Title: cotehardies-msg
Subject: Info on making cotehardies.
Author: Edited by Mark Harris
Last saved by: Mark S. Harris
Keywords: clothing, cotehardie, patterns, medieval clothing

cotehardies-msg - 11/22/18

Making 13th century cotehardies. For male or females.

NOTE: See also the files: clothing-msg, patterns-msg, houppelandes-msg, clothing-msg, fashion-msg, hose-msg, p-sumpt-laws-msg, textiles-msg.

************************************************************************
NOTICE -

This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I  have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

I  have done  a limited amount  of  editing. Messages having to do  with separate topics  were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the  message IDs  were removed to save space and remove clutter.

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make  no claims  as  to the accuracy  of  the information  given  by the individual authors.

Please  respect the time  and  efforts of  those who have written  these messages. The  copyright status  of these messages  is  unclear  at this time. If  information  is  published  from  these  messages, please give credit to the originator(s).

Thank you,
    Mark S. Harris                  AKA:  THLord Stefan li Rous
                                          Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************

Name: Karen Jolley 

That makes things much easier, now that I know you're male and want a
cotehardie!
 
One of the best methods of making a cotehardie that fits right is the old way
of pin-the-fabric-on-the-subject's-shoulders and cut away anything that
doesn't look like a cotehardie, but that takes a lot of draping, pattern
drafting and sewing experience.  Doing this with expensive brocade, though
really spif (as is said in Caid...), takes quite a lot of intestinal
fortitude.
 
Buy the nice Calvin Klein tapered shirt pattern from Vogue (which will set you
back 10 easy bucks, but is the ONLY COMMERCIAL PATTERN THAT GOES UP TO A 17
1/2 NECK!!! and looks the best, besides...) and do a couple of alterations.

1.  lengthen the 'skirts' to the preferred length.  Most new gentlemen prefer
something roughly knee length or slightly shorter, until they've been around a
little longer and can handle the concept of showing off a well turned leg or
tush.
 
2.  Eliminate the cuff, and lengthen the sleeve to reach the wrist.  Use the
existing slit placement on the arm to make a buttoned closure.
 
3.  Eliminate the part of the collar that usually floops over and hides a tie.
The closest thing to a collar in this period stood up, not up and over. 
 
I haven't tried any of the male Medieval Miscellanea patterns yet, and my dark
remark about the tiny armholes is consistent in all the female ones. 
Elizabeth Oakwoode tells me their hosen from the italian pattern works up very

 * Origin: "In Pursuit of Joining Heralds!"  (WWIVnet Gate) (1:379/15.0)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: rorice at bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (rosalyn rice)
Subject: Re: Appropriate fabric for late 14th cent. Coteharde?
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 19:46:23 GMT

	Greetings from Lothar,

	If you want to show off, you should use the fanciest fabric you
can find. Silk brocades were known and used in the 14th c. (and long before),
some modern patterns actually look sort of like Period patterns, but most 
don't. "Textiles and Clothing from Excavations in London" has some examples
of the sort of fabrics that they were using for clothing in the time period
you are interested in. There is also a late 14th c. Italian manuscript 
that shows the King Arthur legends which shows people wearing brocades of 
this sort. The Tres Riche Heures is about 30-50 years too late for what you
want, but it also gives good examples of really snazzy textiles. If you look
at enough books of 14th and 15th c. art you'll get a sense of what textile
patterns are, and aren't Period.
	If you don't want to spring for silk brocade, then you can go with
silk charmeuse, or some other heavy silk, or else a fine wool. Most 14th c.
outer garments were made out of wool, with softer and more richly dyed wools
going for much higher prices. Ideally you want something that is a medium
weight wool with a very soft texture. If you want to make the wool even 
softer and more tightly woven, you can fuller it (ask somebody who knows
what they're doing how to do it) but expect lots of shrinkage.
	The nice thing about a very fine wool is that you can cut the dags
that are typical of 14th c. clothing right into the wool without having to
hem them. A tightly woven and well-fullered wool fabric won't ravel easily.
If you get good fabric you can cut very complex dags that defy hemming and
you don't have to worry about them unravelling.

	There are three other areas where you can show off: extensive use
of fabric, fancy buttons, and fancy decoration.

	By the end of the 14th c. the cotehardie was starting to loosen up
to evolve into the houppelande. Late 14th c. cotes sometimes had standing
collars, angelwing or bag sleeves, and exaggerated chests. All of this used
extra fabric, which was a great way to strut your wealth in front of the 
plebes.
	This extra fabric (all made of rich material, richly dyed) would also
likely have been decorated with all manner of embroidery, sewn on metal 
plackets, and gems. If you know of an embroiderer with a taste for 14th c. 
stuff you might try to cut a deal with them, but expect to pay a lot for
extensive embroidery.
	Finally, any truly ostentatious cote had snazzy buttons. Not only
did lots of buttons mean that you could afford to pay for all those buttons
and pay to have someone finish all those button holes for you, it also meant
that you got a much more tightly fitting garment. (The sleeves might have
been loose, but the cote fit tightly around your body, to show off your
sleek physique.) These buttons usually cloth, but for the truly rich fop
each button could be a piece of jewelry in its own right.

	Now, that's just the cote. You also want a placket belt, a ballocks
dagger, some nicely made 14th c. shoes with a rose window patternb cut into
the instep, hose made from the finest "scarlet" (this was fine wool flannel
which could come in blue, or - you guessed it - bright red),  and a fancy 
hood with a liripipe. Then you'd really be the model of a 14th c. courtier.
	If you want something a bit more durable, and less flashy, just go
for the prettiest medium weight wool you can find, getting a bunch of nice
simple buttons and letting the garment stand on its own without a whole lot
of decoration.

	Don't worry too much about the fact that your persona is Scots. 
Fashions in this era tended to be more similar from country to country than
they were different. And, if your persona travelled, he would likely have
followed the French model which seemed to influence most of the rest of
Western Europe. 
	
	Before you buy fabric or make a garment though, get together with
a skilled costumer to make a custom pattern. You can't just use an "off the
rack" cote pattern, unless you want to have a crappy looking garment. It
needs to be patterned and fitted to your body, and the craftsmanship has
to be good if you want a really nice looking costume.
	A costumer with a clue will also likely have enough reference books
of period pictures of people in cotehardies that you will be able to choose
the sort of garment that you want. 

	Lothar (who only aspires to own a 14th c. outfit of the sort that
		he has just described.)

From: habura at rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Andrea Marie Habura)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: COSTUMING: cotehardie question
Date: 4 Jan 1995 01:49:21 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY

On Jessa's post: 

Cotehardies: I think we need to define time-period here, perhaps. Finding 
primary source-material for 14th c. masculine attire is definitely 
trickier than finding female attire from the same period, because so 
many of the %^&( male funeral brasses show the men in armor, not in 
"civvies". Nonetheless, there's a little bit of primary stuff out there.
For example, there's the funeral brass of Robert Braunch (1364) that
shows Robert wearing what seems to be a long cotehardie; at any rate,
it fits tightly to the hips and wrists. In the page from the _Romance
of Alexander_ (c.1340) that forms the frontspiece of Newton's _Fashion
in the Age of the Black Prince_, the men are wearing tight, short 
cotehardies and deep-caped hoods. Similarly, a page from the Luttrell
Psalter, reproduced on page 4, also shows a man in a tight-fitted
cotehardie. It seems clear that 14th c. fashionable men considered the
cotehardie a respectable outer garment.

On the other hand, I can't recall any 15th c. pictures of men wearing 
cotehardies, although women seemd to have hung on to the style a little
longer. I'm not particularly well-informed about 15th c. garments, though,
so the fact that I didn't notice them doesn't mean they're not there.

Interestingly, there's one loose 14th c. garment that *does* go over 
a cotehardie. Newton calls 'em guyts or ghitas, but doesn't know what
exactly they looked like. I tend to wonder of the very drapey and loose
near-caftan like outer garment in the Joan de Northwood brass is a guyt.
(If i can ever figure out what they look like, I know how to embroider 'em.)

Alison macDermot
*Ex Ungue Leonem*

From: brettwi at ix.netcom.com (Brett Williams )
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: I need help with a cotehardie!
Date: 22 Nov 1995 15:57:13 GMT

Lady Sabrina of Wynborn <Elfgir1 at aol.com> writes: 

>I am posting this in hopes of receiving help from those who are 
>knowledgeable about sewing cotehardies.  I am planning to sew an early
>14th century, English cotehardie, and while I've sewn countless tunics
>and other simple garb, I've never attempted a cotehardie.  I have the 
>basic 4-piece bodice pattern and the general description of how to sew
>a cotehardie, but I would like to have more specific advice. My main 
>concerns are how to fashion the sleeves so that they will button 
>correctly along the forearm...

After making four or five failures, I finally hit on a cotehardie I
liked and have gone on to make three more in various versions of
'conspicuous consumption'.  I personally use a mundane princess-line
dress pattern to start with, one that has an eight panel bodice as
opposed to a four; primarily as it's easier to fit than a four-panel
and the finished garment's drape in the skirts is both fuller and more
graceful.  The control seams for the princess-lines go up to the top of
the shoulder *not* into the armsceye. Please note that this is personal
opinion; the four gore pattern makes a perfectly good, period garment.

As for the sleeve, the easiest way to place the buttons correctly is to
split the pattern and shift the seam to where it runs slighly off
center along the outside edge of the arm when at rest.  It's hard to
explain without a diagram and explanatory paragraph.  The modern (eg.
20th century) convention for sleeve cutting places the seam on the
underside of the arm and if buttons are placed along this line, you'll
find that they'll be out there in the way of everything.  They'll catch
on the buttons on the center of the dress (should you have them), bang
on your musical instruments, catch on anything you're carrying, etc. 
There's a discussion on sleeve cutting in the 'Flat Pattern' section in
CA 38 suitable for this garment done by Mistress Audelindis de Rheims
and Mistress Caterina da Monticello; see page 25 specifically.

Well, my editor has thoughtfully obliterated the rest of your question;
however, a grey and black wool cotehardie would be Very Spiff, as my
household was wont to say.  I am guilty of wearing a single-color
cotehardie made of 17 hards of 45" fabric myself (it's long since
retired these days-- I widened the skirts with inset quarter circles of
fabric to add even more drape <grin>); my usual cotehardie consists of
at least 8 yards of 60" fabric or 12 of 45".  I like to cut a
cotehardie a single panel at a time from selvege to selvege which is
probably not a period technique, but it tends to get a lot of mileage
from one's fabric. This method does *not* work for anything with a nap
or a directional pattern woven into the cloth. For reference, I am 5'6"
and like having my skirts trail fashionably around me.

