Rora Works

[Rora Works]

[amelmajrii]

Swimming caps for natural black hair ruled out of Olympic Games

International Swimming Federation rejects use of Soul Cap, saying it does not ‘fit the natural form of the head’

the Guardian

Swimming caps designed for natural black hair created by a black-owned brand will not be allowed at the Olympics.

The hats, made by Soul Cap, which previously partnered with Alice Dearing, who last week qualified to become the first black female swimmer to represent Team GB at the Olympics, have been rejected by the International Swimming Federation (Fina).

The body said the caps did not fit “the natural form of the head” and to their “best knowledge the athletes competing at the international events never used, neither require … caps of such size and configuration”.

[okayysophia]

Nah they’re really doing to much now. The Olympics are deliberately targeting black women….

[aurorajay]

This is some straight up BULLSHIT.

It’s rare that this comes up on my (mostly) costume focused tumblr, but I used to swim competitively. Seriously competitively. As in nationals, swimming against adults as a teenager, one-time Olympic hopeful competitively. I also used to coach kids (this will be relevant later)

There are certain kinds of suits and equipment that are banned from use due to a competitive edge. As many people have mentioned in the comments, the LZR suits are a prime example. But those were permitted until there was a body of evidence PROVING they offered unfair advantages. There is a) No evidence the Soul Caps provide any advantage, and b) No way they will be able to find any, unless they’re made of fancy hydrophobic materials (to my knowledge they aren’t)

I am pretty certain of this, for a variety of reasons, but the short version is that what makes these caps unique is increased volume. This is the opposite of an advantage. Additional volume creates additional drag. They just aren’t very hydrodynamic.

Frankly, I don’t think most Olympic level athletes would be willing to race in the larger sizes of Soul Cap even if they were permitted. At that level even the smallest amount of drag can be the difference between 1st and 4th. Like there’s a reason even male swimmers shave their entire bodies. Hair is not your friend. An Olympic swimmer has already sacrificed a LOT to get where they are, and while it’s still a shitty, racist rule, I don’t think many of them would hesitate to shave their heads if that’s what it took.

What I AM worried about is the repercussions this will have on the sport as a whole. Because FINA is the governing body that all others look to when establishing their own rules. I still remember the LZR ban being passed, and the various other national and provincial/state organizations promptly following suit. And THAT impacts the black kids and teens who are only starting out in competitive swimming. Kids who are just there to try their best and have fun. This is putting even more barriers in place on what’s already a SUPER white sport. This decision is going to have ripples down to the most entry level competitive swimming.

TL:DR This is actually way bigger than just the Olympics, and while we should be mad on behalf of the pros, we should be even more mad on behalf of all the black kids who will be pushed out of activities open to their white peers.

[Rora Works]

Anonymous asked:

theoretically, if you wore the same dress for 100 years but never moved (this is about sleeping beauty), I imagine the fabric would deteriorate, but what state would it be in? I also assume she isn't sweating or anything during those 100 years.

systlin answered:

…yknow this is a good question. Like, we can assume her body functions are put into a form of stasis, because she never needs to eat and doesn’t starve. So is like, skin oil production also halted? Because that’s something that can accelerate fibre breakdown. What sort of climate does she live in? How protected is the location? All these things would make huge differences!

Like, Egyptian textiles thousands of years old have been found, but they’ve got a dry climate and were preserved in tombs away from disturbances and air. In more temperate, wetter climates decomposition would set in fairly rapidly; it’s why textile finds in wetter climates are usually in places like peat bogs that can better preserve textiles.

my gut instinct is to say that they’d fall off of her like bits of tissue paper shredded by an enthusastic cat

[sailor-lady]

I've always assumed she was put in a form of stasis, which depending on the exact dimensions and form of the field (does it form exactly to her skin? Cover her fingers and toes like some sort of magical toe sock/glove?) might extend to her clothing?

[systlin]

It SEEMS to have affected the whole castle, because in the old story everyone else in the castle was put into a sleep too, but it seems not to have affected like, dust and plants and stuff. So that’s another ‘hmmmmm’

So MAYBE the stasis covers the clothing? But then the castle can still fall into disrepair so?

[stitch-n-time]

But she can't be in stasis, because in the original tale she bore children while under the spell.

[systlin]

Fucking hell, you’re right, this throws everything up in the air again.

I’m going with ‘Fairy magic is fucking weird and it depends on if the fairy casting the curse specifically mentioned clothes or not, and knowing what I do of the Fair Folk that could go either way”

[kyidyl]

Think about a dress from 1920. If no one touched it and insects wouldn't get to it, then it probably isn't in bad shape. 100 years isn't that long in the grand scheme of things. The real question here is how come the plants outside the castle didn't basically cover it?

