Thursday, 30 April 2009

Mmf, giggle, BWA HA HA!

The very first page of had me in giggles.  There's just something doofy as hell about a German dude giving me an ogre face so stereotypically D&D that even he looks like he'll break up laughing.

The clothing had me chortling even harder.  They advertise garb for Mittelalter (Middle Ages), Fantasy & Rollenspiel (Roleplaying), but they'd be on safer ground if they catered solely to LARPers.  

Remember what I said about lacing front panels not being period?  Well, they make this mistake repeatedly.  And here they've added great big, floofy, double-layered sleeves that aren't period either.  They look more like Rococo cuffs on steroids than like anything Medieval.

After all the schlock I've seen, I'm almost ready to give them a gold star and a cookie for a front panel that doesn't contrast.  But the trim here is in places where Medieval ladies never would have stuck it.  Couldn't they have used it around the neckline and hems instead of making strange vertical stripes?

The further down the ladies' page you scroll, the worse things get.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: Burgundian gowns did not have splits in the front of the skirt.  Nor did the hems rise up this far in front to show the underdress.  (In fact, in all but one example that I know of, the skirts were far too long to show the gown beneath them at all... and the one exception is drawn so ambiguously that it's hard to tell how the dress was really constructed.)

They've also got some of the butt-fugliest surcoats I've ever seen...

In fact, I'm not sure this is a sideless surcoat at all.  Seems like the torso piece is all one layer, faking the look of an overdress and kirtle... which looks even stupider than faking an underskirt with a contrasting front panel.  The sleeves are tied on instead of being continuous with the kirtle (wrong!), and I've never seen hanging sleeves of any kind worn with a sideless surcoat.

Oh, mein Gott im Himmel!  I thought I'd be giving the Worst Surcoat Evar award to ol' Hildwalda, but I think this thing trumps her.  Surcoats never had contrasting skirt panels. And what's with the big ol' bodice placket that reaches to her groin?  For that matter, what's with the white fabric to either side?  The whole deal with sideless surcoats is that they were sideless.  This thing looks like it either laces up the sides or has the sleeves stuck on to form a one-piece dress.  Either way, it's ill-fitted and icky.

Yes, there are some serious blunders... like this thing, with princess seams and lacings that go all the way down to the hem!  The skirts aren't any better than the complete outfits, either.  Ooh look, strange blocks of colour!  Dagged hems!  Bias-cut frills!  There's a whole page of wench-wear and short chemises with bat sleeves.  And they also carry many, many things I've fugged before.  The horrors of Eschoppe Medievale all crop up here. 

I've come to expect no accuracy of places with a goth section.  But surprisingly, is not a total loss.  The clothes may suck by historical standards, but the shoes range from LARPish to surprisingly accurate.  I fear I may have to give the whole site a well played just for the pattens.

Fashion in Cinema - Wow!

Demode has a serious head start on us, with brief reviews of historical films and their costuming from Tudor onward. Polite, accurate, and doesn't hesitate to call something complete schlock; it's an excellent starting place if you want a general idea of which films have good costuming and which ones - don't.

Promises, Promises

Medieval Merchant claims to carry 'medieval, LARP, wicca and gothic themed goods. Stockists of authentic medieval re-enactment wear; larp clothing and props, as well as many gothic and new age inspired items'. Fair enough; not everything they carry will be medieval, and they say so.

And even better, they tell you in the item descriptions what an item is! 'Gothic', 'medieval-inspired', 'fantasy', etc. How handy; we can go directly to the authentic medieval re-enactment wear. For women, they have, uh... they have... they have a liripipe hood and one short-sleeved kirtle that has lacing which 'isn't authentic to the medieval era. However this could perhaps be removed carfully if a more authentic look if required', according to the site. That's... not much. But let's check the men's!