Oh, there it is!

>...the best way to shape and sew sleeves so 
>that they fit correctly with the bodice of the cotehardie, and the
>best way to do a parti-colored cotehardie (as I plan to sew mine out
>of black and grey wool).  I would appreciate any advice that you have
>to give me!
>Thank you very much!
>
>Lady Sabrina of Wynborn
>
>Residing in Calontir and Artemesia (it's a long commute)

If you're going to divide it quarterly, just mark your pattern pieces
carefully-- draw out your planned divisions and mark the patterns with
orientation (right side grey, right side black, etc).  A Really Spiff
idea is to divide the sleeve quarterly to match or offset the color it
lies next to on the bodice. I would piece the fabric together first,
make sure the seam for the color division lined up properly along the
top of the arm (the modern center of the sleeve cap position), then cut
out the sleeve itself with the afore-mentioned offset for the buttons.
Sounds complicated, but it really isn't.

I hope this helps-- any more questions, feel free to ask.

Ciorstan MacAmhlaidh

From: dpeters at panix.com (D. Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: I need help with a cotehardie!--LONGISH
Date: 23 Nov 1995 10:35:56 -0500

In <48t5e4$13i at jan.et.byu.edu> Lady Sabrina of Wynborn
<Elfgir1 at aol.com> writes: 

>Greetings to all.
>I am posting this in hopes of receiving help from those who are 
>knowledgeable about sewing cotehardies.  I am planning to sew an early
>14th century, English cotehardie, and while I've sewn countless tunics
>and other simple garb, I've never attempted a cotehardie. 

The earlier fourteenth-century gown was not tightly fitted, and 
consequently should be easier to assemble than the later model.  The 
slinky, form-fitting model is actually late fourteenth century.

>I have the 
>basic 4-piece bodice pattern and the general description of how to sew
>a cotehardie, but I would like to have more specific advice. My main 
>concerns are how to fashion the sleeves so that they will button 
>correctly along the forearm...

The most effective way that I've seen to get sleeves that
"turn out right" is to use the sleeve pattern from the Pourpoint of 
Charles de Blois.  A diagram of this sleeve exists in several sources, 
but the one that I have close to hand is _The Chaucerian Handbook_ (Vox 
Clamatis Monographs I, Will McLean and Jeffrey L. Singman, eds.), which 
may be available from the editors or from merchants such as the Stuffy 
Purist.

Unfortunately, according to my costuming mentors, particoloring at that 
time would have been worn by servants (as livery) or by lowlife types 
like jongleurs (like ME!).  If you want to be as authentic as possible, 
you might want to reconsider the particoloring, BUT particoloring *is* 
pretty, and says "medieval" to most eyes....Something some friends and I 
were considering was making particolored fourteenth-century clothes in 
our household's livery colors.  As household members, we decided that 
made us the Duke's servants, sort of...:-)

Please forgive me if I unintentionally offend any other clothiers by the 
following; it isn't my intention to disparage anyone's best efforts, but 
I've never seen gowns made from princess-seamed bridesmaid's dress 
patterns that look like anything but bridesmaid's dresses.  Modern 
patterns don't take into account the way that fabric moves when cut on 
the bias rather than the straight grain--just add more interfacing and 
try not to worry about it.  Or, they might look all right on very slender 
girls, but not on other body types.  Try to work from patterns based on 
surviving artifacts if you can--most of the surviving garments are, 
admittedly, Scandinavian, but that will be closer to the fourteenth 
century Anglo-French style than Simplicity or Butterick.

Another plug for _The Chaucerian Handbook_:  it includes patterns for 
gowns and shoes and hoods, all based on surviving artifacts.  If you want 
to do later fourteenth century, this book has assembled just about all 
the information you'd need for a well-rounded persona.

One final suggestion:  if you play in Calontir, see if you can find 
anyone who knows how to make the "Standing Stones Clone Dress" (so called 
because at one point a number of ladies from Standing Stones were 
wearing them)--I believe that the lady who pioneered the design did 
teach some Calontirii the method before she left the kingdom.

Here are a couple other books to look for:

Newton, Stella Mary.  _Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince_  1980, 
    Boydell Press. {covers the years 1340-1365}

Crowfoot, Elisabeth, et al. _Textiles and Clothing; Medieval finds from 
    Excavations in London_ (Museum of London).  1992, HMSO

If you have any other questions, please feel free to e-mail me.

Hope this helps.
D.Peters

From: kruella118 at aol.com (Kruella118)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: I need help with a cotehardie!--LONGISH
Date: 26 Nov 1995 06:57:21 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Greetings,
 
I respectfully have to disagree w/the lady who states you cannot find a
good cotehardie pattern out of simplicity or butterick. I have seen many
people begin w/this kind of pattern & graduate on to period research &
methods. I have been the pattern deputy for my Barony for 3 years. My
advice to you would be to get as close as you can to the cotehardie in
pattern & have a friend help fit you w/cheap fabric to create a pattern
that looks good on YOU! We are here to recreate but we are also here to
play dress-up! If you look good that's 1/2 the battle. If you are a large
sized lady then play around w/a 6 or 8 paneled cotehardie-yes you can
document it. Also-princess seams are period. The important thing is to
look fabulous & play beautifully. Have fun. If you need a pattern number
for a cotehardie look-a-like feel free to e-mail me.

Good luck-Pasha

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: I need help with a cotehardie!--LONGISH
From: amethysta at eric.stonemarche.org (Amethysta of Kensingto)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 95 17:39:41 EST

Pasha writes:

> I respectfully have to disagree w/the lady who states you cannot find a
> good cotehardie pattern out of simplicity or butterick. I have seen many

Have to agree with you there. If anyone is interested, try Simplicity 
8603. It is a princess line-type dress, and all it need to make it into a 
cotehardie is a foot more material on the bottom, buttons on the sleeve 
and replace the zipper with lacings. I used this pattern for my bride's 
maid's dresses, so now instead of having a gaudy dress that they will 
never wear again, they all have purple linen cotehardies!

        Amethysta

From: dpeters at panix.com (D. Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: I need help with a cotehardie!--LONGISH
Date: 29 Nov 1995 20:21:13 -0500

Kruella118 <kruella118 at aol.com> wrote:

>...princess seams are period. 

My costume mentors have told me that the earliest visual documentation 
for princess seams is a painting of the Virgin and Child (in which, BTW, 
the Virgin is believed to have been modelled after Agnes Sorel, the 
king's mistress....) from the later fifteenth century.  The lady 
originating this thread was asking for early fourteenth century clothing, 
which is loose and not particularly fitted (think of the 
pictures in the Manassa (sp?) Codex).  I was trying to find the lady 
something closer to what I thought she had in mind.

>The important thing is to
>look fabulous & play beautifully.

After many long years I finally have garb that makes me look like a 
medieval sculpture, but what I look *fabulous* in is a suit.  Does 
this mean I can wear my doublebreasted pinstripe to Twelfth Night?
:-) :-) :-) :-) etc.

>...get as close as you can to the cotehardie in
>pattern & have a friend help fit you w/cheap fabric to create a pattern
>that looks good on YOU! 

Humor aside, if you're going to go to that much work to get a modern 
pattern to fit your figure (as well as get rid of anachronistic darts, 
etc.), why not start with a period design?  Someone else has already 
gone to the trouble of reconstructing a pattern from surviving 
fourteenth-century garments; I would think that adjusting it to fit 
would take no more work than adjusting a Simplicity pattern.

I have seen gowns made from commercial patterns that were altered until 
they fit the wearers like a glove, and they still didn't give the wearers 
a medieval silhouette.  Admittedly, since the "preferred" silhouette from 
the late fourteenth-early fifteenth century emphasized the belly and hips 
(two areas most modern women would rather not emphasize), this may have 
been a conscious choice.

Much recreative research is guesswork; we are fortunate when mundane 
scholars remove some of the burden for us....

Best of luck, and have fun (that *is* why we're here, isn't it :-))

D.Peters

(When I post about Period Spanish Music, people think I'm male; when I 
post about Cotehardies, people think I'm female.  Isn't ambiguity great?)

From: "Jeffrey L. Singman" <jsingman at umich.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Cotehardies (and Chaucerian Hbk)
Date: 28 Nov 1995 15:13:57 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan

I was making one of my (relatively rare) strolls across the Rialto, and 
noted that D. Peters makes mention of the Chaucerian Hbk. As far as I 
know, there are no unsold copies of the old edition remaining. However, 
the new and improved version, entitled 'Daily Life in Chaucer's England' 
can be ordered from Greenwood Press (they have an 800 number, and are 
only a [free] phone call away--two if you count phoning 800 
Information). The new edition is hardbound, US$45, and, quite frankly, 
worth every penny if you really want to do 14c (I would even recommend 
it for 13 and 15c use, since most of the contents remain relevant, and 
no equivalent text exists for those periods). I'll be glad to furnish 
further details to anyone who wants them... Yrs collectively, JLS

From: lyon at infi.net at infi.net   (Lyon)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: cotehardie trim ?
Date: 1 May 1996 19:20:28 GMT
Organization: Pryde Concepts

Where is the proper placement of trimor embroidery on a cotehardie?
Would it be on just the neckline or neckline, sleeves and hem?
andreah at cpsnet.com

From: habura at marcus.its.rpi.edu (Andrea Marie Habura)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: cotehardie trim ?
Date: 2 May 1996 19:11:52 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Lyon asks about the appropriate placement of trim and embroidery on 
cotehardies.

(For a second, I thought you had meant "trimor embroidery"--and I was
getting all excited about a new technique. :) )

There's actually several answers. Brace yourself.

First, the problem: there isn't much surviving clothing from this era,
so I'm going mostly on pictorial evidence and on wardrobe inventories.

Band patterns: This category would include trim, woven bands, and 
band  embroidery. There's evidence for these placed on cuffs, 
neckline, and hem of cotehardies, plus on the borders of cloaks and on
the armholes of a loose garment I think might be identified with 
a "ghita". (Above info is for women.) For men, I have evidence for
cuffs and hem. 
An interesting subclass of this type of ornament is a sort of gold 
"lace"; it consists of what appears to be a narrow band with a sort
of trefoil-shaped picot "fringe". The band is sewn onto the garment
and the fringe is left to dangle over the edge. I have seen this trim
on the short sleeves and hem of a man's cotehardie, on the hem of 
a gambeson, on a man's hood, and on a sideless surcoat. I don't know how to 
make this kind of trim, but it's pretty.

All-over patterns: This would include embroidery worked on the fabric of 
the clothing. There's evidence for this on men's cotehardies, cloaks,
and houppelandes, and on womens' cotehardies, ghitas, cloaks, and 
houppelandes. It looks *really* cool, and I'm in the process of 
doing some for a houppelande for my husband--but be warned, it is
a *lot* of work. 
Oh, right: such embroidery also appears on accessories like hoods, hats,
pouches, shoes, and so on.

