Go Fug Thyself

I'm Just Confused

2011-01-17T16:41:00.000-08:00

What is periodclothing.co.uk?

It's called Period Clothing, and there's a menu of information about the clothing of various periods (let's not get into how accurate that information is; it's certainly too brief and general to be really useful).

But there's... no historical clothing in the offerings. There are no historical categories, and the only content is actually costumes from other websites, advertised there.

I'm not really sure what to make of that.

About GFT

2011-01-17T16:19:00.000-08:00

We've had a few comments that seem to misunderstand the purpose of this blog, so just for clarification:

- This is a blog for snarking as entertainment and education. If you dislike that kind of thing, it won't be for you. The jokes here are aimed at the clothing itself, and not at the makers, unless the makers have done something specific to earn a comment - such as seriously mislabel their creations or make misleading statements about them, or grossly overcharge.

- This blog is focused on professionally made costumes, costumes which are being sold, and costumes which are prominent and influential. We do not snark what Joe wore to his first event last week; that would be unfair and petty. We do, however, snark the movie or website that gave Joe the wrong idea in the first place.

- Medieval costuming is a learning process. Research is still being done, sources are still being discovered, and the field is much too large for anyone to know it all. If you spot a mistake in the blog or somewhere else, please comment on it! This is also why our comments are aimed mainly at myths and bad costuming itself, and not at the people making it - perhaps they're learning, too.

- While this blog is flippant and hopefully sometimes funny, we are attempting to make it helpful as well, by providing suggestions and links to good resources as well as warnings about suspicious sources. If you have any resources we should add, please do comment and let us know about them.

Chainmail jewellery

2009-05-27T21:51:00.001-07:00

Y'know those funky, sparkly chainmail headdresses you see at Ren Faires and maybe the occasional SCA event?

I sorta like them.

But they're not period.

At all.

I'm not exactly sure when people first got the idea to make chainmail jewellery, but I think the 1980s had something to do with it. Certainly no one in the Middle Ages or Renaissance tried it... or if they did, they somehow failed to allude to it in any text or artwork anywhere, ever.

Middle-Eastern chainmail jewellery didn't exist either.

Wear it to the goth club. Wear it to Fairycon. Wear it to the Conan the Barbarian Appreciation Society. But please, really, don't wear it when you're reenacting.

Help for Eastern Costuming

2009-05-26T23:11:00.000-07:00

This is the best site I've found so far explaining the myths and giving advice for the Near East/Middle East region:

Middle Eastern Garb Do's and Don'ts

There's also:

SCA Near Eastern Garment Myths

There is very little period documentation online. The first site does link to a bibliography of print sources, especially for Persia.

If you know of any other useful links or any online documentation, please add it in the comments!

Fuggic Knotwork

2009-05-26T16:15:00.001-07:00

Wow. The shit that passes for 'Celtic' these days never ceases to amaze me.

Now, I have no problem with people taking inspiration from Irish/Pictish/Anglo-Saxon/Gallic/Viking/Whatever-else-have-you knotwork and making some sort of fantastical pastiche. We've been doing it since the 19th century, and without it neither Art Nouveau nor LotR Elven architecture would have been the same. But I do have a problem with how it's advertised.

First off, must people keep calling it 'Celtic?' The term is very general and not associated with any single culture or ethnicity; it is used by linguists to describe a particular language group, and all other definitions are hotly contested. In addition, people have a tendency to apply it to all knotwork of northern Europe, forgetting that the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, whose languages were Germanic, not Celtic, have inspired more modern knotwork designs than the Irish!

Secondly, is it too much to expect that reenactment sites, which claim to be historical, would try to provide believable examples instead of total fantasy?

Apparently it is. If archeological digs have turned up any tiaras, they were planted there by time travelers.

Um, what's the point of a penannular brooch with a pin that doesn't function? And given that this thing's sporting a foliate pattern that looks more Byzantine than northern, I'd like to know why it's called 'Celtic' at all.

This was in the Celtic section. Yes, the Celtic section. Because mixing modern fantasy dragons with Anglo-Saxon knotwork is so very Celtic!

These little gems come from Chivalry Sports, which makes a lot of noise about being your One Stop Shop for all things Ren/Medieval. But all too often, its products are absolute crap.

Fuggelalter Kostueme

2009-05-25T12:00:00.000-07:00

I had high hopes for Mittelalter Kostueme. After all, they pictured real Medieval illuminations on the splash page. But one glance at their offerings makes it clear that they spent no time looking at said illuminations. Tips for twits: it's a really bad idea to post period images when your own sewing doesn't measure up; it'll show us exactly how many mistakes you're making!

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!

They call this a houpelande. I thought these were houpelandes, but perhaps I was mistaken.

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.

Dubious Deutsch

2009-05-24T15:49:00.000-07:00

I'm starting to really dislike it when seamstresses don't give their sources. It means that when I see something weird, I need to trawl the net looking for precedents.

Like this thing. The Italianate bodice made me suspicious at once. I combed through all the German Renaissance portraits I could find, and saw no evidence that women ever combined scooped necklines with landsknecht sleeves.

Now, there may be some obscure source that I've missed. But if it's so hard to find, it really would be nice to document it.

Holy fuggin' shit!

2009-05-24T14:50:00.000-07:00

Someone on Ebay is calling this a Viking costume.

Words fail me.

Fugly Gowns

2009-05-23T14:04:00.000-07:00

Welcome to an irksome little website...

The creator of 'glory gowns' thoughtfully fails to provide examples of her own work for anything but her Renaissance section. So, what are we left with? Fantasy clothes based on the LotR film's Arwen. Okay, fair enough, though I'd like to see some of her own much-touted velvet dresses instead of what looks like a CD cover for the movie soundtrack. But then, oh dear, we've got Medieval clothing based on Eowyn. So, let me get this straight. She's taking designs for two different genres from the same source, which is unabashedly a fantasy film. If she thinks Eowyn's dresses are any more Medieval than Arwen's, she is very much mistaken.

Oh, and her Renaissance gowns are truly a marvel of shimmery chemises, strapless overdresses, and lace-up arm treatments. She has, in addition, offered them in faux-suede and corduroy versions. I'm left wondering why she doesn't just admit that these are Renaissance-inspired fantasy whatsits, in a sort of upscale take on the wenchwear tradition.

Or is it possible that she thinks these things are accurate? If she does, I'd really love to see her sources.

Faux Pas!

2009-05-13T08:50:00.000-07:00

Found on Ebay...

Contrasting front panel with lacing. Princess seams. Gathers at neckline. Modern prints. Crushed velvet.

Gothic, maybe. Renaissance / Medieval / SCA? Hell, no.

Best of Ebay, vol 5

2009-05-13T07:14:00.001-07:00

I found the Scapa whiskey, I found the Scapa! One lasht posht of the ebay results for the search 'medieval'.

Yes, that is a t-shirt. No, I didn't upload the wrong image by mistake. Yes, it was labelled medieval. No, I don't know why.

Drinkies!

Best of Ebay, vol 4

2009-05-13T07:07:00.001-07:00

At least these are dresses and not lingerie, right? That's good, right?

Maybe not as good as it could have been. This is the fug that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends...

Best of Ebay, vol 3

2009-05-13T07:00:00.001-07:00

I have to admit, I did not expect this to take a turn for the raunchy.

I need a drink to forget. Why isn't there anything to drink around here?

Best of Ebay, vol 2

2009-05-13T06:49:00.001-07:00

Oh, Ebay. You so crazy. Found by boldly searching 'medieval':

It's not that I don't have better things to do with my time, because I certainly do...

Best of Ebay, vol 1

2009-05-13T06:46:00.001-07:00

Oh yes. I did it. I typed 'medieval' into ebay and looked at the results with my bare eyes.

Meet the 'best' results!

To be continued if I don't develop a drinking problem first.

Word Soup

2009-05-13T06:11:00.000-07:00

I would just like to offer my thanks and gratitude to online costume suppliers for their clear and helpful labelling. It makes the job of finding nonsense and separating it from (reasonably) accurate medieval costuming much, much easier.

Anything labelled with three or more terms such as 'SCA-LARP-Renaissance-Faire-Fantasy' (actual example) will be junk.

There are some very impressive and unlikely label combinations out there, too; I think the 'MEDIEVAL RENAISSANCE VIKING SAXON DARK AGE' shoes I saw on ebay is the funniest one I've found so far. Comment with the best combinations you've seen!

Museum Fuglicas

2009-05-11T21:41:00.000-07:00

I've never been impressed by the garb offerings at Museum Replicas, but lately they've really taken a plunge into the crapper.

"The splendor and beauty of ancient Greece has never been more apparent than in this stunning dress." Clearly they've never seen Nike of Samothrace... much less looked at the details of her clothing.

This is their take on Anne Boleyn. A cursory study of portraits would tell them that the Tudors did NOT wear sleeves like this, the waistline of the bodice is Baroque, not Renaissance, and the split in the overskirt is way too wide. Since I've ranted about smaller details of Tudor tailoring so many times before, I won't do it again. I'll just say that the embroidery is not historical AT ALL and looks like what you see on modern dresses from India.

They call this period. I have no idea what period, and I don't think they do either.

Oh god. Princess seams. Modern lace. Silver wrist ruffles. Oh, and sleeve 'slashes' made of flimsy ribbon trim.

Behold the Cantebury Gown. I have no clue where Cantebury is, but judging by those sleeves, it must be somewhere in Italy.

No surprise, as they confuse real, historical Italian gowns with the English as well. They say their Lady Jane dress "could easily be seen traversing the royal court of King Henry VIII." But in reality, it's a replica of the burial gown of a duchess of Florence (albeit a bad one; Sofi's Stitches did a better job).

I guess I shouldn't boggle. Museum Replicas used to sell functional, tempered steel weapons and garb that was, at worst, too simple in design and stingy with yardage. But then they decided to do things on the cheap and sell crappy swords. Not long after, their clothes slumped from acceptable field garb to barely being larpworthy. I'm surprised they're still in business at all, now that their weapon selection is so scanty.

It's ranty time!

2009-05-11T14:01:00.000-07:00

Maybe the spelling of 'Ren Faire' has got some people confused. It is, in fact, not the same thing as FaerieCon. Sure, it's meant to be fun and not totally obsessed with accuracy, but it's generally agreed that you should give a nod to historical ambiance. Wings aren't really in theme and should at least be worn with semi-period costume.

But some people didn't get the memo...

Save it for the Goth club.

I hope you've waxed.

This costume has no practical application in combat!

Another rare species: the little-known Period Punk Faerie.

Aww, didoo think this was a D&D convention?

NO, BAD, WRONG!

Faire or Foul?

2009-05-04T12:10:00.001-07:00

Winner of 'best artist costume' at a Renaissance Faire:

That she showed up to a Ren Faire in this costume shows me immediately that she has no idea whatsoever what medieval or Renaissance clothing looked like, and has no interest in finding out. That she won a prize for it tells me that the Faire organizers also have no idea and no interest. I am left with only one question: why did they use the word 'Renaissance' when naming their event?

Fugly Kitten

2009-05-04T08:58:00.000-07:00

Spookykitten mistakes Hollywood for history. Just have a look at what she describes as a Venetian courtesan gown:

To be honest, I sort of like this dress. It'd make a nice Amy Brown faerie costume.* But it has dick all to do with the Renaissance.

