For and against a linen kirtle
Aug. 15th, 2008 09:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
frualeydisArguments against and for the linen garment from Rauma being a kirtle/bodiced petticoat and not a smock:
Against: It's linen and, as Pylkkänen says, there are later examples of smocks with a waist seam.
The fact that the bodice is from finer twill and the skirt from a coarser tabby is much like smocks from the 18th and 19th century.
For: On the other hand, there are examples of bodice and skirt being of different fabric on kirtles/bodiced petticoats in the 16th century (Tudor Tailor p 36).
The estimated hem width of the garment is 4,5 metres, which is very wide for a smock; unnecessary wide. The skirt is also pleated to the waist (from gored pieces), which isn't common on the later smocks with waist seams.
Against: It's linen and, as Pylkkänen says, there are later examples of smocks with a waist seam.
The fact that the bodice is from finer twill and the skirt from a coarser tabby is much like smocks from the 18th and 19th century.
For: On the other hand, there are examples of bodice and skirt being of different fabric on kirtles/bodiced petticoats in the 16th century (Tudor Tailor p 36).
The estimated hem width of the garment is 4,5 metres, which is very wide for a smock; unnecessary wide. The skirt is also pleated to the waist (from gored pieces), which isn't common on the later smocks with waist seams.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Linen Undergowns
Date: 2008-08-15 04:45 pm (UTC)/Eva
Re: Linen Undergowns
Date: 2008-08-15 04:46 pm (UTC)/Eva
Re: Linen Undergowns
Date: 2008-08-18 04:02 pm (UTC)