Dupion Silk

StaffordCleggy · Post by **StaffordCleggy** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:06 pm

What is it?

Is it suspect for C15th use?

(We have found a limited supply at £6 per metre, but don't want to spend money if it's useless to us!).

Lord Byron · Post by **Lord Byron** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:47 am

StaffordCleggy wrote:What is it?

Is it suspect for C15th use?

(We have found a limited supply at £6 per metre, but don't want to spend money if it's useless to us!).

If this works right, a few previous threads of possible use:

http://livinghistory.co.uk/forums/searc ... de=results

Right, that didn't work, but put "dupion" into the search engine, and there seems to be four thread of use:

Tuppence · Post by **Tuppence** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:13 am

'tisn't suspect, 'tis wrong.

the name originates much later, and can't offhand think of any extant bits that resemble it.

that said, there'd almost certainly have been some sort of slubby silk around and about - what it would have looked or felt like, and what used for nobody can say.

Deb · Post by **Deb** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:27 am

Slubbed Silks had al sorts of sumptuary restrictions during the medieval period as they were classed as substandard. Tuppence is very right it is wrong

Type16 · Post by **Type16** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:47 am

StaffordCleggy wrote:What is it?

Is it suspect for C15th use?

(We have found a limited supply at £6 per metre, but don't want to spend money if it's useless to us!).

Undergarments for Cleggy ?

Drachelis · Post by **Drachelis** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:09 am

the fabric classed under the dupion type does vary greatly.

I have some fabric ( from Dunelm Mills actually) that has only the very occasional slight slub - hardly noticable and I have been able to use the parts with no slub ( sort of cutting out the imperfections)but I have seen some very slubby stuff classed again as dupion.

Apparently the new stuff coming over from China has hardly any slub at all so I have been told.

But I agree that slub was a definite no no.

( Having said that I do use the les slubby stuff in my fantasy and wedding stuff where authenticity is not required)

Cherry
Shadowlight Designs

StaffordCleggy · Post by **StaffordCleggy** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:14 pm

Now that's the point here. The stuff i'm looking at is from Dunelm, & has hardly any slubbs in it & is reasonably finely woven. The kit level would be middle-class, not Nobility... ?

RottenCad · Post by **RottenCad** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:56 pm

Tuppence wrote:'tisn't suspect, 'tis wrong.

the name originates much later, and can't offhand think of any extant bits that resemble it.

that said, there'd almost certainly have been some sort of slubby silk around and about - what it would have looked or felt like, and what used for nobody can say.

Bügger! So my nice new houpelande is ...?

latheaxe · Post by **latheaxe** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:10 pm

Might being a bit thick here but...Is Dupion acceptable for jupons??,i seem to recall a post on here saying that it was suitable for surcoats/jupons??

Drachelis · Post by **Drachelis** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:18 pm

You've got jam on i at £6 a metre - they must have a sale - guess where I'm going t

Cherry
Shadowlight Designs

Tuppence · Post by **Tuppence** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:25 pm

Bügger! So my nice new houpelande is ...?

did you read the thread about it???

I actually use it quite often on the grounds that satin is really snaggy (great for re-enactment

), and taffeta splits (ditto).

something similar to dupion would have been used for something, even if a mistake or a second, but it's not recorded what ( wouldn't just have chucked it, to valuable a fibre for that).

but the name appears for the first time in the 18th or 19th c (offhand). of course it's perfectly plausable that it's been around in india for centuries as that';s where the weave originates...

Colin Middleton · Post by **Colin Middleton** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:36 pm

StaffordCleggy wrote:Now that's the point here. The stuff i'm looking at is from Dunelm, & has hardly any slubbs in it & is reasonably finely woven. The kit level would be middle-class, not Nobility... ?

Silk on the middle class? I'd be wary.

Dathi · Post by **Dathi** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:22 pm

Colin Middleton wrote:
StaffordCleggy wrote:Now that's the point here. The stuff i'm looking at is from Dunelm, & has hardly any slubbs in it & is reasonably finely woven. The kit level would be middle-class, not Nobility... ?
Silk on the middle class? I'd be wary.

Two words. Sumptuary laws. You don't start passing Sumptuary laws in the 14th Century and keep passing Sumptuary laws into the 17th Century if people are obeying them. Sumptuary laws were about as as much use as a chocolate kettle. The only real use of them is for us reenactors in the 21st Century. If someone tried to ban a certain group of people wearing a certain sort of fabric then that group was wearing it and upsetting their "betters"

RottenCad · Post by **RottenCad** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am

Tuppence wrote:
Bügger! So my nice new houpelande is ...?
did you read the thread about it???

Well, yes I did (after all, I started it!

) - I was just subtly preempting the thentifashionpolitzei !

(Got Nigel's PM about the cote - no problem at all, and I'll get it when it's ready!)

TTFN!

Colin Middleton · Post by **Colin Middleton** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:29 pm

[quote="Dathi]Two words. Sumptuary laws. You don't start passing Sumptuary laws in the 14th Century and keep passing Sumptuary laws into the 17th Century if people are obeying them. Sumptuary laws were about as as much use as a chocolate kettle. The only real use of them is for us reenactors in the 21st Century. If someone tried to ban a certain group of people wearing a certain sort of fabric then that group was wearing it and upsetting their "betters"[/quote]

I know the principals behind sumptuary laws (though I'd don't know much about the actual conditions that they 'imposed'), but I was actually thinking more about cash-flow than legal limits. If you can afford to live like a duke, you're not really middle class, even if you are just a merchant.

I'd also be careful how much you read into sumptuary laws. If a law says only Duke and better may wear silk shirts, that implies to me that lots of wealthy Earls and Lords are wearing them (and the king wants to put them back in their place), not that your aveage knight is afording such things.

Tuppence · Post by **Tuppence** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:44 pm

sorry, but dathi's dead right.

if something is legislated against there's a pretty good bet that it was a big problem.

you don't legislate against something that isn't (excluding modern times, obv.

).

also excluding the silly stuff about inside out clothing etc.

you also have to remember that medieval times saw the rise of the merchant classes. they'd be middle class, and many, many of themwould be far wealthier, and therefore far more able to afford to buy things like silks.

Dathi · Post by **Dathi** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:56 pm

Colin Middleton wrote:

If you can afford to live like a duke, you're not really middle class, even if you are just a merchant.

Middle class is such a wrong term to use I can't help but cringe, If academic Historians can't define the Middle Class without including or excluding everybody we're not going to do much better.

I would argue that the best bet is to stick to the period's own terms, regardless of what we think. A merchant is a merchant is a merchant, regardless of whether he trades in £20 worth of goods or can loan large sums of money to the crown. A rich merchant would stil have to give way to a Duke, or risk serious injury and death. Equally so in terms of dress and other outward signs of wealth.

LivingHistory.co.uk

Dupion Silk

Dupion Silk

Re: Dupion Silk

Re: Dupion Silk