Men get AUTHENTIC cheap linen tunics in two sizes, with no side darts, wide sleeves, short side-slits with trim around them (but not around the bottom hem), and no telling where the seams are. They also get a velvet 'waistcoat/doublet'with only five fastenings in front (and those are wooden toggles). And a 'difficult to find' rectangular cotton surcoat, much too short, with no tailoring whatsoever. There's also a monk's robe, just as cheaply made and inaccurate in the details as the rest of it.

There's no point putting up images from the site; just picture a new SCA member with the third t-tunic they've ever made themselves, from a set of undocumented instructions online, and you will know exactly what these items look like.

Medieval Merchant, you liars.

Wednesday, 29 April 2009

Public Service Message

Okay.  I'm pissed.  I've seen stuff like this on nearly every site I visit, billed as Medieval, and it isn't Medieval AT ALL.  I don't know who's responsible for introducing purely fanciful GOTH fashions into the reenactment crowd, but I want them MAIMED.  I want their fingers CUT OFF so they'll STOP SEWING.

Well, no I don't.  Not really.  Because the concept has infected so many sites that killing the source won't do shit.  EDUCATION is the only option.  So, here are the two ACCEPTABLE forms of Medieval front lacing with contrasting fabric:

I strongly suspect that in BOTH CASES, the contrast is provided NOT by a front panel sewn into the overdress, but by a SEPARATE GARMENT showing beneath the lacings.  Otherwise the lacings themselves would be purely for show. Because, see, these gowns are carefully TAILORED and the fabric LIES FLAT... not like the SHAPELESS SACKS that pucker in front because the lacings are making up for SLOPPY CONSTRUCTION.

I might also note that I've never seen Medieval examples of laced bodice gowns with hanging sleeves.  Those big bell sleeves were not as ubiquitous all through the 1000 years of the Middle Ages as people seem to think.  

So, that's my pissy, peeve-fueled rant for the day.  I'm turning off the CAPS LOCK now.

Tuesday, 28 April 2009

Drachenfug: Bints' Edition

At least Drachenhort's 'Gothic' section refers to Medieval Gothic, not Goth Rockic.  Trouble is the clothes don't look even slightly, just possibly maybe, a teeny weeny tad bit, infinitesimally accurate.  Ostrogoths, Visigoths, modern Goths and chicks from the High Middle Ages have one thing in common: they wouldn't be seen dead in this shit.

Whoooo!  Shoddy hat!  Side-slit skirt!  Strange oversleeves!  Enormous wrist ruffles!

What. The. Fuck. Hennins, those famous pointy hats of the late middle ages, did not have stuffing around the brims! Padded head rolls with veils are a completely different style, and mixing them is like trying to wear a top hat and a baseball cap at the same time. I can't tell much about the dress from this picture, but it's certainly not well fitted and barely resembles gowns of the 1400s at all. To see what they really looked like, there's no better site than this.

Gaah!  My eyes!  You can only get away with red, gold and orange if you do it with panache, and pick your tones carefully.  It might also help if you centre your print so it looks symmetrical on the front panel, and maybe put some trim around the rest of the hem to match the edging pattern.  Hell, you might even pick a design that looks Medieval, instead of Art Nouveau Meets 70's Upholstry.  But none of this will fix the historical inaccuracy, because ladies in the middle ages DID NOT WEAR CONTRASTING FRONT PANELS in the first place.  

I might add that they didn't have contrasting side panels, either. Or contrasting hanging sleeves.  And both the skirts and the sleeves should be a whole hell of a lot fuller.  Not one of these dresses uses enough yardage to look at all authentic.

As for their Renaissance stuff, it's equally fugly.  'Florence' features an ill-fitting bodice with lacing over the bust that the real Florentines never would have used (though I guess it's needed here to make the damn thing fit).  The swirly pattern of the fabric looks quite modern, and the contrasting purple skirt panels are just plain tacky.  

