Historical Costuming vs. Historical Re-Enactment: What’s the Difference?

Amen.

In the year+ that I’ve been following you, it has always seemed extremely clear that I’m following your learning processes, and it’s been a lot of fun.

I’m glad that you were able to write such an eloquent response to someone who is clearly just trying to stir up drama.

Pish posh! I AM and reenactor, and a proud stitch-counter! Almost everything I make is as accurate as possible, and I very, very, very rarely cut corners. BUT! I love this blog! You do beautiful work and it is inspiring. I've learned from you! Haters gonna hate.

I do have a degree in fashion design and have worked in the industry for a while now. Although I do have that training and experience, and I consider myself Great at what I do, (modest aren't I? lol), I know I still have a lot more to learn.

Katy, that is a great quote, and so true! I love seeing the garments that are atypical. The one that comes to mind is the block-printed caraco in the V&A that has the funky back construction, no seams on the sleeve heads. It's a perfect illustration of this. I know I construct stays too modernly, and I use metal grommets and plastic zip ties for boning. I wear tank tops under my corsets, and sometimes wear argyle socks under my petticoats. The silhouette is important to me, as you say, not particularly what's on underneath. This doesn't mean I'm going to go and insult re-enactors who do wear all the proper stuff. More power to them!

FashionK, hahaha, just a little longer on the shoes! I more than anybody am anxious to start this little business going :-).

You're right, just ignore it, and most of the time I do. I have a little battle in my mind when I think about posting about this on-going saga on facebook or here on the blog. I don't want to use this space to complain, but I do want to use the blog to talk about relevant issues, in this case the difference between costuming and re-enacting, because the lines are blurry. That being said, these are *my* definitions, based on what I've picked up over the years.

As for taking things personally, it's hard not to. I'm trying to start or run a business and it's being slammed by this woman. I'm glad you all can see through it and still support me, though! THANK YOU a million times over!!

You are such an inspiration!!!:)

Huzzah for Tweed Ride, "period-esque" balls, costumed picnics and all the other we-just-wanna-dress-up-and-have-fun events we have! And giant kudos to those of a more serious bent who take the time and effort to accurately portray historical eras for reenactments; I love to see what they do but I don't want to do it myself!

Lauren, you've always made it clear that you do this for fun and that it's a learning process. You've never made claims to total accuracy, and in fact go to great pains to point out where you've used modern materials/techniques to avoid confusion. Anyone who claims to be mislead or lied to in any way is clearly an idiot. You are an inspiration to costumers on both sides of the fence and I know you'll continue to make amazing things despite the fact that one woman who has clearly proved herself insane to multiple people is insisting on pursuing her ridiculous vendetta. Also, you have giant costume cojones for taking on commissions and the attendant risks 😉

Now if anyone needs me, I'll be over here in my character shoes, stays and sunglasses 😛

This comment has been removed by the author.

I hand-sew every inch of my garments and spend as much time researching as possible to make them period correct. Do I expect anyone else to do so? No!! That would be insane! The purpose of my garments is to be used in an educational manner specifically on said sewing techniques.
Using previous time periods for inspiration in making a garment at any level of sewing and accuracy is valid with so many other purposes. You aren't devaluing the garment (or the time period) by using modern techniques. I could go on for hours about my opinion on this matter, but you get the idea. Keep it up! You will always be a source of inspiration.

Preach it, Laruen! 🙂 I think very few of us here on the historical blogging front can claim to be total experts… Because in the end, none of us lived back then so we don't really know exactly what it was like! Even the best of the best, like ColeV with all her BEAUTIFUL accurate gowns, can only go off the information we have and the fashion plates we can see.
It's different in the case of Farb, where they are claiming to be totally, 100% accurate and are demonstrating that to the general uneducated public. But you (and at this point, I am not either!) are not a reenactor. This is for FUN and we are all learning together. 🙂 Just because you choose to be cost (like your super affordable shoes which I am totally gonna order) and time (machine sewing!) effective does not mean you are making anything "the wrong way."

Robin, I hope Clint doesn't mind that I posted that photo. It's one of my favorites of him, hahah <3

Way to go Lauren! I love your stuff and I'm sorry for a person who's to miserable to appreciate what you do. It's been so great looking at all the thing's you've made, I too love dressing up and I wish in my little area I had more places to show it off. Keep up the good work!

