Talk:1300-1400 in fashion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Article is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.

	Fashion Portal This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-importance within fashion.
DYK	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 March 2007
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) Find the requested citations, and this is A-class as well. Mid-importance as it's a single period of fashion. Daniel Case 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Mentioning Europe in the lead paragraph? 2 Generally speaking... 3 Medieval costume 4 DYK 5 Expert tag 6 Chaucer pic 7 I don't understand! :-)

[edit] Mentioning Europe in the lead paragraph?

Say, have you considered mentioning Europe in the lead paragraph? The categories suggest that's the focus here, but if so it'd be good to say so explicitly. Thanks, William Pietri 04:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion--Tabun1015 13:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generally speaking...

As I read through the article, I notice that I've used the word "generally" in just about every sentence. If somebody could reword it so that "generally" isn't used as often, I would appreciate it.--Tabun1015 14:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I can clean those up as I add material. - PKM 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval costume

I would like to suggest that we move 1300-1400 in fashion and 1400-1500 in fashion to Medieval costume 1300-1400 and Medieval costume 1400-1500. I am not convinced that "fashion" as we think of it really applies to European clothing in the Middle Ages. We can then fill in the earlier medieval periods as we go.

I would like consensus from other editors working on these articles before making the change.

Can we discuss here? - PKM 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say I don't especially see this as a problem. There certainly was fashion during this period; it might not have been very fast-moving by modern standards, especially lower down the social scale, but I would object more strongly to any suggestion that fashion in Europe was a Renaissance invention than to anything else. Johnbod 18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. I would have set "fashion" as much later than the Renaissance. Perhaps we should stay as-is for consistencies' sake. - PKM 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the current title is the best for the topic, but I would object to the others staying fashion, whilst pre-1500 is just "clothing" or something. If the whole series changes names, then fine. Fashion in the C13th really is, I suspect, a hard topic to address, although i'm sure it existed, but in the 14th I don't think it's too much of a stretch. Johnbod 21:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be fitting to merge the 1300-1400 and 1400-1500 articles into one article about Late Medieval Fashion. I doubt that there is enough difference between the two centuries to merit separate articles (at least no differences that couldn't be discussed in a single article), and both of the articles are rather small compared to the other articles in History of Western fashion (granted they are newer). Opinions?--Tabun1015 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC) :Also, I'm talking about a possible eventual merge. I agree that we should wait and see how the two articles develop for a while. I just think it should be considered.--Tabun1015 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC) On second thought, I agree with Johnbod. I think that the organization by century allows more consistency and depth, especially considering the rapid growth of this article!--Tabun1015 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My inclination would be to leave the two seperate, as 1300-1500 really is a very long period with lots of changes - "generally" would just break down I think. Two shorter articles would better than 1 long and misleading one. Johnbod 21:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I note with amusement that James Laver associates the beginning "fashion" with the later 14th century. I wish I had had that factoid to hand during the last round of edit wars on history of clothing vs. history of fashion. -

PKM 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm with him there, although I suspect that partly means that it is the earliest medieval period in which we are able to detect, or trace, movements in fashion, because both the quantity and quality of information is better, and the pace and depth of fashion did increase. At the moment, btw, I would be quite happy to see say titles like "1100-1300 in fashion" going backwards, even "800-1100 in fashion", if anyone fancies starting them - deafening silence I expect :) Johnbod 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

We should do one for this. It's come on really nicely, putting the next century really to shame! Johnbod 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You read my mind. Any suggestions?--Tabun1015 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well we have 4 days, so let's see whats to choose from in a day or two. Plenty of possible hooks already I think Johnbod 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking we should tag-team that next century. Just added a period shirt image for the gallery, but I really have to stop now for the weekend. Note to self (or team): we should add coifs to the text. - PKM 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that shirt is actually 13th century. Oh well, guess I should remove it for now. - PKM 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that any of the following things could be made into a DYK, with a little work on the wording:

"A fashion for parti-coloured garments made of two contrasting fabrics, one on each side, arose in mid-century, and was especially popular at the English court."	(Some mention of the invention of the handkerchief)	"Woodblock printing of cloth was known throughout the century, and was probably fairly common by the end"	"Ermine was worn by royalty, with tufts of black fur worked through the white for decorative effect"

I especially think that the first one would be great.--Tabun1015 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"...that parti-coloured clothes, divided into different colours on the left and right when viewed from the front, became popular in late 14th century fashion, especially in England?"

-perhaps? We have a nice small pic for that, and could offer alternatives (they'll check the article anyway). Thats really spelling it out, but I think that might be best. Johnbod 00:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We should get this in today (Wednesday) really - any thoughts on the draft, or alternatives? Tabun should perhaps nominate, as starter. Johnbod 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I revised the draft that you made up so that it links to the article, and added the picture. Look good to you?

*...that parti-coloured clothes, divided into different colours on the left and right when viewed from the front, became popular in late 14th century fashion, especially in England?article created by Tabun1015, nominated by ""

--Tabun1015 16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Great - stick it on Johnbod 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There it is. Template_talk:Did_you_know#Created_on_March_10--Tabun1015 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expert tag

Do you suppose we should remove that "expert-subject|Middle Ages" tag yet? I think Johnbod is our qualified expert. - PKM 02:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No - that's you! But yes let's take it off. I'll do Johnbod 03:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaucer pic

I should say I've seen a reputable reference that the Chaucer pic may be as late as 1415. I must say I find this odd, as Richard the II was dead by February 1400, and I can't see why a portrait of him made 15 years later, under Henry V, would then have his face scrubbed out, as this one does. Unlike his father, Henry V respected the memory of RII, built his tomb etc. I will try to find out more. The resolution isn't great anyway, though the image is. Johnbod 03:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't understand! :-)

"Woodblock printing of cloth was known throughout the century, and was probably fairly common by the end; this is hard to assess as artists understandably tended to avoid trying to depict patterned cloth."

No, I don't understand. why did artists tend to avoid trying to depict patterned cloth? --mgaved 12:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it is far more difficult, and at the small scale of a manuscript illustration virtually impossible. Look at the Wilton Diptych in the article, for example (570mm tall, and without many complicated folds in the cloth). How much easier would it have been to have painted the cloths as plain? But this was a piece for the personal use of the King, who could afford the extra cost. Now imagine the same figures in a manuscript illustration, with figures perhaps 1-3 inches tall. Would it be possible to paint the patterns at all? Hope this helps. Johnbod 12:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)