behold, the costume maven speaks....
well not quite >grin< but i have learned a few things about sideless surcoats.
The sideless surcoat apears to have evolved from earlier sleeveless over tunics and "sur" (on top of or outer) cotes
one of the most well known is the Cyclass, a soldiers or horsemans tunic, but the basic ancestor was a sleeveless, or at most short sleeved, long tunic type of outfit.
the surcoat followed two pathways in fashion during the SCA time period.
1. Open in front
2. closed in front
In both cases the surcoat followed the usual progression in clothing of becoming more exaggerated and styalized until its origonal purpose became lost, or at least obscured. Usually this is also in an attempt to "display" better, whether by conspicuous spending, or sexualization. there is sometimes a reaction to this and the outfit returns to its roots, although that is not always recognized.
some examples of clothing exaggerations are the pointed toe shoes of the middle ages and rennaisance, the exaggerated sleeves of the middle ages, and the modern necktie.
1. the open in front surcoat can be seen in many forms, from the wrap closure coat of the middle east and asia, to the modern vest, coat, and etc. in period it is easy to see the evolution of the cyclass, into the Spanish Ropa. Still sleeveless, or with padded shoulders, and open in the front, it evolved from a working horseriders outfit to the elaborate court dress of Elizabethan times. Since i primarily work with the sideless surcoat, i have little research on this subject.
2. the closed in front surcoat started life as a sleeveless overtunic, very similar in style to the tunic or cote or gown under it. originally a man's style, the lack of arms was useful to women's work as well.. so the "surcoat" was simply a means of having another layer over the chest and legs, for warmth and modesty, while leaving off one layer on the arms to free the arms for more delicate work (andresolving some of the shoulder/armpit binding problems)
lowering the armholes slightly, simply allowed for more freedom of movement. however, as the armholes lowered the exaggeration of garments became focused on that fact. Over a relatively short amount of time (compared to other garment changes in the same era) the armholes became startlingly low. Sermans began to be preached about how women were showing their "undergarments" or at least implying that what you were seing was under wear.
for peasants, the sidelss surcoat continued on for some time as a kind of medieval jumper/apron combo. worn loose and belted up to hang in slightly baggy folds, suitable for carrying items. For the wealthy, however, it became narrower in the front as the armholes began to dip. eventually the garment featured large "cut outs" showing the curved shape underneath, and accentuating the hips dramatically. Sermons against such outfits were very specific about how immodest, unchaste, and lust inducing these garments were.
Eventually, of course, the fashion for conspicuous use of fabric weighted againts it, and fashion swept away to a newer image, except for the lingering use of the sideless surcoat as a "regal vestment" used by Queens, and styalized and stiffened and fitted into some semblance of regal beauty. so when you see those illuminations and statues of elegant Queens, wearing their heraldry and furs in a sideless surcoat, remember that they are wearing the distant cousin of your jumper or sundress, and the descendant of the medieval version of the thong bikini.....
so i would love to wear one, but they make me look fat......
no way sister!
The sideless surcoat is your FRIEND. It can make a round woman look like she has a waist, and the skinny woman look like she has curves, its all in how you cut it.
(besides, you can throw these suckers over ANYTHING and look like you are dressed.. as long as you have a hat. A good set of hats, veils, and jeweled snoods can carry the day, trust me. I cant count how many times i threw my sideless on over a long sleeved T shirt and got compliments. its all in the style and the hat.
anyway.
first thing, most people assume the back and front should be cut the same.
WRONG.
If you have a perfect figure you can get away with it, but if you dont? cut the back wider than the front.
The wider YOU are, the more you want the back cut wide, and the less curve you want in the back
i cut my back panel in a angled straight, not curved, line from the shoulder to the hip. This back panel forms a visual frame for your curves, and since i am a big lady, i want a wide panel back there so i look thinner in front.
the second mistake is to assume you want the armhole the same depth as the one your friend looks good in.
nope, not even close.
The armhole should stop at your hip or wherever you are wider. If you carry all your weight on your hips and legs, cut that baby down LOW, but if you carry your weight even a trifle above the hip? stop right there.
If you cut the armhole to below your widest point, you will visually "hang out" over the armhole, and that looks awful.
So if you have a wider waist than hip? stop at or above your waist for a best look. most women can cut their armholes pretty low, but only a few can cut all the way to the hip and still look good.
Now, lets look at the front panel.
this assumes your armholes are cut to below your waist. if not, just curve the front as if it was a oval armhole and go on from there...