As someone who came upon your blog only a week ago, and very happily looked through your work, and is also a historical costumer and likes to obsess over details, I think what you do is lovely. If anyone else has an issue, than they can go elsewhere. Everyone can choose there own level of accuracy, but in the end, its all for the joy of creation.

I've been reading your blog for about a year. I love it.
I do commend reenactors for keeping history alive, but I'm a costumer at heart too. The color, silouette, and type of fabric is what's most important to me. For Pete's sake, I wear my summer petal pushers under my skirts instead of propper pantiloons.
Its unfortunate that people think its okay to say nasty things about others. Really, when is it necessary to pound someone into the ground because you have a personal problem with their methods? There is absolutely NO occasion to gossip and flame anyone. Constructive suggestions for future improvement or a civil discussion with just the other person is always appropriate. But the public spewing of poisonus bad will and name calling is just wrong.

I <3 your blog! Don't give a second thought to that person's comment. Your costumes are very beautiful and inspirational!

Sounds like she who must not be named is at it again!.. Your site has a role to play Lauren, don't let her get you down, but making a distinction between reenacting and costuming is a good move on your part. So many new to the reenacting hobby are lacking in experience and can't tell the difference between a costume blog and one devoted to historical accuracy, often not as much fun or as visually pleasing. The best part of all of this is that SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED is a total FARB.. and looked upon with disdain by all those who know her, so don't take anything she says to heart. Hallie

Time Travels, I'm really sorry to hear that your friend was snarked on. That can end a person's costuming hobby before it even starts, and it's the absolutely WORST when I see it happen at faires. It happened to my best friend and it was quite a blow! In regards to your friend's pageboy haircut, though, clearly the person who commented on it has not seen the painting "Memories/Du lawn tennis" by Fernand Khnopff, dated 1889.

http://www.expo-khnopff.be/def/fr/Afbeeldingen/H2.jpg

Hallie, I am honored to have you support, as I know you are a stickler! You keep me on my historically correct toes! Your input it always valuable 🙂

Bravo! Well said, everyone! Hang in there, Lauren, and thank you for encouraging all of us who are just starting out with our costuming and historical fashion obsessions. Seriously, why do people have to be so mean!?

Yeah, that person clearly has terrible issues, and it's sad how she exposes her insecurities and emotional problems to all the world. We all know you rock, and I personally hope you rock on with the blog forever. ::throws the horns::

For seriously? Could someone offer the poor woman who's spreading this junk a stick to get her panties out of their death-hold bunch? Dang.

Lauren, I love your work. It's inspiring and beautiful. You've never made any claims that your way is the only way, or that you don't have any questions. Anyone who claims to know it all…clearly doesn't. We're all still learning, because there's so much to learn. It's this kind of horrid attitude that has driven people out of reenacting–I have dear friends who came back to the hobby tentatively after being ridiculed for having the wrong clothes and calling it quits. That should never happen.

And as a reenactor…you know what? I have some fab pics of myself in a handsewn gown and a pair of sunglasses to top them off. 😛 And many reenactors actually do stop at "good enough"–we may joke about the three-foot rule, but I sew most of my interior seams by machine and take other shortcuts. We're there for a myriad reasons–dead-on clothing authenticity isn't always the front runner, losing out for some people to interest in camp life, martial techniques, or even period-accurate cooking. It's supposed to be fun. When it stops being fun, you're doing something wrong.

Cranky lady is clearly doing something wrong, and I bet she's not having nearly as much fun as the rest of us.

Since we're 'fessing up here, I wear cotton pj bottoms under my gowns. LOL!
Lauren, I too love your blog, and love to learn all the time.
Val

Jeans and zip up boots, HOW COULD YOU!!!??? haha, just kidding. The last time I wore 18th c., I had on argyle socks and obnoxious plaid slippers with pom-poms on the toes. No rational reason why, just couldn't be bothered, hahaha.

Rowenna, what is the three foot rule? And I totally agree, if it stops being fun you're doing something wrong. Time for a new hobby, lol

Oh, also, Emmaline, you could direct future snarks to page 318 of the Kyoto Costume Institute's "Fashion" book, which features a 2 page spread closeup of the painting showing the bobbed hair, and if they don't know which book you are referring to you can laugh and walk away <3

Madame B, most of what this lady writes is in all caps, hahaha. EXTRA EMPHASIS!!!

Oh, it's really one of the drawbacks of putting yourself out there publicly, isn't it? People think they know you and make all kinds of silly assumptions. If they can't see that your blog is *your* experience and that you honor us by sharing your experience with us well, pfffft on them. As Aviatrix1879 says above, just rock on and do what you love to do!