And don't get me started on 'Venezia.'  More modern fabric, floral this time, and fuckin' HUGE dags tacked onto the waist of the bodice... even though I suspect the whole costume is a one-piece dress that's just dressed up to look like a top and skirt.  There is, of course, no separate underskirt; they've just sewn a panel on the front to fake the look of it.  They've gathered the damn thing instead of pleating it.  And don't you love the tacky blue trim on the sleeves that doesn't match with anything?  Or how about those ENORMOUS floppy cuffs with contrasting panels?  None of this is period.  At all.

But it's their Queen Elizabeth dress that really leaves me stumped.  The print looks modern yet again, and they've dropped the waist so low that I'm almost reminded of the 1920's.  The English never wore sleeves like this, which look like a misguided attempt to ape the Italians.  It's no better or worse than the others, but they've slapped up a portrait of the real Elizabeth, wearing a gown that's completely different and highlights all the mistakes they've made.

Ahh, well.  I can't expect much from a site that offers THIS and doesn't stick it in the LARP section.

Drachenfug: Blokes' Edition

Oh, there's a whole lot to snark at Drachenhort.  Step with me into the realm of duds for dorks!

Err... okay.  I'm no expert on armour, but those lace-on sleeviewhatsits aren't consistent with anything I've seen in any Medieval art, anywhere.  I can't tell if they're laced to the overtunic, but they damned well shouldn't be.  And what's the deal with a sleeveless tunic in the first place?  Either besleeve it, or give this man a tabard!  Oh, and fix the gathered drop-waist.  This is not a feature of period tunic construction and neither is the split front with curving hemlines.  The trim and decoration look awfully tacky in the full-sized picture.  And speaking of tacky, what the hell is this guy doing?  Posing for the latest Mystic Knights of Tyr Nan Og action figure?  Yeesh, tone it down and comb your fucking hair.

C'mon guys, do some research.  In the days of hooded cowls, tunics did not have waist seams.  If you look at paintings carefully, you'll see that all that 'gathering' was a consequence of belting the waist.  Actual waist seams didn't show up until later, by which time people were tailoring a lot more carefully than this.  They did not use gathers.  They used pleats.  And whatever era you're going for, you need some sleeves on that red thing.  As it is, you're just a guy in drag.

Ugh.  They did not have fake fur back then.  Or weird crushed velvet.   Or whatever that shit is.  If you're going to use stretch velour or fake stuff, can't you at least choose the non-crushed version or a fur that looks real?  I've never seen a cowl that long before, either; it looks like he's wearing a tent around his neck.  Meanwhile, the yardage of the actual tunic looks a mite bit stingy.  Oh, and that yellow panel in front?  That's not an undertunic.  If you look at the page for this thing, you'll see that it has four contrasting panels inserted into the... into the... well, I guess I should call it a skirt, because they probably stuck in a waist seam.  Contrasting skirt panels are not Medieval (or Renaissance, either), and I haven't seen them in anything pre 20th century.

I might finally add that when they do make tunics with sleeves, these people do it wrong.  Attaching the hanging portion of a sleeve with a seam is not period, and they commit this blunder with several outfits...

I have never seen a short-sleeved overtunic with hanging sleeves on the tunic beneath.  It should be the other way around... because people in the middle ages had common sense, and constructing things this way would make them a hell of a lot harder to put on.  The hanging bits are also attached with a seam instead of being continuous with the rest of the sleeve (wrong!) and contrast with the whole damn mud coloured tunic they're dangling off (wrong!).  And speaking of stingy yardage, the bloke's practically wearing a hobble skirt.  What good are clothes you can't walk in?

Oh joy, they're attempting the Renaissance.  Too bad they didn't try it with fabric that looks period.  That print on the doublet is Art Nouveau at the earliest, and I'd call the colour scheme completely modern.  No one would have worn a black lace collar, or a purple undershirt.  The slashes in the sleeves and slops are too broad and set too far apart, and don't look to me like real slashes at all.  I think they've just sewn a bunch of contrasting strips together.  Grumble growl cheaters grumble grumble.  Oh, and those dags at the base of the doublet are comically HUGE.  They didn't get this big until the Baroque era, and even then, they never looked this sloppy.  For one thing, they overlapped.  For another, they were structurally related to the rest of the garment and made of the same fabric, and weren't just tacked on as an afterthought.

