Questions on a Lower Class Kirtle

[viennabelle]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a whole lot about the 16th century construction techniques!

Two weeks ago, I journeyed to Florida to spend the week with my mother. I had a lovely time, though my sister, who also was visiting, was ill. We spent the week laying low and I started--and made significant progress--on a Late 1500s/Renaissance Kirtle. Here's where it's at (click to embiggen):

I'm in a quandry about several finishing points. I've asked folks who came over last night for sewing--but our era is the 18th and 19th c. This kind of work lies outside of our expertise! So, for all my SCA/renish friends (or soon-to-be friends), I wonder if you could click below the jump and offer your advice on some things I am confused about.

1.  Bodice: Since apparently these common women gowns weren't worn with stays, I cut the bodice snuggly and allowed for boning in the back. Is it conceivable that a woman might add a busk in (not stitched) when worn (they did that in the 18th c)? But more immediately, a question for finishing--I see conflicting information about closures. Which is better--worked eyelets or sewn-in lacing loops? Also--did they ever use pins?

2. Skirt trim: All the period images I could find have fairly wide (2-3") bands decorating skirt bottoms. I have a stash of wool twill trim, but its 3/8" wide. It looks ok, but is it still too narrow?

Petticoat gathering: To guage or to pleat, that is the question! Online articles advocate flat pleats, while an article I have by Jill Hall (costume director, Plimoth Plantation) advocates guaging (aka, cartridge pleats). Any ideas which way to go? My plan is to mount whatever I have to a linen tape (folding over as needed for length)  and then to stitch that to the lining of the bodice (positioned depending on the pleating style). Also, I do plan to stitch four worked eyelets in dark brown linen to allow it to be secured closed without straining the bodice--is this ok? Finally--what about plackets? I don't have one--but I can see that it might be nice to have for modesty's sake. Is this totally farby?
Thanks for any advice--I want this to look good, so your suggestions are very welcome!

(cross posted to SCA-garb)

Comments

[viennabelle.livejournal.com]

Whoopsie--I meant 16th century! Overall, I suppose I'm veering towards a poorer woman from Italy, since I combined aspects of the Eleanora di Toledo effigy dress with a toile made from Lea Dreed's Elizabethan corset generator. Plus, thinking about it that way takes me back to a very wonderful year that I spent there in my college days...Che memorie!

Thanks for writing, it's good to get your input. I do hope we can get together some time!

[virginiadear.livejournal.com]

Well, if you're saying "poorer," I think right there we can dispense with cartridge pleating or "gauging." Probably pleated into the bodice, or gathered/eased. As I expect you know, cartridge pleating is a means (in the 1500s) of getting a very large amount of fabric into a relatively small space (the waistline seam.) Very large amounts of fabric were a form of conspicuous consumption---showed off how much fabric you could afford, especially if it was more than the garment absolutely needed.
That's not to say a "poorer" woman's clothes would be terribly sparse. (But if she's poor enough not to be able to afford to pay sumptuary fines---and there were such things---then she had to have her clothing fit the amount of cloth she was permitted to have for the type of garment she was wearing. If her *gamurra* was restricted to so many els, well, it was, and if she was on the plump side, this might pose one problem; if she were quite tall, then a different one.
This might be helpful. Try to find it through ILL, or see if one of your friends has a copy you might borrow:
The Clothing of the Renaissance World: Europe, Asia, Africa, The Americas; Cesare Vecellio's Habiti Antichi et Moderni

I'll be very interested (and gratified) to see any photos either as a dress diary, or just of the finished article! :-)