The sleeves are attached to the overgown, which is worn over a strapless chemise "with an elastic gathering the upper part of the bust." I can tolerate chemises with drawstrings, but elastic is going a little too far. Note also that Renaissance women never would have worn a purple chemise, let alone a strapless one. And no one in the entire history of Venice has constructed either sleeves or skirts this way. (Click here for a look at what they really were up to.)

If she were advertising this as a fantasy gown inspired by Dangerous Beauty, I'd have no problem with it. But she doesn't mention the film at all, and comes out with statements like this: "The bodice has a long skirt pulled up and tucked randomly. For the venetian courtesan, she would usually use this to show her legs, by tucking the chemise up into the bodice so her calves could be shown." Um, no. No, she wouldn't. I've never seen any exposed calves, except among late period courtesans who dressed like this.

I'm sure you could get away with it at a Ren Faire. Hell, you can get away with wearing a goose on your head at a Ren Faire. But you won't be adding any historical flavour to the proceedings.

*I've revised my thinking here. See, it doesn't look all that awfully, blazingly PURPLE on a Mac screen. But on the PC at work, which tends to be more vibrant, one glance at this post gave me a POUNDING HEADACHE. Selkie, you may be right about that 'Dayglo Koolaid Costume' comment!

Dangerous Beauty

2009-05-04T08:15:00.000-07:00

I've never seen this film. It might be good for all I know. But I am decidedly miffed by the costumes...

This seems to be the source of the idea that Venetian courtesans bared their upper arms, using very peculiar sleeves — an idea which has no basis in reality. In fact, courtesans dressed exactly like noblewomen. For a look at how these gowns were really constructed, check out the two costumes at the bottom of this page.

The lack of coverage in this movie would have screamed "desperate!" and "trashy!" back then, and probably would have broken some city ordinance. Courtesans didn't really show off a lot of skin. They relied on lesser known qualities like grace, wit and actual allure. Remember, these weren't cheap street strumpets. They were more like geisha.

Fugly Bar Wench!

2009-05-03T20:47:00.000-07:00

Oh dear, Denim and Diamonds is at it again.

Behold the 'SCA Bar Wench' costume. Yes, it's exactly the same pattern as their 'Renaissance' outfit, and it's just as wrong this time around. Okay, so maybe this version's not as godawfully pink, but the paisley is a lot more obvious.

Sing with me now: There was NOOOO PAISLEY in Renaissance Europe...

...And there weren't any miniskirts, either. Wear this thing to Ren Faires (if you don't mind looking like a ditz), but you'll be laughed out of the SCA if you try it there!

More Mittelfugger

2009-05-01T11:38:00.000-07:00

For the most part, there's no point in snarking the guys' clobber at Mittelalter.net. Why? Because we've seen it all before at Mysticum.de. The tunics with stingy yardage, the bugfuck fake sleeve slashes... yes, it's all depressingly familiar. But I must, I simply must devote a whole post to this thing:

What the hell is this? They're calling it a 'Renaissance nightgown,' but this bloke looks like he took a particularly dowdy little old lady's 1920's dress, dropped the waistline even lower, and tacked on sleeves from a goddamn rhumba costume. He ought to crop it so it just covers his pecs, hitch all that gathering around his waist, and call himself Carmen Miranda's ghost. All he needs now is some white plastic fruit on his head!

Mmf, giggle, BWA HA HA!

2009-04-30T17:37:00.000-07:00

The very first page of Mittelalter.net 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, Mittelalter.net 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!

2009-04-30T01:49:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-30T01:27:00.000-07:00

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.

Public Service Message

2009-04-29T12:19:00.000-07:00

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.

Drachenfug: Bints' Edition

2009-04-28T15:29:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-28T12:13:00.000-07:00

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!?

Let's pick on the Franks!

2009-04-27T14:49:00.000-07:00

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.

Lucas Fugnach

2009-04-21T13:04:00.001-07:00

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.

www.dornfug.de

2009-04-21T12:07:00.000-07:00

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 Dornbluth.de. 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.

Knotwork

2009-04-14T09:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Fugstume History

2009-04-12T13:02:00.000-07:00

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.

Fugsknecht

2009-04-12T10:36:00.001-07:00

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

2009-04-12T09:19:00.000-07:00

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.

Renifug Dreams

2009-04-11T10:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Cubist Queen

2009-04-10T18:39:00.000-07:00

Confession time: I kinda like this thing. I'm a sucker for brown velvet and pale gold. And it's rather nifty, in a 'Renaissance meets Space Invaders' sort of way.

But is it even vaguely, just a teeny smidge historical?

Nuh-uh.

Historic license is nothing new...

2009-04-08T18:32:00.000-07:00

I'm a big fan of silent film, but any historian who's watched the first forays into Hollywood costume dramas will tell you the results were... kind of kooky.

Take Mary Pickford, for example. I've found some shots of her wearing absolutely gorgeous dresses, but can I figure out what period they're supposed to be? Nope, I doubt I have a chance in hell.

They're pretty much all clones of the one above, using different prints and textures. Are they Elizabethan? Are they Tudor? Those are my two guesses and I'm torn between them. Hanging sleeves starting at the upper arm look Tudor, but these hang down too far and they don't have the cuffs. The standing collar is an Elizabethan idea, though they've taken a lot of artistic license. And the hat thingie looks vaguely like the headgear of women in the early German Renaissance. I give up.

Yup, 20's films took serious liberties. But still, I find that they evoke the era much more successfully than a lot of modern movies. After all, they didn't use synthetics back then or dress women up like Red Sonja.

Vapid Vikings

2009-04-08T16:43:00.000-07:00

The Vikings were very skilled craftsmen. Their jewellery was beautiful, and so was their woodwork. Their helms were carefully constructed to deflect blows and their ships showed sophisticated construction techniques. Any intelligent person with even the slightest knowledge of Viking history could infer that they knew how to hem.

Either the folks at Boston Costumes are not intelligent, or they aim to rent only to frat boys. Pub-crawls are all this schlock is good for.

Poor, poor Queen Efugabeth

2009-04-08T16:17:00.001-07:00

Remember the 'Elizabethan' horror I found at three separate costume shops?

Well, here's the German version:

Okay, so it's not as searing, colourwise. But as far as the pattern goes, it's every bit as stupid. Padded rolls around the head are a medieval thing, not Elizabethan, they were worn with veils, and I don't know what's up with the Omg Glittery Magical Snowflake. Big standing collars were period, but they were pleated lace, everybody. Got that? Pleated lace. And don't get me started on making a dress with two waistlines, which would look stupid in any era, or decorating the seams with, um, well, that looks to me like tacky silver ric-rac. For 300 Euros, faking an underskirt with a contrasting front placket is a damned cheap trick. What the hell is with the miniskirt? And when will people get it into their skulls that back then, NO ONE WORE PAISLEY?

Pre-Raphaelite vs Medieval

2009-04-08T14:10:00.001-07:00

I'd like to give a Well Played to the mastermind behind Rossetti Costume. This is not because their Medieval collection is historically accurate -- it isn't! -- but because they explain their inspiration for every single dress and mention on each page that they're taking hints from Pre-Raphaelite artists or Lord of the Rings. These are ball gowns, not SCA wear, and there's never any doubt about it.

I've fugged romantic, pseudo-Medieval dresses before, but I have nothing against the gowns themselves. In fact, I love them. I only object when people try to pass them off as suitable for garb, either claiming or strongly implying that real Medieval ladies would have worn them.

Side note: I also love this place because their sample sizes are UK 10-12 (US 6-8) instead of being, say, size 2. My god, you can actually wear these things if you're over sixteen!

Mombee

2009-04-07T22:09:00.000-07:00

Mombee the ebay seller offers Renaissance style jewellery -- obviously costume stuff, but great for those of us who can't afford commissioning a collar for about a billion bucks. It's just too bad that the clothes aren't as authentic looking as the sparklies.

The place is constantly offering new versions of the same basic pattern; a pattern with serious problems.

They always come with the same shape of French hood, which is not nearly as sophisticated as the ones that show up in every single portrait that I know of. And the bodice is wrong. I'll slap up a portrait of Lady Jane Grey* to illustrate why. Note that the sides of the neckline are much further apart, and that the top of the bodice front actually curves upward. On some examples, this line is straight, but it never, never curves slightly downward.

On to the skirt. I've seen a lot of examples, and none of them place the sides of the overskirt so far apart. None of them gather the underskirt. It looks like the overskirt of this thing is gathered too, and it ought to be pleated.

But these are minor compared to the sleeves. There were no such things as Tudor sleeves that were slit to the elbow like this (or if there were, they magically failed to show up in artwork anywhere in the Renaissance). Those bands around the lower arms are also, you guessed it, wrong.

It's not a bad dress. There's nothing ugly about it and the fabric and trim are very pretty (although, in the case of the floral print satin, not remotely period). For Ren Faires it'd probably be fine. For reenactment, though, the pattern needs some altering.

*Maybe it's Catherine Parr. Take your pick.

Moonlight Fugstumes

2009-04-07T17:36:00.000-07:00

Moonlight Costumes specialises in "the finest renaissance costumes, renaissance clothing, medieval costumes, and medieval clothing available." Let's take a look.

Oh joy, cheap satin and puckered seams, not to mention only the faintest hint of, um, Medieviality. One wonders why they call this the Avalon Princess when Avalon isn't associated with the Renaissance... which has to be what they're going for if they're dabbling in high waists and split skirts. I suspect the puffs on her arms are sewn to the bodice instead of being a separate chemise. And though I don't mind people doing this as long as it looks more or less like the real thing, she really ought to have lacing sleeves of some kind over them.

The same could be said of nearly all their period gowns, really. They mostly follow the same pattern, a high-waisted dress with either a plain satin skirt or a split in front, and either with faux chemise sleeves, straight satin ones or little puffs at the shoulders. Not ugly, perhaps, but not period and generally boring. Oh, and they commit the crime of really, really, really fake lacings.

For the guys, it's mostly knight costumes with fake chainmail and occasional misplaced shoulder-flaps on the tunics. They're modelled with baggy pants and modern lace-up boots, and even leather gloves with studs.

There's also the usual rogueswear: a lace-up doublet thing with cap sleeves, worn with a poet shirt. Let's get something clear. In the era of doublets with caps like this at the shoulders, people weren't using belts to tighten them. There was a seam at the waist, with a very short length of fabric below. They didn't lace up; they buttoned. They were never worn without sleeves (unless maybe someone was doing hard work in the summer heat), and by this I mean possibly adorned but predominantly straight sleeves worn over the chemise. They would have been worn with puffed slops that stopped above the knee and not with baggy trousers. Rougeswear may be great for a Ren Faire, but it's not accurate... and at least it should be tailored better than this.

Magic Fuggers: Blokes' edition

2009-04-07T16:50:00.000-07:00

Magic Makers ain't no better for the guys...

Holy poncy royalty, Batman! It's kinda the costume equivalent of wearing a shirt with no pants. If they're going for the early middle ages, there should be an undertunic that falls to the floor. If they're going for the later, Burgundian influenced styles that most people associate with the whole Medieval era, then they REALLY need some tailoring. And even if it's just a fantasy costume, they need to tone down the STUPID.

Did they steal the big yellow V from a superhero costume? And please, please tell me I'm not seeing leopard print!