Oh joy, a doublet with a built in khaki miniskirt!  And mini sleeves, too.  They really ought to cover the undersleeves completely.  And people were using buttons back then, not lacings.  I don't know what the deal is with the bib around his neck... maybe an actual collar was too complicated for our Drachenfug friends to handle.  Clearly actual slops were too challenging also, and they settled for omgwhaddafuck striped pantaloons!  And though I know they're not selling the outfit complete with shoes, can't the model do better than just sticking bows on loafers?

One final note.  I admire their attempt at a Landsknecht.  I really do, because Landsknecht costumes are way cool.  But if you look at pictures of real Landsknechts, you'll see that the clothing actually fit.  For 600 Euros, can't you make something that doesn't bag like hell under the armpits?  And must you model it with 80's tights and cotton socks!?

Monday, 27 April 2009

Let's pick on the Franks!

Echoppe Medievale has a really beautiful webpage (though the art looks more Renaissance than Medieval to me).  Too bad the actual clothes don't live up to the hopes inspired by the splash page.  What are they selling? The usual goth style with a contrasting front panel and lacings from bust to waist, though they offer it in non-Goth colours.  Also, a whole lot of... well... I don't really know how to identify this:

I'm coining the term, 'Medieval Cubism.'  Not that it's really in any way Medieval.  This is a case of 'historic' costume getting polluted by modern aesthetics, just as blatantly as in the clothes of blushing Pre-Raphaelite damsels.  The only difference is that Pre-Raphaelite clothes weren't BUTT UGLY.

They've also got some shapeless sacks from the Tentmaker-turned-Seamstress school of fashion...

I'm not even going to try explaining the inaccuracies, because everything is wrong.  All I'll say is that the second of these two is a really sloppy take on Princess Kriemhild.

One final snark: I've seen a lot of gowns like this one being sold as 'Medieval' on the reenactment sites of Europe...

There is nothing Medieval about it.  This is just a standard modern crushed velvet and embroidered cotton dress from India.  And if you browse the little vendors who show up on college campuses, you can get it for a damned lot less than 69 Euros.

You'd think the land of Charlegmane and the Merovingians would take more pride in their history... and have the courage to use more colours than red, black and puce.

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Lucas Fugnach

Normally I love the Northern Renaissance and the look of 'Cranach gowns,' so called because Lucas Cranach the Elder painted so many of them.  But clearly the German nobility of the 1500's could get tasteless once in a while...

I had never seen this portrait before, but it appeared online at the Art Gallery of Ontario website and it looks legit.  Considering the garish zigzags with a gnarly colour scheme, I'm not surprised this horror doesn't make it into art history texts.

Tips for Twits: there was NO era of the Middle Ages in which women wore dresses with contrasting front panels and lacings from bust to waist.  Stuff like this is not period.  It is Goth.

Unfortunately, you won't find much else on  Some of the gowns are pretty, but they look like they were made for a Within Temptation music video.  

Like this thing.  I like it and I'd wear it in an instant, but the pattern's totally fantastical.  So's the attached hood.  And the sweetheart neckline.  And the PAISLEY, which they're awfully fond of and use in several colour schemes that are a lot less attractive.  For example, greige.

There's one dress that looked, in the thumbnail, as if they were trying for the basic lines of a Burgundian gown.  So I click the link, and what do I find?  Funky-textured synthetic LEOPARD PRINT:

Omgnobadwrong.  Which is exactly the same as my reaction to this thing...