I apologize for not providing direct citations. Usual excuse: I'm at work, 
my books aren't. If you'd like references for books to look at, please
let me know.

Alison MacDermot
*Ex Ungue Leonem*

From: gfrose at cotton (Gregory Frank Rose)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Cotehardie fastenings 
Date: 31 May 1996 00:30:08 GMT
Organization: University of Mississippi NDES

Greetings, all, from Katerine Rountre.

Linette de Gallardon asks about cotehardies and how they close.

: BUT, I find an awful lot of depictions of groups of people with
: cotehardies, showing only sides and fronts, but showing no lacings or
: fastenings at all.  By process of elimination, these dresses could be
: fastened in the back.  Or they could be sewn on every time the dress was
: donned (someone else's suggestion, I don't think it's very practical).  Or
: it could merely be (misleading) artistic license.

It is in fact possible to make a cotehardie that fits quite
closely, and yet has no lacing.  I know: I got lazy before one 
Pennsic and made several.  What motivated me, was that I had
previously discovered that I didn't have to unlace mine to get
in and out of them.

Whether this is what was in fact done, I have no clue.  But it is
at least possible.  I too would love some real information on this
one.

Cheers,
-- Katerine/Terry
-- gfrose at cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu

From: bhw at psyc.nott.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Cotehardie fastenings  
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 14:02:18 +0100
Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, The University of Nottingham

Kim Pollard wrote:
> 
>         How in the world do you get into a cotehardie without lacings or
> fastenings of some fashion?  I'd love to know this secret--as would many
> others out here, I'm sure <grin>!

I'd offer two data points (but without the references to hand - 
let me know if you want me to dig out details):

There is at least one period picture I have seen of someone sewing up
their sleeve seam so it fits tight to the wrist. I have read about 
this practice too.

I've also seen a thirteenth century garment (in a museum in Spain) 
where the lacing on the side was designed to effectively "sew" the
seam closed when it was pulled tight. I have used this myself on 
a later period bodice and it works well - it _looks_ like there
is no fastening but the fit is tight.

Caitlin

From: gfrose at cotton (Gregory Frank Rose)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Cotehardie fastenings 
Date: 1 Jun 1996 23:27:19 GMT
Organization: University of Mississippi NDES

Greetings, all, from Katerine Rountre.

Kimberly asks:

:       How in the world do you get into a cotehardie without lacings or 
: fastenings of some fashion?  I'd love to know this secret--as would many 
: others out here, I'm sure <grin>!

Pull it on and off over my head.  It takes a little wiggling, and
once done, requires reaching down the neckline and adjusting what
needs adjusting, but it isn't particularly difficult.

I don't wear mine like second skins; for one thing, I'm aiming earlier
in the century than that, and for another, on someone of my, er,
bountiful nature, it wouldn't be particualrly aesthetic.  But I
wear them well enough fitted that they will support what, in the
mundane world, I have to resort to mail order to get supported, since 
stores don't carry my size (number, yes; letter, not likely).

Part of the secret is probably that I wear underdresses with them,
and that the underdress, while less fitted than the overdress, 
is fitted enough to get things more or less fixed in place, while
providing a better surface to pull over.

Cheers,
-- Katerine/Terry
   gfrose at cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu

From: bhw at psyc.nott.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Cotehardie fastenings 
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 11:57:56 +0100
Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, The University of Nottingham

Susan Carroll-Clark wrote:
> >I've also seen a thirteenth century garment (in a museum in Spain)
> >where the lacing on the side was designed to effectively "sew" the
> >seam closed when it was pulled tight.
> 
> Wow!  Was this an actual extant piece of clothing?  If so, I'd
> LOVE to hear more! 

Yes, it was. It's in the Real (ie. royal) Monastery in Burgos. They
have a room of clothes taken from 13th century tombs, most in good
condition. I was there 7 years ago, and you only see it on the 
(compulsory) guided tour for about ten minutes so I have only 
fairly brief notes but surely there must be a detailed study 
published somewhere? The main other thing I recall being struck by
were the number of patterned items (mostly stripes or simple shapes).
I can look at home for what else I noted down, but I should say that
its not a time/place that I'm so familiar with, so I might have 
missed some important things.

Caitlin

From: mhague at calweb.com (Jackp0t)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern
Date: 20 Nov 1996 08:06:54 GMT

Finnian MacLeod (finnian at flash.net) wrote:
: I find myself stymied. I went looking for a basic pattern to make of all 
: things, a cotehardie.  But at every turn I can only find people trying to 
: either sell me a pattern (at a stiff price no less) or offering the finished 
: product (absolutely gorgeous and also exorbitantly priced).  
: 
: Is there ANYBODY out there who can provide me with an affordable pattern or a 
: comparable source for said pattern?

If you are a decent seamstress you may want to check out McCalls pattern
7957.  It is a basic princess seamed dress that will need lengthening, but
reads well as a start to a cotehardie.  I have not yet made one (the
pattern is still sitting there on 6 yards of fabric) but it looks very
simple.  I believe I found the pattern on sale for $2 but it is normally
about $6.

-Martie    --    mhague at caleweb.com     --   http://www.calweb.com/~mhague

From: Eleanore Hewitt <elhewitt at ucsd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern
Date: 20 Nov 1996 17:20:18 GMT

The costumers here in Caid frequently use a slightly modified version of 
what is to be found in regular commercial pattern books as princess-line 
dresses.  These have seams that come up over the bust and out at the arm 
hole with a similar seam up the back.  One of our most experienced 
costumers made a pattern for me that is almost exactly like the ones to 
be found in Simplicity, McCall and Butterick (except, of course, that it 
fits ME).

From: sunrise686 at aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern
Date: 21 Nov 1996 05:06:40 GMT

I use McCalls 6895.  You could check thrift shops for it as I think it is
discontinued.  That's were I found mine.  I have heard it discussed that
this is not exactly period because of the way the side-front panel is
done.  It is only a small change you would need to make.  However, since I
have seen the Jean Hunnisett version of the Greenland Dress ("Period
Costume for Stage and Screen: Patterns for Women's Dress, Medieval-1500"),
I disagree, since they look very similiar.  So this should be a pretty
good version.  

Eleanor Courtenay

From: Diana Habra <dch at inreach.com>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 05:31:00 -0800

Finnian MacLeod wrote:

> Is there ANYBODY out there who can provide me with an affordable pattern or a
> comparable source for said pattern?
> 
> Finnian

Hello Finnian,

I am assuming that you mean a woman's cotehardie.  If so, what is good as a first-time cheater pattern is to find a closely fitted, princess line pattern in your modern fabric store.  Those are the ones with a seam over the right & left bust, side seams, and two back seams that mimick the front ones.  This creates a six "panel" dress.  While this is by no means a correct, historical cotehardie pattern, it is a good start and you will come close.  The actual pattern from the "bog dress" has somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 "panels".  It's not that hard to adapt the modern pattern to make it historically correct should you want to next time.  Just find someone who has made one that way and ask their assistance.

Hope this helps you.  And I apologize if you need a man's cotehardie pattern.  I haven't done one and all I know is that they are usually short and sometimes had dagging on the bottom edge.  As far as fit, I haven't a clue....

Lady Roseline d'Anjou
Kingdom of the West

From: a013957t at bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Kellen Harkins)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern
Date: 22 Nov 1996 21:44:20 GMT

Yes try and track down a princess line type pattern, but the key 
difference is that you ( and I know there is one out there) would be 
more period to find a pattern where the side front seams go up into 
the shoulders rather than the arm holes.  I don't remember the 
pattern number but I believe it is still available... To get a more 
period stayle flare in the skirt, you can add gores in between the 
panels on the bottom.  These are basically a triangle type shape.  
Someone who has more experience or references could probably help more 
but this should give you a start...  If I'm not mistaken the male style 
has fairly straight lines, with a similar gore style on the skirt...

Ah, but the best part of cotehardies is sewing ten zillion button holes!
--
Kelley / Lady Kellen Oddsdottir/A woman with many faces....

Kellen Harkins
a013957t at bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us

From: Katherine Penney <katherinex_penney at ccm.jf.intel.com>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:14:41 -0800
Organization: Intel Corporation

Lady Roseline d'Anjou wrote:  (some *snips* for brevity's sake)
> I am assuming that you mean a woman's cotehardie.  If so, what is good as a 
> first-time cheater pattern is to find a closely fitted, princess line pattern 
> in your modern fabricstore.  Those are the ones with a seam over the right & 
> left bust, side seams, and two back seams that mimick the front ones.  This 
> creates a six "panel" dress.
*
If you're going to have a way in and out of this dress, you need 7 or 8
panels, you'll need a front or back opening.
*
> by no means a correct, historical cotehardie pattern, it is a good start and 
> you will come close.  The actual pattern from the "bog dress" has somewhere in 
> the neighborhood of 12 "panels".  
*
There are several "bog dresses", the one I think you are referring to
has 1 panel, 10 gores, 2 sleeves, and is very easy to make.
*
> It's not that hard to adapt the modern pattern to make it historically
> correct should you want to next time.  Just find someone who has made one that > way and ask their assistance.
*snip*

*sigh*  WHY do it wrong the first time if if it's just as easy to do it
right?
_Please_ don't buy a modern princess style dress pattern.  

Modern patterns have things like zippers, boning, and shoulderpads that
are sometimes very hard to compensate for.  Plus, you have to modify the
pattern to be full length, unless you are lucky enough to find a full
length version...  You'll surely have to modify the sleeves, which will
probably be way too puffy...

I made my first cotehardie 3 years ago (I have made six, 5 different
cuts), and I patterned the first on a princess style dress that I had. 
The dress wanted a zipper, and, of course, I couldn't give it one.  It
was difficult and I had to rework the dress twice before it fit right.  

Raiments sells a pattern set for $18 for half a dozen cotehardies and
about as many surcotes. Their address is 3749 E. Colorado Blvd. Pasadena
CA. 91107 (818) 585-2994 Fax (818) 432-4530.

Their cotehardies took about half the time to create, saved 1/3 the
fabric and were SO SO much better looking.  The pattern came with
several pages of documentation, and fabric and trim choice information.  

I have also made a 10 gore gown like the one that was featured in TI
last year.  It was wonderful, and the dress I mademanaged to win an A&S
competition for me... (Thanks Mairi!) :)  You can probably borrow that
copy of TI from someone if you can't afford to buy the patterns...  

