ANST - Need some costuming advice

[Wayne Ross]

<snipped>
>Regardless of what fabrics, tools, or techniques you use for this garment-
>and so long as your end product *appears* to be of the same construction
>(see the note in this thread about not using zig-zag topstitching) as an
>original would have- there is a way for you to use time saving devices such
>as your serger and your sewing machine without ever violating anyone's
>accuracy issues.  The trick is in the set-up of your documentation.
>
>A dear friend of mine showed this method to me and I find it most useful:
>
>Heading- what this thing is supposed to be and from when it's supposed to
>be.  (note: do NOT include your name in your documentation- this is not a
>popularity contest)
>
>Part the Firste-  A carefully documented (use footnotes) short dissertation
>on how this entry fits into it's historical context:  where it was used,
who
>used it, and most importantly, *how THEY made it*.   This should be the
>largest section of your documentation and should go the farthest to teach
>the reader how some task was really done in period.  Use primary sources
>here to support your views and use notes such as, "if you look in photo A
>(Painting of Significance, Leonardo di Whoeverpaintedit)  attached to the
>back of the documentation you can clearly see..." to stress your points.
>
>Parte the Seconde- An exact and detailed account of how you reconstructed
>this whatchamacallit to include materials, methods, and tools.  This is the
>tell-on-yourself portion of the documentation.  In essence, when Ms
>Authentic Nose-in-the-air comes by to look at your stuff and inform you on
>how you made your left-handed-spam-opener with a modern squoozle, this
>portion of your documentation will allow you the ability to reply, "Yes, I
>know... I even said so right there in my documentation... and if you'll
read
>the documentation you'll see that in Parte the Thirde I explain just why I
>did it..."
>
>Parte the Third- I call this the justification.  If you haven't already
>guessed, this will be the portion of your documentation that allows you to
>tell the judge or reader your reasoning for errata betwixt the first and
>second portions of your documentation...
>
>*I used poly-rayon because it has the same weight and drape and color as
the
>silk and wasn't so bloody expensive.
>
>*I used another pepper instead of grains of paradise because I couldn't
find
>the darned things.
>
>*I used a serger because I intend to be a bit rough on this garment and
>would like it to last longer... also, you can't see any of my serging so it
>doesn't spoil the appearance of the garment.
>
>*I used acrylic gesso rather than a period gesso because I am not yet
>comfortable with the process to a degree that I would risk the entire piece
>by utilizing it.
>
>*I used my sewing machine because I work and don't have the time to do it
by
>hand... but you can't see any of the machine stitching- you can even see at
>the cartridge pleats where I broke down and hand sewed them on because they
>would be visible.
>
>Parte the Fourth- Bibliography.  Now this may seem an easy thing to do- but
>you wouldn't believe how badly it can be ruined.  Did you note how many
>folks referred you to Janet Arnold in regards to Elizabethan costuming?
You
>can guess from that response that if you left out Arnold, noted expert on
>the subject, as a reference there had better be a good reason.  In a
similar
>vein, check your references with *other* references as there are some
REALLY
>inaccurate references out there in one form or another and a good judge in
>your category will know it.  As an example, almost all my costuming friends
>own Patterns for Theatrical Costumes, by Holkeboer because it's a lovely
>'ideas' book for people new to the sca... but if any of us caught the
others
>using it as a serious historical reference it would be a disappointment.
>And every single subject has it's books in the same vein so beware what you
>list.
>
>Now, all that said (and I'm sure others will follow on with more comments),

>if you wish to be as competitive as you can be with the entry, then let
>there be as little difference between your first portion of documentation
>and your second... (nonono... don't *lie* about it... just do it right when
>you make it).  The shorter your third paragraph needs to be, generally
>speaking, the more authentic the piece will be and the higher your marks
for
>authenticity.  Keep in mind that even though what you have done may be very
>authentic there are many other categories to be judged including
complexity,
>originality, attention to detail, and creativity (the 'C' in SCA) to name
>some that I've seen.  Be sure also, to make your documentation less of a
>labor to read by adding in a splash of wit where you can, people being what
>they are.  I know I'm more likely to get through documentation if I get a
>giggle out of it.
>
>Hope this helps you along....
>
>Ritter Dieterich
I think that Dieterich makes very good points on how to do documentation
except that I disagree him on one point. That is I believe that you should
include your name in your documentaion. You don't include your name for
popularity but as a refrence as to who made the piece. I personally have
given my documentation to other people when I am finished because they have
asked about a particular subject therein. When these people in turn use my
documentation I would like to be given credit for my work. Also, if I happen
along and want to know who did the piece and they are not present then all I
have to do is look at their documentation. Besides, I am a student and it
has become ingrained - you put your name on everything you do.

============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.