Another case of boxy tailoring and trim patterns on serious crack. Oh, and pantaloons last seen at Dress Like A Pirate. They've got, like, 10 versions of this turkey, which also crops up on other costume sites, and I have no idea how the pattern escaped a childrens' theatre to infect the world of reenactment.

Oh yeah, knights. Can't have a costume store without knights, can we? Nevermind that there is no such thing as fake chainmail that looks remotely real. At the rate we're going, it will take 2,000 years to invent it.

Blaring, baggy buggerage in the 'Lords' section. Will he spit out crappy rap if we throw gold chains around his neck?

All in all, bleaagh!

Magic Fuggers

2009-04-07T16:10:00.000-07:00

Descend with me into the realm of Magic Makers, a costume site that definitely steps beyond the spheres of taste and common sense.

Welcome to the world of clashing colours, horrible prints and strange fabric appliques. Scalloped bat sleeves are goth if you do them well, but I don't think these are even hemmed or lined. And I really don't know what that matching splat on the skirt is about.

This is... I don't know what this is. Where they got the idea for the weird stripes of trim, I have no idea. Pink chiffon capes are wrong wrong wrong and the thing on her head resembles nothing from any point in history. Gee, maybe because it looks so fucking stupid.

Same with this. It takes the meticulously crafted Attor de Gibbets of the 1400s and fucks them in the eye. Why you'd put a sort of trainlike something on a tunic that doesn't reach the floor escapes me, and no one would have worn it anyway. And I know they had a quirky colour sense back than, but sea green, red and pink? I don't think so!

More Just Plain Fugly. I'm getting flashbacks to the blinds my parents had in the livingroom when I was a toddler. Fuck the Harvest Gold, the 70's are over!

Y'know, plus sizes are a lot more flattering if you tailor them a little instead of passing off the ample among us with a big stripey sack. And whatever your size, you'll look stupid with a limey yellow poof on your head.

No. Just NO.

Anne Fuglyn

2009-04-06T21:54:00.000-07:00

Oh dear God.

Guess how much this monstrosity costs. Go on, guess.

It's in the deluxe section of Renfest Costumes, and they're asking for $480. Now, they're recommending it for Medieval dinners or costume parties and there's not a word about the SCA, but for that much money you'd think you could at least get something that doesn't look stupid. Buyers may not care that the frills at the neck, the sleeves that flare from the shoulders, the (by Tudor standards) narrow band of fur and the metallic underskirt with gathers are not period... but who the hell would wear that thing on their head?

They also offer us this. The guy's outfit looks perfectly good for a costume party, or even a Ren Faire... but do you really want to spend $745 on it? She, meanwhile, is a glaring error. No, there were never any dresses like this illustrated anywhere. No, Renaissance women did not wear teeny puffed sleeves. If your arms weren't covered in this era, you were not fully clothed.

Oh, this is really good. For $330, you can get a surcoat with a dubious cut and trim where they never would have put it. And they call it Tudor. How in hell is this Tudor? Sideless surcoats were being worn from the 1100s to the 1300s. The first Tudor king, Henry VII, usurped the throne of England in 1485. This is sort of like claiming that hoop skirts are a turn of the 21st century thing. The partner costume is at least closer to the Tudor period... it looks like a vague attempt at Burgundian fashion of the mid to late 1400s. But it ain't really all that English, and it predates the reign of that iconic Tudor monarch, Henry VIII, by over 30 years.

Ophelia is skipping around undressed and there's NO evidence for chemises with bell sleeves. $255!?

As for the musketeer costumes, the guy's is at least based on historical clothing but the gal looks like period costume meets Frederic's of Hollywood. (What should she be wearing? Click here.) And guys? The whole Cardinal Richelieu / Louis XIII era? BAROQUE, not Renaissance!

I'd like to leave you with this. It's listed as fantasy, not Renaissance, but I've got to mention it because this is one of the worst. wizards. ever. I've seen this same motif used on 80's keds for teenagers.

Well Played, Anea

2009-04-06T16:45:00.001-07:00

Sad but true: with few exceptions, the best historical costumers are not big businesses, but individual reenactors. Some of them put up webpages that document their costume choices meticulously. But you really have to scrounge around to find these sites; the average Google search will mostly turn up commercial outfits with serious misconceptions. It's a shame the people who want to make money don't take so much pride in their work.

Take a look at Anea's site to see what Italian Renaissance garb should really be... and note the links to period portraits on every page!

Plus Size What?

2009-04-06T11:38:00.001-07:00

In theory, a site advertising plus-size costuming is a great idea.

In practice, it might help if it actually had costumes as advertised. Under the heading 'Plus-size Renaissance Faire & SCA Costumes' are gems like these:

Pretty and great with jeans, but how are these costumes at all?

Back to Hollywood: King Arthur

2009-04-03T11:36:00.000-07:00

This movie was so far off the mark that I don't know where to start. So I'm doing this alphabetically!

A is for authenticity, which is pretty much absent, or for armour, which I'm not really qualified to snark.
B is for black - yes, a cheap black was possible, but nobody wanted to wear it.
C is for cloaks, which would probably help in the middle of winter. And when they do wear them, they're a modern cut.
D is for dye, which was common in this historical period but apparently not in the costuming department.
E is for edges, which should be nicely hemmed on clothing - this is a bit hit-and-miss if you look closely. Also for Kiera's empire-waist dress; underbust seams start around 1505.
F is for fur cloaks. Fur-LINED, everyone, fur-LINED. Also, frayed trim and flowered headband. No. Stoppit.
G is for Greek, as in 'why is someone wearing a Greek-inspired dress in this flick?'.
H is for hair, which is being worn in modern styles by the lead men and impractical styles by everyone else.
I is for incorrect, meaning the right and left boots everyone's wearing when they should be made to fit either foot. (Wow this is hard.)
J is for jewelry, which is missing in the movie.
K is for Kiera's boobs, which should not be on view.
L is for leather and chain-mail stitched together in armour. Sorry, no.
M is for man-titty. I refer here to some of the breastplates.
N is for necklines, which are mostly wrong - they should be mainly high and round.
O is for off-the-shoulder, which is not even an option for a prostitute in this period.
P is for poor tailoring, see Kiera's pale green dress, and for push-up bras - enough said.
Q is for a queen (and king) with no crowns or other signs of rank.
R is for standard Roman armour, for which the movie's set at least 60 years too late.
S is for shaved head, which I have no explanation for; or sleeveless, ditto.
T is for torc, a male item worn by a female in the movie.
U is for underwear, did they have any? I speak, of course, of braies, a shirt, a chemise... It's also for ugly trim.
V is for Viking shields, which the Saxons are carrying for some reason.
W is for WTF, which is all that can be said about Kiera's armour-like outfit. Also for wool - look into some.
X is the period-appropriate rating for Kiera's ridiculous armour.
Y is for yellow, which should exist for these costumes.
Z is for zippers, which thankfully the movie doesn't have... okay, I'm reaching here, but you try and find one for Z.

Hollywood: So Bad it Can't be Ignored

2009-04-01T07:03:00.001-07:00

It doesn't claim to be historical, as far as I know - I had a bit of difficulty looking that up. But I'm going to give a nod to Sword of the Valiant anyway for sheer jawdropping badness.

Walter Chaw has a review of the movie, worth reading if you aren't familiar with this example of cinematic art. "Squire Gawain is the only man brave enough in King Arthur's moribund Camelot to accept the challenge of mysterious drag queen the Green Knight... A classic call to action is then promptly perverted in Sword of the Valiant into a sword-and-sorcery cheese factory that reminds of nothing more than Clash of the Titans without Ray Harryhausen. Because Gawain is such a strapping young moron, the Green Knight gives him one year to try to decipher a ridiculous riddle to save his life; thus Gawain sets out with his faithful squire; promptly tries to kill a unicorn for food ("It's magic! So it must taste good!"); falls in love with a leading lady who almost makes O'Keefe appear sentient; banters wittily with a bawdy friar; and strong arms a dwarf sage. The sword-fighting choreography resembles stuff my little sister and I worked out with cardboard tubes on Christmas morning, while the special effects are a notch above scratching the negative and pretending."

But enough about the acting and film quality. On to the costumes:

Enough said.

Save This Space

2009-04-01T06:52:00.000-07:00

"The BBC and Showtime are working together to develop a new version of Camelot. It will be helmed by the creative force behind The Tudors – Morgan O’Sullivan and Michael Hirst.

Apparently after the immense success Showtime have had with The Tudors, they’re keen to branch out again with a contemporary retelling of a classic tale. They’ll co-finance the development with the BBC, so expect more than a few British actors in there also. Assuming it gets greenlit, the series will be produced by Ecosse Films and Octagon Filmes jointly."

...I might as well just go ahead and reserve this post for the costumes now, huh?

Completely off the Mark

2009-04-01T01:39:00.000-07:00

One of the more common mistakes made with medieval costumes is to forget that they should generally be bright and colourful. Medieval-Robe has taken this one to an extreme and only offer monochrome and browns with a little yellow on just one of the items.

Not only that, but the only things halfway accurate about most of its costumes are leather boots and maybe one of the belts! I would say this definitely falls under 'recreating the Middle Ages of another planet'.

Happy April 1st, also.

High Quality Medieval Shlock!

2009-04-01T01:24:00.000-07:00

Mysticum.de advertises 'high quality medieval clothing and swords, clothing for renaissance and living history'.

What they actually have is Goth fashion and the usual pseudo-wench wear, with a couple of slightly better products (nice Roman sandals and medieval turnshoes, some acceptable tunics) thrown in. A lot of the items look medieval-inspired - dagging, but in the wrong place; fake sleeve slashes made diagonal instead of straight and obviously fake.

Let's Get this Over With

2009-03-30T12:04:00.000-07:00

Before I go through snarking Arthurian movie costumes, I need to address a basic point about them and history:

King Arthur did not exist.

Blah blah blah Geoffrey Ashe blah blah Layamon blah blah Cadbury blah blah Alcock blah blah blah Glastonbury graves. I know, I know.

Hillforts and tribal/regional warlords defending them in Britain were a dime a dozen from a few hundred years BCE to about 980 CE or so. There was a military leader referred to as 'Riothamus', who had an army from Britain in the Loire area circa 470; there was an Artuir, son of Aedan of Dalriada who was killed, probably fighting Picts, circa 600; there was a Lucius Artorius Castus, praefectus of the Sixth Legion in York, who led two legions against the Armoricans in north-west Gaul circa 200. None of these fine blokes were alive around the time the Romans stopped sending legions to Britain, in case that needed spelling out.

At some point, probably circa 410, Rome stopped sending military support to Britain. The Romans in Britain, who were probably mostly of native descent, maintained the local administrative structure and continued to defend their part of the Roman Empire - at least for a while. (Maintaining the Roman Empire was a hobby until at least the late Medieval period. It took the Victorians to decide that the Roman Empire had been dead for a while.)

At some point, a number of migrations took place. Irish settled in northern and western Britain, Britons went to Armorica and to north-west Spain, and (deep breath), Jutes, Saxons, Angles, Frisians, Rugians, Danes, Huns, Bructeri, Franks, Norse, and possibly a few blokes from Sweden all came to Britain, where they (and native Britons as well, I am NOT listing the tribes) mostly eventually re-identified themselves as Angles, Saxons, or Jutes because they couldn't keep track of all that either.