Um, how is this Renaissance?  People tailored their bodices back then instead of slapping on a single piece of fabric with lacings to make it fit.  Contrasting skirt panels are not period and the colour choice here is particularly icksome.  Slashed sleeves need a chemise to show through under them, and these are just about the sloppiest I have ever seen.  And speaking of sloppy, take a look at this...

I don't know what period they're going for and I've given up trying to guess.  Looks like really bad Medieval from the waist up and really bad Tudor from the waist down, and the pattern's not constructed correctly for either.  And if you're going to trim the sides of a split-fronted skirt, can't you handle said trim with some finesse instead of just having it suddenly stop?  The treatment at the top of that red panel looks incredibly clumsy.

As for the guys?  I hope you like mud coloured tunics.

Speaking of which, the colour choices of this place could use some work in general.  They've got a lot of black and burgundy, appealing to the goth crowd, but most of the other tones look terribly dull.  A cursory glance at Medieval art is enough to prove how much they liked jewel tones back then, so why choose dusty blue and grey-green?  With relatively cheap bright dyes available, nobody would have dressed in shit like this.

Tuesday, 14 April 2009


WARNING: Pet peeve alert!

Let's talk about Irish, Anglo-Saxon, and Scandinavian designs in the period 600 to 1000. Did you notice that I did not say 'Celtic'? Great! If I should include any other cultural groups which actually existed, just request them and I'll add them in. From 600 onwards, it is somewhat reasonable to refer to Anglo-Saxons as a group although the regions of Kent and East Anglia do show marked cultural differences in clothing and jewelry.

I'm leaving out the Book of Kells and Book of Durrow for one simple reason: they show mixed cultural influences so I'd have to give them to more than one of these groups (if not all three and a few more besides).

So, here are some examples of Scandinavian design, which went through several distinct periods and styles during this time. These are the Urnes church panels circa 1050-1150, walking sticks from Dublin and Lund in the Ringerike style circa 980-1075, a Borre handle circa 875-950, and the Oseberg keel carvings from 750-875.

Now here are some examples of insular Anglo-Saxon design, which went through two cultural revolutions or renaissances during this time, one around 700-850 (ish) and one around 900-1050 (ish). These are the Benedictional of St Aethelwold from the 900s, the Strickland brooch circa 850, the Lindisfarne gospels circa 700-721 (they're a mixed Hiberno-Saxon style, admittedly, but created by one Bishop Eadfrith so I slipped them in), the Bewcastle cross circa 650-750, and the Sutton Hoo buckle circa 600-630.

And last but not least, here are some Irish designs from the same time, which also went through a number of periods and styles. These are the Muiredach cross from 923, the famous Tara brooch circa 900, and a page from the Book of Dimma circa the 700s.

Now one last image just to really hammer things down, a Byzantine panel from Greece or the Balkans circa 1250-1300.

Okay. Now we can talk about 'knotwork', what styles it comes in, and what regions, times, and cultures it's appropriate for.

Sunday, 12 April 2009

Fugstume History

Note to all reenactors: popular books on the history of costume are NOT reliable sources.

Almost every one I've seen has taken cues from the History of Costume by Braun & Schneider, a collection of Victorian plates printed in German between 1861 and 1880.  Do a Google search on 'Costume History' and this is the first site that will appear.  Though the people who have made it available online do specify that "One must be aware... that these illustrations have a Victorian perspective to their designs," they also state that "This book is an excellent source for students who are studying the history of fashion and for costume designers."

No, it isn't... at least not in every illustration on every page. It might be an excellent source for students studying the changing perception of costume history and the ways in which modern tastes and conventions influence our interpretation. But some errors are pretty glaring in light of more recent research.

I'm not going to cover all the stuff that makes me suspicious, and I'm sure there are more details that I'm missing but that would be obvious to a trained costume specialist.  I'll just rant a bit about the things I found most jarring. 

