Talk:1400–1500 in European fashion

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 at Talk:1300-1400 in fashion - PKM 17:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus so far is to leave as is. - PKM 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is a consesus but im reading recently litrature about and mostly period 1400-1500 is described as a late medival/gothic/ period not renaissance fashion period. There are some precursors of renaissance fashion but still its medival. Can someone tell me why you put this in renaissance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1400-1500 is the Renaissance in Italy, where it started. - PKM (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Other renaming suggestion

Having just categorized this into Category:15th century, I notice most other articles there following the naming convention "15th century in ...". Ought we not to do likewise? Daniel Case 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All the fashion series spell the dates out. Johnbod 10:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions. This whole series follows the format of 1850s in fashion etc., which existed in stub form before I got here, and I simply followed the existing convention. I am not terribly happy with the categorization (history of clothing vs. history of fashion) as it stands either, even though I suggested it as a compromise to end an edit war between two people who both seem to be inactive at the moment (gory details here). I will open a discussion in the Fashion project area. - PKM 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, after 1500 the articles are on periods of 50 years or less, not full centuries. - PKM 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a convention to use "ORDINAL century" for article titles focusing on a pure 100-year period in the western calendar, as opposed to year ranges where specifics are needed (and also, "1400-1500" is going to get you nitpicking from the people who like to remind you that a) "1400" is technically the last year of the 14th century and not part of the 15th and b) that's a 101-year period, really and c) how can you include 1400 in both centuries?).

Also, I notice the lede of the article specifically refers to European fashion, which accurately reflects the contents therein. To avoid a lack-of-global-perspective problem, why don't we further consider "15th century in European fashion" as the title? Leaves room for something like "15th century in Chinese fashion" if and when it ever comes up. Daniel Case 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should take this up at the Project level, perhaps after studying the lengthy previous discussions on naming the series. Johnbod 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Galleries

I will probably split the galleries (especially women's!) into "Italy" and "Northern Europe" or possibly "headdresses" and everything else. Still thinking. - PKM 21:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Split into Northern and Italy - matches what we did with 1500-1550. - PKM 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I will be adding Spanish and early Italian women's examples and making this galleries for Italian and Spanish 1400s-1440s and 1450s-90s or similar. Collecting images now. - PKM 04:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Date

Can anyone date this image: Image:Aveu René 2.jpg? - PKM 19:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The event was 15th Feb 1469 - not sure on MS - probably soon after. From here:[1] Commons updated. What ***** does these upload descriptions? Everything except the date! Johnbod 03:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Things we need for this article

• Describe hose legs becoming attached and front flap that becomes codpiece
• Spanish image(s)
• English image(s) - got some
• If anyone knows more about hennins than I do please check my work!

- PKM 20:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC) - Updated PKM 18:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Utah link

The link Tabun has added is very useful but really brings home how little consensus there is among costume historians on what many names meant & when they meant it. The best account of the difficulties of putting names to clothes in the period that I've seen is by Reed - linked to at Chaperon (headgear), which is a real case in point - did anyone see Cappuccio btw? Johnbod 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Missed cappuccio entirely! - PKM 04:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on costume article 15th century

I've copied this from my talk-page, as there are many things we should add:

Cotton well documented for undergarments.

Bras existed! Experto crede! I have an undeniable ref. of one ca 1470's (too esoteric for Wiki probably).

Braies held up by a belt? Drawstring rather, no?

Shirts plain open neck, or drawstring, or ties.

Hose often had no toes or heels (just a strap under the foot).

Hose tied to the doublet by points. Points are laces of cloth of leather, often with metal ends for easy threading. Usually tied in a half-bow, ie: with one loop and two 'ends' showing. I know of no instance of hose being attached to a belt – any refs of this? Workmen often loosen the back points for ease of movement (no elastic!). Courtiers wouldn't be seen dead doing this – rather like loosening your tie today, or rolling up your shirt sleeves (as today, class level could be ascertained by the amount of flesh shown…). Can sometimes see workmen with doublet taken off, still attached to hose, dragging behind.

No pockets observed pre-1500 (would like to see these – I can hardly believe they were not). Purses ubiquitous. Rings worn on any finger – particularly the index – and any joint!

