The long sleeved, presumably wool gowns are ubiquitous in all the pictures. www.mit.edu/~nprive/appleharvest.JPG

With no visible means of closure, the gowns are obviously very fitted. Do we think the gowns pull over and the body-hugging shape is artistic license, or is there some form of hidden closure? Perhaps they hook invisibly up the front? Underarm lacing?

This picture http://www.mit.edu/~nprive/snowballfight.JPG shows some sort of belt across the back that is presumable not seen across the front, like the other women. Could these gowns have a belt that is inserted in the side seam and laces in the center back to pull the front close to the body????????? I can’t believe it, but that’s what could be inferred from the picture! As a matter of fact, when I look at all the paintings, I could argue for this arrangement, based on visible wrinkling.

All of the Greenland gowns are cut with a large number of gores to achieve a close fit. However, they have no closure method and the assumption at the time was that they pulled over the head. This approach limits the minimum waist/body measurement to the width of the bust. The waist on these Flemish gowns are clearly much smaller than the bust, therefore it would be impossible to pull this gown on over the head without a way to make the waist larger, at least temporarily.

Any thoughts?

Another possibility could be a hidden lacing, like in http://www.mit.edu/~nprive/lacing.JPG, (early 15th cent _Virgin and Child_ by Jean Fouquet, from either _Dress Accessories_ or maybe _Textiles and Clothing_ in the MoL series.) I'm not exactly sure how that lacing works, but it looks like if the cord were pulled tight, it would leave only a barely visible seam.

The hook&eyes work fairly well, it is easy enough to get the thing on over your head and hook it closed, but the seam is somewhat visible, especially since i lined it with a contrasting color (most of the dresses with turned up hems in the previously mentioned illustrations are a different color on the other side), and the lining shows a little. I think if i messed with the placement of the hooks&eyes, it would close a little better, but I am hoping to get a hold of some better hooks&eyes than the shiny modern ones that I had to use at the last minute when I was making the thing for MTA.

The belt-like look of some of the dresses came up also in a thread on the 15thcent egroups, last fall, I think, and was (IIRC) dismissed as artistic license, see the thread starting at #564. I wonder if you could get the same effect by making it very tight only along a certain section, and the stretching would maybe pull a band of the fabric tight? I'm not sure...but it sure would be nice to know...

on the subject of close fitting gowns with no visible means of closure...

back in my t-tunic days (before I got better ), my standard garment was a T tunic with tight sleeves and VERY close fitting in the bodice to just above the waist. There were no closures, and it pulled over my head.

Perhaps the overgowns are wool, which is streatchy, cut on the bias, with a large enough neckhole and JUST enough ease to get it over the head and shoulders? I found that there's no way I can do this one of Gwens Flemish gowns, since the waist fits exactly and theres something about teh waist hole that has no give when you try to fit it over your shoulders.

be aware, of course that my feeble attempts at costuming didnt fit anywhere nearly as nicely as Gwens Flemish stuff (hence my moniker "TUnic Girl" before I found the One True Path ),but it is possible to get a close fit in the chest especially without any sort of closure technology.

I've seen portraits of mid-late 15th c. overgowns that have metal eyes sewn inside the opening and are laced up. When pulled tight the is no visible means of closure. We did this on Christine's Nurnberger gown and it works great. It may be possible that the gowns only opened enough to pull them over the head, like AM said. The streatchy fabric did alot of the work and the small opening allowed for a tighter fit once it was on. This is purely conjecture. I'll take a look at some of my books to see what I find.

There's a 15th C. egroup? Where? Can you post the address?

The V neck gowns have an underbust belt, so is it really that far a stretch? For the record I don't think a demi-belt is right either, but I won't dismiss it out of hand without hearing more discussion.

AM:
VERY close fitting in the bodice to just above the waist

Right, the bodice is tight and the waist is not. In the pictures the waist is smaller than the bust, therefore rendering it impossible to pull over the head. Hence the problem

Jamie:
Christine's Nurnberger gown and it works

Your wife is built like a greek goddess, therefore anything that will work on her will *definitely* not work on me!

Gwen

quote:

---

Originally posted by hauptfrau:
Nikki:
[b]a thread on the 15thcent egroups, last fall, I think, and was (IIRC) dismissed as artistic license, see the thread starting at #564.