Lauren–LOL, we joke sometimes that, if you can't tell it's wrong at three feet (or ten feet…depending :P), then it's fine 🙂

Anyone who reads this blog must see the title is American Duchess – if you don't know that there are not actual Duchesses in America then you will not "get it" that this is a costumer blog, not a re-enactor blog. I teach fashion history but when I dress up I am a costumer, not a re-enactor. Carry on with your great work Lauren. I can't wait for the shoes.

Yup…Those were the stays that I use to support my hip gusset decision. Its nice to have proof for the Stitch Nazi's so you can rub it in! LOL. It also helps since I hate binding the tabs, makes my fingers sore.

Lauren,

I love keeping up with your blog and fb. I always look forward to what will be next. You are an inspiration to many. keep up the good work!

I am a historical entertainer. That means I use history to educate and entertain. My garments are not 100% historically accurate. I use a polyester blend when it "looks right". I am not into sewing by hand. My garments are used to set the tone, educate and entertain. I have enjoyed your articles and have learned from your posts. Keep up the good work and don't let the negative comments get you down. I just had a gentleman inform me that in my brand new business commercial, my pockets were visible. I informed the gentleman that if my pocket was under my clothing, as was usual, I could not educate folks about the item. There will always be those individual who are desperate to prove they know more than everyone else. Just be pleased that when you wake up tomorrow, you are not one of them! LOL! I am.

Also, as Gail and others have said, the original stitch-Nazi who complained that her 17th century bodice was being boned even though it was going to be worn over stays (as if that was the only thing done in the 17th century) didn't really know *her* costume history. In fact, according to Janet Arnold, the words "bodice" and "stays" could occasionally be used interchangeably, as in "Terms used by Taylors" in _The Academy of Armory and Blazon (Book III)_ from 1688: "In a WOMAN'S GOWN there are these several parts, as The STAYES, which is the body of the gown before the sleeves are put to or covered with the outward stuff … COVERING the Bodies or Stays, is the laying the outside stuff upon it. … WAISTCOAT is the outside of a Gown without either stays or bodies fastened to it".

Also, according to _An Illustrated Dictionary of Historic Costume_ (originally printed in 1876) by James Robinson Planche, "'A pair of bodies' is mentioned in the fifteenth century, and the modern word 'bodice' is evidently derived from it. … The coxcombs of the seventeenth century wore bodices, as the dandies now wear stays: 'He'll have an attractive lace, and whalebone bodies, for the better grace.' _Notes from Black Fryers_, 1617."

The very first 17th century gown (ca. 1660-5) on page 21 of _Patterns of Fashion_ book 1, is of an ivory silk bodice that is mounted on a stiff, boned "corset" lining made of linen. When I visited the Costume Museum at Bath many years ago, the oldest gown in their collection was a wonderful silver taffeta gown from the same period (1660s) with the fully-boned stays built into the bodice lining, making a separate pair of stays superfluous.

In later years it seems to have become the standard to wear your (not fully-boned) garments over a separate pair of stays, but the 17th century looks to have been a kind of anomaly in that respect! Perhaps the person was really thinking "18th century" instead of "17th century"? Anyway, I am both a costumer and a historical re-enactor, and your putting some boning in the 17th century bodice — even if it was going to be worn over stays — is perfectly correct in both worlds!

South Bay, you said it! And there are the references to back it, very informative and well-put. Thank you!

Once again you are all amazing, and I thank you so much for your support. I'm also glad to see that so many have something to say on this subject, because we can all learn from each other, and all DO on a regular basis, evidenced by South Lady's comment 🙂

Brava Duchess. 🙂

Funny, but that letter manages to do the exact opposite to what it intended. Karma, I suppose.

Haters gonna hate, my friend. Back in the early days of costume websites, even before there were dress diaries, I learned this first hand when I began putting my personal views and opinions online. I still remember the first nastygram I got from a well known owner of a historical pattern company who took umbrage with my critique of Elizabethan Costuming For The Years 1550-1580 by Winter & Savoy.

You're a highly visible blogger, and you're also very upfront about your motivations for costuming. I think there's no mystery about what you do and what motivates you to do it… And it's going to piss off people who feel their way is the only way. But I say, keep it up. 🙂

I'm so glad I took the time to read these comments and see some of you are in MN. I sometimes feel like the only person here who still likes playing dress up.

