500 Years of Correcting “Historical” Halloween Costumes

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments

Me at the start of the video: "wow she's being really pedantic about costumes."

Me halfway through: "what were they thinking putting an insufficient amount of fluff on that collar. You tell 'em lady."

👍︎︎ 137 👤︎︎ u/Cptcuddlybuns 📅︎︎ Oct 27 2019 🗫︎ replies

I didn't think I would be so interested in the history of fashion. Her drawings are also awesome!

👍︎︎ 167 👤︎︎ u/EarlyAwakening 📅︎︎ Oct 27 2019 🗫︎ replies

She reminds me a bit of my sister, who is an english prof. Speaking to her with improper grammar is like hitting her with 50cal sniper shots. The art was quite nice though :)

👍︎︎ 87 👤︎︎ u/LeostormFFXI 📅︎︎ Oct 27 2019 🗫︎ replies

I put this video on for my fiancé and she said “oh I know her”.

The niche hobby of historical fashion is pretty small.

👍︎︎ 32 👤︎︎ u/CaptainJingles 📅︎︎ Oct 28 2019 🗫︎ replies

The way she talks reminds me a bit of CGP Grey for some reason. Not only the accent, but the tempo and which words she emphases. @2:10 is one of the parts where it is extra apparent

👍︎︎ 60 👤︎︎ u/Carlen67 📅︎︎ Oct 27 2019 🗫︎ replies

This was way more interesting than I thought it would be. This woman knows her shit. Nice drawings too

👍︎︎ 41 👤︎︎ u/DennisDBagley 📅︎︎ Oct 27 2019 🗫︎ replies

Abrupt Saxon interlude got me feelin strange

👍︎︎ 7 👤︎︎ u/[deleted] 📅︎︎ Oct 27 2019 🗫︎ replies

WTF? I am related to her. Most I've heard he talking in years.

👍︎︎ 6 👤︎︎ u/itsnotmine624 📅︎︎ Oct 28 2019 🗫︎ replies

She’s the Dwight Schrute of historical costumes.