At any rate, while groups of people were wandering all over the map and creating, or adopting, little mixed kingdoms all over Britain, they tended to squabble with each other a lot.
For example, around the early 600s there were some battles which may be interpreted as Irish and Angles disputing control over the British kingdom of Gododdin (the old tribal Votadini territory); the power of Dal Riata (Irish in Scotland if you're keeping track) lessened but Irish church influence increased, and actually the Britons of the kingdom of Strathclyde were the ones who killed the king of Dal Riata, Domnall Brecc. Anyway the Angles probably won control of Gododdin because the next thing you know the Picts, who may have been a confederation of different groups, were kicking Ecgfrith's butt back south of the Forth. Don't even ask who was winning here; I haven't even gotten into the intermarriages yet.

So about three or four hundred years later, some dude is writing the Historia Brittonum and it gets a bit dry, so he throws in some folktales about a guy called Arthur quite similar to legends about a guy called Finn from Ireland (didn't exist either). What with re-dating and all, this is probably the first mention of an Arthur, and it's all about how his dog Cabal left a footprint in a rock and typical folktale things like that.

And then people thought hey, there were a whole lot of warlord/kings for a while, and some of them did pretty well, maybe this folktale Arthur is based on one of them. I assume those same people are busy looking for a detective-monk named Cadfael around the time of Stephen's reign and maybe checking the airports for a real guy with a name similar to 'Borat'.

But wait! This is good news. If the story of King Arthur is fantasy in the first place, you can't go wrong! People have been making up any old thing they liked about Arthur since, well, the 800s anyway; it's now a long and proud tradition. King Arthur in a tutu, Lancelot in full Elizabethan, and Mordred in a spacesuit? It's not wrong! (And I believe the second two have been done.)

...unless you declare a place and time. If you say 'it's Arthurian. It happens once upon a time in a kingdom of Britain', have fun with your storytelling. On the other hand, if you say 'it's about King Arthur as a Roman Briton circa 500', then I would like to see costumes that make sense for a Roman Briton circa 500. Hey, I'm not the one who wanted to drag history into this in the first place.

Oh my Fug! -- The Tudors

2009-03-29T12:45:00.000-07:00

The Tudors is a new mini-series (well, maxi-series really; they're on to season 3) that uses Henry VIII as an excuse for a soap opera. I've never seen it and I never will, but while googling 'Anne Boleyn' I chanced on pics racy enough for pornos and, you guessed it, some total crap in the garb department.

Meet Anne Boleyn and her fuddled up wardrobe. Haven't I fugged this thing before? Yes, it's the infamous 'Florentine' dress. I didn't know queens went for cheapass Halloween costumes.

Oh, dear bugger. A poodle just died on her head! Come on, people, they were using ermine corpses back then and actually tailoring them.

And why can't she put on a chemise? Those flagrantly unperiod sleeves are showing off a lot of skin. Oh, and I'm real sure they used spiderweb textures on their bodices. And honey, don't you want to impress your pretty, poncy Henry look-unlike? Don't you want to show off your wealth with a jeweled French hood instead of cheapass braid trim? I'd say your jewellery looked Victorian if it wasn't obviously plastic. And what's he got around his neck? Wow, they had Swarovski crystal beads back then!

It's not all bad. This looks pretty and would be great in the Society for Pre-Raphaelite Anachronism. It isn't Tudor, though. It's Arwen in a corset.

But I guess historical inaccuracy doesn't matter, because she spends most of her time slipping out of her dresses anyway. The little hussy traipses around in her corset. I know this is supposed to be some kind of allegorical costume scene, but that's no excuse for parading your bare arms around. And ruffs are not Tudor. Neither is your little French twist, or the fucking shiny metal heart tacked to your cheek. And Henry? Plastic crowns and patent leather don't become you. I'm surprised your little strumpet isn't laughing in your face.

Oh, and we've got some great promo stills. Behold the strapless Tudor nightie! And if they're about to do the nasty, why has he got bare arms and a doublet? Are we supposed to believe that he took the doublet off (he'd have to, to shrug out of the undershirt) and then put it back on? Half clothed royalty must be Anne's fetish and she really likes it when he wears his chains of state to bed!

Henry's doublet has as much to do with Tudor as my pasty gothic ass has to do with tan lines. I've said it before: little caps over the shoulders are Elizabethan. Mid to Late Elizabethan. Henry liked big puffy sleeves and wide fur collars, and — check his portraits — lots of red and gold and white. But I guess that's not manly enough for the BBC's new sex-crazed bad boy. Oh noes, put him in black leather! And let's slap Anne in a gaping, sleeveless bodice with ugly trim!

Does it not piss off anyone else when the guy's fully clothed and the gal is flashing her twat? The whole deal with the real Anne Boleyn is that she won him over with elegance and wit. She had to, because she wasn't really all that pretty. Which brings me to the most disturbing thing about this series. It isn't the clothes, or the 19th century carriages, or the asphalt driveways or the modern radiators. It's the way they've portrayed historical figures as naked nymphets. Fans are saying that this series is OMG soooooo much better than it would have been with a pudgy Henry and an Anne who didn't look like 15 year old jailbait. But I think pretty teenagers get boring real damn fast. And wouldn't it be nice to have a plot instead of porn?

Ahh, well. When the official DVD press release posts images like this, you know the thing is a flimsy excuse for tits and ass. And if skinny supermodels are your kink, it does not disappoint:

Oh yeah, I'm real sure Henry'd go for Anorexic Anne. This chick is way too scrawny to be fertile.

More Quibbles: Elizabeth

2009-03-29T11:03:00.000-07:00

Cate Blanchett is a great actress, but her performance is sometimes upstaged by what they put her in...

A strapless bodice? Bare arms? Yes, I know they're covered in gauze, but but for period purposes, transparent counts as bare. And is that a great big sequined bow on the skirt?

Oh, Lizzie. What are you wearing on your head?

Oh, I get it. You're going for stark. But Elizabeth without trim is like a rapper without bling. Straight sleeves with little shoulder caps were pretty much a guy thing until the time of James I and you'd think she dealt with enough jokes about being mannish without actually dressing like one. I really don't know what's up with that collar. What's the weird feathery stuff on the cuffs? And y'know, that 19th century Gothic Revival throne is really starting to annoy me.

Ugh. The collar looks more Christian Lacroix than Queen Elizabeth, the greenish yellow is vomitworthy, and once again I am befuddled by that thing on her head.

One final question: what is it with blue in this movie? Four of Elizabeth's gowns are powder blue. And she's got two similar dresses (they clearly altered a single pattern) made of the exact same purple taffeta. What sort of budget were they on? Was Bob's Land of Upholstery giving discounts? Couldn't they go for Elizabethan jewel tones instead of Rococo pastels?

Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh. The clothing designer came out and said they were going for a modern couture look loosely inspired by Elizabethan styles, and in some scenes it really does work for this film. The trouble is that there's no continuity. If you're going for stark (which makes sense when you've got ol' Lizzie kicking ass and facing the Armada), then stay stark all the way through. Use bold colours and stop putting feathers on her head.

Minor Quibbles: The Other Boleyn Girl

2009-03-29T00:28:00.000-07:00

I would give a pass to some of the stuff from the Other Boleyn Girl. But nevertheless there are several errors... and, for those of us who've really learned to notice detail, some absolute howlers. Like this one:

Oh, Scarlet. Pull your sleeves up. Why can't you be civil like those Spaniards in the background? I've never heard of bare Renaissance shoulders, and you're mixing regions too. Those slashed puffs at shoulder, wrist and elbow look more German landsknecht than Tudor England. The gap at the front of the overskirt should not be nearly that wide. Also, the bodice seams look wrong to me. I combed through portraits of the era and it looks like they should be further to the sides of the gown. This picture of Mrs. Pemberton, c. 1640 is grainy, but you can clearly see the seams beneath the arms. And Jane Seymour's are at the sides of the bodice front, not so near the bust. Seams are not visible at all in most portraits, and they would be if people had placed them the way they did in this movie. I'm not seeing any examples of contrasting bodice fronts, either; these show up around the middle of Elizabeth's reign.

Oh dear. The French Hood, though portraits show many variations, was never just a headband with a little stickyuppy thing (and why is Mary wearing one? She never spent time in the court of France!) Little slashed cap sleeves are Elizabethan, not Tudor... and slashes of the type used here are once again more like German gowns than like the type seen in England. Even if that's the look they were going for, the fabric beneath the slashes ought to be white. The choice of print is strange and looks very modern compared to the stylized foliate stuff they were using back then. And are those lacings I'm seeing on the bodices? The Tudors did not use bodice front lacings!

I love your green dress, Anne, but sleeves of light satin without trim that goes all the way around the neckline look sort of odd. You should start them higher, make them out of something heavier and give them wider cuffs (like this). You might want to consider a pointed waistline, too. But then, I suppose accuracy would be less soft and flowing and omg romantic!

What's that strange layering at the shoulders? Why all the puckered seams? Is that a pleated underskirt I'm seeing? And who thought olive drab was a good idea?

Oh, and I have found no evidence for matching Tudor bathrobes.

In fact, the whole 'twin sisters' costume schtick is fucking stupid. It doesn't ring true. When Mary's winning Henry over, she should have money pouring at her from all sides. The family should be dressing her up in good brocade and loading her down with jewellery — because she's a commodity and they want to hype her just like Hollywood hypes movies. And when he turns around and porks Anne, she should become the glittery one while poor Mary's left moping. I really didn't see this happening, unless you count switching Mary from yellow satin to brown satin. And what does Anne get for her troubles? One paltry necklace? This movie makes her a manipulative bitch, so wouldn't she hold out for more than that?

I've come to expect very little from Hollywood, and (sad to say) I'm overjoyed when a period piece contains nothing fugly or totally batshit. And it's true that real Tudor gowns don't seem lyrical or romantic to modern eyes -- the skirts are stiff and the sleeves are enormous -- so I can see why they took liberties. I even have a shameful fondness for that jade green dress and would wear it to the kind of Ren Faire that doesn't check your authenticity at the gate. For SCA, though, it's right out. Unless you're in the Hawaiian chapter, which doesn't give a rat's ass if you show up in a red satin chemise and a crushed velvet surcoat.

Enough with the hoop skirts, already!

2009-03-28T10:46:00.000-07:00

Another gem from Maeve's Unmentionables, which I have fugged before. Oh joy, it's a bell sleeved chemise. Take note: there was no such thing as a bell sleeved chemise! Note also that chemises were undergarments, they were white, they were not made of satin, and no one would have paraded around wearing one with nothing but a waist cincher (modern!) to cover them. And the cloak is crushed velvet. And oh heavens, it's a HOOP SKIRT.

Y'know what I love about the middle ages? No corsets. No infrastructure. No fucking hoop skirts. Way to fuck up the natural fit that made them so attractive.

Elizabethan Portraits

2009-03-28T10:06:00.000-07:00

Here's another excellent source for garb information: Tudor & Elizabethan Portraits. It's fantastic if you hope to reproduce garb from this era of British history

Of course, the focus here is definitely the English. Also, the information is primarily about nobles — the lower classes can be infuriating to research, because they weren't the ones getting their portraits painted. But if you look under the 'various portraits' section, you'll find a couple examples of the merchant class along with a smattering of images from areas outside Britain: Italy, Flanders and my personal favourite, Germany.

