Now, I have seen mens' tunics slit in the front and back and I've seen them slit on the sides. But slit in four places? I don't think so! I guess this is just what happens when reenactors use so little yardage that doing things the right way would look even more bizarre.
I think we've got four way slits again. And what is the deal with the shoulders? If this were a good tabard, there's no way the fabric at the shoulders would stick out that far. If it were a good tunic, there'd be attached sleeves. Either way, this looks idiotic.
Oh, brilliant. Let's throw a gown with minimal fabric over a much fuller underdress. Are they going for the fishtail effect?
Not limiting themselves to skirts that are too narrow, they've also got skirts that are way too short!
Contrasting top, contrasting hanging sleeves, split overskirt... how exactly is this historical?
Oh, joy. Ugly, unperiod brocade and some of the most bugfuck seam placements I have ever seen!
In short, the garb here is frequently silly, and about as period as Holy Hand Grenades.
That last one is just a bad idea entirely- the lines would make anyone who isn't a pipe cleaner look like a whale. The spreading diagonal lines say "look how biiiiig I am down there! (and not up here)".
ReplyDeleteA note on the 'way too short' tunic- I have found some Byzantine and Frankish sources which do in fact have a hip-length tunic over a floor length one. However, it is clear that the tunics pictured are not Byzantine or Frankish. Sad, that.
ReplyDeleteThe "fishtail" one looks almost like an attempt at early period Chinese.
ReplyDeleteEr, not the fishtail. The one under it, with the green skirt.
Delete