👍︎︎ 26 👤︎︎ u/joeyluvsunicorns 📅︎︎ Oct 27 2019 🗫︎ replies
Captions
- Hallowe'en is nigh, friends, which means, at least in America, we are graced with such intellectual brilliance and sumptuous craftsmanship as the quintessential Party City costume, some of which endeavor to represent historical dress. What's that? Blatantly unresearched mass market attempts at the very thing I spend my entire life obsessing about? Reluctantly ignoring the great ethical elephant in the room regarding cheap mass production of synthetic based garments made to be worn for a single night and then thrown away. As that is not the point of this video. These costumes, well in terms of historical accuracy, it seems like some of them don't even try. And I know that's not the point. The point, as I understand, is to impress your fellow party goers with a copious display of Legs or something. But lest we let an innocent population be mistakenly led to believe that these are an accurate representation of how our ancestors would have dressed, I'm going to briefly take you through five centuries of historical dress with Spirit Halloween Adventure Emporium to guide the way. Quick note that I have done my best to source public domain primary images and portraits that accurately reflect what I am describing. So, those will pop up on the screen at opportune moments, but in many cases, images required are held under copyright and as the commercial licensing fees would literally five times exceed the amount that this video would earn in actual commercial revenue. Links to these images are provided in the description box below according to the numbered footnotes that will appear onscreen, if you care to have a look at them. Annoying, I know, but this is life. So, this first one. Obviously, there is a very deliberate deviation from the history here, but let's see what we can do. First of all, I will pedantically point out that they've titled it "Renaissance Guinevere Costume", which if indeed they mean to imply that this to resemble the Guinevere from Arthurian legend, which is supposedly said to have taken place some time around the sixth century AD, is as far from the dawn of the "Renaissance" period in the fifteenth century as we millennial folk are from Shakespeare. in Þonne stunde Engliscgereord swiðe elÞeodiglice wæs gespræcon. That is English even as the Renaissance would have known it was spoken very differently back in ye olde Arthurian times. But I digress. Considering that although very little remains to tell us exactly what was worn in sixth century Anglo Saxon Britain, the style vaguely hinted at on the model seems to be more fifteenth century early "Renaissance", so let's go with that. Reluctantly, swallowing my snark on the heavy make up and electric iron curled hair, women of the fifteenth century, do I really need to say this? Wore long dresses. In fact, if you were of the nobility or in royalty class, you'd probably be wearing a dress so long, you basically couldn't walk anywhere. Hence why we see women frequently depicted in paintings and illuminated manuscripts holding a literal armful of skirt all the time. Structured garments aren't really a thing quite yet. That's right, friends, no corsets here and not until the sixteenth century. As her under most layer, our fifteenth century lady would be wearing a smock. Probably white and made from fine, strong linen. Next, she'd be wearing a kirtle, or underdress, which would be of a contrasting color to the over gown, so that at least you get to have some fun when you inevitably have to keep picking up your endless skirt. So the costume vaguely got this right, although the split front skirts wouldn't become a thing until around the sixteenth century, along with the deep square neck line. Square neck lines are starting to become a thing in the mid-fifteenth century, but necklines at this point prevalently tend to be quite wide. Almost off the shoulder. So, close but not quite. The kirtle, however, could potentially be seen through a front gap if the over gown is laced at center front. Oh, and the lacing. How to Spot Poor Research in Period Costume 101. Look for the lacing. Cross lacing, such as this, doesn't become a widespread thing until the nineteenth century. There is of course, rare exception, but for the most part, garments are closed either with spiral lacing, one thread of lace spiraling through off set holes, or more specifically to the medieval and Renaissance eras, ladder lacing, which appears as a series of perfectly horizontal rows. The over gown is close fitting enough, presumably to provide a bit of bust support, but is not yet affected by heavily structured support garments. These close fitting gowns are a mark of high status, as they involve an incredible amount of fabric wastage when cut out, and fabric, especially silk, was handwoven and extremely costly. Lower classes would have worn looser gowns, but our lady seems to have opted for the bougie form fitting look here, so we'll go with that. Although whatever's going on with that waist seam, which isn't actually sitting at her natural waist at all, is not a thing. Gowns of the fifteenth century tend to either to be cut in long shaped panels without a waist seam, or do have a waist seam but in the style of the gown called a houppelande, but the waist line on that is raised to under the bust and the front of the gown is densely pleated. Close fitting tended to be the trend amongst the fashionable, we have just discovered form fitting cutting techniques, after all. So most of the sleeves we see depicted are very tight fitting, closing with rows of small buttons along the forearm. Unless the goal is to have Exceedingly Extra sleeves, in which case, they are in fact as Exceedingly Extra as the skirts, not those floaty little 1970s bell sleeves. These garments could be made from the natural fibers available: wool for colder weather, linen for warmer weather, or silk if you're really posh. Alas, the bright synthetic fuchsia color is a shade that won't come into existence until the invention of aniline dyes in 1856, so we'll adapt that to a slightly redder shade that could have been achieved with madder root. Finally, sorry Sexy Renaissance Guinevere, but the hair has got to go. Again, although with occasional exception, women are mostly depicted wearing hoods or veils. These were worn over a cap? cloth fillet? we don't really know because we don't really get to see them beyond the occasional tantalizing peek from under her hood. But the hair would likely have been worn plaited and looped up at either side then the hood or veil pinned securely to the cap-thing tied underneath. These do not necessarily need to coordinate with the rest of your outfit, so go ahead and rock that woad blue hood with your red gown. And thus we have our new and improved medieval lady. Yes, ok a bit more