This is definitely worth a good long look... especially if you're thinking of shelling out big money for an 'Elizabethan' gown and want it to really be authentic.

Pure Fantasy, part drei

2009-03-28T09:11:00.001-07:00

Another gorgeous gown from romantic-threads, which mixes periods gleefully. Again, I'd have no problem with it if it weren't for the way it was advertised.

This, apparently, can pass for Victorian, Renaissance or Marie Antoinette. Three different periods, people, with three very different sets of characteristics. And let's face it: there is nothing Renaissance about this dress.

The bodice is indeed inspired by the era of Marie Antoinette (or at least early Marie Antoinette), but the cuffs are a little long and black would have been a very unusual choice for the lace (if indeed they would have used it at all!). They did have overskirts that curved to the sides back then, but they would either have been untrimmed or had ruching around the edge, as opposed to fringe, which looks decidedly Victorian.

And nowhere, in any period (except for modern Goth gowns) would you have a contrasting panel on a skirt as opposed to a contrasting underskirt revealed by a parted overskirt. This is a pretty cheap trick... especially for $800!

I've seen things of this type billed as Renaissance over and over. Get it into your skulls, people: RENAISSANCE and ROCOCO are NOT THE SAME.

Pure Fantasy

2009-03-28T07:51:00.000-07:00

Romantic-threads is an EBay seller with some absolutely gorgeous gowns... but don't for a moment think that they're historically accurate!

I covet, covet, covet this dress! It would be perfect for playing my sidhe character from White Wolf's Changeling. But the seller claims it "will suit a variety of styles including Renaissance, SCA, even medieval..." and the simple fact is, it won't.

The basic lines of the dress are clearly Tudor inspired, but every semblance of accuracy is destroyed by both the pattern and the fabric. Let's start with the accessories. The belt and bodice festoon look more Elizabethan than Tudor, and though I'd give them a pass, most bodice detailing examples I've seen have been actual necklaces, tacked to the dress front. The necklace I'm not so sure about. That sort of draping looks Victorian to me.

On to the bodice! That little frilly ruffle around the neckline isn't Tudor either, and the top edge of the bodice should be straight instead of scooped. What we have here is Victorian detailing, also evident in the seams that curve over the bust. Tudor seams, for the 23532th time, were straight.

Another work of fantasy: the sleeves. Tudor sleeves were quite different and the 'bells' began much higher up the arm, with seams instead of gathering and ornate cuffs below them. The idea of a gathered, flaring cuff is Rococo, and during that era it would have begun around the elbow and been much shorter. Exaggerating the cuff and edging it with lace instead of adding layers of lace beneath it is a modern Gothic development. The higher gathering around the shoulders and upper arms also owes more to Goth than to period costume.

The skirt looks gathered too (a big no for Tudor, and I believe the Elizabethans used pleating), and it comes with a hoop skirt. Have a look at Catherine Parr. Or is it Jane Grey? There's some debate, but one thing's for certain. This skirt doesn't curve like a hoop skirt. It angles much more steeply toward the ground.

Now for the fabric choices. The trim and lace look very modern to me. They aren't nearly stylized or angular enough for Tudor, though they'd probably work for Victorian. And the dress is crushed velvet. High end crushed velvet and not the cheap lycra stuff, but still, the Tudors would take one look at this thing and say it was lying smashed in a chest for too long.

Y'know, we really need some society that dresses up in tasteful, high quality fantasy gowns and plays at being fae nobility or something. For that I would wear this dress in an instant. But for Ren Faires, I would not subject the general public to my flights of gothdom... and it's too damn posh to wear in normal life. For $1250, I'll have to give it a miss.

Vintage Fugstumes -- the Renaissance edition

2009-03-27T23:51:00.000-07:00

Renaissance men at Vintage Costumes suffer from a variety of ills, from crushed velvet to corduroy, but the worst offense is this:

A waistcoat?? Looks Victorian to me!

For the ladies, there are five different versions of this:

It's based on a Simplicity pattern. I've never seen a dress like this in Renaissance art and it's certainly not Tudor, as they claim.

The above is another Simplicity pattern design, and exceptionally inaccurate. Both the bodice and the bands around the lower arms (which look like they're part of the dress in the Vintage Costumes version and don't even lace up!) are more fantasy than Renaissance. And no one would have worn the chemise (which should be white) without an overskirt to hide it. In addition, Renaissance ladies did not wear padded rolls around their heads.

Here is yet another Simplicity pattern, this time based on Drew Barrymore's costumes in the Cinderella story "Ever After." It's much closer to correct and resembles a Venetian gown depicted by Albrecht Dürer, so I do indeed give it a pass... but beware that this popular dress, with versions cropping up everywhere, is a romanticised take on the Italian Renaissance.

They've also got some stuff that's just plain bugfuck and I don't know where it came from. Sixth from the top is a sparkly pink beaded thing that's got nothing to do with the Renaissance, but some tasteless old lady might have worn it to the opera in the 1980's. We've got a brown 'Elizabethan' dress with a weird front panel and modern looking lace (I think it's eyelet). There's a navy blue monstrosity that's imitating the musketeer era... badly. This thing is decidedly Baroque and does not belong in the Renaissance section. And among the inevitable wenchwear, right down at the bottom of the page, we've got a costume with ruffles (NOT PERIOD, PEOPLE!) and the most idiotically enormous bodice dags I've ever seen.

Vintage Fugstumes -- the Medieval edition

2009-03-27T22:45:00.000-07:00

The 'Vikings' in the previous post were brought to you by Vintage Costumes, which also offers Medieval and Renaissance outfits featuring dubious choices in colour, fabric and pattern.

Their Medieval section is headed up by a 'King Arthur' in a floor-length tunic... which I'd applaud if it weren't made out of crushed velvet and metallic gold. Also, one wonders why Artie is wearing a chainmail coif when clearly he's not otherwise prepared for fighting. We've also got a crusader with no protective gear aside from a coif, wildly inaccurate leather armour with no semblance of padding, peasant tunics paired with trousers, and a cheezy cheap satin jester outfit.

For the ladies, there's a Medieval queen to match King Arthur, with the same crushed velvet and liquid gold. We've got the usual tavern wench costumes with front-lacing bodices, not seen anywhere in the middle ages. We've got another jester, this time with opera gloves and no sleeves! There's a shapeless 'Medieval Sorceress' with a cone-shaped hennin (which is indeed period but should be worn with Burgundian gowns, which are fitted). There's a sideless surcoat worn over a gathered, puff-sleeved chemise (a glaring error — the garments beneath these were close-fitting). And there are seven, count 'em, seven duplicates of this dress:

I might give this pattern a pass if worn by an SCA newbie, but it wouldn't fly if accuracy were essential. The sleeves would look better if they flared from the elbow, with no seam, and the curving seams over the bust are modern, modern, modern. The biggest problem here, though, is that they've made versions with crushed velvet or shimmering lamé.

It's nice that they supply so many plus-sized options. Too bad they look comically cheesy.

Vikings: What NOT to do

2009-03-27T21:28:00.000-07:00

I'm no Viking costume expert, but even I know this is wrong:

There is NO evidence for horns on Viking helms, and just imagine how impractical they'd be in battle! I don't know quite how this myth got started, but it reminds me more of Wagnerian opera singers than of real Vikings. I've never seen big, wide, buckly belts and arm bracers either, though I'll leave dear Selkie to supply the details.

And this is even worse:

This is the general SCA consensus on what Viking women really wore. Recent research suggests that perhaps they dressed more like this. In either case, tattered suede minidresses are RIGHT OUT.

And if you rent this thing, you'd better be staging the Ring of the Nibelung:

Ladies' golden, breast-accentuating armour is Victorian.

Let's go to Hollywood! 13th Warrior

2009-03-27T01:52:00.000-07:00

Since we're onto the Vikings already...

Let's get into the military side of things, protective clothing. Layers of padded cloth or possibly leather are likely, and some images may show them, but no archaeological evidence survives. If they were used, they'd look something like this:

There is evidence for 4-in-1 mail armour, which would have been very expensive and limited to only wealthy and noble warriors:

So here's what Vikings wear in The 13th Warrior:

No.

Viking Men - in detail

2009-03-27T01:03:00.001-07:00

So, you want to be a Viking. Let's dive into the details.

The trousers: I can't see enough of them to know how accurate they are, but they definitely shouldn't be black. A brown/black dye with walnut shells and iron was possible but not common. A bright colour, with red as the most popular, would be more accurate. There should also be leg-wrappings, a strip of cloth wrapped around the leg from below the knee to ankle.

The smock, or undershirt: I don't see one but I hope it's there - because it should be.

The tunic: There should be gores cut on either side to make the bottom of the tunic fuller. I can't tell whether this is the case, but if so they're rather stingy. The colour is fine, the material is good. There should either be bands of plain silk in a bright colour at all edges of the tunic, or tablet-woven bands at the neck and arms (or trim that imitates tablet weaving). Long strips of tablet weaving from shoulders to hem, or down the arms, or parallel bands sewn somewhere at the chest, are also possible. The location of the trim isn't too far off, and I can't see it well enough in this image to see whether it looks much like tablet weaving.

The jacket: The jacket should overlap rather like a bathrobe, and should be hip-length. It also seems to have shrunk in the wash - the sleeves ought to go right to the wrist. I think the colour in the photo is a dark woad/indigo blue; if so, that's fine.

The cloak: there should be one to complete the costume, even over the jacket. You go to northern Sweden in mid-winter and tell me you wouldn't like another layer.

The helmet: obviously an imitation of Sutton Hoo. Sutton Hoo is in East Anglia. Green and blue dyes were most popular in Sweden. Think harder about those bright reds. A note, I suggest wearing full armour if you're going to fight, and taking off the helmet if you aren't. A tablet-woven headband is the alternative headgear.

The belt: With an overtunic, a cloth or tablet-woven belt is much more likely. The closest historical belt to the one in the photo would be a leather belt with wide, flat metal plaques, an oval buckle, and hanging ends weighed down with metal strap-ends. Not very close.

Ornaments: To add a bit of authenticity, definitely go for a pendant - a Thor's hammer between two beads would be a common choice. Consider a large twisted torc if you're showing off your importance. There are also many finds of gold rings.

Gear: The shield is fine, although you'll want to get that painted. The little knife/sword/thingy, though, is hysterical. What's that going to be when it grows up?

Overall, if you're renting a costume for a day or getting started, this isn't bad at all and it can be improved further with the right belt, jewelry, leg-wrappings, cloak, etc. If you're making a movie, showing up to a museum, or accuracy is important, though, then also go for brighter colours, silk-strip edgings (easier than tablet weaving), a tunic with a fuller lower part, and a jacket that wraps.

The Accolade

2009-03-26T13:32:00.000-07:00

The Accolade, that famous image of Medieval chivalry, is a Pre-Raphaelite piece painted by Edmund Blair Leighton in 1901. I understand its popularity, and I love that dress. But the Pre-Raphaelites are not a good source for information on period costume, and Leighton's lady is wearing a confection of pure fantasy. Nowhere in the Medieval era did people wear puffed sleeves with gathers.

