Has anyone else seen these? In books? In a store? In anything? Reproductions for sale? The ones on ebay are usually only one part of the hook, but I think I have seen complete sets, with both the 'hook' and the 'eye' sections, for sale.

If it's any help, there were lots in that book and they look just like the modern ones.

Maybe Mark can help? He seems to have info on all this kind of stuff-

Gwen

The examples of hook fastenings you see on ebay from "BnB" are most likely from the 16th century or later. I have purchased many items from Birgit, and have gotten some great deals. The thing is, you have to know what you're looking at, because she often has incorrect dating or attribution.

Just because someone found it in the dirt at a 15th c. castle in England or Germany, doesn't make it 15th century. There are 500 years of deposits at those sites since the 15th c., and many of the detector people who find things don't know specifically what they're looking at.

------------------
Cheers,

I wonder why there aren't any in _Dress Accessories_.....

I have seen several examples of hook/eye closures on clothing in paintings fron the mid 15th to the early 16th cent.s. They are virtually identical to those commercially available today. If you like I could scan a couple for you.

As an aside, I remembered something about hook and eye fastenings-

Janet Arnold- "Patterns of Fashion- c1560-1620

Page 16, figure 89 is of hook and eye fastening on doublet of Svante Sture, c1567

Page 19, figure 114 shows hook portion of leather doublet fastening, c1560

Page 20, figure 118 is detail of hook in doublet, c1560

Page 24, figures 151-2, metal eye from satin doublet, c1605-10

Page 39, figure 273, hook/eye in hem of a gown, c1600-10

Page 39, figure 278, sleeve hooks, c1580-1600

Page 51, figures 368/9, Hook & eye fastenings in front of woman's jacket c1610-15.

Page 102, figures 41B/C, hook and eye fastening on pair of bodies worn by Eleanora of Todedo in her grave, c1562.

Interestingly enough, all of these have the exact same shape as modern hooks and eyes.

Based on what I saw in the archaeology book I couldn't read, I'm willing to bet the shape was the same in the 15th C.

--------------------

Doug Strong
doug-strong@comcast.net

http://armourresearchsociety.org

Gwen

Ack 2 of us using the same computer- how do I delete this post and repost it in my name?

--------------------

Doug Strong
doug-strong@comcast.net

http://armourresearchsociety.org

Take care,

Anna

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anna Kovacs:
One of them had been gilded with gold, and that one is exhibited right now in the palace museum of Visegrad.

---

Can you find pics? or detailed descriptions?

--------------------

Doug Strong
doug-strong@comcast.net

http://armourresearchsociety.org

Anna

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Talbot:
[B]I've seen several labled as 15th C. but nothing conclusive. B]

---

The Towton find which is so well documented in the new book Blood Red Roses has a number of clothing hooks just like these from the grave site. I have some of them and was quite pleased to date them a little more. Unfortunately there is no evidence of exactly how or on which piece of clothing they were worn. Some of the artifacts I own show a definite sidedness, the hook end being bent to one side or the other so that after they were put through the material and released they did not pose a hazard to the flesh.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johannes:
The Towton find which is so well documented in the new book Blood Red Roses has a number of clothing hooks just like these from the grave site.

---

My reading of the caption in for the small finds in that book was that those objects were metal detector finds from the battlefield and not necessarily particuarly associated with the gravesite. As such they would not be dateable by means other than comparing them to know objects. Does anyone else have information on whether those finds were actually part of the gravesite dig?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AnnaRidley:
My reading of the caption in for the small finds in that book was that those objects were metal detector finds from the battlefield and not necessarily particuarly associated with the gravesite. As such they would not be dateable by means other than comparing them to know objects.

Mitake.

---

Seems every time I read this section in the book it comes out different. The pieces ARE detector finds. However, the author explains that they were found by a single conscientious detector who carefully mapped and catalogued his finds, and who proved instrumental in their being able to locate and identify the footprint of the battle site. Using his finds, and the data from his finds off the site in surrounding areas they are fairly confident that the items represented are likely dateable to the battle. They acknowledge that there are some other explanations for the finds and why they are found where they are, but the most likely source of them is battlefield loss. This method of tracking the signature of a battle site is becoming more accepted in archaeological sites as the contributions detectorists can make are better utilized. So, these are not smoking gun, found in the hand of a skeleton who has a plaque commemorating his death at Towton finds, but they are likely traceable to that encounter.

What they do not say is that it could just be wishful thinking on their part. And mine for that matter. They present a decent case for them belonging, and I want them to, so I am willing to go along. Now if I could just figure out what to use them on.

--------------------

--------------------