Hi, I now have, but have not read: Françoise Piponnier and Perrine Mane; Dress in the Middle Ages; Yale UP, 1997 - which irritatingly has no index. Are there any particular mysteries to look out for when I do get round to reading it?
No, I hadn't seen the Taccuina - very nice - new in February. I'll keep an eye out on the bliaut. Johnbod 22:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look out for stitching, but shouldn't we just remove it (to talk, with a request for refs) until we can reference it, if it is holding up promotion? Johnbod 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done bits on 1200-1300, & will probably do more, but I'm away after Thursday. Johnbod 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see in fact we have
1100-1200 in fashion as well. I think I've said before, we really should go for a longer period say Early medieval European dress, covering c. 400 to 1200, or maybe 1100. What do you think? Johnbod 16:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree completely. I like Early medieval European dress coverng 400-1100. I have a good reference on Anglo-Saxon dress that has comparison to Continental images, which should be useful. - PKM 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add these to the talk page there. Not sure I can do much before I go away. Johnbod 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have a good trip and I'll keep the fires burning. - PKM 19:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, & thanks! I slightly expanded, but I hope you still "agree completely". I'll keep an eye out for bliauts, & maybe see what a French book-shop has, though I don't have the dress-making vocabulary. I'm beginning to think that isn't the sort of thing you can confidently tell without an actual example from archaeology etc, & I don't think there are any. Piponnier & Mane, like many web-sites, keep going on about the Greenland & London excavations, each of which set of discoveries would I think fit comfortably into a plastic bag. Johnbod 20:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fourteenth-century fashion
Not just yet. There are two statements in the "General trends" section that I tagged as possible OR (for the use of what I feel should be in
WP:WTA
: "seems to" and "arguably". Knowing you and the other editors involved with this article, this is probably just stuff from your sources that needs a proper cite.
Sorry I haven't gotten back to you about copyediting the 15th century article. My brain got very fashion-burned out after three months of doing intensive work on the project, so now I'm working on
WP:NRHP for the summer (lots of local photos to shoot and create articles for). But I'll get to it eventually, I know. And if you can fix this one up, I'll copyedit it and list it at GA. It's almost ready, I think. Daniel Case 04:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I hear you - I got a bit burned out on fashion and jumped over to Textile Arts for a while, but now I am back here as well. - PKM 17:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just need for "... whilst the Italian cities were relatively conservative, in contrast to the following century" to be cited or otherwise dealt with. Daniel Case 14:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where this came from, so maybe remove it to talk for now as I won't have time to look for a bit. no enlightenment on bliaut, I'm afraid .... Johnbod 21:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. - PKM 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A-Class achieved
It's done. If you could get a cite in for that last thing about the Visconti court setting Italian trends, that would be great. I do want to give it a full copyedit and nominate it for GA. Daniel Case 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On
1100-1200 in fashion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page
I apologise for asking about this matter here, but as the topic is of a rather obscure nature, I expect it is more likely to be answered here than on the talk page of the image itself, where it might pass unseen through a number of quickly-moving watchlists. While the person to the right in Image:Norfolk Jackets.jpg is certainly wearing a Norfolk jacket, the jacket of the person on the left isn't as clear. It does not appear to be pleated or have a belt, and the cut doesn't seem like that of most Norfolk jackets I have seen. Might I ask where the drawing is from? It could be I am quite mistaken about the matter, but would like to make sure that the drawing is correctly labelled. --William Ager 04:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary! The image is an old advertisement for golfing clothes, and the jacket on the left does not have the characteristic front pleats of a true Norfolk jacket. I am quite ready to admit that my first thought that these were Norfolk jackets may be mistaken; feel free to edit the caption accordingly. - PKM 07:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On
28 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article zibellino, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page
Many thanks for adding the picture to the above article, which I was sure would never be read by anyone! Actually, I have grave doubts about that picture, which looks nothing like the Clouet picture of Villeroy. As a costume expert, what do you think about his collar? To me that is seventeenth century. Since Villeroy had a son also called Nicolas in the 1590s, I wonder if that's who it is. The picture looks distinctly un-sixteenth-century to me.
While I'm here, I wonder if I could pick your brains about this here Clouet of Catherine de' Medici. I absolutely love this miniature, and I love her. But what is that in her hand? After her husband Henry II of France died from a lance wound, her emblem for the rest of her life was a broken lance. I wonder if that's what it is. Does it ring any bells with you? I would love to mention what it is in the picture caption.qp10qp 04:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've got those pictures in my books. Many thanks.qp10qp 22:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine is holding an ostrich feather fan, rather like this one only smaller Image:Elizabeth I Jesus College.jpg. I'll check the date on that miniature (by Jean Clouet?) when I get back to my library and tag it properly. - PKM 20:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is genius of you! Thanks! It will be François Clouet. Little is attributed to him for certain, but his style is unique.qp10qp 22:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess slightly later (of course, no one actually knows). Her husband died in 1559, and is she not in black? Also, we see her daughter-in-law, Elisabeth of Austria (right), wearing a similar fashion later (Clouet certainly painted a series of similar fashions around that time: one can piece together the general date by checking who was at court when:
1550-1600 in fashion
; that does have criss-crossing on the body of the dress, and something going on around the shoulders. She looks younger there though (but that painting is a copy, by an artist unknown, and hard to date).