I only found your blog a week ago, but I love it. It gives me ideas for my own costumes.

MrsC, get as many photos of every thing you possibly can in Bath! We need to live vicariously through you 😀

I agree with everyone. This person is just a hater. Hopefully, she'll find someone else to hate on. I, personally, love your blog (and your new shoe line). I have been sewing costumes for about 12 years, and you are an inspiration to me.

PS, I just re-read my comment and realized that I started a numbered response and then just abandoned it to go off on my tangent! LOL Sorry. Bottom line: MS is crazy; you are wonderful and not crazy (at least not in a bad way); we love you. That is all. 🙂

Thank you! You're all right, this is a hobby, it's for fun. It doesn't mean we don't get obsessive about history. History is why I costume! Hobbyist are often the most informed people because we love what we do so much. Anyway, I'm not going to let An Historical Lady bother me anymore. She can go sit in a corner and seethe about how much she hates me, but I know I have the support of all you wonderful people, and I will never stop sewing!

You know I am with you — sometimes I like to be historically accurate, and sometimes I just want to be a pretty, pretty princess. I think the key is to be clear in your motives, and to cite your sources (eg I read it in Janet Arnold, or I saw it on an extant garment, or what I've read in Janet Arnold tells me it was done X way but I'm going to do it Y way because I want to!). And, to do whatever the hell you want to do! It's your life, your blog, your sewing, etc. F 'em if they can't handle it.

I just wrote a comment but don't know if it went through or not (darn computer!) but just wanted to say keep up with the good work! Let those who wish to be miserable be miserable and reveal themselves to the world as the mean, rotten, miserable people they are. The stuff you make is beautiful and amazing and inspiring.

It's all about honesty, intention, and context. Employing the colloquial nonspecific "you" for the sake of example…

If you're doing costumed interpretation at a historic site, then you're presenting yourself as part of a museum exhibit, and the visitors have a right to expect that the material culture draped on your body is just as carefully researched and carefully reproduced as the furniture, carriage, blacksmith shop, etc. Accuracy – to some degree or another – is genuinely important when people are being educated about history by your in/and your clothing.

If you're going to dances or costuming events or fancy dress picnics, then you can do whatever you want. You can be just as accurate as the most rigid standards any museum could impose….or, like Kendra said, you can just be a pretty, pretty princess. Steampunk, pirate, cartoon character, and hilarious interpretation are also perfectly reasonable choices. Seeing Trystan's sushi-printed Victorian gown remains one of my favorite memories from the first Costume College I attended.

The various approaches to creating and wearing clothing that in some way relates to things people used to wear or might have worn…well, obviously there are many, many approaches. They aren't all appropriate in every context, but there is absolutely no reason to disparage a costumer who creates for the sake of making beautiful costumes, for failing to meet standards that have nothing to do with her.

It's like going to a museum, peering at a Renoir for a while, and then pursing your lips disapprovingly while tut-tutting about how it's an improperly structured research paper. I mean…what? It's obviously not a research paper and no one was claiming it was a research paper. And in the case of these (and other) comments by this person….clearly she's missing 17 or 18 other key points as well.

Honestly, given that I'm doing my undergraduate thesis project on reproducing historical clothing via painstaking and exhaustive research, I obviously feel very strongly about historical accuracy. When someone is claiming historical accuracy, or is in a context which makes claims of historical accuracy. I also firmly believe in everyone's right to have pretty pretty princess dresses, and in general to manage their hobbies as they please.

Though I will say that I've found that historically accurate underclothing consistently seems to work better than modern substitutes, and that 90% of the time, synthetic fabrics are 90% composed of brimstone and torture. So sometimes accuracy can have its own rewards. 😀

If it's any consolation, the nasty commenter is currently selling elastic-waisted "petticoats" in her "Antique store."

And as to your accuracy, considering the fact that nationally respected, prestigious Colonial History sites are constantly updating their standards on what is "appropriate" and "accurate," one can safely say that the only truly accurate approach to historical sewing is one of adaptability and an earnest willingness to learn.

I stumbled across your blog while doing some extra-curricular poking around about 18th century costume. I have not read all the comments, but I think your answer to the Defamatic Lady is excellent. I trust she does her stitching by rushlight huddled next to an open fire in between trips to the outhouse. I have very much enjoyed looking around your blog, and will undoubtedly return.

I completely agree. Actually most period television shows and movies aren’t historically ‘accurate’ either. Honestly would be no fun for the costumer if it was, and not marketable to modern audiences.