Someone has {facted} my bit about the rich being sewn into their clothes & unsewn at night. I thought this was from Barbara Tuchman;A Distant Mirror, 1978, Alfred A Knopf Ltd but can't find it via the index. Do you by any chance have a reference? - I'm pretty sure it is right, though maybe for parties etc rather than all the time. The Bal des Ardents and the death of Charles the Bad of Navarre both certainly involved sewn-on clothes, though they are special cases.
Also you might add Laver's thing about the C14th start of fashion to the lead.
I am sure about the rich (women anyway) being sewn into their clothes later on, though I am not sure about this early. Will dig.
Great
Do you have a source for wood block printing on fabric this early? I know wood block is your area, but none of my costume or textile books supports that - what I have says that attempts at wood block printing on fabric were not successful in Europe because they couldn't figure out how to keep the dyes from running. Fast-dyed floral calicoes were a "revelation" when the East India Company brought them to Europe and they were quickly outlawed under pressure from the silk-weaving guilds, but by 1670 wood block printing on mordanted cloth was being practiced in Holland, France, and England. (Thus Tozer, Fabric of Society.) Janet Arnold writing on the 16th century says "printed" fabrics at this time were stamped with hot irons, not printed as we think of it. So. Would love a reputable source that says otherwise.
Will add; but no washing settings in my sources. If they could keep plain colours fast, then why not ....?
issue is the colors running - if the whole fabric is woad blue, it doesn't matter much if the dye runs.
I assume we're both channeling Blanche Payne, but I wish I had a more recent scholarly reference on this period. She relies heavily on Norris, which takes us back to the late 1920s, and I know some of what she says about 16th and 17th centuties is outdated, so that may be true of 1300-1500 as well.
I expect I've seen Blanche Payne. I get confused with all these glamorous web-mistresses & their glamourous names. This] looks the business.
Thanks for populated images for the next period; there are so many to choose from I am overwhelmed. - PKM02:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get some more. These are turn of the C13/14th - nice clear images, with social mix. All boys.
On the dyes, they may not have washed them very often, of course. The C15 (I think) Italians used flock-printed fabric (print in glue, springle on tinsel) for kids clothes for weddings etc - quite cheap imitation brocade, but it all came off when you washed it (or by bed-time).
Hi there. I've been ferretting around Tolkien articles again, and I keep coming across ones that you've uploaded. Do you have a list somewhere, as a couple of them are a bit faded and yellowed (like the The Atlas of Middle-earth one), and I've been considering scanning and uploading some of my scans. Well, unless Wikipedia ditches fair-use images, which would be a major pain... Have you been following the debate on that? Carcharoth16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been following that debate. Poor idea IMHO.
I don't have a list; scanned some of mine and grabbed some from the Tolkien bibliography site in the UK. -= PKM04:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, thanks, yes, much better color. I'll do the crop. More fun than running through the Yorck project in the commons and slapping fashion tags on things. (Note to self:left off at Antonio Pollaiuolo...)
I've done all the Italian Renaissance painters on Commons (by that category). The frustrating thing for me is that there are lots of great prints from this period, but the images here & on the web are nearly all of appalling quality. A crop from Image:Van der weyden miniature.jpg - Philip the Good presentation (from Chaperon etc) could go into the earlier mens gallery - 1447-8. Johnbod03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Added. Now we need a good clear image of poulaines that I can crop for footwear...
The Duke Of B's presentation (right) has some with pattens worn. or there's a print in 1460s commons cat with pattens alongside. I'm sure there are others. Johnbod20:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That crop was already in the commons. Convenient. I saw your comments on Image:Franko-flämischer Meister 002.jpg - I knew there was something off about that image, but not the history (not my period!)- let me know if you think we should replace it with something else. -PKM21:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - It's only above the hatline it can't be trusted, so I think it's fine. Another thing earlier restorers did is overpaint the chain of gold beads on the dress, now cleared off. The face has also been repainted a fair bit, but that is hardly at issue here. Johnbod22:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went and assessed all your unassessed fashion articles (the history ones). Your work paid off as all but one made B-Class.