"Severely plain dress of a widow" might only be partly true. Leonie Frieda, in her biography of Catherine says of her later dress style: Though she presented a sombre figure, the cut and quality of the lace and work in general made her mourning anything but drab. She subtly enhanced her black dress (usually made from plain wool) by its excellent cut; sometimes she used trimmings such as fur and gems, which created a majestic effect if the occasion demanded...As was her intention, she stood out from the other gorgeously and colourfully dressed ladies and gentlemen, particularly during Henry III's reign.
On DYK, I've always been put off by the submission process, which resembles a cross between a tax form and three-dimensional noughts and crosses. But thanks for the suggestion: I will take you up on it sometime. There is a lot more to add about Villeroy, but I'm going to work on Catherine de' Medici over the next few weeks (months?) and try to bring it to FA standard, turning it into a little art gallery in the process.
Many thanks for the family tree. It seems that the first Nicolas we had was the son of Charles rather than of Nicolas—in other words, our man's grandson (either that or, since the sites that have it are unequivocal that it is him, the other picture was an invented nineteenth-century illustration). I also note that the last member of their family was Madame Guillotine :(. qp10qp 16:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every minute that goes by, I'm more and more sensing that that picture is actually a late nineteenth-century recreation. qp10qp 04:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know...
On
aiguillette (ornament), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page
Yes, we should definitely have an article on those. Unfortunately, they must have been hidden away when I visited the Uffizi. You start it off, and I will chime in with what I have in my books. We would need some good pictures, though, if you know where to bag some.qp10qp 04:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yaye, the Yates book is on Google Books! Unlike you, I don't have access to a decent library, but being able to dip into Yates will really help me keep up. One will need to be cautious about her theorising, of course.qp10qp 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Btw, did you notice the link on her article to this [1] site on E Vigee-Lebrun, which seems to have everything she ever painted - v. handy for costume, I would think. I'd meant to ask you to look it (s-p) over when I'd got further with it. At the moment I'm short of C18 men, a) looking like ordinary gents, or b) at it in front of an easel. Also of course contemporaryish stuff because of copyright. Johnbod 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look later. I was going to add his portrait to SP, & also have been meaning to mention Elizabeth I's very firm views on chiaroscuro there. Btw the Orpen SP of 1910 is interesting clothes-wise. Is he a masher I wonder? Thanks for your adds, & for the format, which I've obviously borrowed from the fashion articles - it's the only way to handle lots of pics. Johnbod 03:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll add more bio stuff. The book is very short - 20pp + limming excerpts & pics, but good. Johnbod 19:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over to you! Johnbod 21:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great - I hadn't realized it was so short before you got going! Johnbod 20:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
10 September, 2007, a fact from the article Valois Tapestries, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page
Saw this today & thought of you! A feast of black silk & lace, neither of which reproduce very well. I have the catalogue, which has quite a lot on costume, so will no doubt dribble in the odd thing to the articles in the future. I'm very pleased with how Hillard turned out. Johnbod 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I do think "breeching", or rather boys dress pre-breeching, deserves an article. What do you think? Johnbod 23:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference done. Yes for Hilliard, although I lose interest if they get very pernickety I'm afraid. Someone made Chaperon (headgear) a GA, and then someone else put it on review a month later, & all sorts of nonsense came up. But lets give it a go by all means. There are almost no Visual arts GA's - they don't like pictures there I think. Johnbod 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my favourite - older boy has sword, younger bow and arrow. [2]. Also a fabulous one in a private collection with a huge family of young children that I saw some years ago. Sadly can't remember thwe name tho apparently it's quite well-known. What should it be called?
Dresses for boys? Breeching perhaps. Johnbod 02:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
We're off - see bluelink above. Johnbod 20:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll put it up - some time yet. Needs a few more refs & some of the Victorian photos. I was hoping you would chip in & we could nominate jointly, but it has to go in before the w/e. Johnbod 20:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't - but it's another good'un - I particularly like the levitating girl to the right - she must have been useful at parties! The one I was thinking of, which there may well not be colour photos of, was on reflection maybe 1600-30 or even earlier, rather provincial, and like the NPG Pope one but with lots more people, especially boys, all crowded into a vertical format and lined up like a school photo. The boys had matching bright reddish coloured dresses a la Pope. It's in a stately home somewhere in the Midlands or North, but was briefly exhibited in London some years ago, on its way back from the cleaners. Don't worry. The young boys in your one rather break the usual convention by being in white, don't you think? Perhaps the artist wanted to clarify gender by colour-coding, and the girls had pre-empted the yellow. This is nice too, but no good below the waist.