If I were to do it all over again, I would DEFINATELY skip over the
mundane pattern, invest the $18, and do it right.  The seams are in the
right places, you don't get torpedo boobs, AND you know you've done it
right.

Good luck,
Constance Fairfax

From: Brett and Karen Williams <brettwi at ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:09:37 -0800

McCalls has one in print right now-- saw it in the book less than a week 
ago. I'd note the pattern number, however I have a drawer full of 
various versions of (cough) eighteen years of 'the perfect cotehardie' 
pattern and restrained myself. ;)  I would add that in order to fit the 
shoulders correctly, one must omit the shoulderpads and the *allowance* in 
fabric to go over those offending shoulderpads.  This is easily done by 
carefully taking in the garment along the control seam from the bust point up 
and over the top of the shoulder and down to the corresponding point on the 
back of the shoulder.

Sewing cognoscenti should recognise right off the bat that I'm talking about 
altering a princess dress with control seams that go to the top of the 
shoulder rather than into the armsceye. Mundanely speaking, I'd never buy a 
princess dress pattern that *did* have the control seams going over the bust 
into the armscye-- if it's the least bit off in fit (which is determined in 
the cutting phase) it's next to nigh impossible to fix. The shoulder control 
seams are much more forgiving. The usual caveat of My Humble Opinion gets 
inserted here. :)

And to add a last tantalizing bit, Simplicity 9417 is a basic t-tunic dress 
that has an apron thingie designed to be worn over it-- which can be altered 
by spreading to a nice, basic sideless surcote. I don't know if it's still in 
print; it's c. 1995. The dress could be lengthened to a decent level, too.

ciorstan

From: hrjones at uclink.berkeley.edu (Heather Rose Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern
Date: 24 Nov 1996 18:55:42 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

sunrise686 at aol.com wrote:
: I use McCalls 6895.  You could check thrift shops for it as I think it is
: discontinued.  That's were I found mine.  I have heard it discussed that
: this is not exactly period because of the way the side-front panel is
: done.  It is only a small change you would need to make.  However, since I
: have seen the Jean Hunnisett version of the Greenland Dress ("Period
: Costume for Stage and Screen: Patterns for Women's Dress, Medieval-1500"),
: I disagree, since they look very similiar.  So this should be a pretty
: good version.  

It's hard to know exactly what you mean by "very similar", but I would
venture that if Hunnisett's version of the Greenland Dress looks "very
similar" to a modern princess-line dress pattern, then it's a rather poor
representation of the Greenland Dress. The primary difference is that
modern princess-line patterns taper _in_ from the bust to the waist, while
the various Greenland garments made with multiple gores run essentially
straight from the bust to waist (and then flare out). (There are also
major differences in the sleeve construction, of course.)

Now, I'll agree that as far as modern patterns go, a princess-line pattern
is as close as you're going to get to medieval cotehardie-type cuts, but
I'd rather that people didn't make the mistake of thinking they're
functionally identical.

Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn

From: sunrise686 at aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern
Date: 25 Nov 1996 00:52:51 GMT

I was referring to the right-front panel being similiar in the McCalls
pattern and the Jean Hunnisett pattern.  Never stated that a princess line
pattern was period.  Hunnisett's pattern is very close to the Greenland
dress, except for the right-front panel, and where it connects to the
front panel.   

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: piusma at umdnj.edu (Matthew Pius)
Subject: Re: Cotehardies
Organization: Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 05:34:45 GMT

mhar at straths.strathcona.vic.EDU.AU (Megan Hargreaves) writes:
>I have found a cotehardie pattern in a costuming book, but
>I am not sure that it is the right type, and if it will
>come out looking authentic.
>It has only 4 panels and everywhere else I have looked I have
>seen up to 8 panels allowing for front or back openings.
>Can anyone help??

        A dress in 4 pieces would be period for slightly earlier periods 
than the 8 piece.  This is of course a generalization and I'm sure 
someone could come up wih a case for which it is not so, but 4 pieces is 
simpler than 8 which makes it (in my mind) earlier.  Whether you call it 
a cotehardie or not is kind of a matter of nomenclature nit-picking.

        The difference between the two patterns is that having the 
vertical seams that cross the bust point allows you to fit the dress much 
more closely to the contours of your body than you can with only CB, CF, 
and side seams.  You may also find that the skits of a 4 piece gown need 
gores put in between them and that the 8 piece one does not.  But many 
people will put gores in the seams of the 8 piece patterns, too.  Mostly 
it depends on the width of your fabric and how much you can flare the 
seams of the pieces.

                                        -Ibrahim al-Rashid
                                                (mka Matt Pius)

From: cromabu at aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking cotehardie pattern
Date: 3 Dec 1996 01:50:02 GMT

         With the greenland dress you have to take into account the bust, waist, & hip sizes of the wearer. If the wearer is small busted than it can be straight. But, if the wearer has a large size bust then the princess line pattern will work better. Having the latter problem (where clothes are concerned that is) I have had a great deal of trouble making a lot of patterns fit right, both modern as well as period paterns(especially period patterns).Your best bet is to make a slopper out of muslin (it's cheap) & it can make a nifty linning also. Remember that when making any thing with layers you need to make each successive layer larger, I have found that a scant 1/4 inch all around your pattern is enough for each layer.                        
                                                                       
Try it for yourself.
                                             Lady Cate

From: gayeates at chat.carleton.ca (Graham A. Yeates)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Cotehardies
Date: 2 Dec 1996 17:23:35 GMT
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Matthew Pius (piusma at umdnj.edu) wrote:
> mhar at straths.strathcona.vic.EDU.AU (Megan Hargreaves) writes:
> >I have found a cotehardie pattern in a costuming book, but
> >I am not sure that it is the right type, and if it will
> >come out looking authentic.
> >It has only 4 panels and everywhere else I have looked I have
> >seen up to 8 panels allowing for front or back openings.
> >Can anyone help??

>       A dress in 4 pieces would be period for slightly earlier periods 
> than the 8 piece.  This is of course a generalization and I'm sure 
> someone could come up wih a case for which it is not so, but 4 pieces is 
> simpler than 8 which makes it (in my mind) earlier.  Whether you call it 
> a cotehardie or not is kind of a matter of nomenclature nit-picking.

>       The difference between the two patterns is that having the 
> vertical seams that cross the bust point allows you to fit the dress much 
> more closely to the contours of your body than you can with only CB, CF, 
> and side seams.  You may also find that the skits of a 4 piece gown need 
> gores put in between them and that the 8 piece one does not.  But many 
> people will put gores in the seams of the 8 piece patterns, too.  Mostly 
> it depends on the width of your fabric and how much you can flare the 
> seams of the pieces.

>                                       -Ibrahim al-Rashid
>                                               (mka Matt Pius)

Just one more wee comment from someone who has tried both:  If the wearer
has much of a bust the best fit will come from an eight panelled
cotehardie with the control seams going to the armhole (this is also more
period as far as I can tell, though in period control seams often did not
actually pass over the bust point).  There are a number of modern patterns
that can be easily adapted for this type of dress. 
If you want a fitted but a bit earier type of look and are busty go to the
back laced gown ( the cote's ancestor) which is llike your 4 panelled cote
pattern but laced up the back (Sorry about the obviousness- first cold
ofthe season!) but make it in a Very soft, relatively loose woven wool or
wool-blend  (After making a mock up, so you don't muck up (sewing
humour!)).  I have a dress like this and it looks lovely on almost anyone
(with a nip and tuck at the sides) and it is largely due to the drape of
the fabric. 
Good luck!
 
Lady Helen of Greyfells on her lords account (sorry ladies)
MKA Helen Dolbey (Mundanely a couturier)
Questions? Please send privately I'm not on here much- Thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan QuickTongue
MKA Graham A. Yeates
Email address: gayeates at chat.carleton.ca

From: smilingyy at aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Cotehardies
Date: 3 Dec 1996 07:56:16 GMT

from Allison Poinvillars de Tours  at home at allilyn at juno.com
re: cotehardies
Both 4 gore and 8 gore cotehardies can be found in period, but if you can
do the 8 gore, it fits and looks best.  Some are laced down the back, some
buttoned down the front with many close set buttons--jeweled, bone,
metal--these are meant to be decorative as well as functional.  The 14th
C. over-the-bust seam does not end in the armhole.  It rises straight up
to the shoulder seam.  Look in the Style pattern book for one of
these--most modern 'princess' seams do swerve into the armhole. The sleeve
should be a 2 piece sleeve.  You may be able to adapt one from a suit
pattern, but again, their seams were not exactly in the same locations as
our modern version.  Check the art section of your local library for
paintings, manuscript illustrations, etc., for the country and time you
wish to copy.
Any new costumer should try to buy back copies of Seams Like Old Times, a
costume newsletter edited and mostly written by, two Laurels in the
Midrealm.  Their work is excellent, and there is much on sleeves,
cotehardies, etc.  I'm away for the holiday, don't have their address, but
will be home with some of my reference books in mid-December.  Don't have
much Internet access, but do have e-maIL and lots of costume reference
books.
Happy garb-making.
Allison.

From: sunrise686 at aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Cotehardies
Date: 7 Dec 1996 06:40:44 GMT

I dug out an old article from "Seams LIke Old Times' and they stated that
any of the three could be period.  We have to take into consideration that
the gowns found were probably for smaller-breasted women.  It boils down
to using which ever pattern works best for you.  

Eleanor Courtenay

From: Maggie Mulvaney <mulvanem at fp.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Cotehardies
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:35:23 -0800
Organization: Fisher & Paykel Screencraft

Shawn-Dana (Katya) wrote:

> Forgive my foolishness, but what makes a cotehardie a cotehardie? Why not
> base it on a Viking 10-gore? It's documentable.

That's actually a good question. This thread has discussed 
several different types of gown, with little in common except
that they're all gored.

Personally, I define 'cotehardie' as a garment that is gored,
fitted (at least nominally) to the body, and has _fitted sleeves_.
Please note, this is not a scholarly definition - just my own
working definition. By that definition, cotehardies co-existed
with 'tunics', but that is not a problem to me. YMMV.