Many reproductions of the Accolade dress are available online, most of them clearly citing the painting as their source. But the work has nevertheless spawned a number of Medieval garb misconceptions. Things like this are being sold as SCA wear:

Sleeves should be neither puffed nor gathered. In addition, the maker advertises this as a bliaut, but it bears little resemblance to the bliauts of the 12th century. There's no pleating across the torso. The curving bust seams are a modern invention. The inspiration from the Accolade is obvious and, like so many other 'Medieval' dresses on the market, this looks more like a Goth gown transposed into white.

Let's go to Hollywood! First Knight

2009-03-26T13:14:00.000-07:00

First things first: what the hell is that on his shoulder?

Next question: why is he wearing a Star Trek uniform while she wears... uh... well, I'm not really sure how to identify that.

Moving on, whackiest armour outside of Conan?

Sadly, I could not find a good image of Lancelot's buttonless Gap cardigan.

For extra fun: attempt to identify the time and place of the movie using the costumes alone. Go ahead, I'll wait. 'What the fuck' is not a guess.

Fugging the Florentines

2009-03-26T00:25:00.000-07:00

This gown is being offered by The Tudor Shoppe, which really ought to know better. Though not an offense to the eye, it isn't accurate at all. The basic lines of the dress look Tudor inspired but the skirt is lacking a bumroll (or a touch of padding to simulate a bumroll, which I would happily accept). The dags at the base of the bodice were never, to my knowledge, used in the Italian Renaissance, and are exaggerated to a comic degree; click here for an example of Queen Elizabeth's much smaller bodice dags. And the sleeves are of a substantially later period; lace-edged cuffs like this are Rococo, and would have begun around the elbow, not the upper arm.

I fail to see anything Florentine about this, but it's described as such everywhere I see it. Someone's taken a name of some random, romantic-sounding Italian city and used it to evoke a sense of luxury.

Here is a real Florentine gown. The differences are obvious.

Queen Elizafug

2009-03-25T23:49:00.000-07:00

I have been seeing this horror all over the place. If it were a cheap Halloween costume I'd leave it alone, but in fact it's retailing for as much as $330!

It would be hard to list everything that's wrong with this, but I'll give it a go. The large, standing collar, an Elizabethan feature, should be made with white lace (as shown in late portraits of Elizabeth). The sweetheart neckline is Regency at the earliest, the bows down the front of the bodice are Rococo, and the contrasting waistband is an error. The floofy little cuffs are also a Rococo idea that should begin just below the elbow, be made of the same fabric as the bodice, and have a layer of lace beneath. I've never seen little bows like this down the front of a skirt and it's certainly not Elizabethan. They're faking the look of a split overskirt, exposing an underskirt, by tacking on a line of ruffles. The ruffles at the hem are not period, and there should be a bumroll instead of a skirt that angles to the floor in a perfect cone. And the glittery paisley looks like 1980's brocade.

But most importantly of all, this thing is fucking fugly. They call this a Queen Elizabeth costume, but she never would have worn bright, screaming turquoise.

Reputable sources

2009-03-25T22:24:00.001-07:00

Do a google search on costume history and you'll find all kinds of 'information' which is suspect or even utter tripe. Sometimes the safest thing to do is turn to period artwork for documentation, and I'd like to recommend a little place called La Couturiere Parisienne.

For the early middle ages, I'm afraid you're out of luck here. Their artwork collection starts with a smattering of pieces from the 1300s. But for fans of the Renaissance and the Elizabethans, they're superb. Their portrait collection covers many different regions and the really industrious can go on to look up the names of particular artists from their area of choice. This is how I was first introduced to German gowns and Lucas Cranach the Elder.

You can also visit virtual galleries like CGFA and search artists by region and time period. There's a wealth of costume history on sites like this.

Aliens from Planet Zort!

2009-03-25T21:05:00.000-07:00

Maskworld.com has an identity crisis. Is it going for accuracy (it offers Sofi's Stitches) or for the JUST PLAIN CRAZY?

Wow, I didn't know Medieval monarchs and their queens were into skinning Dalmatians. I've never seen a big, fur-trimmed front panel like what this guy's wearing, either. And exactly what is their daughter wearing on her head? This definitely counts as 'recreating the Middle Ages of another planet.' I sort of like their King Arthur — he's got a stylized look that might work well in some postmodern play — but Guinevere has just stepped off the set of Star Trek:

She must come from the same planet as Princess Kriemhild. And maybe they're chummy with Eragon.

In addition to Alien Couture, the site offers a lot of wenchwear (ranging from well made to incredibly ill-fitting) and its male counterpart, the doublet with caps over the shoulders and no sleeves. I've dubbed this 'rougeswear' and I usually give it a pass because it's become such an SCA institution, but for 219 Euros I'd like something better than this. Oh joy, faux leather and crushed velvet! Of course there's also the inevitable gypsy with her ludicrous cropped bodice. And no site would be complete without jesters. Don't get me wrong, I love a good jester costume. I saw a gorgeous one in Rigoletto, with Renaissance tailoring and a great colour scheme. But this thing just looks awful.

And you know something? This really pisses me off. Thanks to Braveheart, everybody thinks woad is bright blue acrylic paint. In reality it was deep navy and was painted not in blocks of colour, but in intricate patterns. As for the costume, that 'armour' is as badly fitting as any I've seen... and what's that around his ankles? Little plaid ruffles? For 129, you could do much better than this.

On to Renaissance, and we've got more wenchwear, this time with jarring skirt ruffles. They mix Medieval dagged sleeves with Baroque knee breeches. And what's this? The Renaissance ends around 1600. Big crazy wigs show up in the 1770's. This belongs on their Rococo page, along with Cubist Katherine the Great and Lamé Marie Antoinette.

Renaissance Miniskirts!

2009-03-25T17:37:00.000-07:00

Denim & Diamonds has a great selection of burlesque costumes -- see them for all your saloon floozie needs! But oh dear, they have a very shaky grasp of the Renaissance...

I'd call this LARP wear, not Faire wear. I hope it goes without saying that the Renaissance did not feature paisley, pink satin chemises or sweetheart necklines, let alone short skirts.

Well Played, Kat's Hats!

2009-03-24T16:43:00.000-07:00

All too often, cheap Medieval costumes come with a single padded roll to be worn around the head, incorrectly lacking a veil to go with it. Many people have no concept of how many varieties of hats there really were. After all, the middle ages lasted for roughly a millenium and of course hat fashions changed, varying by period and region. Kat's Hats gives us a taste of how much diversity there really was.

She explains the history behind all her creations, which are beautifully made. There isn't a design on this site that I haven't seen somewhere in Medieval art.

Maeve's Unmentionables

2009-03-24T14:32:00.001-07:00

Maeve thinks she can offer us the perfect Renaissance dress. That her clothes have 'that flair that just seems to be missing from other garb.' She invites us to find the dress of our dreams... but the dress of my dreams involves colours other than red, blue, black and purple. There's a very limited colour palette, and nothing is period.

To many of us, the Jocelyn and Brigid ensembles may look inoffensive. There's nothing ugly, let alone fugly, about them. But let's get something straight. Nowhere in existing art, literature or clothing from the middle ages or the Renaissance is there any proof of the existence of the 'wench wear' we're all so familiar with. It's been so perpetuated throughout Ren Faires and the SCA that most people never question its historical sources. By all means, wear it at casual events and LARPS... but be aware that it's not strictly period.

I've never seen strapless underbust waist cincers in period either, unless we're talking about the Victorian period. Nor have I seen short sleeves. Maeve claims this can pass as either Renaissance or Civil War! But no one would have worn their corset outside their clothes in either era. Looks more to me like modern Goth. And I've never seen contrasting skirt panels either.

There is nothing historic about this. I don't know what it is. Sci-Fi fantasy, maybe.

Oh, and Delilah, darling? Go put on some clothes. This is neither an historic belly dance costume (Arabs didn't bare their bellies back then) nor a 'darling' dress for the Faire. Especially not with one of my peeves, a gathered square skirt. Seriously, who introduced this into the vocabulary of ren costumiers? I see it constantly, usually as an overskirt for wenchwear. It's a goth thing, and it looks great in layers of chiffon, but romantic gothic fashion is not period. It's like the early Gothic Revival; gleefully mixing styles and inventing new ones with minimal research.

And yet, Maeve's work owes more to Goth than Renaissance. For 'authentic' garb, go somewhere else.

Medieval Crock

2009-03-24T14:06:00.001-07:00

Medieval Crockery has some handy, inexpensive feastgear, but they really lose it when it comes to their tabards.

Scrollwork patterns? Satin? Circular appliques? A shiny little modern ladies' handbag?

Dragons & Fugicorns

2009-03-24T13:42:00.000-07:00

Dragons & Unicorns claim to be 'costumers extrordinaire,' though their site would indicate they're not smart enough to slap up a half decent webpage. So, what are they offering? The worst Roman General in the world! And here's Hilda, who owes a lot more to Eowyn than to the middle ages. Yes, the costumes in LotR were great. But I the trouble is that people see it and think it'd make great garb. The movie was creating a fantasy world and drew its inspiration from everything from the real middle ages to Gothic Revival and Art Nouveau. This place has a fantasy section, so why isn't it there? And are we really expected to pay 130 GBP for crushed velvet?

They pair a scoop neck with Tudor sleeves and call it Medieval. And model it with that infamous crime of Faire goers, chainmail jewellery. And in the actual Tudor section, we get this. What is this thing? A gathered skirt with an elastic band? I've seen better costumes made by SCA newbies who've never seen medieval fashion before they joined and haven't tried stitching in their lives! Oh, and their doublet sucks. Cheap trim, poorly made, and lacking front fastenings and sleeves.

They also offer us the worst Elizabeth Swann costume I have ever seen, and loads of shapeless Harry Potter stuff. Stay well away.

Crushed velvet crap

2009-03-24T12:38:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Renaissance Fugstumes. At first glance you'd think it's just cheap Halloween stuff and should be left alone, and indeed, I've seen some of these same offerings at SuperDiscountCostumeMegastore. What makes this fair game, though, is that they're advertising for the reenactment crowd. If you're talking about faires and weddings, you should offer us more than this:

Knee breeches? In this era, people, they were wearing tights. A high collared doublet like this would have a seam at the waist and flare below it... but oh, wait. There would never be a doublet like this, because this is crushed velvet and shiny! All in all, the ponciest Romeo I have ever seen!

Speaking of poncy, take a look at Robin Hood. They were too lazy to do their research. The Robin Hood legend has it's roots as early as 1283, and back then people did not wear doublets. Especially crappy faux-leather doublets. Think tunics and cowls, people!

And they've got the usual knight costumes with fake glitter chainmail. There's not even a separate undertunic; the sleeves are sewn right to the shoulders of what ought to be a tabard, and should not be made of — you guessed it — crushed velvet. At a real Ren Faire, people, you cannot get away with fake chainmail.

There's more fug for the ladies. Cheap-ass Elizabethan, anyone? Those little puffed sleeves are wrong, wrong, wrong, and so is the straight seam around the waist. It should come to a point. And don't you love those random arm 'lacings' that don't lace anything? Ahh, and the crushed velvet. It's everywhere you look. Even the peasants wear crushed velvet. And the tavern wenches, with their horrible wraparound skirts. Have these people never heard of sumptuary laws?