There's a 15th C. egroup? Where? Can you post the address?
[/B]

---

the rather quiet 15thcent egroup, http://www.egroups.com/group/15thcent, mostly midAtlantic (US) folks, and something of a tendency to wander in (off) topic, especially in the direction of marklandic politics...

note also the tendency for these dresses to have relatively tight-fitting sleeves, with no cuff, and no evidence of buttons. Thats the kind of sleeves i put on my dress, and why I was asking earlier about having loose smock sleeves, because the looser smock sleeves get all wadded up and are pretty annoying when worn under the tighter oversleeves (especially if you are wearing 2 long-&-tight-sleeved dresses over the smock). And with all that sleevey bulk, I can't roll them up at all (but if its 20F outside with the wind chill (-10C), I dont want to be rolling them up anyway).

quote:

---

Originally posted by hauptfrau:
.

AM:
[b]VERY close fitting in the bodice to just above the waist

Right, the bodice is tight and the waist is not. In the pictures the waist is smaller than the bust, therefore rendering it impossible to pull over the head. Hence the problem
[/B]

---

but the effect is exactly that. My waist is VERY much not the same as my bust. And busts are squishy. The net result is that the bust is larger than the waist, you bet. the dress ends up being cotehardie tight. I'll show you a picture/model the dress when you come visit?

again, by no means am I insisting that this is how it works in 15th century stuff, but it might provide a bit of a clue? and the silohette is very similar to the italian stuff in the house of cerutti illos, where the "waist" is shown much higher. Is it possible that franco flemish artists went for longer bodied chicks? dunno....

The woman on the left has a tight-waisted blue dress, long sleeved, no visible lacing, worn over a pink dress, with a white presumably-smock showing at the collar and tight sleeves. The dark blue dress is tucked up to shown tan-brown on the underside, and the pink underdress has a wide lower hem and is barely-floor length.

The woman on the right has a similar pink-orange dress, tight sleeves, tight waist, no lacing visible, with a different style collar on the white presumed-smock showing. The lower hem is not visible, and the dress is longer than the dark blue dress, draping slightly on the ground. The smock collar looks to me rather more like a neck-kerchief thing, the type more commonly seen on the upper classes, instead of the rounded smock collar on the other two women.

Each woman has a different head covering: the blue dress woman has a white french-style hood; the light blue front-laced dress woman has a red flemish winged hood over a white kerchief; and the pink/orange dress woman has a kind of roll-thing with green/pink stripes, and her hair is showing.

The documentation that i have on this illustration is: Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, MS Lat. 873.f21. French, late 15th cent

My first guess would be that the orange/pink woman is more well-off than the others, with the different neck-kerchief thing, the longer dress, and the rolled head piece, which looks similar to some that I've seen on the upper classes (I am thinking specifically here of an illustration from _Dress Accessories_ in the Pin section, which has a close up of women's headgear held on with straight pins, and the crowd of women all have similar rolled whatsits with their hair showing.

I have (but typically not to hand) at least 3 or 4 mid-late c15th illustrations which do show a side seem laced closed.
One is a German woodcut of peasants, another is a german woodcut of a Saint, the third is a Flemish MSS and the 4th a Flemish Alterpiece.

The main ones which spring to mind are:

1. The woman in green on the far left (as viewed) in The Master of the Life of the Virgin's panel depicting the 'Presentation at the Temple'. (for an illus see http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/WebMedia/Images/70/NG706/eNG706.jpg at the National Gallery's web site). Whilst not a gown of the type under discussion per se it does show this method of closure was present. Note that here the opening is laced through a series of small rings (rather than hooks and eyes) this is far more typical.

2. A print by Israhel van Mekenham (end of c15th) shows a woman beating her husband(?) with a distaff ... here gown is similar to the more formal gowns as worn by the like of Lady DOnne in the Donne Trypich ... this is side laced.

I'll see if I can dig out more details/examples.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Key:
Note that here the opening is laced through a series of small rings (rather than hooks and eyes) this is far more typical.

---

Does anyone know of any archaeological finds of these rings? Or of any other info on sizing, style, material, etc? Or of anywhere that sells them (if they are just rings of copper-based wire, i can handle it, but if they're pewter or something, thats another matter)?

-nikki

From experience, you need to solder the rings shut. If you use butted rings the edges will pull apart and the thread will eventually work its way out of the gap.

Hmm, I think I need to look at Queen Margartha's gown of gold- seems to me it was laced all up one side, maybe there are some rings there.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by hauptfrau:
All of the Greenland gowns are cut with a large number of gores to achieve a close fit. However, they have no closure method and the assumption at the time was that they pulled over the head. This approach limits the minimum waist/body measurement to the width of the bust. The waist on these Flemish gowns are clearly much smaller than the bust, therefore it would be impossible to pull this gown on over the head without a way to make the waist larger, at least temporarily.