Let's start with the 4th century Teutons.  According to Selkie, our resident historian, most of the information here might still fit with archeological findings, though the theories on this early garb have changed.  But there are some probable errors: the tunics with short sleeves, not long sleeves; the chainmail shirt with no sleeves, when it ought to have short sleeves; and those spirals over the boobs.  There is no evidence for boobiespirals.  Also, what's up with the kid?  Belt and fur lining, fine.  But straps over the shoulders?  No undershirt?  Have we got an infant Conan the Barbarian here?

Next up, Charlemagne.  Where have I seen bliauts like those before?  Oh yeah, the portal jambs of Chartres Cathedral.  And when was Chartres begun?  1145.  Yes, folks, bliauts were worn by French women of the 12th century.  And when was the rule of Charlemagne?  768-814.  Oopsie.

Let's pick on the 11th century Normans, shall we?  I don't believe the woman's overtunic that ends at the thigh.  Even the blokes' tunics came down lower than that.  As for the split skirt and exposed legs?  WRONG WRONGY-WRONG-WRONG!

The dress on the right is at least 50 years too early.  It's listed as "early 15th century."  The closest actual example I could find was a portrait of Elizabeth of York, c. 1500.  

As for the Italians (woefully underrepresented in this book, despite the fame of their art), I'm not sure about the Incredible Bow-Bedecked Monstrosity of Doom.  I doubt anyone has ever used this many bows, not even Marie Antoinette.

They stick bows all over the sleeves of a Landsknecht gown, too, and I know that's just plain wrong.  It's no surprise that Braun & Schneider, being German, devote 28 plates to the Landsknecht era.  But alas, they totally ignore the wealth of information in the works of Cranach.  

Plate 33 shows lace cuffs — WRONG.  There is also no evidence for big, floofy, Baroque-style sleeves with bows.  The colour choices are strange as well; the favoured shades would have been red, green and black, with some blue and brown as well, and would have been dark jewel tones, not pastels.

Y'know, I had a set of storybook paperdolls when I was little.  They were almost as tall as Barbie, and they had the most wonderful detail I'd ever seen in any paper dolls, anywhere.  The artist had labelled all the gowns with a place of origin and approximate date, ranging from early Slavic to 1600s Spanish Infantas, giving me the notion that this woman had done serious research.  I think that above all else, it was these paper dolls that awakened my interest in costume.

15 years later, I discovered that most of those "historically accurate" depictions had been lifted straight from Braun & Schneider.  Yeah, I felt a little disillusioned.


La Pompadour's Renaissance section is an improvement over the Medieval offerings, and they deserve a well-played for every costume copied from a period portrait.  But one wonders why they can't extrapolate and create a more original period gown by using the features of historic examples as inspiration.  

Freely styled after the paintings of Lucas Cranach.  You forgot to add, "with Pre-Raphaelitism thrown in."  After you've stared at enough Northern Renaissance art, this thing will look just plain wrong to you.  

Low cut top with such a narrow decorated band over the bust: wrong!

Long, drapey chiffon oversleeviewhatsits: wrong!

Train: wrong!

Curved hems: wrong!

Having a split overskirt in the first place: wrong!

C'mon, chick.  You're German.  Either specify that this is Cranach meets Arwen or actually give us something that looks German.

La Fugadour

Absolute dreck is not as frustrating to me as a gifted seamstress who creates howlers with boundless expertise.  The results look so professional that people are more likely to assume they're well-documented.  Such is the case at La Pompadour, where the errors show up on the first page... with a 'Baroque' gown sporting a sweetheart neckline!

There's more in the Mittelalter section, where I spot one of my biggest peeves immediately:

Keltischen Stickereien on a Hochmittelalterlische Form!?  Oh well, at least they specify that it's frühem Dekor.  But here's a reminder for those of you who don't speak German: No one used knotwork in 1300!  'Celtic' embroidery does NOT belong on a Gothic tunic!  I see SCAers doing this ALL THE TIME and it MAKES ME SICK!