Hose was still worn low-down on the hips in the 1470's, although doublets no longer had much 'skirt'. Rare now to see separate hose, except maybe in rural scenes.

Shoes: boots possibly more common than shoes outside courtly life. Turnshoes most common. Short boots often made of one piece of leather. Hobnails observed, also what appears to be thin rope sewn on to soles, for traction. None of these pointy – only in court and maybe bourgeois circles.

Very common: long riding boots made of one skin, the top of the foot folded over and strapped to the edge. No seams except the back one, perfect for waterproofness. Thighs often worn folded down under knee. When worn up, often a strap attached to doublet to keep them up.

Unbelievably quick change from pointy shoes to square ones. Circa 1490's, and all over Europe, apparently instantaneously..! Reaction against pointy shoes? There is an interesting figure in one scene from Durer's 'Maximilian's Triumphal Arch' where a group of captives includes a figure dressed in the manner of the 1470's, tight hose, short doublet, pointy shoes and all – bizarre! The change happened so quickly everywhere, anyone would think they all subscribed to fashion mags circulated by email.

Hats: Tall berets in 1470's Burgundy a must (like the silly one the Bastard is wearing in the Memling), or, more typically, the illustration that comes after it in your article.

General: Italy, as usual, quite different from northern Europe.

by Nick Michael , copied from my talk page Johnbod 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a pic of pre-Grandson (1477) slashing? Asks Nick Michael. Even a single slash? I've had a quick look & can't see one, but will keep an eye out. Johnbod 16:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Women's chaperons

I'm dubious that women wore the Chaperon (headgear), except in its simplest hood form - this was after all one of things Joan of Arc was charged with at her trial, as masculine behaviour. The headgear worn by Robert Campin's women, for example, are not chaperons. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, indeed. Let me see if I have a citation for that (and who it's from!) - PKM (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Jan van Eyck 091.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jan van Eyck 091.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-17239634.html
  • In 1400–1500 in fashion on 2011-05-23 02:59:25, 404 Not Found
  • In 1400–1500 in fashion on 2011-06-01 15:25:40, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:1400–1500 in European fashion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Very well referenced and comprehensive. Mid-importance because it's a single period. Daniel Case 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 01:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Motifs

@PCC556: Current MET source only says "coveted throughout Europe and also in Turkey, where production demonstrated reciprocal influences" & "silken-pile textiles developed from earlier fifteenth-century". If the "MET says the pomegranate motive didn't appear till Soleyman reign" can you link, please? Such a source would be useful.

I note, however, that the source added by PCC566 to cite it does not appear to support PCC566's contention that: "The pomegranate and artichoke motive first originated in Italy in the early 15th century and didn't reach the Ottoman Empire until the 16th century as demonstrated by https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tsaconf/1042/ (link to Fanelli work), but does say, in passing:

The pomegranate. which signified fertility and immortality in Eastern religions, was absorbed into Christian symbolism. [p. 195] ... In ancient times the pomegranate fruit passed from the East into the Graeco-Roman world. [p. 196]

— Bonito Fanelli (1994).

and the Koslin source says:

Central Asian textile versions of the pomegranate had reached Europe during the Yuan period; the motif was also taken up by Ottoman weavers in Bursa and Istanbul on a grand scale during the fifteenth century.

All I am saying is that: "floral designs [incl. pome, presumably] ... were developed in reign of Süleyman I" ≠ "didn't appear in Ottoman Empire till Süleyman reign ..." They're not equivalent statements. (And the Ottoman uptake is not really the bone of contention, anyway, is it? ...)

Not sure if you wish to comment, @Golikom:? AukusRuckus (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

New trends emerge among the Danes

I'm unsure of the relevance of this section: New trends emerge among the Danes. It is mainly a quotation from Arnold of Lübeck (died c. 1214). Does anyone know how this connects with the topic (1400–1500)? How is it specifically relevant; does it need additional text to make that clear? Any comments or help appreciated. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Cut - it was already in 1200–1300 in European fashion, rightly or wrongly. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I just added it to that page, and decided it really should be deleted here: You beat me to it. Thanks! AukusRuckus (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)