I found this video trying to make sense of this precise pattern, so glad I'm sewing a mockup first ! And thank you for making me feel less lost at the lack of instructions.
These look fantastic, and I totally understand your frustration with Reconstructing History! I found Black Snail's Breeches 0719 to have much better instructions and pictures but they are fall front. Still, I think your final product is absolutely stunning, and they definitely give Black Beard vibes!
was going to go with them, but the sizes at Black Snail Pattern were too big. But wish I would have just tried instead of whatever instruction the Reconstructing history is supposed to be
I thought I was the only one struggeling or it was a language barrier...but I will not be buying a pattern again from them. A shame you cannot give it back. I decided for this pattern as it fit perfectly into the time I am trying to portray...Anyway. I think I can manage with your video. Thank you
In regards to the knees not being gathered. Technically correct, but there was often more material in the leg than would fit on the keeband seam (length exclunding closure). That extra material would be eased into the front half of the kneeband to kreate extra space for the kneecap and make for a more natural fit/letting one bend the knee easier.
@@NoMoreSilkTwist I am assuming you mean the vents on waistcoats and coats. So depending on the decade, purpose and cut, the answer for that can vary. Some of that is conjecture and personal theory from making and wearing them, so I won´t give a "this is definitely the answer" for everything. Now, as the waistcoat changed, the "funktionality" of the vents and just how ornamental or vestigial they were changed, till they dissapeared fully with the very late 18th/early 19th century waistcoats that cut off at basically the waistline. There isn´t really one true purpose. It´s multiple factors that made them not only fashionable but also practical. With the doublet being kind off the ancestor of the waistcoat, and men transitioning to wearing waistcoats instead, the original lengh of the late doublet was carried over, as well as the vents already featured there if due to the somewhat differnt construction and cut changed. (interesting side note, with 14-15 century doublets you actually see the "skirt" and "vent" placement be suspiciously similar in shape to what later is seen on 18th century stays. The doublets of that time also being padded and sometimes reinfocred clothing with a structural component. Just food for thought. :D) With the early waistcoats it´s pretty much obvious that it´s a funktional elemnt. Either you make the vents into a piece of clothing nearly reaching the knees, our you use a whole lot more fabric. And then you end up with an even earlier medieval garment called a men´s (short) gown. That one has no vent´s and looks a bit like a too short dress when belted, falling in folds/natural pleats because of the exess fabric. But if you want the flat close fitting "skirt" with all the interfacing that comes with that, as well as add pockets into the garment in a very visible location, you need the vents to make that work. Without them you would have a narrow tube around your upper legs and hips and hobble yourself. Severly limiting mobility and making everything look very weird and uncomfortable. It would also make riding impossible. Another important point is, that especially with the long early waistcoats, but also the ever shorter later ones still, you want to be able to get at the side and front as well as the fob pockets of your breeches. Preferably without having to wrestle and bunch up a lot of fabric. The vents allowed to just slide your hand in between the waistcoat and breeches and give easy access. Another practical reason is saving fabric. If you make a waistcoat with vents, it will use up a lot less fabric than for example a medieval men´s gown. It also made it possible to cut the front from just one piece in many cases, or at least avoid piecing in any visible places. (Keep in mind that historically, fabric width was a lot less than today, usually 24-36", in comparasion to usually 50-60" today.) While piecing is period, having clothing that looks like it is cut from whole cloth made you look more wealthy. Basically the 18th century verion of flexing on others. We still do stuff like that today, but nowdays it´s having specific brands, and obviously trying to look better off by buying fakes. Really the more things change, the more they stay the same. (Really, no matter how differnt the past might look, when you break down why things were done in context, it really always boils down to being very much familiar, just with a differnt paintjob on top.) They also were in part ornamental, as the more stylized sharp angles and slants of the edges in the middle of the 18th century show. Especially when they later on became quiet short before the "skirt" completly dissapered. And specifically the back vent is with anything that goes past the waist and fit´s tight a good idea to improve fit and mobility, especially when sitting or bending down, even more so when you have to spend long times spread legged when riding. Modern waistcoats that are on the longer side, and especially sack´s have them for that reason to. In a lot of waistcoats that were more on the ornamental side, only ever really worn with a coat and basically never alone*, you have also back vents that go far up in addition to laces or buckles holding it closed. That was for a really tight and close fit, and to compensate eventual decrease or the more likely growth in circumfrence over time. (*Shirts are underwear in that time, showing of your sleeves in polite company is comparable to ariving in a tank top to a suit and tie event. Standards for covering up during that time for men were actually higher in many cases that for women. Women for example could show their lower arms, a man doing that would basically not just come in a tanktop, but also forgo his pants and just go with his underpants on the scale of social no goes in the context of aforementioned suit and tie event.) And with the coat, it´s much simpler. For one, pretty ornamental except for the back vent, seeing the whole mess of pleating ging on developing from the earlier more loose and wavy cut, to keep up with the tighter and more even silhouette without loosing that "look at all the useless fabric I can afford to have on my clothes!" look. The side vents also didn´t really have much function often being tacked together at the bottom to keep them from flaring, the back vent taking up the mobility and being enough due to the looser fit and coats basically never being fully buttoned closed, especially later on. But some function was still there. If you were wearing a small sword, it would be going through one of the side vents. (And as we are talking civilian, you would either wear a sword or take a walking stick, having both would make you look like a pomous fob and ass. Like wearing two expensive wristwatches, one on each wrist, at the same time. The exeption being military officers on duty, who would at times have an officer´s sword or sabre, and a walking stik as part of their "rank markings" and regalia when not in battle. So if you see a painting of a civilian with both, well, it´s either a carricature, the one who ordered it getting a jab in, or a comment from the artist on his relationship with and/or the behaviour of his customer.) But other than that, the side vent´s on a (frock) coat or Justacorpse were pretty much mostly ornamental and fashion.