---

I have one of Gwen's flemish dresses and indeed it must be laced and unlaced to put on or take off. The main reason for this is that my shoulders do not fit through the waist opening which is well defined by a seam.

I also have several garments based on the 10 gore Herjolfsnes dresses (no 38/41). Due to my vainity the pattern was drafted to be quite form fitting. Since the pattern was meant to be snug the dresses have a front seam and eyelets for lacing. However, since I am lazy I have found that it is possible (and fairly easy) to just pull them over my head and not bother with the lacing, and a couple of the more recent dresses are just sewn up the front. As you can see below the dress is quite snug through the waist.

My dresses are mostly linen, wool is a good way to get heat stroke in the American south in the summer, and the fabric is not particuarly stretchy.

Fra carnevale painted his work in 1467, the same time frame that Dieric Bouts was supposed to have painted his. It's entirely possible that that particular style of overgown was popular that year, or that Bouts thought "Italian=Roman=Early Christian=Virgin Mary" and used the style to evoke a similar reaction in the viewer.

It is also possible that he saw Carnevale's work and copied the style of overgown, adding his own little touches like the side closure. The Flemish painters were big on those side slits held closed with little do-dahs, and he tossed them in to look familiar to his Flemish audience.

It's just a guess on my part.

Here are four images with clear laced side-seams:

These are from volume 2 of _Outcasts: signs of otherness in northern european art of the late middle ages_, R. Mellinkoff, 1993, 0-520-07815-2.

Crucifixion. Master of the Darmstadt Passion, mid-fifteenth. Darmstadt, Hessisches, Landsmuseum.

Crucifixion Crucifixion[/URL]
Hans Pleydenwurff, 1465, Munich, Alte Pinakothek. Detail.

Another, also found in the above book but which is on the Web Gallery of Art (but I can't get the url to work out right):

BOUTS, Dieric theElder
Passion Altarpiece (central) c. 1455
Wood, 191 x 145 cm
Museo de la Capilla Real, Granada

and hooks and eyes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hauptfrau:
Like the hooks/eyes, I can point you to ones that are 50 or so years later, but none earlier.

---

The author claims that the collar fastening here is a hook-and-eye closure, circa the late 15th century....I havent been able to find an exact date for it, and the pictures a little fuzzy....
from Dress in Italian Painting 1460-1500, E. Birbari, 1975, 0-7195-2423-7

question for you: have you come across this painting in your search for a sidelacing gown? it's a frescoe by by Francesco del Cossa in the Palazzo Schifanoia at Ferrara c. 1475-85.

in the upper left are a grouping of three, 2 ladies and 1 gent. take a look at the one in red. i don't believe that it is an overgown, check it out.Allegory of April: Triumph of Venus (detail)

hope it helps,

daniel

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

Db

I'm not sure what you're looking for (brain feels fuzzy today) but this painting shows hooks and eyes of a decidely modern style and appears to be dated in the 1440s.
http://www.abcgallery.com/F/fouquet/fouquet14.html

All the best,

This "Visitation" is a really interesting example. I wonder how it's affected by the fact that Elizabeth is pregnant? I'm no expert on 15th-century women's clothing, especially maternity clothing, but it does seem as if it might make some difference. Otherwise I'd think she'd have it laced up tight, not leaving that gap, and it would be much less visible.

What are other 15th-century pregnant women wearing? Can anyone shed some light?

quote:

---

I wonder how it's affected by the fact that Elizabeth is pregnant?

---

I agree with you, Ann. I think we're only seeing the side lacing *because* Elizabeth is pregnant.

Another image for you, Nikki. "The PAssion" by Dieric Bouts: http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/b/bouts/dirk_e/altar/passion2.jpg

The lady in red on the right has side lacings partially undone. I'm not sure who she is supposed to represent, however.

If you want my opinion, I think one could make an argument for front, side, and even back lacing on these gowns. A friend of mine just finished a paper on pictures of gowns from 1340-1420 and she concluded that many of the gowns were painted without obvious closures as an artist's convention. When a gown was partially unlaced (like in Fouquet's "Virgin and Child), the laced closure magically disappears. I've made gowns using the exact closure shown in Fouquet's painting and it is never truly invisible. But a painter can make it so...

I wouldn't use hooks and eyes on a gown with a side opening. I can't find any evidence of that and I think it would become uncomfortable after a short while.