Page 2 of 2

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:13 pm
by guthrie
I think twice now I have seen people looting bodies at an event, only to pull off the boot of someone, and find a nice pair of M&S best socks underneath, or hiking socks. Cue a quick "It doesnt fit" and attempts to put the boot over the offending socks.

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:19 pm
by DomT
Well I for one cant afford £500+ for a pair of socks.

However when pulling on my hand sewn hose, brays, pourpoint, linen shirt and such I get to footware, look at the fantastic boots I have and have to hunt round for a pair of socks that wont show over them I get a bit niggled.

I'd like a more authentic option that doesnt cost a fortune.
Even more important for the t'other half. If she's gone to the trouble to be wearing a shift, kirtle and gown of varying colours she'd like to be able to lift her skirts a little as she walks to show off the contrasting colours.
Nice shoes but bare feet underneath? Surely not! Stockings are a requirement!!

Good point about looting. I've also had footware failure out on the field leading to exposing inauthentic socks....of course I guess I could just strap on my sabatons and wear combat boots......:)

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:25 pm
by William
Erm, Dom, surely for your period (late medieval?), footed hose are the answer, not socks! :D

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:32 pm
by DomT
Trouble with footed hose is that they wear out before the rest of the hose do.

For under armour I prefer single leg hose and socks.

For posh kit I wear by higher better boots so its not a problem.

Plus I dont just do late medieval. :)

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:38 pm
by William
Fair enough, apologies! :oops:

May still help for the t'other half though? 'Half hose' are easy.

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:41 pm
by Nigel
Like Dom I cannot afford £500 for some socks

Debs ahs over the years tried to make em and the results litter the hosue like the high seas fleet at Scarpa.

I have both footed and unfooted hose but prefer unfooted for medieval wear cloth cut footed for 17th

So what sally is offering is a good compromise.

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:46 pm
by sally
Lets see how the trial pair work out, it may be that the idea doesn't hold up to the wearing, but then again I'm hopeful it will even pass the battlefield looting test, as it really shouldnt be possible to tell the diference from more than 10 feet away.

Will post photos of the test pair, and I'm sure Nigel will report back on how they wear, so final verdicts on whether they do fill a gap or just confuse things can be decided on then :D

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:47 pm
by Tuppence
ok - replying to a few thing here, so bear with me....

My personal opinion is that front-opening would be fairly universal amongst poorer women of childbearing age, simply because it's impossible (or at least incredibly fiddly) to breast-feed with any other type (voice of experience), and poorer women would presumably not be able to afford one for when they had a babe in arms and another for when they didn't...

In theory the most common type for child bearing women would be a version that laced at the sides (both of 'em) as well as the front. That way as the woman gets bigger during her pregnancy, she can just loosen the lacing. Works much better than one that fastens solely at the front (obviously working women wouldn't necessarily have had the confinement period).

2. Albert - first, you are clearly showing a complete ignorance of how clothing is actually made - the construction techniqes of machine sewn clothes are actually completely different from those of hand sewn clothes, and the result is that they do actually look quite a lot different. Likewise on hand made cloth vs. machine made.

Second, you've completely missed my point regarding the extreme labour intensiveness of naalbinding - yes, if anybody wants me to make a pair, I will charge them accordingly (the example I quoted was for a pair of approx. size four - larger sizes would of course take longer, and therefore cost more).
But anyway, my point is that I have never met a re-enactor (or museum or film/tv purchaser for that matter), who would pay the amount it would be necessary to charge. It's unrealistic and naiive to assume that they would.
What do you propose to do about the fact that we're all to tall and clean, and well fed - and that the military types aren't broken enough?

I think the other real point is a compromise is a compromise - none of them are justifiable, but most of them are necessary.
(Natuarally, I don't include things like modern glasses and desert boots in this - they're not a compromise, they're a cop out.)

And since you do not like the idea of a modern concession used simply because it's hidden, I presume that you do not wear modern underwear when in kit, or have modern things hidden in your tent where they're out of sight. Like I saud - compromise is compromise - it really doesn't matter what form that takes.

BTW, I note that you haven't answered the question regarding your group.

