My mom actually made that dress for a art history student in 1985!!! Back then she waa limited on the client's budget so I remember her using a heavy upholstery fabric to make the dress, she did sit & cut & hem all those rows of the edging on the sleeves(that took the longest!!), she used fabrics & furs available at her favorite fabric & craft store & as I recall, the dress was indeed heavy, it was a very good likeness & the art history student got an A!! (she had written a paper about the painting & the dress was part of her presentation for her final!!)
in the painting could the sleeve not actually be a type of cape? if you take a close look at the back of the gown in little mirror in the middle of the painting it looks like the sleeve is going all the way around the back in an upside down heart shape (not sure how to explain the shape)
To everyone saying the dress was only trimmed in fur, if you look at the edge of her skirt where it's lifted off the groud, you can see the fur continues up the inside of the skirt. And like they said, it was significantly colder back then than it is now. The gown was likely fully lined.
I think it's faced. There are records of medieval garments having fur facings. Bit more substantial than just trimming but I think a fully fur lined garment like that would drape like a duvet, no matter how voluminous.
I really wish they had shown the full finished dress more than they did. Like when she was trying it on, they kept centering in on her face instead of the dress. I felt short--changed.
Really interesting to see how the ladies reverse-engineered that dress. I did think the fringe decoration on the sleeves looked like they were two layers of fabric, and when the garment was finished I felt that even more strongly. The fringes seemed to float rather than hang heavily as in the portrait. But overall, a beautiful project. Incidentally, the fact that the fabric changed color in the air is a chemical property of indigo, which is in both woad and indigo. As the fabric is removed from the dye bath, it magically changes color before one's eyes.
I once spent almost two weeks shooting a TV commercial in a semi-restored medieval castle in La Mancha, Spain. It was August and outside it looked and felt like Death Valley but inside the stone walls it was often, frankly, cold. I couldn't imagine what it would've been like inside there in the winter and there weren't a lot of fireplaces around. So, a lot of heavy layers, gloves, head coverings and the like - and everything padded or fur-lined - if you were rich. And everyone crawling with bugs.
I think she means like mainstream wise like often brands would use cheap wools and not only that in films and tv shows, show peasantry wearing wools and tartans and the wealthy wearing silks, cotton, lace and embroidered fabrics
Limited fabric in those times. Cotton was from 'other places'..flax can be made into cloth, wool is bit more useful....and has differences in itself that vary the value of the wool.
Its because most of the wool we have now is a either a cheap synthetic imitation or the fabric is described as "woolen" and people assume woolen and wool are the same thing
It’s thought provoking to consider the depth of the dye color as it relates to status. So not only is the lower class putting a lesser quality fabric through its paces by higher activity level and manual labor, they’re wearing more muted tones. Often I’ve thought of clothes from the period looking faded, presumably due to wear and tear, but mulling it over, it’s also likely to the way the cloth is dyed. Fascinating.
There's also the problem that cloth dyed with plant materials fades over time, and even faster in the sunlight. Brand-new clothes would have very stunning colours, but give them a few years and they will be drab and greyish. Which is why beggars and other poor people would wear such drab clothes... their clothes are literally hand-me-downs from those more fortunate and had been worn for a much longer time too. In my native Flanders we have a particular expression for poor people: "het grauw" (meaning both "the grey" and "the pale") and the sound giving the added connotation with a growling animal. Colour defined class !!
I'm in love with this channel, I find historical dress absolutely fascinating! And being able to see these garments be created by using traditional textiles and rediscovered techniques is a privilege to witness. Programs like this really play into my love of all things historic.
P Heart my art teacher told me that it is speculated if van Eyck actually did portray a pregnant woman. She‘s with a man who‘s going to marry her since he was the one that got her pregnant. The painting would have been extremely scandalous since it basically depicted a shotgun wedding. But that‘s just a theory.
My theory about the painting is that it’s an advertisement of the family’s goods. They may have been able to afford a dress like that but they wouldn’t have been able to wear it due to social constraints on fashion. By having a painting done of the couple with the dress and the oranges, they can show how they are able to get those items for their customers.
I don't think the sleeves depicted in the painting were lined in fur either. It looks to me like the fur was used as trim. Not sure why they thought otherwise.
