here are the drawings that i've been working on for our group down here.

pattern 1

pattern 2

could you take a look and comment on them before i publish it to the other members.

thankyou,

daniel

Wow! the links work this time! it probably has to do with the way i was publishing on my site BTW.

[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: LHF ]

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

Db

Also, if you make the sleeve cap shorter and the underarm higher, the sleeve will go in at more of an angle to the body, increasing mobility.

By all means try to find someone to help you draft a sleeve that works properly, and don't do the "open under the armpit" sleeve thing. It's not historical, it's the mark of poor pattern drafting and fit.

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

thanks for the input. i went back and reviewed a freind's copy of Talhauffer's Fechtbuch. what i noticed was that the yoke collar is not as pointed as i first drew it; yes, they vary from being completely round to a rounded point. i changed it accordingly on my drawing.

another thing that i observed was that the sleeve appears to be pointed all around the arm hole and that the armpit area is completely covered. using my doublet, i was able to acheive the same apperance by turning my sleeves upside down and positioning the sleeve-head towards the armpit. is this right? i haven't seen anyone reconstruct a doublet in this fashion before so i'm very curious wheather or not it is just an artistic convention on the part of the illustrator.

i'm looking right now at Bellini's The Miracle of the Cross on San Lorenzo Bridge and, even though it dose not offer as much detail, the armpits do not appear the same as in the fechtbuch but instead open like how i originally attached them to my doublet body.

conjecture: these are two regional patterns that even though they have similarities, still exhibit regional differences?

so i changed the way that the sleeves attach in my drawing and await your comment on it.

pattern 2

thanks,

daniel

p.s.

quote:

---

don't do the "open under the armpit" sleeve thing. It's not historical, it's the mark of poor pattern drafting and fit.

---

i just reread your post again. are you refering to attached sleeves in this quote?

[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: LHF ]

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

Db

looked through the book again tonight and there are two plates that show something of interest. the sleeve seam appears to run matching the side seam of the doublet instead of along the back of the arm. look at the following two plates:

plate 48

plate 178

in plate 48 look at the arm of the figure to the right; it may just be a continuation of the sleeve split. however, in plate 178, the figure to the far left doesn't appear to have a split sleeve and the seam is visible 'neath his armpit, but this sleeve is attached to the doublet body.

should i conclude that the construction of the sleeve differs to the original pattern drawn? would it resemble then the sleeve on pattern sheet 4 of Hunnisett's book? yet looking through talhoffer's 1459 edition the seam is at the back of the arm matching the original pattern drawn.

daniel

[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: LHF ]

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

Db

Also IMHO, Talhoeffer is a *very* stylized representation of the clothed human form. Loook at those plates objectively- the guys' waists are tiny, legs like toothpicks and huge butts. Human beings are not constructed that way in real life. You have to read artistic license into the fit of the doublets, even if you choose to interpret the construction literally. What do you know about Talhoeffer and his ability to interpret clothing construction? From a tailoring standpoint I think a seam that starts in the pit of the arm and runs around to the outside back is kinda crazy. From a draping standpoint I know that that a sleeve constructed like that would not fit as nicely as Talhoeffer has drawn it.

As for Bellini, the shapes are much more realistic, but the painting is Venetian, and the Venetians did wacky stuff that you don't see anywhere else. This is also 33 years after Talhoeffer, and the doublets have taken a whole evolutionary step and lost the peplum completely.

In my opinion it would be a mistake to try to composite the 2 styles if your goal is a historically plausible garment reconstruction. If your goal is a cool costume for theatre, go for it- the tied on Venetian sleeves have made costumers drool for centuries, and are fundamental venacular of "medieval" costume design.

quote:

---

Daniel, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Talhoeffer is German circa 1467, and Bellini is Venetian circe 1500. You're spanning 33 years and 2 countries, so IMHO, it would be a mistake to try and composite the 2.

---

let me apologize for the confusion, i tend to jump from one topic to another without clarifying that i've done so. i'm now concentrating on drafting a pattern for a german doublet with detatchable sleeves for my group. i will refrain from using any further italian references to avoid confusion.

quote:

---

Also IMHO, Talhoeffer is a *very* stylized representation of the clothed human form...the guys' waists are tiny, legs like toothpicks and huge butts...What do you know about Talhoeffer and his ability to interpret clothing construction?

---

o.k. so who do you sugest that i look into for evidence of seam lines etc.? and how can i know that it is accurate or artistic license? after reviewing the book again i have found more examples within it that exhibit the same seam construction. furthermore it does not appear to all be the work of the same artist since some have a different style of drawing (shading, shape, clothes, etc.) plus they appear to have a better "human form" with thicker legs and waists and average sized butts.

i found this drawing in a coffee top book. it doesn't have a date but checking in the back of the book it has the following as its source: Kunstsammlungen zu Weimer (Inv.Nr.KK 1379).

drawing detail

in the detail there is an individual with a raised arm with a matching seam line to the one in Talhoffer's work. this drawing has better human proportion than most of the ones in Talhoffer. however, the piece has an attached sleeve and it appears to me that it may be a coat/tunic of sorts rather than a doublet but all that is visible beneath is the shirt and the sleeves appear to hang in the same fashion as those in Talhoffer's work.

???

quote:

---

In my opinion it would be a mistake to try to composite the 2 styles if your goal is a historically plausible garment reconstruction. If your goal is a cool costume for theatre, go for it- the tied on Venetian sleeves have made costumers drool for centuries, and are fundamental venacular of "medieval" costume design.

---

again, let me apologize for leading you to believe that i was attempting to composite the two. i was working on both of the designs at the same time and can see to where this caused confusion. let me further iterate that my goal is to produce a guide for my group of "historically plausible garment reconstruction" and i am not attempting another "Medievalesque" costume page.

with that said, that is why i'm asking and asking and asking again all of these questions in order to make sure that the information that i present is correct. two years ago i was mislead into believeing that that points were fastened waist high on peplumed doublets even though i produced evidence to the contrary. today after two years of searching i still haven't found any evidence of the design and have even come up with examples dating well into the 80's with the point location at the hem line of the peplum. yet individuals insist that the points still go on the waist line and have cited your work and others as proof. so this is why i'm trying to fully document my material before producing a working exmple and any further help that you may provide, or anyone else for that matter, is greatly appreciated.

daniel

[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: LHF ]

[ 04-29-2002: Message edited by: LHF ]

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

Db

looking around for further evidence i found in another of my freinds books a plate from another german fight manual which isn't Talhoffer. it looks that there may also be a seam there but firstly, though it is german, i havn't identified it as Swabian, second, i want to get an exact date on it, and thrdly, i would like to see others in the series before i make a determination on it. i'm still waiting for you to get back to me on any recomendations as to where i can look for further evidence, who you would concider plausible renderers of seam etc.? what criteria do you use for this? do you go by human porportions? detail?

all that i'm trying to do is offer one plausible reconstruction and not the end all be all of swabian doublets. with this in mind i went ahead and made a muslin of my extrapolated pattern and it seems to fit and respond like the ones in the drawings. it has the characteristic bunching/wrinkling 'neath the armpit and at the elbow, plus when i raise my arms it does not pull the doublet up with it. when i flex/bend my arms, the opening of the seam rides to where the elbow protrudes. i cut it on the cross instead of the bias and am wondering if the bias would have any effect on it.

i still haven't updated the pattern that i posted but as soon as i do so i'll let you know. and await your responce.

thank you,

daniel

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

Db