There is actual documentation on cotehardies, including extant
examples. The Greenland finds of Hjerolfsnes included several
garments. There are a couple of books that describe the find,
I'm sure someone else has a reference more handy than I do.
The HMSO book on 'textiles and clothing' also shows some 
examples and additional documentation.

muireann
**********************************************************
* MMY             *                    mulvanem at fp.co.nz * 
* Maggie Mulvaney * http://www.nmia.com/~entropy/maggie/ *
**********************************************************

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 01:53:26 -0700
From: Brett and Karen Williams <brettwi at ix.netcom.com>
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Books about costuming

If Eloise is looking specifically for cotehardies, here's some additional
pointers:

To give you an idea of what the dress looks like, there's a webpage with
pictures taken from Norris contained therein. While, IMHO, Norris' drawings are
somewhat contaminated by his early 20th century ideas of feminine figure and his
less than historian-level concern with accuracy of details, his illustrations
are nonetheless clear ideas of the shape of the garment one is after. They do
have the drawback of  little usefulness for flat pattern/cutting:

http://pip1.pipcom.com/~tempus/cotnor.html

All of the publications I cite presume familiarity with alteration and drafting
skills, which directly translates to an experienced seamster. If you need help,
or are looking for specific patterns for your size, that's another issue to be
addressed on request... ;)

In Tournaments Illuminated issue 116, Fall 1995, is an article on a way to cut a
10-gore dress, which makes a very nice cotehardie. There was some discussion on
the Rialto about this dress method that I can most likely find via DejaNews if
anyone is interested-- apparently there is an error in the measurement
methodology that can lead one to end up with the Dress That Can Hold Godzilla
And Mothra Destroying Tokyo Underneath. I can't find my copy at the moment-- I'm
hoping that Muireann will pop in and cite the issue in which her article on
cutting basic tunics appears, which is excellent. Once upon a time, Issue 87 of
TI had therein an article I wrote on constructing a Tudor/Elizabethan/Cavalier
corset from one's own measurements, but I think it's out of print these days.
There is an even earlier TI article from Robert Trump (Master Robert Sartor
etc.) on cutting an Elizabethan shirt, but it's somewhere in the garage...I
think.

ciorstan

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 05:22:08 GMT
From: mmy at fp.co.nz (Maggie.Mulvaney)
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Books about costuming

On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 01:53:26 -0700, Ciorstan wrote:
>In Tournaments Illuminated issue 116, Fall 1995, is an article on a way to cut a
>10-gore dress, which makes a very nice cotehardie. There was some discussion on
>the Rialto about this dress method that I can most likely find via DejaNews if
>anyone is interested-- apparently there is an error in the measurement
>methodology that can lead one to end up with the Dress That Can Hold Godzilla
>And Mothra Destroying Tokyo Underneath. I can't find my copy at the moment--I'm
>hoping that Muireann will pop in and cite the issue in which her article on
>cutting basic tunics appears, which is excellent.

Thanks, Ciorstan! :)

It was winter 1996, Issue 117. There is a direct relationship between
that type of tunic and the fitted cotehardie, but it involves a friend
or a dressmaker's dummy and lots of pinning... I did go to the trouble
once, and now have a pattern which I can use. You still have to
develop the sleeve, too, since that's fitted. It's kind of a practical
introduction to costume evolution.

There are commercial patterns made from the the Hjerolfsnes garments,
too. They were developed by the Copenhagen Design school, and are sold
through the National Museum in Copenhagen (they are on-line). One for
a woman's gown, one for a man's, hoods are included.

http//:natmus.min.dk/IXGB.HTM

/mmy
************************************************************
* MMY             *               Maggie.Mulvaney at fp.co.nz *
* Maggie Mulvaney * http://www.fpnet.co.nz/users/m/maggiem *
************************************************************

Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:50:02 -0700
From: Brett and Karen Williams <brettwi at ix.netcom.com>
To: "'Arts & Sciences List'" <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Spreading a Pattern

In phefner200 at aol.com (Phefner200) writes: 
>
>Does anybody know where I might get patterns for cote-hardies and
>sideless surcoats? I have a pattern for these from Medieval
>Miscellaneous, but I had some real hassles with their Italian Ren. I'd
>like to try another pattern if possible. ---Isabelle

The Medieval Miscellanea cotehardie and surcote patterns are all
right (the usual Ciorstan Caveat about the MM fit of armsceye pieces
notwithstanding), but they don't make a garment to my personal
taste. The four-piece method of princess dress just isn't full enough in
the skirts.

If you're not comfortable using the "guess-and-by-God-it-worked!"
method of cutting [:)], then seek out any number of the commercial
patterns for a princess line dress with a jewel or boat neckline
style. HOWEVER, do get one that has the control seams that go up to the
top of the shoulders rather than into the armhole-- it's much easier to
fit the dress and is not as blatantly OOP. My current favorite pattern
is a McCall with shoulder pads (feh), which was relatively easy to
alter out by careful taking in of the shoulder control seams from the
bustpoint upwards. I made the McCalls version with about 8 yards of 45"
fabric, pieces cut as if with a nap due to a one-way pattern woven into
the cloth. Each piece was lengthened out to the width of the fabric at
the appropriate length for my height. The finished gown has decent
drape in the skirts as a result.

The actual cut of the cotehardie is the 10-gore dress of much
discussion from Tournaments Illuminated, as drawn by Crowfoot, et
alia, in Medieval Textiles, however that's a more difficult
drafting/alteration project to undertake than a princess-dress.
The important thing with a cotehardie gown is that fitting the dress
properly to the body intending to wear it is the key to success--
and therein lies the difficulty.

>Would you be willing to share that McCall's pattern number?  With my
>luck, I'd surely guess wrong.  :-)
>
>Magdalen of Cheshire
>Barony of the South Downs, Meridies

Sorry, Lady Magdalen, there was no intent to be coy when I wrote
the first article. My two year old daughter had just gone galumphing
off with the envelope and hid it in one of her special hiding places.

It's 5743, copyright 1992, so it might be out of print.  I should
point out that I tend to search the discount pattern bins in search of
The Perfect Cotehardie Dress Pattern and have a lot of 'em stashed
from over the last eighteen or so years. If this particular pattern is
indeed out of print, not to worry-- all three mainstream pattern
manufacturers seem to recycle this particular classic dress in every
season's release. What you're looking for is long, plain sleeves, simple
neckline, no collar or other silly frills. Change the back zip to
a faced and reinforced eyelet lacing. View A of this particular
pattern is supposed to fall at mid-calf; the finished hem width of the
garment is, for a size 16, 153 inches. If the mid-calf is lengthened to
a proper lady's length, there's even more width to the skirts than a
mere 153 inches.

I usually avoid Simplicity, though-- their patterns tend, overall,
to call for less fabric (and hence less conspicuous consumption-like
drape) than the other pattern folks. This seems to be why their
garments seem to scream 'homemade' more so than others. McCalls
generally run a wee tad large.

With that caveat in mind, there's Simplicity 9417, a tunic and
(!!!) sideless surcote that's designed to tie on over the dress. With a
minor amount of fiddling with the surcote (I'd widen the skirts out by
slashing the pattern and spreading), there's a good guideline for
a surcote. Oh, and lose the tie and connect the skirt panels, o'
course. This particular pattern was just released this spring (1996), so 
there's a good chance it's still there in the stores. The front neckline
of the surcote is a little low for my personal taste, but that's easily
adjusted, too. The tunic itself is a short-sleeved classic early
period t-tunic, done with a slight dolman bagginess under the sleeve.
The drape to the garment is typically scanty Simplicity, though. As a
point of comparison, the finished hem of the Simplicity tunic is also at
mid calf, and is a paltry 79 3/4 inches.

It occurred to me that this Simplicity pattern could be used to
base a ten-gore dress upon, with a snip here and a split there...hrm.
Hrm. Hrm!

>>In article <4v7une$nda at dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
>>brettwi at ix.netcom.com(Brett Williams) writes:
>>It's [McCall's] 5743, copyright 1992, so it might be out of print.
>
>Indeed, as you suspected, I couldn't find it anywhere.  I did,
>however, find another (albeit Simplicity) pattern that might work.  I
>would be interested in hearing opinions on #8345; it is described as a
>"fit and flared dress with princess seams; cap sleeves and back
>zipper."  The front seams do go all the way to the shoulder, and the
>sleeve appears to be easily alterable to a long one.  The mid-calf
>length dress shows a dress width of 129 1/2".

Sounds about right, then. I withdraw my usual snarky criticsms of
Simplicity, for this one instance. ;)

I said earlier:

>>>With that caveat in mind, there's Simplicity 9417, a tunic and (!!!)
>>>sideless surcote that's designed to tie on over the dress. With a
>>>minor amount of fiddling with the surcote (I'd widen the skirts out
>>>by slashing the pattern and spreading), there's a good guideline for
>>>a surcote.
>
>This one I found.  Now I need some advice, as I have never "slashed" a
>pattern before --- only shortened or lengthened.  

It's not too difficult once the concept is explained, so I'll do
my best. However, this is a hard one to do without 'visual aids', so
I'll tender the suggestion to take a good look at Mistress Audelindis'
reprints of Seams Like Old Times in the two (now three?) Compleat
Anachronists. She explains the technique of slashing and spreading
correctly, in detail. It needs to be done in even proportions
across the garment (or garment piece) or the garment ends up looking
funny and the skirts don't drape properly. She also gives good, clear
illustrations of improperly cut and draping skirts so you know
what you're avoiding.

I will try to get the technique across without her splendid
drawings, though. Mistress Audelindis, I know you're out there.....
care to comment?

>How many length-wise slashes should I make? 

That depends on the total projected proportion of width you
propose to give the finished garment. In the case of the Simplicity
surcote, I'd do at least three spreads and additions-- one in the
'center front' and 'center back' of the finished garment, one each of
the 'center' of the original piece as drafted by Simplicity, and I'd add
a chunk to the sides. If you take a look at the 10-gore dress diagram in
a late issue of TI, the parallel can be mentally drawn by the 10-gore
dress' insertion of a gore in the center front panel of the garment. The
surcote we're after, though, has a totally different drape point
and should have the top of the virtual 'gores' you're inserting into
the pattern pieces commence from just under the neckline. If you're
really new at this, think of a gore as a triangle that you're adding, on
paper, to the pattern you've been provided that ultimately shows
in the finished garment without seams. The trick here is to spread the
pieces in such a way as to ensure that the curved sides of the surcote's
armsceyes don't get pushed out so far that it becomes the Surcote
Under Which Godzilla And Mothra Could Easily Destroy Tokyo. So, you want
your gore/triangles fairly narrow at the top.

>Where should they begin --- at the approx. waistline?  

No, no NO! See above. :) If you start your widening at the
waistline you'll throw the skirt proportions subtly off. The garment
will end up looking like one of those neat things that looks like a
surcote but has Something Subtly Wrong With It.

>Is there any limit to how far I can "spread" the pattern before it
>gets distorted and will not give me a true floor-length hem?

The only distortion you'll get by spreading in the manner I've
suggested is if you give it *too* much spread. See above. I
usually piece the sides of my surcotes as the spread of the fabric
doesn't accomodate the full sweep of skirt.