Once again we're mixing periods. A 'Medieval' dress with a split-fronted skirt? A 'Renaissance' dress with a sweetheart neckline and curving bodice seams (modern inventions, people!)? Long open sleeves that hang from the shoulder are never, never tulle. This place can guarantee us a mistake in every dress.

'Irish Dress'

2009-03-24T04:43:00.000-07:00

I posted about someone's 'Celtic Dress' already. It appears to either be reselling, or a copy of, the 'Irish Dress' on the Sofi's Stitches website.

This is the closest actual, historical garment I could find from Ireland.

The differences are plain. There are attached sleeves, the skirt is one piece, the chemise neckline is visible and high, and this is a solidly middle-class garment inappropriate for the velvet of the 'Celtic Dress' version; the original surviving example was in twill.

It may help at least to know what time and place, 16th century Ireland, the dress is attempting to imitate!

Tina's world of fug

2009-03-24T04:40:00.000-07:00

Meet Tina the Ebay vendor. Tina makes the same dress over and over again. It's simple: a big, baggy sack that's gathered at the neck, with long tulle bat sleeves that look like the work of a six year old DIY goth. Master the fine art of the chemise and you could make these dresses in your sleep.

She bills these things as 'medieval renaissance fantasy faerie style.' Well, I don't know what they're wearing in Faerie these days, but if they're buying stuff like this, they ought to be ashamed. I sure as hell don't fantasise about wearing cheap satin trash bags like these either. As for the 'medieval' and 'renaissance' labels? Not only does the pattern have no trace of historical accuracy, but the fabric's wrong as well. Prints, when they do appear, include very modern looking scrollwork and flowers.

She also makes 'Southern Belle' dresses. These look exactly the same as her medievissance things, but with little gathered cap sleeves in place of droopy tulle and a band of cheap lace tied around the waist in place of crochetted trim.

I don't see anybody bidding.

So close and yet so far...

2009-03-24T04:12:00.000-07:00

This Northern Renaissance dress is gorgeous. It fits exactly as it should, with a tight bodice and a full skirt. It sports an ornamented panel over the bust, with black lacings over a white placket below. The hanging, pointed cuffs are absolutely correct. In keeping with the use of beading and velvet, which suggests nobility, the skirt has three stripes to indicate high rank. I can't see details of the hat, but it looks accurate enough from the photo and the ostentatious plumes of feathers are perfect.

There's just one problem: the colours. I've looked at a lot of these gowns, and patterns emerge pretty quickly after you've poured over Cranach and Dürer. The most popular colour was red, followed by black and by green. Occasionally you do see a blue one, but never with a blue front panel. It should be gold brocade, or black and patterned with beading. I've never seen this much white used either, and it looks really bizarre.

That said, I would still give it an emphatic pass. I myself was once lauded for a German gown in black and silver — not a period colour scheme, but it was otherwise correct and looked just so damn gothy.

All the Trimmings

2009-03-24T02:58:00.000-07:00

One problem that comes up over, and over (and over) in costuming is the decoration. For later periods, sewing on pearl beads, making bands of brocade, or finding a braid trim can help; for earlier periods it always comes back to the bands of tablet-woven material that were so very popular then, but are so very difficult to find now.

Worse yet, a simple and plain early garment doesn't distract the eye from the details, and so the wrong choice of trimming becomes very noticeable.

First solution: tablet weaving is actually very quick and easy to learn, and doesn't require much to get started. This is one reason it was so popular! There are instruction and advice websites all over for doing your own tablet weaving, including free period patterns for it.

Second solution: if you have money but no time, there are a few places where you can commission tablet weaving.

Melanie Wilson's site has an email link to enquire about prices.
Linda Hendrickson sells supplies and commissions, but only within the USA.
Gina B 'creates trimmings, tassels, buttons and other small textile items for museums, costumiers, theatre, film, designers and private indivduals' and has some beautiful work displayed.

If you know of anywhere else that accepts tablet weaving commissions or sells tablet-woven material, please add it in the comments.

So close... and yet.

2009-03-24T02:14:00.000-07:00

I'd like to note that Linen Garb seems to be a fairly new site with a limited selection, so they may start basic and improve.

Materials: good, it's all linen. Colours: good, except for one example of black. (Yes, black was possible, even cheap. But it was extremely unpopular for any time in which tunics were worn.) Quality: the garments look well-made in the photos.

Construction: pretty good, and the site even stops to explain it honestly: 'The tunic is a stylized smash up of sever [sic] historical styles. The tunic is long and comes to about the knees of most folks. The sleeves are long and taper to the wrist. They have gores inset under the arms to allow freedom of movement. The body is a straight tube with gores inset on the sides. Again to allow freedom of movement and it mimics the historic examples.' The only possible problem here, besides the v-neck, is the under-arm gores; otherwise this cut is accurate for 1000-1100 Scandinavian at mid-thigh length or for 800-1000 Anglo-Saxon at knee length, and may also be suitable for later periods if cut longer (it's harder to find a source for that online).

Detailing: Oops. Here is where we fall short. Tunics like these should have bands of another colour of material, of tablet weaving, or similar ornamentation. There should be a choice of neck styles - a simple boat-neck for a very early style, a round or keyhole neck for a later period. The v-neck they're using is right out. The sleeves should also be longer, and have a narrow wrist, so that they're wrinkled along the forearm. The sleeves of an undergarment should NOT show at the wrist.

There are no horrors here, but in a way that's worse: people looking at this site will take their clothing for accurate, and misconceptions will get passed along.

Yes, yes, yes!

2009-03-24T02:00:00.000-07:00

I'd like about two dozen of these, please. Reprinted to help protect it for posterity.

COSTUME POLICE: GARB VIOLATION

Giles Hill of Sweetwater

(non habeo speculum?)
(Don't you have a mirror?)

* 1. Wearing fibers not found in nature

1.1 Spandex
1.2 Polyester
1.3 Acetate
1.4 Naugahyde

* 2. Wearing colors not found in nature

2.1 Neon shades
2.2 Electric shades
2.3 "Drafn pants"

* 3. Not wearing enough clothing for body type

3.1 hose that show leg hair
3.2 Anything that outlines fat rolls
3.3 Bunny-fur bikinis

* 4. Wearing clothing from too many periods in one outfit

4.1 Sneakers
4.2 Combat boots
4.3 blue denim jeans

* 5. Recreating the Middle Ages of another planet

5.1 Gor
5.2 Vulcan
5.3 Pern

* 6. Not wearing enough support garments

* 7. Wearing military toys as clothing

7.1 chain mail bikinis
7.2 chain mail codpieces
7.3 chain mail jewelry
7.4 wearing more than five blades simultaneously
(Dark Horde excepted)

* 8. Physical alterations

8.1 fangs
8.2 contact lenses
8.2.a snake eyes
8.2.b mirrors
8.3 Hair of shades not found in nature
8.4 Pointed ear prosthesis
8.5 Visible tattoos of an obviously modern theme
8.6 Award medallions in body piercings

YOU MUST LEAVE AND CHANGE YOUR CLOTHING IMMEDIATELY. PLEASE CONSULT A FASHION ADVISOR. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD A FASHION ADVISOR ONE WILL BE PROVIDED FOR YOU. ANYTHING YOU WEAR CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF FASHION TO DETERMINE YOUR MORALS, TASTE, AND PERSONAL WORTH.

A handy bit of research

2009-03-24T01:54:00.000-07:00

And here someone has taken issue with Clothing Myths of the SCA. And they cite some kind of sources. Yay!

Realm of Fantasy Collections

2009-03-24T01:36:00.000-07:00

Realm Collections claims to be for Re-enactors: 'Thou can find all thou needs for the upcoming SCA meeting. Find all you need from SCA armor to the perfect SCA garb.'

Oh boy. If you don't know how to use thee/thy/thou, please don't try.

Anyway, some of their stuff - for example, the stuff they're reselling from Sofi's Stitches - is fine. Other things, well. They claim 'Introduced in the late 1400's, this festive Celtic Dress may still be seen in Europe today.'

What what? Oh yeah I see these on the streets of Dublin all the time. It doesn't look accurate to anything, it's certainly not 1400, and I don't care what language the dress speaks.

Well how about the... Gypsy Princess Garb?!? I won't even start.

The men get a 'Norman Saxon Tunica'. It's a perfectly inoffensive early tunic, in case you wondered; I have no idea what the Romans or the Normans have to do with it.

There is one thing I noted with joy: this site actually has a long, ankle-length tunic for men! About time someone offered one of the most commonly worn medieval garments. It's, uh, a shame that it's black cotton, huh?

Fugstumes Galore!

2009-03-23T13:27:00.000-07:00

At first I thought this place was just for Halloween and costume parties. But then I saw them talking about 'authentic looking' costumes and appealing to the Renaissance Faire crowd. And after a little look around, I've concluded that this stuff would get you laughed out of the SCA... or even a casual and drunken All Hallows bash.

I know it's hard to get a chainmail look from anything that isn't real chainmail. But I know you can do better than this. If I'm spending $65, plus a minimum of $11.95 for postage, I damn well want a real cross and not a big red splot on my tabard. And they have the gall to call this historical? Bleeeagh. It goes without saying that I see nothing period here, and I'm giving it an award for the fugliest armour I have EVER seen. God, they had garb less goofy in Conan the Barbarian!

And for the ladies, we have mismatched trim and ugly paisley! And the 1980's bridesmaid! Or maybe you want to express your uniqueness. What is that denim thing she's wearing? Yes, it's certainly unusual, but in this case I don't think that's a selling point.

And guys? I know jesters are supposed to wear bright colours, but couldn't you come up with something less hideous than this?

Most garb here is less fugly than these horrors but still sports cheap satin, crushed velvet and little lace ruffles. There's no interest in accuracy, with features from many different eras mixed randomly and executed so badly that even as fantasy garb, it fails. It is possible to create inexpensive costumes that are attractive and evoke the proper era, but it requires good sewing skills... which this place lacks in spades.

Alicia's Fugstumes

2009-03-23T10:25:00.000-07:00

Alicia's rents out costumes from almost every period imaginable, and doesn't specialise in Ren Fairs or SCA. But it's offering custom made, 'professional' outfits and hopes to provide us with the 'finest quality costumes available.' It ought to be far above the level of cheap Halloween crap.

Not so. And because the clothes are so crappy, I am going to snark away. I've seen costumes sold in plastic wrap that looked better than this thing, which they're calling Medieval though it seems like a colourblind goth with no dress sense went crazy with the discount lace. And this? Nice try, but it's too Conan for the middle ages and covers up too much skin for Conan.

On to the Renaissance. Their tiny Elizabethan section is filled with crushed velvet. I'm no purist, and I don't give a shit if you make your garb with polyester as long as it looks like natural fibre. But crushed velvet does not qualify. It's got lycra in it, and it shows.

Sadly, the Elizabethan is the best of the Renaissance sections. Bravely, I venture on into 'Jesters.' Oh, dear, what have we here? It's a hoodie. A fucking hoodie. In a colour that would look good on no one, and with shredded hems that wouldn't ever, ever, ever pass as dags. As for peasants, they might patch their clothes, but they'd never sit down and make a whole skirt out of patches.

