The Hermione and 18th century clothing standards
So one of my 18th century friends had a really long (like 50 - 100 comments long) post about the clothing standards for the Hermione last Sunday (5/24) . Now, this was the first I’d seen of this, and I didn’t yet know what the standards were that they were talking about, but I followed the conversation with interest, because back when costume_snark was still an active community, that’s how I learned so much about what is period and not period for a whole bunch of different eras. Nothing like eavesdropping on other people discussing their standards for authenticity if you want to learn about what’s correct and incorrect.
Then Thursday, Alena invited me to the Hermione events in New England! Whoo! Finally I was able to put two and two together, oh yeah, that thing I saw on CBS Sunday Morning about the recreation of LaFayette’s ship? That’s the Hermione they’re talking about! The ship is stopping at both Newport, RI and Boston, MA during its travels. And the standards are for the reenactors that they want to show up to meet her at the dock.
And when I downloaded all the documents for the reenactors from the event page, I got a look at the clothing standards that everyone had been discussing on my friend’s FB wall. Just a sample, so you can see the sort of thing they posted.
Stays or Jumps:
Required if wearing a gown or jacket of any kind; optional only if wearing a bedgown. Stays are required to produce the proper fashionable conical torso shape of 1770s and 1780s gowns and jackets.
Best: Hand-sewn boned stays with leather binding, cut to the style of 1780. Fabric exterior should be linen, worsted wool, silk or leather, lined with linen canvas, and stiffened with baleen or cane.
Acceptable: Machine sewn and hand-finished stays; commercially produced stays that produce correct conical shape. Also 1770s-style stays. Stiffened with steel, or plastic substitutes.
Unacceptable: Gowns or jackets worn without stays.
Now I really want to know, who the hell is going to be checking my stays at the event? And they mentioned baleen! Now, I had a long chat with the tailor last time I was in Williamsburg, and he showed me their sample of baleen. It’s pretty damned cool. It’s also illegal to own unless you’re a member of a Native American tribe, and the sale of it to non-tribes members is highly regulated. The Williamsburg tailor told me about all the paperwork and hoops they had to jump through to obtain their sample, which is definitely for educational purposes. So why the f*** did the person who wrote up this list of standards state that they expect you to have baleen?!?! (Yes, I know it says cane too, but why even mention something that you can’t get as something they expect?).
I suspect that someone sat down and wrote up what they consider “authentic” without stopping to think about whether or not we lowly reenactors could actually achieve this ideal. The discussion on my friends FB wall also brought up the very good points that what they’re asking for is quite frankly impossible in some cases.
L - I have decided that what bugs me about the standards is that in some categories, their "best" is something that can't actually be had -- like "frame-knit over the knee stockings ". Either they're asking people to wear antiques, of which there is a limited supply, and which I would argue are better preserved for study, or they are setting a standard they actually know can not be met. And this for women's stockings which can barely be seen. How does this help anything?
M - That bothers me, too. What's the point in setting the highest standard to "unobtainable"? The highest standard should be high enough that it is something people can DO.
On the lower end -- well, I think that excluding things like orthopedic shoes or mandating that it's period eyewear or nothing would eliminate some people who are passionate about the history of the period (not just the fashions) and are very good historical interpreters but simply don't have enough money to invest in, say, an authentic pair of period frames and a set of progressive lenses, or whose eye doctors have told them that their prescription won't work in period lenses. I'd rather have them at an event talking to the public and conveying their passion about history.
For those who can go the extra mile to get authentic frames or repros that are as close as one can get right now, good for them! But I don't want reenacting to be a closed club that's only for the wealthy. We should have standards, and we should encourage people to improve, but telling people they can't play because they're too poor, old or infirm is opening ourselves wide up to charges of elitism.
M - For the most part I don't have a problem with the standards either, but I do think they're restricting some things unnecessarily. Like that business re flowers and feathers on hats. Or stockings outside an acceptable range of colors. Encouraging everyone to wear stockings in the most common colors is a good idea, and they should be doing that. Forbidding ones that might have been worn but weren't the most common seems to be a bit too far. If you can document red stockings on a woman in the 1770s (and I just saw some in a painting of a working-class woman), well, it may not have been the most common color but there they were. Are we now calling someone a farb for wearing something that's actually documentable, even if it wasn't the most common?