Yes - you must be right! The two at the front look like boys too, from the hair & maybe kneeling. Johnbod 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two birds with one stone! Very nice! Johnbod 22:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff! The Palatine family are a sad story, though their descendents returned as the Hanoverians. I love the Badger pair! I'm off for a bit now, I'll look in later. Johnbod 23:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they were rattles, I must say. Eg the younger Badger child, Philipe Egalite (now in gallery) But you might be right, or maybe they are 2-in-1. A very consistent design from Versailles to Boston! The Boucher is National Trust & I may have something on it - I'll look. What is held by the dwarf here is just a rattle I think. What is the Pytts boy holding?
Btw, did you see the nice leading-strings Louis XV has in the group portrait I added to the Commons cat (filed under Nicolas)? Johnbod 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think certainly coral from the shape, and AHA ! Try googling "coral teething" - I thought there might be a "medical" aspect! Johnbod 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I suppose coral is now illegal? The white ones might be ivory perhaps? Or coral. Johnbod 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
btw, "teething coral" gets a different set of similar stuff at the top - apparently they were called this. These a long one on Badger, though the other pics shown make me wonder about the attribution of the squirrel pair to him - these seem much less naieve (?). Silver good enough for the courts of Europe it seems, and only New York used gold! Interesting. I also tracked down, & added to, the coverage at pacifier. Johnbod 14:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lace
Thanks for breeching ads. This (just below you in breeching section) came in from Amanda, & is more up your street, I think. It rang no bells with me: Johnbod 11:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something that I want to ask- Some years ago (15 probably) I came across a Dutch painting ((of the Vermeerish, der Hoochish variety) which has, right in the foreground, a table covered with a velvet cloth or table carpet or some such, over which is laid a linen cloth with Spanish reticular lace. Having seen it and lost it, I can't find it again! It's been frustrating me for years! It isn't in any of my books. I keep thinking I might have seen it in Vienna. Do you know the painting I mean? Is lace one of your things? Amandajm 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On
28 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rancho Los Encinos, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mallorn Journal.jpg
Thanks for uploading
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
This picure claims to be Elizabeth I at three ages, but it certainly is not. So who are these girls? - PKM 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, those Victorian dealers! You have to hand it to them! No idea, but they do look English to me. (nb other post below) Johnbod 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bosse man
Just the pic I was thinking of, and a much better new scan! I'm not sure "caricaturing" is right - it's more in the nature of "public service advertising" I think. Already (I think) a royal license was needed for everything printed in France. Can you read the text? Johnbod 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have a much blurrier version at Abraham Bosse and the period article also I think. The text reads (very approximately): The Courtier " It will be good not to have clinking from below, and besides I must obey the king. Luxury inconveniences me, so I stongly approve these orders. Besides I will be " a la mode" wearing these new clthes" The Lacky:"On my faith this frippery will no longer deform ?something. Since it's not needed, I can get money for it". I know the excellent BnF site. Johnbod 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Actually the Bosse article has this one, which is also about the edict - the valet looks forward to getting the finery his master will not be able to wear any more. Johnbod 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did she go?
I am hanging out in
1930-1945 in fashion. PKM 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
I have translated the article history of silk from French, though I am not an expert in textile terms, so I tried to give my best guess where possible. I would appreciate it if you could go over the article and replace the red links, where possible, with the appropriate term/article, if they exist. This may not be helpful, but the original French language article is here, and the English one is more or less a direct translation. If you need any help, just let me know.
I'd also like to share this link with you. It's a Google search through a multilingual textile terms dictionary, you will probably find it useful.
Thanks a million! -Oreo Priest 09:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following this excellent article, and I'll be happy to help. - PKM 22:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I'll let you know when it gets promoted to GA. -Oreo Priest 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It got promoted! This gives WikiProject Textile Arts its first GA! Hooray! -Oreo Priest 07:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know
On
1930-1945 in fashion , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page
I am a new user on Wikipedia. I have been searching for users who can contribute content to my article. I see that you are quite knowledgeable about fashion. I was wondering if you had any knowledge regarding the seam types and the production industry. I would appreciate whatever feedback you have to offer about my article. The title is “Seam types”.
Thank you,
Snap pea 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Snap_peaSnap pea 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded by this editor for a Did You Know contribution that appeared on the main page, a hook that was well written, referenced, and displayed irony, a fact related to a distinguishing characteristic of the subject of the article, or other notable property. AwardBot 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Hello PKM,
I appreciate your feedback on the content of my article. How do I make my article the basic article for seam types? Also, do you know how to merge the seam allowance article with seam types?
I have wanted to put illustrations for each of these seam types, however, they are very simple and once I draw them they will be very similar to what is in the book I referenced, I’m afraid I will be violating copyright laws. Do you know much about this topic? My back-up option is to use photos, like you suggested. I’m waiting to hear back about the copyrighting.
Thank you again for your help. Please let me know if you have more to add!
Snap pea 01:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Snap_PeaSnap pea 01:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrations
The book that is my source was published in 1995. I think that I will illustrate them myself and scan them in. Would you recommend citing the book when I post the illustrations? I would really appreciate your help moving and merging articles. Feel free to do what you think would be best! Snap pea 21:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Snap_PeaSnap pea 21:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is currently up for featured picture, and commenters have expressed a desire for a higher resolution. Would you be willing to rescan it? See