involved and a lot more expensive than that $58 price tag, but what happens in the sixteenth century? It's got to be Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I, of course. And we have a bit of contrasting decades happening here. She seems to maybe have a very small conical hoop under the skirt, which would have been more popular in the middle to early latter part of the century. Although, of a much more substantial cone shape, of course. However, the large upright collar is most definitely a style of the very end of the sixteenth century, from the 1590s up until the Queen's death in 1603. And the skirt shapes are very different by then. Let's go ahead and assume the skirt shape is a mistake, while the collar is intentional, and aim for around 1595. The defining silhouette of the late Elizabethan period is the extremely elongated conical upper body, with the wide circular skirt shape created by the French farthingale, or essentially a wide ring-shaped skirt support worn at the waist. The underskirts and skirts fall over this support to create a distinct drum shape. The second part of the sixteenth century is the first point at which at least currently in 2019 we have found evidence of a separate stiffened upper body support garment. Known in the period as a "pair of bodies". In fact, one of the two pairs that survived from the Elizabethan period are attributed to Queen Elizabeth herself, having been installed on her funeral effigy. So the pair of bodies, yes the precursor to the nineteenth century corset, did exist and were worn at this time, although evidence or lack thereof, suggest that they were not common amongst all classes of people. And that the upper nobility classes and the Queen herself were primarily the ones wearing them. The ruff, which previously sat round the neck, could now be worn open, framing the edge of the bodice. And unlike our weird, slim, little fantasy Princess shoulder puff sleeves on the costume. OG Elizabethans required ultimate puff. The entire sleeve just one massive puff. The ruff would have been worn in addition to the second floaty collar thing which was not a regular feature of dress amongst normal non-royal Elizabethans and in terms of hair, well, the style on the model looks like it's trying to be Ancient Greek. Elizabethans tended to sculpt a sort of heart-shaped hairdo, and as Elizabeth was very fond of pearls, like *very* fond of pearls, she is often seen in portraiture having large pearls stuck into her hair, so, I'm not quite sure why the model's got a necklace on her head and an Ancient Greek fillet or something. The deep red color on the costume is something that could have been achieved with natural dyes, but the over dress would not have been made from polyester crushed velvet. The gown would have been made from elaborately woven damask silk and probably embellished with precious beads and yep, more pearls. And because whoever needed subtlety anyway? The kirtle underlayer which could have been seen through a split front skirt, now acceptable, would have also been made from a patterned silk and probably also embellished. So yes, once again, copious embellishment and expensive handwoven silks, probably are not the most cost effective plan for mass manufacture but, at least the silhouette could have been given probably a little bit more effort. Which brings us to the pilgrims of the seventeenth century. First of all, they are not even trying to make these fabrics not look like actual plastic in the picture but that is entirely beside the point. In terms of silhouette, this one isn't bad. I attribute this to the fact that the pilgrim figure is the first we're seeing that isn't intended to reflect the high-fashions of Royalty or nobility. You can get away with quite a bit when distinct skirt shapes aren't involved. Assuming this costume is supposed to reflect that of those pilgrims present on that particular Mayflower voyage, we're probably looking at some not- quite high fashionable sixteen twenties. Once again, like her predecessors, she'd still be wearing a white linen smock under everything which we'd see the upper bit from under the bodice. Not sure what that plain circle round the neck on the model is but I suspect it's meant to represent the large falling ruffs or wide flat collars, generally worn by the upper class in seventeenth century portraiture. The costume does get the presence of the white cap correct, but according to history, it should be shaped less like a mid nineteenth century bonnet, concealing the peripheral vision, and should be set further back on the head. While there is evidence again of pairs of bodies existing by this period, it's still not very likely that those beyond the upper classes would have worn them. Particularly as the bodies and stays we see during the seventeenth century are really heavily boned with approximately 1.5 million slim little bones which I can confirm takes approximately one whole eternity to stitch by hand. The bodices, kirtles, or doublets themselves would have been stiffened and laced or pinned together tightly but likely we're not corsetted as we may say today, and would close down center-front again with laces or pins. The skirts would have been long and full with lots of gathering at the waist. And she may have worn a bum-roll for some additional fluff, however, at least amongst pilgrim classes, we now have done away with large skirt supports. The presence of the white linen apron is indeed correct, but with a slimmer waistband to be perfectly pedantic, and that tealy-blue shade is a perfectly achievable color with the natural woad dyes on the linen or wool that would have been used to make up the original garments. Our eighteenth century lady is actually a vampire. The historical accuracy, let alone existence of which is debatable, but here we are. We are back to the upper classes here, with what appears to be emulating the court fashions of the mid-eighteenth century. The loose ruffled cuffs and the skirt shape suggest the middle of the century when skirts reached their widest width amongst fashionable society, but the sleeve cuffs had not yet developed into the small close fitting ones of the latter part of the century. The shape of the skirt is achieved with a wide panier, made of cane, baleen, iron, or wire, and was wide high on the hips, not inexplicably in the middle of the leg like on the costume. And was otherwise flat across front and back. The gown, probably a robe à la française, which would have had a pleated cape-thing at the back, would have been open at the center front, pinning in place at either side of the separate stomacher, which would in turn have pinned to her stays. Yes, by this time we are now seeing the near ubiquitous wearing of stays, the immediate precursor to the corset, by all classes of women. And although they tended to