[systlin]

Very true. I’m mostly wondering about the environmental effects of mold and mildew and stuff. Like she’s clearly in a temperate climate, and the clothes are not packed away in a protective chest but are out in the air with moisture and mold and very possibly insects. Like, if I laid a dress out in a room around here and then waited 100 years without maintaining the property, with rain blowing in through broken windows and humidity and who knows what else, that dress would be FUCKED.

Unless, of course, the Fey who cast the curse covered her clothes in the wording of the preservation or whatever part of the spell.

[aurorajay]

I think an important part of the spell’s character is the preservation of beauty. She is Sleeping Beauty afterall. So while she doesn’t age or require any of her grosser bodily functions, it doesn’t necessarily stop her from say, breathing or becoming pregnant? I guess when it comes to her clothes, the real question is “does the Fey who cursed her think she’d be hotter without?”

[Rora Works]

[biscuitsarenice]

A Stitch in Time: Arnolfini

Ninya Mikhail, Historical Costumier [x]

[cricketcat9]

Wow, amazing!

[shesells136seashells]

This whole process was so spectacular! Such attention to detail!!

[zohbugg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u2RM1odsf4

[aurorajay]

I absolutely love this sort of thing. The kind of active archeology that blends research and the skill of experienced trades people doesn’t get nearly enough love!

[Rora Works]

hoeratius asked:

Hello! I really love your blog and all the detail and knowledge you put in your descriptions of fashion. I was hoping you might be able to help me: I'm trying to find out how the clothing of fairly but not ridiculously well-to-do women in Venice in 1660 worked (underdress? sleeves added individually or attached to the bodice? Bodice attached to skirt? One big dress thrown over your underwear??) - do you have any hints & tips on where to start looking?

sartorialadventure answered:

Oh gosh, I really don’t know. The best I can think of is to find someone who is a historical costumer who does Renaissance, someone who seems to really do a lot of research (gives you lots of info about garments, gives specific years for garments, etc) and ask them. They’d be in the best position to give you close details like that.

Does anybody know of any experts on Renaissance fashion @hoeratius could ask?

[aurorajay]

I’m not an expert on the period, but I can tell you it wouldn’t have been one big dress over your underwear. You’ll need at minimum a separate bodice and skirt, a chemise, a pair of stays, and an underskirt. The sleeves I’m not sure about, especially without knowing exactly what style you’re planning, but I suspect anything white and lacy peeking out from under the main sleeve would be part of the chemise.

This video is generalized for the entire 17th century (and a bit of the 18th), but it gives you a good breakdown of the parts an average outfit requires:

If you want patterns based on the cut of real historical artifacts, and are willing to invest in some books, Seventeenth-century Women’s Dress Patterns books 1 & 2 offer all sorts of nitty gritty construction details.

Seventeenth-century Women's Dress Patterns: Book 1

<DIV><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><P> </P>This innovative and breathtakingly detailed book fr

indigo.ca

The Patterns of Fashion series by Janet Arnold is also really good, and a little cheaper because it’s paperback. Unfortunately it has a gap in it’s coverage between 1620 and 1660 (hoping they fix this in later publications). Patterns of Fashion 4 and 5 (neckwear and undergarments) do cover that period however.

Patterns Of Fashion 1: Englishwomen's Dresses & Their Construction C. 1660-1860

Dresses and their construction from 1660 to 1860.

indigo.ca

For something in my preferred price range (ie. free), here’s a handy step-by-step for the construction of this sort of gown :

An Orange Brocade Dress – Making a 17th Century Costume, Part One

It’s taken me longer than I had hoped, but I’m finally back with a “Making of” post! And it focuses on a project I’m really excited about: a

Angela Clayton's Costumery & Creations

If this is something you’re interested in doing more of in the future, I’d also recommend joining a historical costuming Facebook group:

16th and 17th century clothing.

facebook.com

Facebook Groups

Sew 17th Century has 334 members. A group for discussing 17th century clothes and how to make them.

facebook.com

YMMV, as these types of groups can be a bit…intense. I find they’re sometimes overly eager to criticize any inaccuracies they can find. Just word of caution if you plan on posting pictures of your work. I mostly lurk and don’t post for this reason.

However, they are super useful for any specific questions and challenges you might encounter on a project. I can’t personally speak for the above groups, but I am in similar ones for 18th and 19th century sewing and feel they’re worth joining for the resources alone. Also lots of pretty pictures!

I hope some of these links help. Happy sewing!

[Rora Works]

[what-even-is-thiss]

Them: Ugh I hate opera.

Me: But Hamilton is an opera and I know you like that.

Them:

Me:

Them: Wait what

[what-even-is-thiss]

Them: No I mean operatic singing opera. Not a musical in which the entire production is sung opera.

Me: Oh okay that’s different then. Why?