I know that when we founded our Guild, one of the things that I was worried about (because we have members who are passionate authenticity who can sometimes be blunt about when things don’t meet their standards) was being so authentic that we scared off newcomers. Our guidelines are written as “Good, Better, Best” with “good” being our minimum standard, and the “better” and “best” categories being what we’re aiming for. With the full understanding that some folks don’t have the time, money, or interest in hitting the “best” level for every single thing in their kit, that a mix is expected, and as long as you’re making the effort and making small improvements, you’re moving in the right direction. Hell, I’m almost six years into the hobby and I’m think I’m only finally going to get a proper shirt done this summer.
Watching this discussion made me aware, again, that insisting on a gold standard for authenticity is a really, really good way to scare off folks who might be perfectly happy operating at a silver or bronze level of authenticity. And those folks might be good people to have in your group or at your event, even if they aren’t quite at the same level as you’d like them to be. Because dayam, I was scared by their expectations.
I also posted to the event FB page about their standards. Because while I'm planning to sew myself a new set of stays and my first gown, no way, no how, am I going to hand sew the entire thing.
[Screen shot because I’m lazy]
Yeah, you kinda avoided answering my question, but whatevs. And the crazy standards of The Hive tend to make me NOT want to play with the revolutionary war reenactors around here. Every time I turn around, I’m hearing how I’m doing it wrong. And yet, when I’m down in Maryland, wearing 18th century at Market Faire, even when I’ve asked for criticism, I’ve been told that my outfit is perfectly fine. So clearly, I’m doing it right. Some folks just like to criticize others for fun I think. And in my mind, if you want to encourage standards of authenticity, you need to do it in a helpful, not punitive way. We need to stop using authenticity as a cudgel to beat people with.
One of my friends recently posted this article about criticism and ineffective feedback to Facebook, and I’ve been thinking about how it applies to more than just software development. I think there’s a history blog post percolating around in my head about this issue. We’ll see if I can get my thoughts on this topic to be more organized so I can actually get it written.
At any rate, when I got home this weekend I pulled out all my 18th century costume reference books (whew, there are quite a few), and found where I’d stashed the striped linen I bought at Market Faire. Sunday night I pulled out all my 18th century patterns and (yay) I have enough yardage for the gown I want to make. Although I may try to mail order another yard or two, so that I have some spare for trimming it.
Then Thursday, Alena invited me to the Hermione events in New England! Whoo! Finally I was able to put two and two together, oh yeah, that thing I saw on CBS Sunday Morning about the recreation of LaFayette’s ship? That’s the Hermione they’re talking about! The ship is stopping at both Newport, RI and Boston, MA during its travels. And the standards are for the reenactors that they want to show up to meet her at the dock.
And when I downloaded all the documents for the reenactors from the event page, I got a look at the clothing standards that everyone had been discussing on my friend’s FB wall. Just a sample, so you can see the sort of thing they posted.
Stays or Jumps:
Required if wearing a gown or jacket of any kind; optional only if wearing a bedgown. Stays are required to produce the proper fashionable conical torso shape of 1770s and 1780s gowns and jackets.
Best: Hand-sewn boned stays with leather binding, cut to the style of 1780. Fabric exterior should be linen, worsted wool, silk or leather, lined with linen canvas, and stiffened with baleen or cane.
Acceptable: Machine sewn and hand-finished stays; commercially produced stays that produce correct conical shape. Also 1770s-style stays. Stiffened with steel, or plastic substitutes.
Unacceptable: Gowns or jackets worn without stays.
Now I really want to know, who the hell is going to be checking my stays at the event? And they mentioned baleen! Now, I had a long chat with the tailor last time I was in Williamsburg, and he showed me their sample of baleen. It’s pretty damned cool. It’s also illegal to own unless you’re a member of a Native American tribe, and the sale of it to non-tribes members is highly regulated. The Williamsburg tailor told me about all the paperwork and hoops they had to jump through to obtain their sample, which is definitely for educational purposes. So why the f*** did the person who wrote up this list of standards state that they expect you to have baleen?!?! (Yes, I know it says cane too, but why even mention something that you can’t get as something they expect?).