I dont care how fat you think you are, never cut the front panel in a straight line unless you are going for the early baggy pesant look. trust me. The curve of the front panel should visually draw a curve on your figure. You are basically creating an illusionary waistline curve following the cut line of your front panel. Its like visually drawing an X on your body.
so the surcoat should be cut to the absolute widest part of your shoulders, then curve in gently to the natural waist
and then curve out dramatically to the hip. (or just above)
Now here is the fun part.. most people when they lay the cloth out on a flat surface and draw the front curve on the fabric, draw an even semi circle. but your waist is not halfway in between your shoulder and your hip. your waist is much closer to the hip than the top of your shoulder! Remember you are starting the curve from the shoulder, not from under the arm! so the curve to the waist is gradual, but from the waist to the hip is very quick.
and remember the back is always cut a bit wider, but if you are cutting a curve, it should also have its narrowest points at the waist (or wherever the front does)
Since when i cut mine i almost leave the back in a straight line to the hip, the final shape should look more like a bottom heavy D when seen from the side.
Finally the skirt.
Its a truism that the more material you put in the skirt, the slimmer you look on top. besides if you have heavy legs or something you want them to have lots of room in graceful flowing skirts.
onetrick to make your surcoat lie and move correctly is to cut the gores so they angle to the back basically you want the front of the gore (the part toward YOUR front) almost straight up and down, and the angle of the gore very steep to the back.
like this: / l
this makes the back stand away from the curve in your back, and puts the drag of the skirt behind you, like a train.
BELT ILLUSIONS
If i am wearing a loose surcoat, i belt across the front of my surcoat, but under the back, and then adjust the belt and my clothes to give me the right "look"
if i have a fitted surcoat, the belt is either worn *exactly* over the hip of my surcoat, as if it was part of it, or under it entirely.
welcome to my garb obsession!
and remeber, no outfit is complete without the right headgear.
the surcoat was worn with a range of headgear (depending on country and time) but generally the full wimple and veil was more often worn during the period that the surcoat was cut higher in the armholes, and the little round hat and barbette goes with the lower armholes.
(but that is les of a hard and fast rule than many)
i wear mine witha jeweled hair net, which has the most examples i have found in period illumination. besides i have a snood habit from
guendalina to keep up on.
The sideless surcoat apears to have evolved from earlier sleeveless over tunics and "sur" (on top of or outer) cotes
one of the most well known is the Cyclass, a soldiers or horsemans tunic, but the basic ancestor was a sleeveless, or at most short sleeved, long tunic type of outfit.
the surcoat followed two pathways in fashion during the SCA time period.
1. Open in front
2. closed in front
In both cases the surcoat followed the usual progression in clothing of becoming more exaggerated and styalized until its origonal purpose became lost, or at least obscured. Usually this is also in an attempt to "display" better, whether by conspicuous spending, or sexualization. there is sometimes a reaction to this and the outfit returns to its roots, although that is not always recognized.
some examples of clothing exaggerations are the pointed toe shoes of the middle ages and rennaisance, the exaggerated sleeves of the middle ages, and the modern necktie.
1. the open in front surcoat can be seen in many forms, from the wrap closure coat of the middle east and asia, to the modern vest, coat, and etc. in period it is easy to see the evolution of the cyclass, into the Spanish Ropa. Still sleeveless, or with padded shoulders, and open in the front, it evolved from a working horseriders outfit to the elaborate court dress of Elizabethan times. Since i primarily work with the sideless surcoat, i have little research on this subject.
2. the closed in front surcoat started life as a sleeveless overtunic, very similar in style to the tunic or cote or gown under it. originally a man's style, the lack of arms was useful to women's work as well.. so the "surcoat" was simply a means of having another layer over the chest and legs, for warmth and modesty, while leaving off one layer on the arms to free the arms for more delicate work (andresolving some of the shoulder/armpit binding problems)
lowering the armholes slightly, simply allowed for more freedom of movement. however, as the armholes lowered the exaggeration of garments became focused on that fact. Over a relatively short amount of time (compared to other garment changes in the same era) the armholes became startlingly low. Sermans began to be preached about how women were showing their "undergarments" or at least implying that what you were seing was under wear.
for peasants, the sidelss surcoat continued on for some time as a kind of medieval jumper/apron combo. worn loose and belted up to hang in slightly baggy folds, suitable for carrying items. For the wealthy, however, it became narrower in the front as the armholes began to dip. eventually the garment featured large "cut outs" showing the curved shape underneath, and accentuating the hips dramatically. Sermons against such outfits were very specific about how immodest, unchaste, and lust inducing these garments were.