Them: Because I can’t understand any of it.

Me: Are you under the impression that you’re supposed to understand opera?

Them: Then why do you watch it?

Me: It’s like extreme sports you can vibe to.

Them: …

Them: What?

[what-even-is-thiss]

Them: There’s no way that opera can be that impressive or difficult.

Me:

Them: Holy sh*t

[aurorajay]

Opera is super physical!

I’ve yet to have the fortune of costuming one, but one thing I learned in school is opera requires lots of special design/construction considerations. You need to accommodate the movement of extremely large, flexible, and powerful chests!

I’ve heard stories about ladies busting the seams of steel boned corsets with the sheer force of their expanding lungs.

[Rora Works]

[elizamaru]

A little sketch of Mr Michael Sheen’s Mozart, in the style of Sir Joshua Reynolds’s self portraits. That 90s production of Amadeus seemed very spectacular.

The fleshtone in a lot of Reynolds’s paintings faded severely because of the use of fugitive colours like carmine. But I think the lack of rosy cheeks intensifies the drama sometimes since the warm/cool contrast becomes even more stark...

[aurorajay]

Man, your work is always mindblowing, and you deserve more notes!

[Rora Works]

[onimuoyinbo]

A lady asked me how much it cost to make her a purse of a well known style in cotton fabric of a particular design and colour.
£35 - I said.
She said she thought that was a bit dear for a purse.
I asked her how much she thought it would cost her to make one then.
She thought about £10 as you can get similar in Primarni for £8
OK, so for £10 do it yourself I said
Her reply was - I don’t know how to.
I said for £10 I’ll teach you how to. So besides saving you £25 you’ll get the knowledge if you ever want to make another.
She seemed pleased and agreed.
OK I said, you’ll need a machine, cutting mat, rotary cutter, rivet press and the pattern.
Oh well….. I don’t have many of things and I can’t justify buying all that just to make one purse.
Well then for another £10 more I’ll lend you my stuff to you so you can do it at my house.
Okay, she says.
Great, I replied, come round on Tuesday afternoon and we’ll make a start
Oh, I can’t come on Tuesday I’m having my hair done!
Sorry, but I’m only available Tuesday to teach you and lend you my stuff. Other days are busy with other bags and purses.
Bugger, that means I’ll have to miss my haircut.
Oh, I forgot, I said, to make one yourself you also have to pay for the sundry costs.
Now she’s confused – what on earth are they??
Fabric search time, electric, wear and tear on the machine, blades for the cutter etc
She looks at me and says – but that’s ridiculous you can absorb all that cost as you are charging me to borrow your stuff.
I could, I said, but I’m not spending time looking for the fabric you need you can do that yourself – you need 3 fat quarters of fabric, buckram, woven interfacing, non woven interfacing, a lock, rivets and matching thread.
So she then says - I’ve been thinking, I think I’d rather pay you the £35.
It’s too complicated to make one for myself, it wouldn’t be as well made and it would cost me a hell of a lot more than £35.
When you pay for a hand crafted item, you pay not only for the material used, but also:
- knowledge
- experience
- tools
- services
- time
- enthusiasm
Only by knowing all the elements necessary for the production of a certain item can you estimate the actual cost.

[hickeywiththegoodhair]

[Rora Works]

[did-you-kno]

Medieval castle stairs were often built to ascend in narrow, clockwise spirals so right-handed castle defenders could use their swords more easily. This design put those on the way up at a disadvantage (unless they were left-handed). The steps were also uneven to give defenders the advantage of anticipating each step’s size while attackers tripped over them. Source Source 2 Source 3

[severalowls]

Not really the best illustration since it totally negates the effect by having a wide open space for those ascending. Castle tower staircases tended to look like this:

Extremely tight quarters, with a central supporting pillar that is very, very thoroughly in the way of your right arm.

Wider, less steep designs tend to come later once castles moved away from being fortresses to simply noble family homes with the advent of gunpowder.

[mumblytron]

Oh! Pre-gunpowder military tactics are my jam! I don’t know why, but this is one of my favorite little details about defensive fortifications, because the majority handedness of attackers isn’t usually something you think about when studying historical wars. But strategically-placed walls were used basically worldwide as a strategy to secure gates and passages against advancing attackers, because most of the world’s population is right-handed (and has been since the Stone Age).

Pre-Columbian towns near the Mississippi and on the East coast did this too. They usually surrounded their towns with palisades, and they would build the entrance to the palisade wall in a zigzag – always with the wall to the right as you entered, to hinder attackers and give an advantage to the defender. Here’s some gates with some examples of what I’m talking about:

Notice that, with the exception of the last four (which are instead designed to congregate the attackers in a space so they can be picked off by archers, either in bastions or on the walls themselves) and the screened gate (which, in addition to being baffled, also forces the attackers to defend their flank) all of these gates are designed with central architectural idea that it’s really hard to kill someone with a wall in your way.