In 'Nobility,' we pair the crime of crushed velvet with the crime of gold lamé. We clothe some poor dipshit in ill-fitting white, green and orange. Nevermind the thousands of historical inaccuracies... this thing is just plain fugly. And... oh dear. A bodice front broad enough to use for target practice, a gown made of a blatantly modern, blatantly shiny floral print, cheesy satin sleeves with lace cuffs, and let's not start on the lack of a veil.

And they've got wizards. Poorly made. In powder blue. I think they stole bolts of the stuff hospitals use to make scrubs. Want more colour? No problem. But a kid with a knockoff Gandalf costume could put you to shame.

And now for the worst crime against colour schemes of all. I could say that this dress desperately needs a farthingale, and that hanging sleeves beginning at the shoulder are not tudor, and neither is the neck ruffle, or burnout velvet, or the stupid flap of wtf at the waist. But no, I won't go into that. I'll just stare, awestruck, at the GODAWFUL BLARING ORANGE.

Cheesy, ugly, poorly made. Oh yes, fine quality costumes indeed.

Good Riddance

2009-03-23T03:15:00.000-07:00

www.MedievalBanquet.co.uk has a 'Business has closed down' notice up.

I wonder why.

A culprit!

2009-03-23T02:56:00.000-07:00

You've seen those photos of a medieval-themed wedding where the dresses are cheap satin and everyone looks a bit self-conscious, and it's not nearly as impressive as anyone hoped but everyone is too polite to say anything because it's a wedding?

Well, here's one of the companies to blame for all that. Costume Company UK advertises banquets, weddings, and themed events.

What do they offer? Cheap, badly-fitting satin for the ladies, mostly hard to identify as any place or time because there's hardly a nod to accuracy. Looking for an 'early medieval' theme, or a 'Venetian Renaissance' theme? Look elsewhere. We also have 'sorceress', 'wizard', and 'tavern wench' costumes. For the gents, mostly tunics in dark colours so I hope they didn't want much selection. The costumes often don't have any embroidery, beading, detailing, or accessories, and mostly don't include hats or have a mismatched or incomplete hat (veil-holder with no veil, etc).

Surely if someone is going to fork out hundreds of pounds for an event they should get better than this. I can get better than this from costume rental places near here.

Costume Salon

2009-03-22T15:27:00.000-07:00

Most of Costume Salon's Elizabethan gowns are spectacular... but look at them for long enough and they start seeming weird.

I have never seen an Elizabethan double overskirt, or one that stopped this far from the floor. And the further you go through their gallery, the stranger it gets. Bell sleeves beginning at the shoulder are Medieval, and the short skirt on this thing would look strange in any period. In another case, Rococo is thrown into the mix with gathered poofs. (Yeah, yeah, I know that in fashion it's a 'pouf,' but y'know what? I'm English. I Anglicise. Poof, I say, poof poof poof poof!!) In a case of confusion, we get an overskirt that curves to the sides. And as I look closer, it seems those puffed sleeves are separate from fingerless gloves and leave the arms bare. Now we seem to have gone from Rococo to 19th century! A short overskirt that crosses on the side makes this dress look part Tudor court, part Southern Belle. And what's this? A gathered overskirt with a lace ruffle? And is it just me, or does that headdress look more Alien Invader than Elizabethan Duchess?

A page later, we have a big mess on our hands. Sleeves puffed to the elbow? Fringe? And take note, ladies: that bodice front does not look Elizabethan. Foliate patterns ought to be more stylized... something like this. What they're using is not period, and not even Victorian. Such a jumble of flowers could only be 20th century.

Speaking of 20th century, some of the gowns are pure modern fantasy with barely a nod to the Renaissance. I swear I saw this same dress on a goth site, minus the farthingale. Slap the same bodice on pantaloons and you get 'Elizabethan Haute Couture.' There is so much wrong with this that I'm not even going to start. Oh, and did you know Mary, Queen of Scots was addicted to gold lamé? And if your thing is the Italian Renaissance, don't worry. They've butchered that too. Didn't I see this in a production of Turandot?

Then there's this. Oh god, oh god, my eyes!

And now, ladies and gentlemen, for the worst dress on the site. What the shit is this!? They call it Baroque? With puffed cap sleeves? A sweetheart neckline? A big belt trimmed with curtain cords? And plaid!??!

My head hurts.

The Renaissance by Maufugta

2009-03-22T11:38:00.000-07:00

Maurita's clothes aren't just historically inaccurate. They're also boooooooooooooooring. They're often historically inaccurate because they're boring.

Any medieval maiden who could afford velvet would put some damn trim on her dress. As for the Elizabethans, they went mad on clothes for court. They might spend as much on one gown as they had on their house. Remember, they had to fit in with this. Does Maurita really think her own court dress is going to cut it? One (badly) beaded band and a string of fake pearls? It doesn't even have sleeves! And the fabric pattern? Darling, that looks modern. The Elizabethan bridal gown has modern fabric too... they never would have used these little satin flowers which look Rococo at the earliest. The trim is minimal, so this would be the bridal gown of someone who couldn't afford satin anyway. And the sleeves? Even if they'd been done right, with the satin bits lacing over a separate chemise, they'd look Italian Renaissance and not Elizabethan.

The Tudors liked their fancy court dress too, and there's no way they'd wear one paltry line of braid trim. So do you think even for a moment that a Tudor princess would wear this? This is like walking around naked. There's no overskirt. No underskirt. No goddamn farthingale! This is a real Tudor princess, people, and she is not impressed.

Same goes for Medieval maidens. They'd never go out wearing nothing over their undergarments, yet Maurita offers us this. Also note that they had no front-lacing bodices in the middle ages, either. Oh, and in the kid's section? The Medieval princess costume is Italian Renaissance... done badly. Once again it's way too plain for a real princess, and no one would use that ugly, nubbly trim.

I'll leave you with one parting shot: the Medieval bride. Why is this not in her Modern section?There's nothing Medieval about it. Looks like a discount version of Lady Arwen's dream sequence. LotR was fantasy, people, and it owed a lot more to Art Nouveau than to the middle ages!

The Life of Fugly

2009-03-22T11:02:00.000-07:00

Step with me into the Life of Riley! There's a desperately small selection here, but every piece manages to be stuffed full of errors.

Let's start with Medieval England. The picture doesn't do this 'stunner' justice, they insist. Gee, maybe that's because the blurry little thing you've posted wouldn't do justice to my dog's vomit. All I can see is a grey and pink and lavender monstrosity. Maybe that's a good thing... I'm spared the delicate details of orange and teal. As I squint, I wonder: What's that smudgy pattern on the overdress? Is that underskirt made of Victorian chintz? Is that a fucking cowl neck I'm seeing? And what about that little swirly pattern you've stamped everywhere? Looks modern. I've got a lot of decorative fonts. Maybe they supersized one.

On to the Renaissance. Oh my God. Paisley? PAISLEY? Only if a colourblind Venetian courtesan got time-warped to the 60's. Once again I am spared the full horror. They're saying the sleeves are orange and the lacings are green. And what about the fabric? Synthetic velvet? Corduroy!?

Yet more Italian Renaissance, and here the colour is greige. I can't believe any noblewoman could be so dowdy. She wouldn't use crochetted lace. And what's that dangling from the bodice? A cross made out of paper clips?

Renaissance #3 is made from Laura Ashley bedsheets. Is it too much to ask that you do five minutes of research before you start stitching away?

We're not Alone

2009-03-22T02:14:00.000-07:00

Apparently someone else has been driven to suggesting a little thing we call 'standards', from the Arizona Renaissance Festival.

Renaissance Faire 101: The What Not to Wear Episode

Good luck with that!

Dress Like an Idiot

2009-03-22T02:08:00.000-07:00

Gee, with a name like Dress Like a Pirate, what could possibly go wrong?

Oh yeah, this. Nevermind accuracy - they're clearly taken from an 80's music video - these things are also just plain ugly.

Seams Like a Mistake

2009-03-22T02:02:00.000-07:00

Seams Like Magic is fine at first glance, for a site with a purple background and terrible layout. Look again:

Just what?

Devil's in the Details

2009-03-22T01:14:00.000-07:00

Here's an example of good medieval costuming gone a little bit wrong in the details, Medieval Rose Productions.

The styles look absolutely fine for roughly 500-1100. The colour choices also work, and they're using the right materials, linen and wool. The quality of the tailoring looks fine, too. They're even brave enough to put actual medieval images up for comparison. So what's wrong?

Well, compare. The medieval images right on the site are from a rather later time period than the costumes, but they show dagged edges, patterned cloth, wide bands of embroidery or contrasting cloth, and clothing lined with a different, complimentary colour. None of them show thin lines of embroidery, or show layering at the neck (except in the case of a low V-neck) as the site's samples do. No layering at the wrist, either.

Also, if you want to stand out, choose your cloth carefully. A lot of these examples look like a very smooth finish, usually the under-layers. They could look better with a slightly rougher texture, like the green layer in the last images on the page, or like this (imagine this material under that green sleeve):

To sum up, I wouldn't hesitate to request a costume from this site if their prices are reasonable. But I'd ask for a wide band of embroidery at the neck, and cloth with a rough finish, if I did. Then I'd be very careful about the accessories I wore, because Kentish in 600, Frankish in 800, or Merovingian in 1100 would all be different.

Let's also look at some medieval images closer to the time period these costumes are aimed at. There's a nice collection here.

Magical Attic

2009-03-22T00:58:00.001-07:00

Magical Attic specialises in costumes for little girls, and they've got a historical section. And commit the crime of lumping the Middle Ages in with the Renaissance. Which is sort of like saying there's no difference between Victorian fashion and the Regency. This is a blatantly Medieval design, but they ricochet from descriptions like 'flowing Medieval sleeves' to 'beautiful Renaissance costume.'

And it's not beautiful. The hat looks shoddy and the dress is crushed velvet. They never use crushed velvet for colonial dresses, so why use it here?

And by the way, how do the creators of this and this manage to make something Rococo and bill it as Victorian!?

Sofi's Stitches

2009-03-22T00:24:00.000-07:00

The usually remarkable Sofi's Stitches has produced a real howler. How could they get it so wrong after designing such gems as the 'Avon Jupon' of Flanders (which one of our posters wears proudly) and the beautiful 'Toledo' gown of the late Italian Renaissance?

I don't know, but somehow they fucked up the Northern Renaissance. This is my absolute FAVOURITE period of women's clothing and I was delighted when I heard they'd made a German gown. Then I saw this.

Most people have no clue what the Germans were wearing in the Renaissance, so here are a few links for you. The prolific Lucas Cranach the Elder painted many women, from contemporary nobles to religious figures, with pleated, striped skirts and puffed, slashed sleeves. Here is my favourite, a Mary Magdalen in a landscape. This is Salome, displaying poor Johnny's head while wearing the hautest fashions of the day. These are three Saxon princesses, painted in 1525-30 (the same as the supposed period of Sofi's blunder). Seeing a pattern?

Skirts have seams at the waist and are pleated. They've got stripes like Miss Magdalen's, and more stripes indicate a higher position in society (so, Sofi's velvet-clad damsel must be a serf!) Noblewomens' gowns consist of a brocade panel across the bust and black lacing over a white panel below. Nowhere in Northern Renaissance art do we see a princess line overdress with a v-neck plunging down to there and a separate inset piece beneath it.

It's not an ugly dress. It would be fine as a fantasy gown. But it's no more suitable for SCA than Disney's Snow White.