         1
      ___*_
      \  1 {        <- an abysmal attempt at an ascii neckline
      |  1  |2
      /  1  |       So, I conjecture the original Simplicity surcote
    4/   1  |       piece looks something like this. I know my ascii
     |   1  |       art's out of proportion, but I hope you'll
     |   1  |       understand anyway. I'm not even going to attempt
     |   1  |       drawing the hem curve in.
     |   1  |
5    |   *  |     3

1.  Cut the pattern piece in half from * to *. Spread apart on the
line marked as ones and pivot the pieces on the shoulder seam. Do not
change the seam of the shoulder, nor should you change the armsceye.
You're merely moving the pieces apart and changing how they will lie
across the grain of the fabric. 

2.  From the center front neckline, draw an added gore to widen
the skirts out at point 2 to 3. You will probably have to draft
facings for the neckline-- I personally like rolling the hem of the
armscye and facing the neckline. I lay the surcote out on a scrap of
fabric after sewing (and pressing!) the shoulder seams and cut away what
doesn't look like a facing. Whatever you decide to do to finish the
armsceye, be sure you staystitch it before it stretches due to it lying
predominantly across the bias. Don't worry about bias and skirts.

3.   Fill in the missing skirt piece by drawing out an additional
gore from point 4 to however far you're zooming your projected skirts
(a new point 5). If you have to piece your skirts from yardage/scraps
because you've run out of width, that's fine-- and a perfectly period
technique.

You will have to draw a proper curve for the skirt hem. Here is
where Audelindis' work is Really Useful.

>I apologize for all the questions, but I'm a relatively new *alterer*
>of patterns, and I can't afford to experiment much.
>
>Magdalen of Cheshire

No apology necessary-- this is fun!

Lastly, and perhaps aside from the main thrust of this article-- I
bought a ten-yard roll of 45" pattern paper for about five dollars
at Michael Levine's, in the Garment District in Los Angeles.
Wonderful stuff, marked in inch grids. If you can find it, invest. Cheap
butcher paper works, too, for pattern drafting like this, or if you have
a tame doctor around, some of the patient paper they roll out on
examining tables-- or 'kraft' paper from an art store. If you're
reluctant to cut into patterns, trace 'em off onto cheaper paper, put
'em away in their envelopes (whoever designed the folding machines for
paper patterns was on Serious Drugs, no?) and annihilate your tracings
without regret. An easy way to 'trace' a pattern is to cut it out, take
a piece of white soap and gently rub from the pattern off the edge onto
your lower piece of paper (which has to be a darker color, obviously).
You get a negative image-- and the beauty is you have to cut *away* the
soapy parts. Oh, yeah-- I iron out my paper patterns with no steam 
before I lay 'em out the first time. Hate those stupid fold lines.

Once you get to the cutting point, use an old sheet as a muslin.
If you have reservations about fitting the more complicated cotehardie,
trace off the pattern pieces to just below the hips and make it up in
something that cost less than $1.50/yd (or even that hideously
awful and vile print you received furtively thrust into your arms in a
plastic grocery bag with averted and guilty eyes from a relative who
will NEVER admit that she spent good money on it!). Alter away, then cut
and use the finished muslin for your final pattern. This, of course,
presumes a lot of time spent-- however, I'll gently point out that my
first five cotehardies were abysmal failures because I, in my pride,
couldn't be bothered to take that careful step of fitting a muslin
first. Silly me!

Hope this helps!

>M'lady, I humbly thank you for your good advice and the time you must have 
>spent just typing it out!  I am in your debt.  :-)
>
>Magdalen of Cheshire

You're very welcome. 

But on second reading of my post this morning, I forgot to mention
something:  

After you split the pattern piece up the line of ones as drawn in
my abysmal ascii art, spreading the pieces out will result in a jog
in the shoulder seam. You know if you're spreading it too far by the
depth of the v. It should be slight. Simply 'round off' the shoulder
seam by drawing a straight line from seam allowance to seam allowance.
This has the effect of lengthening the shoulder seam slightly, so if
you're really conservative, pinch out the extra length on the pattern
piece before you cut (measure the length of the shoulder seam before
alteration and Make It So after the adjustment). Essentially,
you've just installed a dart and smoothed it out where no dart existed
before or after.

Don't be afraid to admit that you have reservations doing this the
first time-- I did, hence the recommendation of the sacrifice of a
sheet. Pivot and slide alterations and radical changes in drape
are advanced garment design skills.

I highly recommend Nancy Zieman's pivot and slide method of
alteration, which goes into this technique in greater detail than either
Mistress Audelindis or myself. Mrs. Zieman is the owner of Nancy's
Notions and usually has any number of books currently offered in her
catalog, one of which addresses pivot and slide exclusively. I would
give the title, but I don't own a copy. :)

ciorstan

Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 20:30:17 -0500
From: pnomail at bratshb.uwc.edu
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Pattern spreading and altering

Dear ciorstan,

If you will allow me to augment your description of pattern spreading I
would like to try.  

Conventional pattern alteration reasoning goes something like this:
The human body is pretty predictable.  It is also 3 dimensional.  A pattern
that needs to be increased or decreased should be stretched or shrunk in
more than one spot.  A person gains weight in more than one spot and pattern
alterations should reflect this.  If a person takes a size 38 pattern on the
chest, and a size 44 in the waist, adding only to the seam allowances will
also stretch the armseye (hole your arm goes through sometimes ending in a
sleeve) and possibly the neck.  The additional fabric should be added
through out the pattern in many small pieces, not one large chunk.  Since a
size 6 human female casts a smaller shadow from any side than a size 16, the
size 16 is proportianately bigger.  The sides are bigger.  The back is
wider.  The distance from bust point to point (the technical sewing term for
a measurement you probably don't want your dress maker taking if using
correct anatomical terms) is bigger, all of these differences are reflected
in the patterns.  

So to sumarize many small alterations are preferred to one big one for fit.
Of course, for time and convience, the fewer the better, so there does need
to be a reasonable balance.  

The slash and slide method by Nancy Zieman basically splits the pattern
piece in the middle adjusting at the STITCHING LINE, not the cutting line,
and pivoting the various parts of the pattern to the right fit and shape.
It is a simple method and IMO vastly easier than the one previously taught
in sewing classes.  Sometimes an alteration needs two or more splits if
there is a large difference.  

I would like to point out that in a conventional princess seamed dress, if
you cut the pieces 1/4" wider or narrower, you add (or subtract) 1/2" from
each seam, and so add or subtract 3" from the entire dress, so alterations
add up quickly.  

Also the modern patterns are sized for women 5'7" with a B cup.  Those
larger or smaller may find some frustration in bust fit if it is not cut to
accomodate.  

If one is altering a pattern tissue paper, pattern paper, old grocery bags,
unprinted newsprint, etc are good choices.  If one is preserving a much
loved and overused pattern, cheap iron on interfacing will support the pattern.

If you are attempting to alter a modern pattern to a period dress, like
ciorstan described, and are feeling clumsy, I will offer this reminder and
encouragement.  You have grown in your sewing far enough to attempt pattern
drafting or partial drafting, because this is what a flat pattern alteration
of this magnitude is, so congratulations you have reached a new level of
sewing.  Many never get this far.

Drucilla 

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:03:43 -0700
From: Brett and Karen Williams <brettwi at ix.netcom.com>
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Spreading a Pattern

EXCMairi at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 97-09-28 18:53:31 EDT, you write:
> 
> << HOWEVER, do get one that has the control seams that go up to the
>  top of the shoulders rather than into the armhole-- it's much easier to
>  fit the dress and is not as blatantly OOP. >>
> 
> I just don't understand this whenever I read it.  If you have ever done any
> work with the Greenland finds, as depicted in the Museum of London Textiles
> book (the basic pattern for a cotehardie), the seam at the side that connects
> with the first gore ends up looking like it goes into the armhole, NOT into
> the shoulder.  The main body piece is basically a large rectangle that is the
> width from shoulder point to shoulder point - there is seam dividing the
> front of the dress.
> 
> Linda Blowney

This is absolutely true-- however... there are two points of contention
here.

Most of us, I daresay, do not have the skill to draft an armsceye.  I,
too, have reluctance to get into the armsceye when I'm fooling with a
pattern. Where it would be absolutely authentic to do as you say with
respect to the construction of the dress-- how many of us truthfully
have the flat pattern skill to make an armsceye drape correctly after
creating a complex curve to fit over the bust? The ideal 10-gore dress
doesn't allow, really, for a big difference in measurement from the
waistline and bust *if one is doing a snug fit*, and just the slightest
change in taking in or letting out that side panel control seam can
distort the armsceye. I'm lucky-- I'm sorta sausage waisted
(shortwaisted and not much difference in measurement between waist and
hip), however one more hourglass-like would have a hard time getting a
rectangular center front panel and rectangular side gores to fit
anything more than loosely.

Additionally, a modern armsceye control-seamed princess dress is
absolutely and utterly unforgiving of cutting errors with respect to
that complex curve over the bust. It is much more difficult a
proposition to fit-alter such a curve as its placement is closer to the
bust point than the center side.

I don't have armsceye drafting skills, though I've sewed since I was
eight and to some extent abandoned patterns completely about fifteen
years ago when doing early SCA clothing. This is why I personally
compromise with a princess-line pattern for a cotehardie and fiddle. And
buy more princess-line patterns. And fiddle. ;)  Which is not to say
that I'm arguing against going the authentic way when making a 10-gore
dress-- it's more like I'm admitting realistically what my sewing and
drafting skills will competently handle. Even the 10-gore dress article
in TI, while wonderful for making up the body of the dress, seems to
skim over the problem of creating the armsceye. For field wear, I am
guilty of wearing a more t-tunic constructed gown under a simple
sideless surcote rather than a many-paneled 10-gore dress.

And the second contention-- Agnes Sorel's control seams go into the
shoulder line, if memory serves.  I am guilty of thinking of a
specifically later-period form-fitting cotehardie when recommending a
princess-line pattern rather than an earlier one without making that
distinction clear. That is the garment I think of when I think
'cotehardie', rather than a more loose 10-gore dress as found in
Greenland. 

But more to the point, Lady Mairi-- what would you recommend as a
starting point for an individual to create a form-fitting cotehardie,
using a pattern, who doesn't have the flat-patterning skill to create
the complex curve over the bust or the armsceye? The more commentary we
have on the list, the better our discussion will be.

ciorstan

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:00:28 -0500
From: pnomail at bratshb.uwc.edu
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Spreading a Pattern

I'm going to gracelessly stick my nose in here.

>Most of us, I daresay, do not have the skill to draft an armsceye.  I,
>too, have reluctance to get into the armsceye when I'm fooling with a
>pattern. 
True.  An armseye is difficult to draft.  A sewing curve, (plastic thingy
about 12"x9" available at fabric stores) is rather like a french curve, and
will help match the armseye seams.

