Re: Cotton padding ... and some hose

[Dave Key]

I'd also like to echo the common thanks
for the discussion ... but don't let us stop now! I will always ask 'stupid'
questions, and expect to be asked them, as invariably it is the 'stupid'
question which actually makes us think. I broadly agree with Ivo that we
should be careful about over emphasizing exceptional items (like buttoned
hose) but I also agree with Gerry that often looking at this sort of exception
helps us to understand the normal. If you take the example of the hose
then the use of a button would limit the ability to control the tension
at the hip that a tied point provides. This raises questions about the
way in which the hose move and stretch. I've read countless articles on
hose all of which state almost as a 'fact' that hose cloth was cut on the
bias and used twill woven long-staple wool which you can't get now which
is why their hose stretched more than our do etc. etc. However the reality
is that there was no special 'hose cloth' and many of the surviving pieces
of hose are short staple, tabby cloth cut straight. 
There was cloth which was preferred
for hose (e.g. Kersey in England) but this raises questions of it's own
owing to the width of the cloth.
All of the above doesn't prove very
much ... but what it does do is make you consider the evidence and question
the established 'facts'. 

When you look at hose don't look at
'hose' as a single thing  ... any more than trousers today are all
the same. The combination of fabrics, style all combine. Italian hose appear
to be constructed differently to German hose. Flemish hose change dramatically
with each decade.

So how does this relate to the Cloth
armour and Cotton padding .... well it does a bit. I raised the question
of the 'blacking' again because it is important to understand what and
why this was applied. I feel Ivo's theory that the reason why the stitches
weren't coloured was because they were covered in a piping (as per C16th
fencing doublets) extremely plausible but it raises questions if true.
Why is the piping gone? If it fell off I'd expect some to remain or for
there to be at least some evidence of the stitching used to hold it in
place. If it was deliberately removed ....why? I can't see it being because
it was expensive ... otherwise why colour it (since this is the reason
we're saying it was there.

An alternative interpretation is that
the colour is not 'painted' on but has come as a result of paint transfer
from something above it ,... something which was rigid enough to not get
into the recesses where the stitches sit ... which would create straight
lines by default without complicated painting or masking but the producer.

Has anyone written to the Museum to
ask them directly what the colouration is?


Back to the subject of Cotton ... I'm
sure it varies according to region and date but Fustian was widely available
in England but in the first half of the century it was not as cheap as
might be expected and was considered to be a cloth worthy of Sumptuary
Legislation in Edward IV's 1463 Act of Apparel ... but by the later C15th
it was commonplace and cheap ... as the southern German trade increased,
so by the C16th it was a fabric of the commoner. Also I'd need to check
my notes but I'm not sure how expensive Cotton in it's raw state actually
was ... it was imported not for spinning for cloth but to make the better
quality wicks for candles.

Also on the subject of rotting Jacks
... C15th legislation from England (London if I recall correctly) regulated
against the false practice of using rotten linen in making Jacks as it
weakened them ... the advantages ... cheaper and more flexible as the fibres
break down through, just as they do in wear

 
Keep up the interesting work ... 

Cheers
Dave