Eventually, of course, the fashion for conspicuous use of fabric weighted againts it, and fashion swept away to a newer image, except for the lingering use of the sideless surcoat as a "regal vestment" used by Queens, and styalized and stiffened and fitted into some semblance of regal beauty. so when you see those illuminations and statues of elegant Queens, wearing their heraldry and furs in a sideless surcoat, remember that they are wearing the distant cousin of your jumper or sundress, and the descendant of the medieval version of the thong bikini.....
so i would love to wear one, but they make me look fat......
no way sister!
The sideless surcoat is your FRIEND. It can make a round woman look like she has a waist, and the skinny woman look like she has curves, its all in how you cut it.
(besides, you can throw these suckers over ANYTHING and look like you are dressed.. as long as you have a hat. A good set of hats, veils, and jeweled snoods can carry the day, trust me. I cant count how many times i threw my sideless on over a long sleeved T shirt and got compliments. its all in the style and the hat.
anyway.
first thing, most people assume the back and front should be cut the same.
WRONG.
If you have a perfect figure you can get away with it, but if you dont? cut the back wider than the front.
The wider YOU are, the more you want the back cut wide, and the less curve you want in the back
i cut my back panel in a angled straight, not curved, line from the shoulder to the hip. This back panel forms a visual frame for your curves, and since i am a big lady, i want a wide panel back there so i look thinner in front.
the second mistake is to assume you want the armhole the same depth as the one your friend looks good in.
nope, not even close.
The armhole should stop at your hip or wherever you are wider. If you carry all your weight on your hips and legs, cut that baby down LOW, but if you carry your weight even a trifle above the hip? stop right there.
If you cut the armhole to below your widest point, you will visually "hang out" over the armhole, and that looks awful.
So if you have a wider waist than hip? stop at or above your waist for a best look. most women can cut their armholes pretty low, but only a few can cut all the way to the hip and still look good.
Now, lets look at the front panel.
this assumes your armholes are cut to below your waist. if not, just curve the front as if it was a oval armhole and go on from there...
I dont care how fat you think you are, never cut the front panel in a straight line unless you are going for the early baggy pesant look. trust me. The curve of the front panel should visually draw a curve on your figure. You are basically creating an illusionary waistline curve following the cut line of your front panel. Its like visually drawing an X on your body.
so the surcoat should be cut to the absolute widest part of your shoulders, then curve in gently to the natural waist
and then curve out dramatically to the hip. (or just above)
Now here is the fun part.. most people when they lay the cloth out on a flat surface and draw the front curve on the fabric, draw an even semi circle. but your waist is not halfway in between your shoulder and your hip. your waist is much closer to the hip than the top of your shoulder! Remember you are starting the curve from the shoulder, not from under the arm! so the curve to the waist is gradual, but from the waist to the hip is very quick.
and remember the back is always cut a bit wider, but if you are cutting a curve, it should also have its narrowest points at the waist (or wherever the front does)
Since when i cut mine i almost leave the back in a straight line to the hip, the final shape should look more like a bottom heavy D when seen from the side.
Finally the skirt.
Its a truism that the more material you put in the skirt, the slimmer you look on top. besides if you have heavy legs or something you want them to have lots of room in graceful flowing skirts.
onetrick to make your surcoat lie and move correctly is to cut the gores so they angle to the back basically you want the front of the gore (the part toward YOUR front) almost straight up and down, and the angle of the gore very steep to the back.
like this: / l
this makes the back stand away from the curve in your back, and puts the drag of the skirt behind you, like a train.
BELT ILLUSIONS
If i am wearing a loose surcoat, i belt across the front of my surcoat, but under the back, and then adjust the belt and my clothes to give me the right "look"
if i have a fitted surcoat, the belt is either worn *exactly* over the hip of my surcoat, as if it was part of it, or under it entirely.
welcome to my garb obsession!
and remeber, no outfit is complete without the right headgear.
the surcoat was worn with a range of headgear (depending on country and time) but generally the full wimple and veil was more often worn during the period that the surcoat was cut higher in the armholes, and the little round hat and barbette goes with the lower armholes.
(but that is les of a hard and fast rule than many)
i wear mine witha jeweled hair net, which has the most examples i have found in period illumination. besides i have a snood habit from
guendalina to keep up on.