To test fit make the bodice from shoulders to hips in scrap/cheap fabric of
a similar hand and construction as the material you are lusting over as a
gown.  I mean, use woven material assuming you are wanting a woven gown.
Sew the seams on the outside, stay stitch the neck and armseye and fiddle
with the fit.  Or better get a friend whom you trust not to stick you with
pins and have her/him adjust the fit.  Muslin, gingham or fabric that is so
hideous you can't believe you bought it, is a good "sacrifice" for these
test garments, called slopers or muslins in the sewing world.  Another good
source is the salvation army and other resale shops.  (I found 3 yards of
cotton corduroy, 60" wide for 60 cents.  It's cheaper than pattern paper,
and I can actually wear my test in public, but that's a different garment.)

Once you have a comfy and correct fit over the bust, true the seam line at
the armseye.  Truing is where you adjust the curves so they are smooth.
This is where one needs either a steady hand and a bit of luck or a sewing
curve, or a drafting french curve.  Then add the seam allowance.  

Then set the sleeves in, and adjust them so the sleeve cap is smooth.  It it
works, it's legal, unless your dress falls apart with you in it. 

Good luck.

> rather than a more loose 10-gore dress as found in Greenland. 
If memory serves correctly, the greenland dress is 12 gores not 10.  There
are two side panels in both front and back, the front and back and the 2
center gores.  Of course I could be wrong.  I've been that way before.

Drucilla

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:34:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: EXCMairi at aol.com
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Spreading a Pattern

<< Which is not to say that I'm arguing against going the authentic way when
making a 10-gore dress-- it's more like I'm admitting realistically what my
sewing and
 drafting skills will competently handle. Even the 10-gore dress article in
TI, while wonderful for making up the body of the dress, seems to skim over
the problem of creating the armsceye. >>

Reply, part 2!  

FYI, the reason why the armsceye is not particularly addressed in the TI
article is that the gores at the side of the dress create the armsceye for
you.  For those who might not know what we are talking about, the Greenland
finds (14th-15th century) have numerous gores in each side and additional
ones possible at the front and the back (to put it in a nutshell - there were
numerous examples found, many had different configurations of # of gores,
etc., etc.).   This basic cut is discussed in the MoL Textiles book as the
way cotehardies were constructed in period.

At the risk of sounding like an authenticity nut, the period way sometimes
really is the easier way!

Mairi

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:38:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: EXCMairi at aol.com
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Spreading a Pattern

The other trick to getting a good arm-hole fit is to take a mundane blouse or
dress that you are comfortable and just trace the arm-hole curve.  If it
ain't broke, don't fix it!

Mairi

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:43:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: EXCMairi at aol.com
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Spreading a Pattern

<< And the second contention-- Agnes Sorel's control seams go into the
 shoulder line, if memory serves.  I am guilty of thinking of a
 specifically later-period form-fitting cotehardie when recommending a
 princess-line pattern rather than an earlier one without making that
 distinction clear. That is the garment I think of when I think
 'cotehardie', rather than a more loose 10-gore dress as found in
 Greenland. >>

The 10-gore style shown in the MoL Textiles volume is exactly the form-fitted
cotehardie you are thinking of.  The seam appears to go into the armscye.  If
I were going to use a modern pattern to start with (not that I agree that
would be easier, frankly - I have taught the 10-gore style to people who
can't even make a t-tunic and they were successful), I would still go for one
with the seam ending in the arm-hole.

Baroness Mairi

Subject: Re: ANST - Houppelande documentation
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 97 16:11:16 -0000
From: -Jax- <jackson2 at apple.com>
To: "Ansteorra" <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>

Jovian:
Check out this Web Address:
< http://www.pipcom.com/~tempus/cotehardie.html >

It's the Cotehardie Home Page, I kid you not.

-Erik Wulfriksson-
  House of Brick

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 23:46:54 -0700
From: Brett and Karen Williams <brettwi at ix.netcom.com>
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Cotehardie armscyes & seams

gcarnegi wrote:
> > >In a message dated 97-09-28 18:53:31 EDT, Ciorstan writes:
> > >And the second contention-- Agnes Sorel's control seams go into the
> > >shoulder line, if memory serves.
> 
> The painting of Anges Sorel, which is part of The Melun Diptych, is at
> http://sunsite.auc.dk/cjackson/fouquet/p-fouquet3.htm
> The date of the panels is 1453-54.  Take a second look at the painting.
> Because of the mantle, you really can't tell if the seam does go into the
> armscye or not.

You're right. And your URL is the largest reproduction of that painting
I've ever seen. Now that I've seen a much better reproduction of the
picture, I withdraw my contention that the control seam goes to the
shoulder-- I was in error.

As a side issue: I may sound like I'm whining a little --hehheh-- but
the Manneristic way the painting's done looks to me like severe
anatomical distortion in the armscye/bust area, and Agnes' left eye,
upper cheek and brow. No woman's chest, barring a modern breast-implant
surgery that would most likely be the centerpiece of a malpractice suit,
looks like that. I would love to hear a cultural/art history style
analysis of this particular panel to try and understand why the painter
might have excuted so much of the painting in a realistic manner, then
distorted the woman's upper chest area so dramatically.

ciorstan

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:46:38 -0700
From: "gcarnegi" <gcarnegi at quiknet.com>
To: <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Cotehardie armscyes & seams 

Hello Ciorstan, Mairi, and everyone

> In a message dated 97-09-29 12:12:30 EDT, Baroness Mairi writes:
> >In a message dated 97-09-28 18:53:31 EDT, Ciorstan writes: 
> >And the second contention-- Agnes Sorel's control seams go into the
> >shoulder line, if memory serves. 

The painting of Anges Sorel, which is part of The Melun Diptych, is at
http://sunsite.auc.dk/cjackson/fouquet/p-fouquet3.htm
The date of the panels is 1453-54.  Take a second look at the painting.
Because of the mantle, you really can't tell if the seam does go into the
armscye or not.

> > I am guilty of thinking of a specifically later-period form-fitting 
> > cotehardie when recommending a princess-line pattern rather 
> > than an earlier one without making that distinction clear. That 
> > is the garment I think of when I think 'cotehardie', rather than a 
> > more loose 10-gore dress as found in Greenland. 
 
> The 10-gore style shown in the MoL Textiles volume is exactly the
> form-fitted cotehardie you are thinking of.  The seam appears to go
> into the armscye. If I were going to use a modern pattern to start with 
> (not that I agree that would be easier, frankly - I have taught the
> 10-gore style to people who can't even make a t-tunic and they were
> successful), I would still go for one with the seam ending in the
arm-hole.

The pattern for the cotehardie in MoL's Textiles and Clothing is from Paul
Norlund's Buried Norsemen at Herjolfsnes. There were actually 21 pieces of
body clothing found at this site. If you find a copy, this is a great book.

All of the dresses that slip over the head, with or with out CF & CB gores,
have the gores beginning in the armscye. This includes the dresses with
pleated bodices.  These dresses all seem to follow the body closely down to
the hip and then flare.  To my eye, these dresses belong to the cotehardie
family. 

The two cotes with center CF openning are made of 8 panels total and have
seams which run from the middle of the shoulder seam to the hem both in
back and in front.  There doesn't appear to be any of the shaping to the
body as with the dresses mentioned above.  One cote still has a small
standing collar (no. 63). The other cote (no 64)may have had a small
standing collar but the find was in such ruin, the author was uncertain. 
Looking at these two cotes, I'd throw them in with the hoppelande family.

As to whether it is easier to releave a bust dart into the armscye or into
the shoulder seam is a matter of preference. You can technically releave a
dart anywhere in a 360 degree circle around the pivot point. This includes
the back shoulder dart too- most people forget that one.

I tend to move most of it into the armscye with some going into the CF seam
and then grade both the armscye and the CF seam, controlling the fullness
through the chest  to acheive the squashed bosom (mono bosom) support that
I associate with this style.  This also assumes that you have a CF seam to
work with.

I think you get better control if you split the dart into two.  This is
especially true if the pattern is for someone with a large chest.
I've even seen one student releave it in 4 small darts (these looked more
like puckers) spread between a point 2" down from the shoulder seam and
1.5" from the underarm notch.  It worked very well for her but she also had
a smallish bustline to work around.  

The cap height on the Greenland dresse's sleeves is not very high... 
around 3" with at least one sleeve having no cap at all.  However the seams
are not under the arm, they run up the back or on top of the arm.  They all
have gussets inserted to add fullness so I guess you could say they all
have a cap at that point. Some of the sleeves are short (to about 2" shy of
the inside of the elbow), the rest were full length.  I didn't see any of
the cuffs over the knuckles- curious

At least two of the dresses had pocket slits which were edged with what
sounds like a small tablewoven braids.  Very cool!

I have a small handout on how to make standard cotehardie- could the
orginal poster please reply to me so I can forward it

Thanks all for letting me ramble- 

Dame Gwyndolynn Anne the Obscure, OL
West Kingdom

From: Eloise Beltz-Decker <eloise at ripco.com>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: undergarments for ladies cotehardies
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:58:25 -0500

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Carole & William wrote:
> I am looking for viable sources to make undergarments that will make my
> cotehardies look right.  (Brassiere straps are just a little out of
> place!)  If someone could guide me to either hard or electronic
> documentation I would be most grateful.

        That's easy. The same person that fit you for the cotehardie, get 
them to fit you a bit tighter, with your breasts held up and towards the 
middle; when the pinned-together four or eight pieces of fabric can 
support your boobs adequately and the seams are straight, draw on it in 
pen or marker to show where the seams go. Take it off, cut out (leaving 
seam allowance past the lines - my #1 screw up! :-), make up in sturdy 
fabric. Lace down front, back, or sides as you choose.
--
Eloise Beltz-Decker

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 19:02:25 -0500
From: Karen at stierbach.atlantia.sca.org (Larsdatter, Karen )
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Tippet sleeves?

Anna de Byxe asked:
> Does anyone ut there know where I can get a hold of a pattern for
> tippet sleeves for my mid-14th century dress?

You could try the "Sleeves Site" on the Cotehardie Homepage
(http://pip1.pipcom.com/~tempus/sleeves/index.html).

Tempus also has a good pattern for a separate tippet on the
Cotehardie Patterns page
(http://pip1.pipcom.com/~tempus/cotehardie/patterns.html) -- it's
the first pattern on the page, for a man's cotehardie.