In every culture in the world, someone thought to themselves, “Hey it’s hard to swing a weapon with a wall on your right-hand side,” and then specifically built fortifications so that the attackers would always have the wall on their right. And I think that’s really neat.

[his-quietus-make]

Ooh, ooh, also: Bodiam Castle in Sussex used to have a right-angled bridge so any attacking forces would be exposed to archery fire from the north-west tower on their right side (ie: sword in the right hand, shield on the useless left side):

[petermorwood]

These tactics worked so well for so long because until quite recently lefties got short shrift and had it trained (if they were lucky) or beaten out of them.

Use of sword and shield is a classic demonstration of how right-handedness predominated. There’s historical mention of left-handed swordsmen (gladiators and Vikings), and what a problem they were for their opponents, but that only applies to single combat.

A left-handed hoplite or housecarl simply couldn’t fight as part of a phalanx or shield wall, since the shields were a mutual defence (the right side of the shield covered its owner’s left side, its left side covered the right side of his neighbour to the left, and so on down the line) and wearing one on the wrong arm threw the whole tactic out of whack.

Jousting, whether with or without an Italian-style tilt barrier, was run shield-side to shield-side with the lance at a slant (except for the Scharfrennen, a highly specialised style that’s AFAIK unique.) Consequently left-handed knights were physically unable to joust.

There’s a creditable theory (I first read it in “A Knight and His Horse”, © Ewart Oakeshott 1962, 1998 and many other places since) that a knight’s “destrier” horse - from dexter, “right” - was trained to lead with his right forefoot so that any instinctive swerve would be to the right, away from collision while letting the rider keep his shield between him and harm. (In flying, if a pilot hears “break!” with no other details, the default evasive direction is right.)

The construction of plate armour, whether specialised tournament kit or less elaborate battle gear, is noticeably “right-handed“ - so even if a wealthy knight had his built “left-handed” it would be a waste of time and money; he would still be a square peg in a world of round holes and none of the other kids would play with him.

Even after shields and full armour were no longer an essential part of military equipment, right-hand use was still enforced until quite recently, and to important people as well as ordinary ones - it happened to George VI, father of the present Queen of England. Most swords with complex hilts, such as swept-hilt rapiers and some styles of basket-hilt broadsword, are assymetrical and constructed for right handers. Here’s my schiavona…

It can be held left-handed, but using it with the proper thumb-ring grip, and getting maximum protection from the basket, is right-handed only. (More here.) Some historical examples of left-hand hilts do exist, but they’re rare, and fencing masters had the same “learn to use your right hand” bias as tourney organisers, teachers and almost everyone else. Right-handers were dextrous, but left-handers were sinister, etc., etc.

However, several predominantly left-handed families did turn their handedness into advantage, among them the Kerrs / Carrs, a notorious Reiver family along the England-Scotland Borders, by building their fortress staircases with a spiral the other way to the OP image.

This would seem to be a bad idea, since the attackers (coming upstairs) no longer have their right arms cramped against the centre pillar - however it worked in the Kerrs’ favour because they were used to this mirror-image of reality while nobody else was, and the defender retreating up the spiral had that pillar guarding his right side, while the attacker had to reach out around it…

For the most part Reiver swords weren’t elaborate swept-hilt rapiers but workmanlike basket-hilts. Some from Continental Europe have the handedness of my schiavona with thumb-rings and assymmetrical baskets, but the native “British Baskethilt” is a variant of the Highland claymore* and like it seems completely symmetrical, without even a thumb-ring, which gives equal protection to whichever hand is using it.

*I’m aware there are those who insist “claymore” refers only to two-handers, however the Gaelic term claidheamh-mòr - “big sword” - just refers to size, not to a specific type of sword in the way “schiavona” or “karabela” or even “katana” does.

While the two-hander was the biggest sword in common use it was the claidheamh-mòr; after it dropped out of fashion and the basket-hilt became the biggest sword in common use, that became the claidheamh-mòr.

When Highlanders in the 1745 Rebellion referred to their basket-hilts as claymores, they obviously gave no thought to the confusion they would create for later compilers of catalogues…

[chroniclesofrettek]

Also, muskets had their whole “Flint and steel and gunpowder” thing on the right side so if you tried firing it lefty you’d get a face full of fire. More recently, rifles eject their spent shell casings to the right, so if you’re a lefty you get some hot metal in your eye.

[systlin]

good post this is a gOOD POST

[poemwriter98]

@moonlitskinwalker

[aurorajay]

This is fascinating history and now I really want to read a story about assembling a secret team of left-handers to take a castle by surprise!