be worn underneath the gown by the fashionable lady, they weren't necessarily strictly underwear. And working women are often seen depicted in portraiture and illustrations wearing just their stays over their shifts, petticoats and skirts. But anyway, stomachers could indeed be decorated with lots of bows. Lots of bows. And the dress itself, particularly these long front robing panels, would have had no skimping on the ruffles. So, good try twenty-first century, but we're going to need a much stronger ruffle game than that. Even the petticoat, which would have been seen through the front split of the gown, could have been heavily ruffled with tiered flounces of the hem, scalloped edges, and more, more ruffles. Meanwhile, this collar thing isn't accurate at all, and I assume the aim was more #vampireaesthetic than historical accuracy with this one. I could make a distinct connection if this were the Elizabethan period as we previously saw, but I'm afraid I haven't seen anything vaguely resembling Gothic Vampiretrash collarthings in the eighteenth century. So, we'll go ahead and replace that with a little neck ruffle, which is a thing seen in contemporary portraiture. I can't really tell if the sleeves on the costume have a puffed shoulder or if the fabric's just been bunched up with the pose. If they are princess-puffed, that is false. Sleeves of the mid-eighteenth century were not terribly full, with a few small pleats taken at the shoulder for a small peak, but we're not puffed à la the Tudors. And the sleeve flounce is acceptable here and would indeed have been made from lace, or ruffled silk. But in the logic of the eighteenth century lady, why just have one when you can have three, with bows, for maximum floofage? Finally the hair, although, not even trying to be eighteenth century, I'll at least forgive them for not putting her in a white beehive wig. I have a whole separate video on a talk given by the ladies of American Duchess, in which they demonstrate live how to achieve those eighteenth century powdered hairstyles. But basically the hair should be very vertical, not set back on the head. With a few little buckles, or rolls, on the sides and possibly the back of the head. It would have been powdered into a much paler color, but not perfectly white, and in all likelihood this would have been her natural hair, not a wig. So the first thing to note about the fabrics is that in the eighteenth century, black is extremely rare, and I'm actually not sure I've ever seen a silk black eighteenth century gown. Still, black dyes were available and so it was possible at least so I will let our vampire lady keep her black silk gown. The red, for the contrasting petticoat and the stomacher is a bit more believable. And while the petticoat could have been a bit more understated in plain silk, the gown silk would commonly have been woven with a pattern. Finally, we come to the nineteenth century. Mass production Hallowe'en costumes simply wouldn't be mass production Hallowe'en costumes without a bit of unconsidered, problematic undertones, am I right? So, let's say we're looking at once again an upper class woman of the 1860s. First and foremost, there is a discrepancy between the occasion on the costume, as the parasol and wide chin strapped hat, which is completely not even trying to be period, so let's just ignore that completely, implies day wear and outdoor activity. However, in the middle of the nineteenth century, there was a distinction between day and evening wear in the exposure of the arms and shoulders. Long sleeves and high necklines for day wear, and low, wide necklines with short sleeves for evening. We are already banishing that hat to the deepest pits of hell, so let's be rid of the parasol as well and call this evening dress. The costume does reflect the fashion for the wide neckline, although historically, the wide neckline would have been bordered by the bertha collar, a wide pleated ruffled or lacey strip of collar to decorate the neckline. And although the collar is wide, nothing actually slips off the shoulder like the costume shows. The fashionable silhouette of this period involves making the upper body look as small as possible. Yes, corsetry is by now a thing, and this is arguably the period of most dramatic waist reduction in history. But the combination of the large crinoline skirts with fullness starting at the waist and spreading all the way round, not just at the sides or in the back, the waistline sitting absolutely no lower than the natural waist, the long slim peak at the fronts of the bodice and to the wide bertha collar serve to optically diminish the size of the torso. So, the low waistline, shallow peak, and the skirt with slight fullness only at the hem, not at the waist, serve to get the original costume a distinctly non-1860s silhouette. We already know that the shape of the skirt is all wrong, but at least the decoration is playing a bit of accuracy. Tiers, flounces, swagging, and large bows were common ways to decorate large evening skirts. But no side ponytails, I'm afraid. The 1860s lady would have worn her hair for an evening event, flat at the top with a few ringlet curls at the sides of the face, and perhaps some foliage in her hair. And at long last, by ye olde 1860s, aniline dyes are a thing so bright vibrant shades of fuchsia are possible. The costume is a bit more purple but for the sake of celebrating vibrant color possibilities, as was very much the mentality of the mid-nineteenth century. I've gone ahead and made her a bit more pink. And so there we have our very brief overview of fashion history. Maybe you can sally forth fully armed into your Hallowe'en party this year readily equipped to expound the importance of waistline placement to the first unsuspecting muggle you happen to upon. Maybe, don't do that. Anyway, happy Hallowe'en, whether you are doing historical things or not. By the way, I have no use for the little drawings now, so I have decided to go ahead and put those up for auction on eBay, and since I have absolutely no idea what my doodles are worth, all of the listings are going to start at $1, so, link in the description if that is something that is of interest to you and if not, cool. Bye.
Info
Channel: undefined
Views: 2,351,242
Rating: 4.9584923 out of 5
Keywords: fashion history timeline, fashion history documentary, fashion history, halloween costume, halloween costumes, dress history, historical dress, historical fashion, historically accurate costumes, medieval fashion, renaissance fashion, pilgrim costume, queen elizabeth costume, medieval costume, victorian fashion, historical halloween costumes, bernadette banner
Id: vAoaksK9mZM
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 18min 20sec (1100 seconds)
Published: Sat Oct 26 2019
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.