Karen Larsdatter

From: Jennifer Carlson <talana1 at hotmail.com>
Date: September 21, 2006 12:53:21 PM CDT
To: ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Ansteorra Digest, Vol 5, Issue 55

Lady Penelope wrote:
> The book I read was Support and Seduction:  the history of corsets  
> and bras by Beatrice Fontanel.
>   I cannot remember whether it was the 14th or 15th century, but women
> would bare one breast.  Also, the silhouette in the 13th or 14th century
> was very small breasts and big stomachs.  Women would add padding around
> the middle to obtain the silhouette.

I'll confess right off that I'm not familiar with this book, and will check
it out at the first opportunity.  But I have to say that padding is not
necessary to obtain the 13th-14th century silhouette.

If you ever get the opportunity to attend a gothic gown (sometimes called
the cotehardie) class by Robin Netherton, who is THE expert on this
particular fashion, do so.  She's frighteningly informative and funny.  And
she also does a magnificent class/slideshow that illustrates how we can do
careful research and make perfectly reasoned conclusions that are ultimately
dead wrong, because of a tiny misinterpretation by someone up the research
chain we used.

The gothic gown, so popular in the 13-15th centuries, starts at the
beginning of that era fitted only around the bust, and as time progresses,
becomes more fitted down the torso, until it is so fitted that it starts to
reform the silhouette.  This results in the pouter-pigeon mono-bosom up top,
and what appears to be a sway-back and big belly below.

What's really happening with the back and abdomen is that the close fitting
down the back and at the sides forms the garment into the small of the back,
and at the same time emphasizes all the curves in front down to about the
navel.  These are curves that today you won't see displayed on a woman very
often.  One of the comments Ms. Netherton gets again and again is that the
women who wear this style have men staring at their backs, and that they
never realized how sexy the curve of a woman's back can be.

The reason the stomach can appear to pooch out is not a result of padding or
even, as I've heard some assert, a desire to look pregnant (though some of
the depicted women might have been so, certainly).  If you've ever worn one
of these garments, properly fitted, this is the way you will want to stand.
The construction of the back and sides supports you well enough that you
naturally relax into this stance, which is the opposite of the
stand-up-straight-and-hold-in-your-stomach training most of us grew up with.

And if you want to know what some of us think the real inspiration for this
posture is, take a look at any gaggle of teenage girls, SCA or mundane, and
notice how they stand: shoulders back, tummies forward.

Now, as for padding the bosom - well, "gay deceivers" have probably been
around as long as girls (and boys) have realized that some girls got more.
But this style of gown, fitted properly in the chest, will put cleavage on
an ironing board.

Talana

From: Nancee <nancee at MERMAID.HOMEIP.NET>
Date: January 14, 2010 1:27:11 PM CST
To: CALONTIR at listserv.unl.edu
Subject: Re: [CALONTIR] Looking for resources on buttons

Thomas von Holthausen wrote:
<<< May I sit in on that conversation, also.  
I am also considering making a tight fitting cotehardie.  

Why is this style of coat called "hardy"? >>>

Because it goes on top. Over coat.

From: Nancee <nancee at MERMAID.HOMEIP.NET>
Date: January 14, 2010 1:46:03 PM CST
To: CALONTIR at listserv.unl.edu
Subject: Re: [CALONTIR] Looking for resources on buttons

Thomas von Holthausen wrote:
<<< Really?
That is a cool thing to know. >>>

Wanna here something else cool? Houppeland, surcote and cotehardie all mean about the same thing. Great coat, top coat, over coat. It's the top layer, worn when you wanted to be fully dressed.

QM

From: Nancee <nancee at MERMAID.HOMEIP.NET>
Date: January 14, 2010 1:54:17 PM CST
To: CALONTIR at listserv.unl.edu
Subject: Re: [CALONTIR] Looking for resources on buttons

<<< I know that a man's Cotehardie is a bit different from the ladies but the only thing I have seen in illuminations and things that the woman's cotehardie is worn over is the underdress or shift. >>>

I'm going to share my favorite analogy.

The layers work like this:

shift/chemise
kirtle/shirt
cotehardie/cote

Think of a man's full dress suit in the 1950s. He wore an undershirt, a dress shirt and suit jacket. The undershirt was basically underwear, but he could wear it around the house or to do manual labor. The dress shirt could be worn alone, even outside the house, but it was less formal and would not be warm on a chilly day. With the jacket on, he is fully dressed and ready to go to work at the office, a wedding or other similar occasion--he could also wear it if it was a little too chilly for just his shirt.

The undershirt is like the shift (male or female)--it is basically underwear, but you can wear it in the privacy of your home, and you see men in the fields or doing other manual labor in just a shift. As with a dress shirt, put on the kirtle (male or female), and you are fully dressed for informal occasions. The cotehardie is like the suit jacket. It makes you fully dressed and ready for dressy occasions--it is also warmer.  You may wear a mantle or cloak on top (like a man's overcoat) for more warmth, but it does not add or detract from the formality of the clothes.

None of this takes into account hat, shoes or braes and hosen. But, the analogy actually fits those garments as well.

:)

QM

From the FB :SCA Garb" group:

Jennifer Bechamp
7/25/15
I have a question about cotehardies. With a close fitted garment like that, what is the best way to fit the sleeves? I've been having trouble with getting close fitting sleeves to still allow a free range of motion without pulling the back too tight across the shoulders. The body of the dress fits well but when I add the sleeves it restricts my movement and I can't quite figure out what I am doing wrong.

Emily Aqualime 
How big an armscye did you make?

Jennifer Bechamp 
20 inches around, ten inches long on each side.

Emily Aqualime 
http://cottesimple.com/articles/tailoring-grande-assiette/

Emily Aqualime 
Do you have any gussets in the underarm or back?

Jennifer Bechamp 
I am using an underarm guesset. 4 inch square

Emily Aqualime 
You'll probably want a triangular gusset in back (see above link, scroll way down for an example)
If you post a photo or two showing what's going wrong it will help others with more experience than myself tell you exactly what needs fixing

Kimiko Small 
Mistress Charlotte Mathilde Johnson's very helpful article on fitting sleeves.
http://www.mathildegirlgenius.com/Documen.../SleeveClass.pdf

Wendy Misuinas
9/18/15
I'm teaching a beginning class on the Gothic fitted dress....lace front, bust supportive outer garment. I got chatised for saying in my class descrption that this is "popularly referred to as a cotehardie" because that term is reserved for buttoned front closing gowns, and laced front gowns are kirtles, which are undergarments. Am I going nuts to think that while some SCA garb makers may choose to use cotehardie exclusively for button fronts, others will use it interchangeably with lace fronts? Also that I have seen lots of lace front dresses clearly being worn as outer dresses, not as undergarments.

I am teaching mostly beginners (adults) and SCA time period is not my strongest (18th century is). I don't want to get bogged down in terminology but I don't want to create confusion either.

Beatrice Domenici della Campana 
Yes, I have heard any of these gowns referred to as a cotehardie. I've never heard of a "lace-front" versus "button-front" distinction (though this isn't my period of expertise, I know enough that I refer to the garment as a GFD rather than a cotehardie).

Charlotte Mathilde Johnson 
The modern usage of the term "cotehardie" seems to differ so much from the period usage, that saying "popularly referred to as..." seems just fine to me. Those people who are telling you that a cotehardie is only "X thing" are also not using the term in a period correct way. 
People get really hung up on terms when they shouldn't.

Charles Mellor 
Even Merriam and Webster eventually give in to "Common Usage". I've given up on trying to tell people the supportive layer is NOT called a cotehardie. Too many people are calling it that, at this point.

Kate Tuley 
The difference is also linguistic; "kirtle" is a Germanic word, "cote" or "cotehardie" is Romance. The Complete Costume Dictionary lists "sorquenie" as the laced undergown worn beneath a cote. (https://books.google.com/books?id=gbIsJ2tZJS4C&pg=PA275....) You can search for other terms at the google book site. Things can get pretty dicey when you're using terms from multiple languages used across multiple centuries, i.e. the CCD includes "cettelle" for as a Spanish term for "kirtle" from 1450-1550, and "rok" as the Dutch (see also buis). I've seen cote, cotte, cotta...and that's a word that eventually becomes "coat," like that's not remotely dependent on the timeframe the term's used. In my experience reading Middle English and Old French, terms like "cote," "kirtle," "gunne," even "bliaut" are much the way we use words like "dress" and "coat" in modern English, and by modern I mean going back a ways, Jane Austen used "coat." Two hundred years later, we still say "coat," but are usually referring to something a bit different, because we're stilling using it as "that garment thing, you know, you wear it over a shirt, it has sleeves? That thing?"

Charlotte Mathilde Johnson 
According to the "Encyclopedia of Medieval Dress and Textiles of the British Isles, c. 450-1450", a "cotehardie" is "A 14th-century overgarment, usually lined, initially worn by men and eventually by both sexes. Although modern authors commonly use the term cotehardie to refer to a predominantly female fitted dress style that became popular in the 14th century, evidence from the period indicates that the term had no such association, and instead referred to an overgarment that was typically fur-lined and primarily worn by men."

There's more, and there are a couple of examples for women, but again, they seem more like outer warmth layers that were loose and unfitted. 
The modern usage doesn't really match up with the period usage.

Rachel Case 
I was not chastising you at all, my intent was to clarify the supportive garment you are teaching college students to make. You said "fitted dress with a laced front popularly known as a cotehardie." In my own research and garb construction, I have seen that term used as the buttoned outer garment, although it did sometimes lace up. Honestly, most folks start out with the fitted kirtle, then learn about layering later.

Antonia Di Benedetto Calvo 
A cotehardie, properly, is an overgarment, not a laced supportive garment. People *do* use the word cotehardie for what is really a kirtle (or one of its many many synonyms). As this is for a *class*, I think I may see a small opportunity for education here... smile emoticon

I don't think you have to go too nuts about terms. I point out all the time that a jerkin is a jerkin, not a doublet without getting too hung up on all the possible words for jerkin in other European languages.

Stacy K Davis 
Don't let people push you around, about stupid stuff. 
Cotehardie is a commonly used word for that garment. Many of the terms we use for period garments are interchangeable, and many are not the terms that were used in period. As long as everyone knows what type of dress you are talking about, the terminology is unimportant.

The dress you are talking about was called a cotehardie in the SCA for decades, until what's-her-name popularized her term "gothic fitted dress." (No, really, I can't remember her name right now, not being rude.)

Kirtle is used for MANY different types of dresses, and in my opinion is a very confusing term. Myself, I prefer to refer to dresses based on layers - skin-layer dress, under-dress, over-dress. That makes it easier to understand. However, for dresses like the 14th century garment, I often call it a cotehardie or GFD.

Rachel Cundiff, OL 
Barony of Darkwater, Trimaris

<the end>

Edited by Mark S. Harris	cotehardies-msg	Page  of