I see nothing to indicate that this is fantasy.  So, why the split-fronted overtunic with hems that curve to the sides?  I've seen split-fronted skirts draped into curves in mid-Baroque (post 1650).  But in the Middle Ages? No.

Nowhere in Medieval art have I ever seen a sideless surcoat that does not reach the floor. Women were always showing off their fancy, contrasting kirtle hems, but look closely at the paintings, people.  They were not cutting their surcoats high to reveal them.  They were gathering the overskirts in their hands and holding them up.  Noting this does not exactly take a sleuth's powers of observation, so why do we keep fucking up!?

Beautiful!  Stunning!  Utterly gorgeous!  There's just one teensy weensy widdle pwobwem.  Burgundians did not wear split overskirts.  Seriously, I have only ever seen one historical source showing a split Burgundian overskirt, it was a fashion plate, it was plainly not Medieval, and I suspect it was Victorian.  And let me tell you, the Victorians knew dick all about historical accuracy.  Research was spotty at best.  Take a look at their ludicrous Gothic follies for a taste of how seriously they took history.  So, why does every goddamn Burgundian gown on the site have a split overskirt?

The workmanship is so beautiful that I'd like to believe the designs were at the request of whoever commissioned them.  But with nothing specifying artistic license or mixing of periods (aside from a short note about the knotwork), I really have no idea.  I'll request a gown from these people in an instant, once I reach a six-figure salary, but I will be very specific about what I'm looking for.

Saturday, 11 April 2009

Renifug Dreams

Oh, have I got a gem for you!  The seamstress of Renaissance Dreams is a master of blocky, baggy, shapeless sacks — possibly the worst tailoring I've ever seen. And oh, dear god, her writing style is just as sloppy as her stitchery.  Sentences like "another classic girls dress is this floor length square neckline and short sleeve with sash" don't exactly inspire confidence.

A direct quote: "this costume is made from a cotten/poly blend with the liked metal full length inlay trimed at the bottom to matching color of the dress."  Um, yeah.  Let me give it a go: Perfect for ren faires on the hot day when lacing up real authentic bodices over linnen chemise is too much god dam effort!

"this is my more elegant middle class dress the fabric is brocade which is dryclean only with a liquid fabric or lame inlay, still has the classic square neck line and the long bell sleeves you pick from my list of patterns and colors." This lots of glittery complete unperiod fantasy the fabric is with a chinese dragon print very *cough* UNIQUE choice for european medival. lame liquid silver inset with a ruffle to match black dress at the bottom thats right yes a fucking ruffle.

peasant wench dress gown costume all straight seams with laces used to hold together oh so very period. will fit anyone just use longer a ribbon trim through gromets size 16 and up!

"mens tunic, made from a cotton poly blend and is machine washable, has the square neck line slited on the arms and up both sides for easy walking and sitting is mid thigh length and your choice of color and color for the cross." tunic worn over a gathered neckline from much later period in unfashionable black.  slits in sleeves very unique, you will be the only one with them at the ren faire because i just made them up. note to self keyhole neckline is much easier when you cheat and put seams down the front. the cross can be made even splotchier please contact with choice of white or yellow felt.

a tank style dress with the square neckline just like every other tank style dress with square neckline shown on site with a cape all spotted with sparkly blobs and a liquid lame inlay to match is OMG even more sparkly! the cape is two square pieces pinched in the back with split from the waist down not for the active little girls might rip it apart.

Argh. I can understand wearing some of this stuff if you're a brand new SCAbie and have never sewn before in your life. But if you haven't improved in a couple of months, you really should get someone to help you with your patterns.  Actually selling this shit?  A total scam, though I have no sympathy for people deluded enough to buy it.

Oh, and if your grammar is atrocious?  Get someone to fucking proofread.  Bad grammar on a professional website is just as insulting to your customers as running your Faire stall in a Star Trek uniform.