@@NoMoreSilkTwist If I misunderstood and you meant something differnt, then could you clarify what else you meant by "vents"? But "vent" in 18th century men´s wear is generally the openings at the back and sides of the upper body clothes.
@@NoMoreSilkTwist Usually, one really does not have to worry about them. But for the 18th century it can be troublesome to find the right stockings. Most stuff you can find, even in specialised stores, are less then accurate and contain polymers to make them more stretchy. Finding some correct ones was a two year search for me.
You cat looks like a Tonkinese. I am not interested in sewing but I love the Tonkinese. Due to my age I will not have another one. But I can not imagine the cat was involved in all steps of your project and demanding attention becasue that is what Tonks do.
![Getting Dressed in a 1730's Suit [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hZYdrP0hI_g/mqdefault.jpg)
I found this video trying to make sense of this precise pattern, so glad I'm sewing a mockup first ! And thank you for making me feel less lost at the lack of instructions.
We are not gonna talk about how many times I’ve watched this video cause the instructions suck
These look fantastic, and I totally understand your frustration with Reconstructing History! I found Black Snail's Breeches 0719 to have much better instructions and pictures but they are fall front. Still, I think your final product is absolutely stunning, and they definitely give Black Beard vibes!
Thank you
was going to go with them, but the sizes at Black Snail Pattern were too big. But wish I would have just tried instead of whatever instruction the Reconstructing history is supposed to be
I thought I was the only one struggeling or it was a language barrier...but I will not be buying a pattern again from them. A shame you cannot give it back. I decided for this pattern as it fit perfectly into the time I am trying to portray...Anyway. I think I can manage with your video. Thank you
In regards to the knees not being gathered. Technically correct, but there was often more material in the leg than would fit on the keeband seam (length exclunding closure). That extra material would be eased into the front half of the kneeband to kreate extra space for the kneecap and make for a more natural fit/letting one bend the knee easier.
Do you perhaps know the purpose of the vents?
@@NoMoreSilkTwist I am assuming you mean the vents on waistcoats and coats. So depending on the decade, purpose and cut, the answer for that can vary. Some of that is conjecture and personal theory from making and wearing them, so I won´t give a "this is definitely the answer" for everything.
Now, as the waistcoat changed, the "funktionality" of the vents and just how ornamental or vestigial they were changed, till they dissapeared fully with the very late 18th/early 19th century waistcoats that cut off at basically the waistline.
There isn´t really one true purpose. It´s multiple factors that made them not only fashionable but also practical.
With the doublet being kind off the ancestor of the waistcoat, and men transitioning to wearing waistcoats instead, the original lengh of the late doublet was carried over, as well as the vents already featured there if due to the somewhat differnt construction and cut changed. (interesting side note, with 14-15 century doublets you actually see the "skirt" and "vent" placement be suspiciously similar in shape to what later is seen on 18th century stays. The doublets of that time also being padded and sometimes reinfocred clothing with a structural component. Just food for thought. :D)
With the early waistcoats it´s pretty much obvious that it´s a funktional elemnt. Either you make the vents into a piece of clothing nearly reaching the knees, our you use a whole lot more fabric. And then you end up with an even earlier medieval garment called a men´s (short) gown. That one has no vent´s and looks a bit like a too short dress when belted, falling in folds/natural pleats because of the exess fabric. But if you want the flat close fitting "skirt" with all the interfacing that comes with that, as well as add pockets into the garment in a very visible location, you need the vents to make that work. Without them you would have a narrow tube around your upper legs and hips and hobble yourself. Severly limiting mobility and making everything look very weird and uncomfortable. It would also make riding impossible.
