out", and the owner of the CDB had the high center point installed to accommodate the newfangled trend in hosen.

OK.. so now I'm back to BCSH again.

Mac

[Sean M]

And, now I'm going to waffle a bit. I had just said that I think the CDB garment goes with BCSH, but I've just looked at this image again and now I'm wondering if that's right.



The issue is the three points near the center back. They are too close to one another. Furthermore, (if my memory serves) the center one is a sort of odd man out.... being made of leather, where the others are linen.

I now wonder if the center back point is a working life addition. If that's right, then the garment originally had six, more or less evenly spaced points, with none in the center. This sounds more like something to support hosen with a joined butt... although it would let the middle sag a bit.

If that's right, the center back point may have been added to accommodate the two tails of split butt hosen. That seems a bit weird, doesen't it?

Mac, looking closer, I am not sure that the back point is higher than the others, just shorter (in its current state of repair). Look at the mount point in the B&W photo and compare it to the lines of quilting.

I will study that photo as I sew the 'hosen belt' for the blue pourpoint.

I don't know where the idea of the centre back point being leather comes from.

Harmand calls them "sept paires de cordons spéciaux" but does not describe them. Tasha Kelly's pattern page 61 suggests that they have a linen core which was slit, rolled into cylindrical points, and wrapped in silk thread to hold the roll closed. I wish I could obtain that article in Moyen Age but it seems to be a popular magazine so libraries do not carry it.

Here is a photo of the left side points as they appeared last year. Please do not share it on Pinterest or similar.

https://bookandsword.com/p1000376_cdeb_left_side_vent/

[Mac]

Mac, looking closer, I am not sure that the back point is higher than the others, just shorter (in its current state of repair). Look at the mount point in the B&W photo and compare it to the lines of quilting.

Yea. I saw that a couple of minutes after I posted.

I don't know where the idea of the centre back point being leather comes from.

I'm pretty sure that's what I read in a journal article that described the garment. That will have been about 30 years or so ago. I might have it (somewhere) as a photocopy, but I'm not at all confident of that. I'll look for it later today.

Harmand calls them "sept paires de cordons spéciaux" but does not describe them. Tasha Kelly's pattern page 61 suggests that they have a linen core which was slit, rolled into cylindrical points, and wrapped in silk thread to hold the roll closed. I wish I could obtain that article in Moyen Age but it seems to be a popular magazine so libraries do not carry it.

If my memory serves, the article I mentioned above said that the linen ones were made by teasing the warp threads out of some stuff and then braiding up the warps into two cords. But, as I say, that was quite a while ago and I may be getting senile.

Mac

[Mac]

I have searched my old file folders and come up with the source of that information. It's an article (in English) by Maurice Leloir (President of the Societe de l'Histoire du Costume, Paris) , in Apollo # 23, 1936 pp157-160

On page 159 M Leloir says of the "latchets of estaches (anglicé "herlots")...

There are seven of them:one to each front of the doublet, one over each side-seam and three at the back. Except that in the center back (which is of leather) each latchet is woven of stout linen canvas whose threads are teased out and braided into twin cords

The article also contains a figure which is a line drawing of the cut of the parts of the garment. It is noteworthy in not being just another redrawing of the diagram in Harmand. In particular, it shows the sides of the lower back piece as parallel in the place where fabric has been sewn on to increase its width. Harmand shows these converging.

I am posting a quick pic of the relevant figure here, but perhaps someone can find a better copy on the web somewhere. My perfunctory search did not come up with it.



Mac

[Sean M]

Mac, I will add that to my Interlibrary Loan list next time I am in 'research mode.' It looks like that magazine has never digitalized its back issues, probably because the current incarnation is in "thinky-talky-artsy" mode not "antiquarian scholarship" mode.

Maurice Leloir, "A Mediaeval doublet," Apollo: The International Magazine of the Arts Vol. 23 No. 135 (March 1936) pp. 157-160

My eyes were not good enough to study the pattern in the cloth of gold and see if the seams Harmand says were sloped were sloped.

Adding a wedge under the armpit appears in Freyle, it seems like it was the standard solution to the problem that most fabric containing silk or cotton was woven about 55 cm/21" wide and that is not quite enough for both breasts of a big-breasted or big-bellied garment. Joining the widths of cloth at the side was less visible than adding it at the centre front.

[Mac]

My eyes were not good enough to study the pattern in the cloth of gold and see if the seams Harmand says were sloped were sloped.

Adding a wedge under the armpit appears in Freyle, it seems like it was the standard solution to the problem that most fabric containing silk or cotton was woven about 55 cm/21" wide and that is not quite enough for both breasts of a big-breasted or big-bellied garment. Joining the widths of cloth at the side was less visible than adding it at the centre front.

I suspect that Leloir's drawing is correct on that point, and the those lines are the selvedges of the fabric. It makes sense that way, and fits in very nicely with Tasha's idea about fabric layout.



Mac

[Sean M]

My eyes were not good enough to study the pattern in the cloth of gold and see if the seams Harmand says were sloped were sloped.

Adding a wedge under the armpit appears in Freyle, it seems like it was the standard solution to the problem that most fabric containing silk or cotton was woven about 55 cm/21" wide and that is not quite enough for both breasts of a big-breasted or big-bellied garment. Joining the widths of cloth at the side was less visible than adding it at the centre front.

I suspect that Leloir's drawing is correct on that point, and the those lines are the selvedges of the fabric. It makes sense that way, and fits in very nicely with Tasha's idea about fabric layout.



Mac

Hi Mac,

here is my handiest photo of that area https://bookandsword.files.wordpress.co ... _flank.jpg

Slanting those seams might be a way to create some 3d shaping, it does not seem crazy within a "tailor's" approach to cutting (allow some extra for adjustments after fitting) as opposed to a "ready-to-wear" shop's approach (cut it perfectly the first time and sew it once). I am pretty sure that they started out straight though

[Mac]

As far as I can see from the pic, the relationship between the seam line and the medallions remains the same through the four medallions in the frame.

I think it's on the straight grain of the fabric.

Mac

[Mac]

I have started a new Pinterest board of garments related to the CDB.

Please tell me if you have an image I've missed.

Also, of course, we can discuss whether the ones I've included do or do not belong.

Mac