The one that didn't, 1400-1500 in fashion, got the first A-class I've handed out and only the second in the whole fashion project after someone else gave my work on Anna Wintour one. It's comprehensive and very well-cited. I think you should take it to peer review and prep it for a GA nom ... it would be nice for the project to have one. Daniel Case05:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, thank you so much. I am astounded. I must say the work we did on 1400-1500 (Johnbod contributed significant bits and certainly raised the bar for the rest) has spurred me to improve the earlier entries in the series. - PKM18:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've been doing great work as usual. I think your articles are awesome, too, and likely to become our first Featured Articles! :)
I could use a little help with another Featured article candidate, the Encyclopædia Britannica, which I've been working on. It's been hard for me to always be objective and NPOV, but I've been trying my best. If you have some time, would you be so kind as to look it over and give me your honest impressions? Any suggestions you have would be most welcome — thanks very much! :) Willow22:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as if becoming a fashionista wasn't bad enough, I am now turning into a foot-fetishist. I'd be glad if you could cast an eye, & possibly a couple of references. Btw pattens goes straight there, but via a redirect, for the lazy & those who trust a bot to correct it. Maybe I should move it to that. Thanks Johnbod00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
needs a nice pic (or two) in colour - i've added a C18 caricature to the top, which could maybe be moved down. Something modern needed. Thanks Johnbod14:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a nice Paquin from La Gazette due bon ton, 1912. After 1923 it's hard because good fashion illustrations aren't public domain (this is a ongoing area of discussion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion). Thanks for reminding me of this article. - PKM16:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a few minutes to help with a historical fashion question? A wonderful Wikipedian, Awadewit, wrote an article about Original Stories from Real Life, a children's book by Mary Wollstonecraft. Near the end, one section discusses differing interpretations of the fashions in the book's frontispiece, reproduced here. Could you share with us your impressions of how the image might have been seen back in 1791? For example, is there anything that strikes you as unusual about their bonnets, shoes, hairstyles or dresses? Do their stances and facial expressions seem typical for illustrations of that era? Awadewit has cited two scholars of English literature, but it might be helpful to know the fashion context of the image. Thank you very much! Willow16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert on the period the way Churchh is, but the "large cumbrous bonnet" line is clearly written by someone with no understanding of what they are seeing. At first I thought we were looking at a pouf-topped mob cap (center, below); now as near as I can tell at this resolution, the hat is actually modestly sized but looks larger because it has ostrich plumes set in the band (see right, below). Either way the brim is proprotionately similar to the sizes of the hats worn by the girls (if one mentally tips Mrs. Mason's head up, it should be apparent that the hats are roughly the same size), and much smaller than what had been fashionable just a few years before (left, below).
Thanks so much! I was sure that you would have an idea. :) The mob-cap crossed my mind, too; I didn't make out the plumes, and was reminded more of that poufy hat drawn by Gilbert Stuart.
It is a great article, isn't it? My eyes were opened to a whole chapter in history. Awadewit has been lavishing a lot of care on it.