Good point about looting. I've also had footware failure out on the field leading to exposing inauthentic socks....of course I guess I could just strap on my sabatons and wear combat boots......

s'a bit 19th century :wink:

Erm, Dom, surely for your period (late medieval?), footed hose are the answer, not socks!

As it happens, footed hosen are around for the whole of the medieval period. As are cloth hosen for women (ones that tie above the knee).
In earlier medieval times there are even footed hosen with leather soles. And for viking types there are footed trousers.

But having knitted / naalbound socks is really nice and comfy.

But as well as that, knitted socks are also right for Dom's period (proper knitting, that is, done on two or more needles). It's around in Britain from (probably) sometime in the 13th century (no one can say for certain when - but it's definitely becoming established by the early 14th c. (It wasn't just hats :D ).

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:53 pm
by William
Please don't get me wrong, I wasn't criticising Sally's idea - I think it's a very good one indeed, I just took from Dom's avatar that he did late-ish medieval, and so there was an even easier solution. That's all, just trying to be helpful! :D

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:29 pm
by DomT
No worries William.

I am mostly late medieval these days. However I mess around in Early Medieval, pre Conquest, 18thC and 20/21st Millitary* as well. I'm trying to give up Norman/Vike stuff but I keep getting talked into 'one more show'.

Anyone got a source of those 'half hose'? Make a good pressie for the Mrs. She's a decent enough kirtle/dress maker but we like to buy in the posh kit.

(*before you ask I've been a 'Bad Guy' for a couple of things run by the company that produced 'SAS are you tough enough' like most re-enactment filming a bit of a laugh and it's a lot more comfortable wearing jeans/schemack and carryinga AK than wearing armour and carring a bardiche)

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:44 pm
by Nigel
Dom pmd you

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:49 pm
by Hobbitstomper
Suggestion for Sally

Not sure if anyone has suggested this but how about also just making the top bits and letting people sew them to/over their own socks?

Ankle sizes don't vary half as much as shoe sizes and it would allow you to make more of the difficult/visible bit which re-enactors are after.


Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:35 pm
by sally
Its a thought, only catch is part of the plan is that the rest of the sock will be in the same wool as the top, which should help if one has to quickly change shoes with MOP around as you'd have to look very hard to tell the difference at a quick glance.

When I've taught people to nalebind in the past I've often suggested though that they do just what you propose and work a plain band of nalebinding onto an existing anklesock as that means thay can practice the basic stitch without worrying about shaping a sock. Its a good way to get up to speed and have something useable at first attempt. :D

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:32 pm
by m300572
more than 10 feet away

That'll be five pairs then? :lol:

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:59 pm
by GinaB
or a silk shirt where all parts that were covered by a suit jacket were made of cotton because they couldn't be seen.

Actually, there is a bit of a historical precedence for this, albeit that my examples are later - 17th c waistcoats often have a cheaper fabric for the areas that do no show, but very fancy cuffs and front. The examples I'm referring to - from 'Men's Costume 1580-1750' (London Museum) have for instance, "watered silver tissue, except for the back down to the waist and back of the sleeves down to the elbow, made of a cheaper cream watered silk; lined with cotton and linen mixture, except for the fronts and the skirts, which are lined with cream silk" and "gold and silver material with a little red, blue and green silk, woven with a pattern of frmal foliage and stripes; the back down to the waist, and the sleeves except for the ends, are of cheaper yellow silk".

Yes, both examples still use silk as the 'cheaper' fabric, but these are also items considered good enough to have been kept. I'll bet your lesser folk made even bigger compromises where it couldn't be seen!

And, for a more medieval example - why else detachable sleeves than to give the impression of an undergown made of expensive fabric?

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:19 pm
by Tuppence
Please don't get me wrong, I wasn't criticising Sally's idea

don't worry - I know - the rant-y bit wasn't intended for you, just trying to clarify stuff a bit.

17th c waistcoats often have a cheaper fabric for the areas that do no show, but very fancy cuffs and front.

I'd forgotten that that's not a new thing - it's exactly what's done with modern waistcoats (have you seen the price of lining fabric wholesale? - it's ridiculously cheap!!).

Wasn't just done with men's clothing either - there are petticoats and quilted bodices that have more costly fabric only where it would be seen, and cheaper stuff where it's hidden.