I'm a similar case to Peder in that I have had the training he has. I still remember very well my classes on Historical Methodology.

Unfortunately Peder is quite right, it is a matter of amassing evidence, and then interpreting same, and then defending that interpretaion. A Prof. who was very dear to me told me once that being a good historian is like being a good detective.

To give an example of my own personal criterea regarding researching objects we use in the course of re-enacting - my ideal for an object is multiple surviving examples of the object, documentation of use, existances in inventories, backed up by myriads of contemporary images of same. The ideal is very rarely realized. An example of what I would consider good evidence can be found in the thread on covered breastplates. Poor evidence is using one item or image unsubstantiated by anything else.

In my covered breastplate theory, I have tried to come up with evidence in the form of images - from miniatures (not my prefered source as these are often called into question by experts), and in the form of larger and more detailed artwork such as tapestries and paintings. The few surviving examples I can cite do not fully satisfy me as they bracket the timespan we portray, but none hit dead on - I am still looking to see what I can find. What I would dearly love is to lay hands on accounts of household expenditures of the Dukes of Burgundy or any of his nobility, as I would wager that is where we could find the final bit of evidence for the theory - record of payment for covering one.

That type of documentation, images plushousehold accounts would make me feel comfortable enough to say "this was done" for a fact in the time and place my company portrays. Right now, if pressed I would have to say it was a speculative reconstruction with good evidence for it, but not perfect evidence.

If I have an opinion, I state so at the end of my post. If I'm making a point, I try to provide documentary evidence. If you don't believe me, feel free to ask for more proof. I'll answer as long as I don't think you're milking me for free info.

If I have a question about a statement someone's made, I ask them for substantiating evidence to back up their assertion. Sometimes it's forthcoming, sometimes its not. In the case of the latter, I feel an inability to provide substantiation speaks for itself.

Although I hear about them frequently, I have yet to see any "flame-throwing our neighbours" on this board.

Speaking for myself, I'm no expert and I don't claim to be one. I hold no degrees except my high school diploma. I couldn't even get a Laurel in the SCA. I'm a hack that's been reading and researching costume and social history for 20+ years, and I've made a living reproducing historical clothing for the last 6 years.

I may be as full of **** as the next guy, or I may know what I'm talking about on any given day or subject. I suppose it's up to you to judge if I "prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt. ", like Peder says.

Just my 2d.

on consistency of standard....

I would gently remind the poster that yes, we all want to do it "right", but we are still a gathering of rather disparate groups. We all come in with our own idea of where the bar is and what we're trying to accomplish. One mans idea of "right" is another mans idea of crap, or wishful thinking

up here in la maisnie for something to meet the bar (and the bar is raised every year! hooray! ) we need to be able to point to no less than THREE examples of it in contemporary evidence (ie written, manuscripts, etc). That's three examples by different different sources that arent allegorical.

Case in point? the infamous Framm Air Filter Hat. You know, the one on the Magdalenes head in that wonderful painting by VanderWeyeden. It looks like she's wearing a car air filter on her head.

We had a gal who wanted that hat. We told her to find three different sources, and she never really could. She found multiple paintings of the same subject by the same guy or his students (that doesnt count as three DIFFERENT sources)and so never could pass the hat by the group (much to her dismay...its a very neat goofy hat )

See, up here we're goign for the things that are in the middle of that bell shaped curve....

(if you take a graphic of the appearance of a characteristic in a population, the distribution will appear as a bell shaped curve. Sure, you'll get those outliers on the far ends, but MOST of your events will be in the big fat middle part)

Right now we're looking at alternative womens headdresses with this yardstick in mind.

again, this is the standard set by my group. I would never expect anyone else to hold to this, but I think it would be cool if everyone did .

If (when? ) we have a big 15th century fest and we all gather, we'll ahve to determine where the bar is for THAT event, just like any other large event with disparate groups at it.

One of the purposes of this forum as I see it is to try and keep us in the chapter if not the exact same page in this regard

I especially love the last paragraph- I love when people question my research because then I question my research. I have to remember where I saw something, and the context it was used. That's the heart of it right there.

Oh, and AM- I found 2 more of those hats, or what I believe to be those hats. However, since they are all on Mary Magadalene, I think it's something particular to her and not a general style.

I was a bit worried about where this thread came from and where it was going, but I'm less worried now.