Thanks for uploading Image:Marshall Fields Catalog 1936 1.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This has been squeezed vertically - ie Charles looks even less like a man of 4 ft 10 inches (I think it was) than he should. The correct dimensions/ratio (I presume) are given on the Commons page - 266/207. If it's very easy to unsqeeze & save back, that would be great - if not don't worry. Thanks Johnbod02:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the measurements they quote, & the 2 images, come out around .76 or .77. I'm looking at 2 book illustrations at .618 (371/600), which I'm sure is correct - the stirrup is almost round. It's the Louvre's own on-line pic which is wrong. Maybe save as a seperate version. Thanks. Johnbod03:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in providing one or several illustrations for bliaut, as I've researched it rather in depth, and illustrated a small-press work on the subject (written by another person). Also, I'd like to contribute to the article, perhaps flesh it out a bit? I don't want to step on toes. Jauncourt21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, go for it! I stumbled across the article and did some tweaks, but I feel no ownership (and I very much doubt some of what's in there, but this isn't really my period). We need all the help with medieval clothing we can get. - PKM19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've created and set up the ones for a few clothing categories, I'm thinking of setting one up for the fashion history articles. Would you mind if I did so? If you have a reason for wanting to keep the browse boxes, let me know. Daniel Case05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do go ahead with my blessing - those nav boxes were one of the first templates I ever did, and something tied to the rest of the fashion project stylistically would be terrific. - PKM19:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have created it (from one of the generic templates) and placed it in all the articles now. I'll probably have to nominate the one you created for deletion as it has now been removed from every article it was in and is thus superseded. Daniel Case13:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the technical illustrations for this now. I'm also working up numerous other fabric-structure technical diagrams at the same time (to allow for any fabric structures that need diagrams and/or to allow for the possibility of continuity of style from one fabric structure diagram to another across such entries, if a need is expressed). Two or three versions will be available, and placed in Wikimedia commons for illustration purposes where needed. Also, I'd like to flesh it out with a less-technical introduction. Thanks for asking me to illustrate. Jauncourt16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot04:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:1833 fashion plate.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:1837.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea21:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PKM. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Chicago woolen mill suits1.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:PKM. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk02:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PKM, when you have leisure, would you look at the dashing young blade in the engraving supposed to show Agostino Chigi (died 1520)? I'd date him in the 1630s, thus a later Agostino Chigi. I left a note at Talk:Agostino Chigi: you might agree— or contradict me— there. --Wetman14:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be printing out (if I can ... the pictures make it take a while and have crashed it ) the article and proofing it in preparation for listing it on peer review. After that, I'd like to nominate it for GA status. You seem to have not done much on it in a while ... I assume it's as complete as you'd like it to be?
I do think, though, that I will rename it to something like "15th century in European fashion" because you can be sure that will be brought up along the way. And the 14th-century one, as well, for consistency's sake. Is that OK with you? Daniel Case17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very happy with the article as it stands - although there's always room for improvement. Let's do this.
As far as renaming, like I said somewhere, I left the naming convention as I found it. As long as we have a new standard that makes provision for odd periods like 1750-1795 in fashion, I am fine with changing the name (and we might make a case that the medieval periods are the only ones that cover a full century, so "15th century..." would work well for these. - PKM17:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, Eyrian, am proud to present you with this cross-stitched barnstar honoring your continued outstanding contributions to textile-arts related articles.--Eyrian20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PKM, just a quick note to let you know I'm still here, or hereabouts. I've been very busy over the last week or two, and haven't felt like exercising my braine too much. But I'll be back on the project after a while. Bards22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PKM. You are off to such a great start on the article Cross stitches that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee(Talk)23:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article cross stitches, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 18 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Henry Dearle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On July 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Double cloth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I couldn't figure out how to write to you. I hope this is right.
I am quite busy this summer but in the fall I will plan to add to the history of quiling page including pictures and additional periods in quilting history. Today I am addressing the need for citation on how early quilting was done.
I decided to try making a little illustration for each section with my quilt pattern software. I have one for Baltimore Album but haven't a clue how to upload a picture. I looked at the information on it and it's all quite overwhelming.
I put a couple of pictures on History of Quilting. What do you think? Is it worth doing some more? It would be better to have real antique quilts or reproduction quilts pictures but this is something to give some illustrations until someone with real quilt pictures comes along.
I think these are great!!! Nice and clear and show the distinctions between the styles. Thanks so much for making these. I;m glad you sorted out uploading. - PKM16:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the illustrations I made have been deleted because I have no licence for them. I don't understand this, I made the illustratons myself. They belong to me. Anyway any help would be appreciated. I don't know why Wikipedia makes things so complicated.
1785
Mob cap, 1793
1798, similar to Mrs. Mason's hat
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
-2007-05-14T02:11:00.000Z-Image:Chicago_woolen_mill_suits1.jpg){kind=link}
