The Armour Archive

First - as I understand it, the correct timeframe for the sideless is from about 1275 to 1400. Is this correct?


Second - As I understand it, the later period you get, the narrower the torso of the sideless becomes. Is this correct?

Last - Did the length fluctuate at all? I have seen paintings and such that seem to show varying lengths of the sideless and well as varying lengths of the "tail" of the sideless...

Thanks!

Check out http://larsdatter.com/surcoats.htm for some examples of sideless surcoats. (Actually, the narrowest-torso'd ones I've seen are the 13th century Spanish examples; I'm not sure what you mean by a "tail" on a sideless surcoat.)

Karen Larsdatter wrote:Check out http://larsdatter.com/surcoats.htm for some examples of sideless surcoats. (Actually, the narrowest-torso'd ones I've seen are the 13th century Spanish examples; I'm not sure what you mean by a "tail" on a sideless surcoat.)

Sorry...I was meaning the amount of fabric that drags behind the surcoat. The "trail"?

Be careful!

The Sideless surcoat appears in artwork for many, many years after it stopped being worn; for some reason it became symbolic of a Queen so female saints of Royal blood in the 15th century are always depicted in sidless surcoats even though the garment was no longer worn.

Also in funerary brasses a patron might request that she be "Dressed as a Queen" on her tomb brass and therefore they throw a sideless surcoat on her; again after the garment was no longer worn.

This explains some of the impossible wacked-out surcoats you see in art!

I don't remember the exact time period it was worn... was relatively short (30 years?) and I think in the early-mid 14th century (1300s)

(*edit to add: I'm ignoring the Spanish pelote/saya thing in my statements as I'm more interested in France and England. If you count them then yes, they go back farther)

They do have sleeveless surcoats in the thirteenth century which are the direct ancestor of the sideless surcoat, but more like a sleeveless tunic worn over top.

If you want to make one, there's a trick to getting it full on the sides, you cut a J shape... which allows the fabric to stretch into the loop shape *makes gestures at the screen* hrm... someone's got to have a website with practical instructions out there

Oh, and I have seen some examples of the 13th century sleeveless surcoat that had a shorter hem than the under tunic (ankle length or calf length)

Milesent wrote:Be careful!

The Sideless surcoat appears in artwork for many, many years after it stopped being worn; for some reason it became symbolic of a Queen so female saints of Royal blood in the 15th century are always depicted in sidless surcoats even though the garment was no longer worn.

Also in funerary brasses a patron might request that she be "Dressed as a Queen" on her tomb brass and therefore they throw a sideless surcoat on her; again after the garment was no longer worn.

This explains some of the impossible wacked-out surcoats you see in art!

I don't remember the exact time period it was worn... was relatively short (30 years?) and I think in the early-mid 14th century (1300s)

They do have sleeveless surcoats in the thirteenth century which are the direct ancestor of the sideless surcoat, but more like a sleeveless tunic worn over top.

If you want to make one, there's a trick to getting it full on the sides, you cut a J shape... which allows the fabric to stretch into the loop shape *makes gestures at the screen* hrm... someone's got to have a website with practical instructions out there

My target is the 14th century Early to Mid.

My biggest question with them is their length. Most all of the depictions of them that I see show them very long, often beyond the length at which they touch the ground, with "trains" of fabric behind the wearer. There are frequent depictions of the ladies holding up the front with a hand as they step.

Are there any example of the sideless surcoat where they are not this long?

I'll have to check my 14th century images and see if I can find something for you; off the top of my head I don't recall seeing it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't done! Unfortunately I don't have much on my work computer (though that means I'm being a good employee, eh?) I will say that in the 13th century images with the shorter surcoat, the under-tunic trailed on the ground. Getting your hems dirty was, alas, the height of fashion

Dangit... can't find a good practical cutting out website showing what I mean by the whole J thing, it's really niffty.

I'll have to check my 14th century images and see if I can find something for you; off the top of my head I don't recall seeing it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't done! Unfortunately I don't have much on my work computer (though that means I'm being a good employee, eh?) I will say that in the 13th century images with the shorter surcoat, the under-tunic trailed on the ground. Getting your hems dirty was, alas, the height of fashion

Dangit... can't find a good practical cutting out website showing what I mean by the whole J thing, it's really niffty.

From the images I've collected at http://larsdatter.com/surcoats.htm -- all of the ones that seem to be realistic portrayals of western European women (as opposed to fantastical Western portrayals of Eastern dancing-girls, etc.), they're at least as long as the dress worn under the surcoat itself, if that description makes sense.

Okay, looked through my images (about 200, mostly from Liberfloridis) but, alas, none of the sideless surcoats were shorter than the dress worn under and all did at least touch the ground. I do have one lady with a shorter over-tunic, probably from early in the century though the manuscript doesn't have a listed date, and it's got sleeves. alas.

Thank you very much ladies. Your assistance in this has been most appreciated.

Milesent -- does that elusive cutting method use a quarter to size the bottom of the J? Long, long ago I got this tip from someone, and it worked, but I haven't done it recently, since I lost the cotehardie figure, <sigh>

And whence the fashion for belting sideless surcotes in the front? While there are examples of the earlier cyclas being belted (front and back), I've never found a belted sideless surcote in a historical source, nor has anyone else ever shown one to me with a triumphant "See! There it is!!" Not one of my favorite looks.

Has anyone tried the <a href="http://www.burdafashion.com/en/Patterns/Main_Collection/7977_Historic_Dress/1270778-1128998-1003047-1392667.html?createNewList=true">Burda 7977</a> cotehardie & sideless surcote pattern? It looks like typical European re-enactment wear, though the laced sleeves wouldn't pass strict inspections, and the hat is too costumey. It certainly looks better than many attempts I've seen. <a href="http://www.burdafashion.com/en/Patterns/Kids_Collection/9658_Historical_Dress/1270778-1129000-1541299-1392650.html?createNewList=true">9658</a> (for girls) isn't bad either, once you lose the lacing.

-- Signy

I am fairly certain I have seen a plaque belt worn over a sideless surcote in a couple of effigies but I will have to dig around to be sure.

Mother of Heroes wrote:Milesent -- does that elusive cutting method use a quarter to size the bottom of the J? Long, long ago I got this tip from someone, and it worked, but I haven't done it recently, since I lost the cotehardie figure, <sigh>

I cut the bottom of the J larger than a quarter myself, I think I used a small bracelet as my template, but even a small round bit should work. The other trick is of course to cut it higher than you want it to be because it's going to hang lower when worn. Really surprised I can't find a demo of this technique on line; it works marvelously to create a nice full skirt.

I am completely unable to visualise what you are talking about with this "J" thing. I'm interested, but I can't figure it out.

Okay, I hope this explains it better; I scribbled on a scrap of paper:

<a href="http://cleftlands.cwru.edu/archive/arts/sideless.jpg"><img src="http://cleftlands.cwru.edu/archive/arts/sideless-sm.jpg"></a>

Note the J shape at the bottom of the side cut? So that the cut on the fold is actually a straight line (or ninety degrees when folded).

Oh. Pretty nifty.