I must have been tired and unable to get my brains working when I read your post late last night, I have missunderstood what you were saying. Perhaps I have missed one of your previous posts where you were giving more details about your project?
I had understood that you were making a 14th century cotehardie along with a supportive kirtle to wear underneat, that's why you were making reference to later 15th century undergarments. Yes of course, I do have evidence of back lacing in my files, in fact, as far as I know, I think that I was the first person on the web to find evidence of this, but I don't have anything prior to late 15th century or 16th century, so I didn't think that it applied to your 14th century project.
As far as the alledged seam under the breast goes, I still strongly believe that it's only a crease, especialy on the lady's effigy as you can crearly see the fold of the fabric and the relief that the layers create, which is a normal reaction of the fabric considering her big belly. Weyden always traces his seams very dark and precise, I don't see any line that goes accross the gown anywhere neither on the sketch nor on the huge painting reproduction that I have at home, only sketchy grey shading. But I'm not basing myself on period art in order to com to this conclusion, I'm mearly making a statement based on my 31 years of sewing. Any fitted gown will create such a line under the breast if it isn't cut to follow the curves of the body, especialy if another supportive garment is worn underneat. This occurs when I wear *ALL* of my kirtles. Unfortunatly, I generaly photoshop every picture before posting to the internet and so I remove every unwanted creases from the pictures, so I only have evidence of this on my very old pictures. But I will try to keep an original version of my pictures the next time that I make a kirtle or cote, just for the sake of it. Here's one exemple however ;
no subject
I appologize, I'm confused,
I must have been tired and unable to get my brains working when I read your post late last night, I have missunderstood what you were saying. Perhaps I have missed one of your previous posts where you were giving more details about your project?
I had understood that you were making a 14th century cotehardie along with a supportive kirtle to wear underneat, that's why you were making reference to later 15th century undergarments. Yes of course, I do have evidence of back lacing in my files, in fact, as far as I know, I think that I was the first person on the web to find evidence of this, but I don't have anything prior to late 15th century or 16th century, so I didn't think that it applied to your 14th century project.
As far as the alledged seam under the breast goes, I still strongly believe that it's only a crease, especialy on the lady's effigy as you can crearly see the fold of the fabric and the relief that the layers create, which is a normal reaction of the fabric considering her big belly. Weyden always traces his seams very dark and precise, I don't see any line that goes accross the gown anywhere neither on the sketch nor on the huge painting reproduction that I have at home, only sketchy grey shading. But I'm not basing myself on period art in order to com to this conclusion, I'm mearly making a statement based on my 31 years of sewing. Any fitted gown will create such a line under the breast if it isn't cut to follow the curves of the body, especialy if another supportive garment is worn underneat. This occurs when I wear *ALL* of my kirtles. Unfortunatly, I generaly photoshop every picture before posting to the internet and so I remove every unwanted creases from the pictures, so I only have evidence of this on my very old pictures. But I will try to keep an original version of my pictures the next time that I make a kirtle or cote, just for the sake of it. Here's one exemple however ;