Another important point is, that especially with the long early waistcoats, but also the ever shorter later ones still, you want to be able to get at the side and front as well as the fob pockets of your breeches. Preferably without having to wrestle and bunch up a lot of fabric. The vents allowed to just slide your hand in between the waistcoat and breeches and give easy access.
Another practical reason is saving fabric. If you make a waistcoat with vents, it will use up a lot less fabric than for example a medieval men´s gown. It also made it possible to cut the front from just one piece in many cases, or at least avoid piecing in any visible places. (Keep in mind that historically, fabric width was a lot less than today, usually 24-36", in comparasion to usually 50-60" today.) While piecing is period, having clothing that looks like it is cut from whole cloth made you look more wealthy. Basically the 18th century verion of flexing on others. We still do stuff like that today, but nowdays it´s having specific brands, and obviously trying to look better off by buying fakes. Really the more things change, the more they stay the same. (Really, no matter how differnt the past might look, when you break down why things were done in context, it really always boils down to being very much familiar, just with a differnt paintjob on top.)
They also were in part ornamental, as the more stylized sharp angles and slants of the edges in the middle of the 18th century show. Especially when they later on became quiet short before the "skirt" completly dissapered.
And specifically the back vent is with anything that goes past the waist and fit´s tight a good idea to improve fit and mobility, especially when sitting or bending down, even more so when you have to spend long times spread legged when riding. Modern waistcoats that are on the longer side, and especially sack´s have them for that reason to.
In a lot of waistcoats that were more on the ornamental side, only ever really worn with a coat and basically never alone*, you have also back vents that go far up in addition to laces or buckles holding it closed. That was for a really tight and close fit, and to compensate eventual decrease or the more likely growth in circumfrence over time. (*Shirts are underwear in that time, showing of your sleeves in polite company is comparable to ariving in a tank top to a suit and tie event. Standards for covering up during that time for men were actually higher in many cases that for women. Women for example could show their lower arms, a man doing that would basically not just come in a tanktop, but also forgo his pants and just go with his underpants on the scale of social no goes in the context of aforementioned suit and tie event.)
And with the coat, it´s much simpler. For one, pretty ornamental except for the back vent, seeing the whole mess of pleating ging on developing from the earlier more loose and wavy cut, to keep up with the tighter and more even silhouette without loosing that "look at all the useless fabric I can afford to have on my clothes!" look. The side vents also didn´t really have much function often being tacked together at the bottom to keep them from flaring, the back vent taking up the mobility and being enough due to the looser fit and coats basically never being fully buttoned closed, especially later on. But some function was still there. If you were wearing a small sword, it would be going through one of the side vents. (And as we are talking civilian, you would either wear a sword or take a walking stick, having both would make you look like a pomous fob and ass. Like wearing two expensive wristwatches, one on each wrist, at the same time. The exeption being military officers on duty, who would at times have an officer´s sword or sabre, and a walking stik as part of their "rank markings" and regalia when not in battle. So if you see a painting of a civilian with both, well, it´s either a carricature, the one who ordered it getting a jab in, or a comment from the artist on his relationship with and/or the behaviour of his customer.)
But other than that, the side vent´s on a (frock) coat or Justacorpse were pretty much mostly ornamental and fashion.
@@NoMoreSilkTwist If I misunderstood and you meant something differnt, then could you clarify what else you meant by "vents"? But "vent" in 18th century men´s wear is generally the openings at the back and sides of the upper body clothes.
I meant the slashes in the breeches, or gap/ hole. I don't understand their function, they're too small to get your hands through.
Are those knee bands good at keeping the stockings up or would garters need to be worn?
No you need to find another method to keep the stockings in place.
@@NoMoreSilkTwist What method did you use for this outfit in particular?
Tights... Not historically accurate, but that way I don't have to worry about it
@@NoMoreSilkTwist Usually, one really does not have to worry about them. But for the 18th century it can be troublesome to find the right stockings. Most stuff you can find, even in specialised stores, are less then accurate and contain polymers to make them more stretchy. Finding some correct ones was a two year search for me.
You cat looks like a Tonkinese. I am not interested in sewing but I love the Tonkinese. Due to my age I will not have another one. But I can not imagine the cat was involved in all steps of your project and demanding attention becasue that is what Tonks do.
Good guess! She's a Burmese and equally clingy 😉