I suspect that someone sat down and wrote up what they consider “authentic” without stopping to think about whether or not we lowly reenactors could actually achieve this ideal. The discussion on my friends FB wall also brought up the very good points that what they’re asking for is quite frankly impossible in some cases.
L - I have decided that what bugs me about the standards is that in some categories, their "best" is something that can't actually be had -- like "frame-knit over the knee stockings ". Either they're asking people to wear antiques, of which there is a limited supply, and which I would argue are better preserved for study, or they are setting a standard they actually know can not be met. And this for women's stockings which can barely be seen. How does this help anything?
M - That bothers me, too. What's the point in setting the highest standard to "unobtainable"? The highest standard should be high enough that it is something people can DO.
On the lower end -- well, I think that excluding things like orthopedic shoes or mandating that it's period eyewear or nothing would eliminate some people who are passionate about the history of the period (not just the fashions) and are very good historical interpreters but simply don't have enough money to invest in, say, an authentic pair of period frames and a set of progressive lenses, or whose eye doctors have told them that their prescription won't work in period lenses. I'd rather have them at an event talking to the public and conveying their passion about history.
For those who can go the extra mile to get authentic frames or repros that are as close as one can get right now, good for them! But I don't want reenacting to be a closed club that's only for the wealthy. We should have standards, and we should encourage people to improve, but telling people they can't play because they're too poor, old or infirm is opening ourselves wide up to charges of elitism.
M - For the most part I don't have a problem with the standards either, but I do think they're restricting some things unnecessarily. Like that business re flowers and feathers on hats. Or stockings outside an acceptable range of colors. Encouraging everyone to wear stockings in the most common colors is a good idea, and they should be doing that. Forbidding ones that might have been worn but weren't the most common seems to be a bit too far. If you can document red stockings on a woman in the 1770s (and I just saw some in a painting of a working-class woman), well, it may not have been the most common color but there they were. Are we now calling someone a farb for wearing something that's actually documentable, even if it wasn't the most common?
I know that when we founded our Guild, one of the things that I was worried about (because we have members who are passionate authenticity who can sometimes be blunt about when things don’t meet their standards) was being so authentic that we scared off newcomers. Our guidelines are written as “Good, Better, Best” with “good” being our minimum standard, and the “better” and “best” categories being what we’re aiming for. With the full understanding that some folks don’t have the time, money, or interest in hitting the “best” level for every single thing in their kit, that a mix is expected, and as long as you’re making the effort and making small improvements, you’re moving in the right direction. Hell, I’m almost six years into the hobby and I’m think I’m only finally going to get a proper shirt done this summer.
Watching this discussion made me aware, again, that insisting on a gold standard for authenticity is a really, really good way to scare off folks who might be perfectly happy operating at a silver or bronze level of authenticity. And those folks might be good people to have in your group or at your event, even if they aren’t quite at the same level as you’d like them to be. Because dayam, I was scared by their expectations.
I also posted to the event FB page about their standards. Because while I'm planning to sew myself a new set of stays and my first gown, no way, no how, am I going to hand sew the entire thing.
[Screen shot because I’m lazy]
Yeah, you kinda avoided answering my question, but whatevs. And the crazy standards of The Hive tend to make me NOT want to play with the revolutionary war reenactors around here. Every time I turn around, I’m hearing how I’m doing it wrong. And yet, when I’m down in Maryland, wearing 18th century at Market Faire, even when I’ve asked for criticism, I’ve been told that my outfit is perfectly fine. So clearly, I’m doing it right. Some folks just like to criticize others for fun I think. And in my mind, if you want to encourage standards of authenticity, you need to do it in a helpful, not punitive way. We need to stop using authenticity as a cudgel to beat people with.
One of my friends recently posted this article about criticism and ineffective feedback to Facebook, and I’ve been thinking about how it applies to more than just software development. I think there’s a history blog post percolating around in my head about this issue. We’ll see if I can get my thoughts on this topic to be more organized so I can actually get it written.
At any rate, when I got home this weekend I pulled out all my 18th century costume reference books (whew, there are quite a few), and found where I’d stashed the striped linen I bought at Market Faire. Sunday night I pulled out all my 18th century patterns and (yay) I have enough yardage for the gown I want to make. Although I may try to mail order another yard or two, so that I have some spare for trimming it.