@@louisacapell I totally agree Lousia. Im a tailor myself, and I would say it consists of layers or 'boxing' too, I wouldn't have thought it was ribbon strips that have been chisel-pinkered that way. Also they filled the sleeves with fur too, I thought it would have been a 'deep-trim' not totally lined that way. No wonder it was incredibly heavy.
It looks like the under gown in the painting is also edged with fur at the bottom hem. I very much enjoyed learning about the techniques available so long ago. I look and look at the painting and am not sure the decorative hangings are strips as decided on here. It looks like ruffling might be part of the technique and it also appears that the edges of the strips were stitched with a lighter colored thread. I suppose it is anybody's guess how they did it. Maybe it was an ultra complex takeoff on daggoting?
Thanks Dr Kat of Reading the Past for the heads up on this gem of a programme. I am constantly amazed that fabric is often so inexpensive, given the long, involved processes of production. Fascinating insights into the history of cloth, and clothing. Thanks for posting this.
i do think the intricate ornaments of the sleeve were somehow sewn together. the little x shaped cuts are placed very orderly. in the reproduction the sleeves look as if they went through a shreddre
Yes, it would have been nice to see all sewn and more like the painting, but it would have taken a Major amount of time beyond what was already spent creating the piece. It seems from the painting, that rather than hide stiching, the work involved was shown off on those decorations!
Beautiful work! Two wishes: that you had gone into more depth about the details of the painting and that you had also done the headdress Interesting tidbit: current research suggests the woman in the portrait was dead when it was painted, and that this was a memorial portrait. One clue is that the candle has been snuffed out showing a little puff of smoke.
I just need to take a moment and sit in awe at the fact that Jan Van Eyck painted the fabric so well that you can actually see and almost feel the type of weave it has...not an easy feat for any painter.
Loved all of the science that went into the making of this garment: the stale urine dye, the depth of the color and weight of the fabric that indicated extreme wealth, the pleats and fur. This was a wonderful presentation that really adds richness to the symbolism of this portrait.
The obvious inaccuracies in the reproduction of this fine wedding dress are evident if one studies the details and history of the painting. The mirror beyond shows the reverse of the subjects, revealing that the dress is actually an over dress with a continuous mantle or cape draping in a tier structure across the back, rather than seperate long sleeves as misinterpreted here. The tooled leather bodice belt is concealed at the back, beneath the mantle. The cutwork detailing to the mantle is a double layer of delicate clover shaped sections, affixed in three tiers of continuois banding all the way around the mantle cape and rising in a scallop at the centre back. The husband was from a family of wealthy fabric manufacturing merchants from Lucca, specialising in fine silks, velvet and fur. This double portrait demonstrates the fine quality of the materials typical of his trade. The fur lining and trim on the dress would be grey and white squirel; his outfit is similarly an over mantle with vertical fur pelts in red sable on velvet. The brides blue underdress is silk. The over dress may have been a fine wool but it is appears more likely to be a flat lustre velvet broadcloth if you examine the white edging revealed in the slashing/ cutwork trim. This would not be visible in a wool felt fabric. The fur trim to the lower section hems are narrow, not broad like the trim of arm openings. The brides wears plated gold cuff bracelets, as typical of Florentine gold work of the time. I feel the dress reproduced here looks more pantomime than a historically accutate representation of such a famous work of art.
It would have taken alot longer beyond the scope of their budget to totally recreate the garment. The sleeve work was obviously way off and a disappointment but they didn't have tbe luxury of time to do it up as it reallly was. Imagine how long that took.
Humm I not sure it would hold up but, some faux fur is actually made from the spun fibers of recycled plastic bottles. Let's pretend that's what we have here :)
Therealmlw I mean that's great, but the issue is that these fibers will never break down so we're just creating thousands and thousands and thousands of non biodegradable strands of plastic! Same goes for polyester threads.
I have to confess, as interesting as the history of the world in fashion is, my eyes are drawn to Ambers Tatted collar. I am a tatter and it's nice to see this neglected needle skill showcased.
Such an interesting show!I find the sleeves weren't as accurete though...and to all the people thinking the gown wasn't entirely fur lined,you can see in the portrait that the inside of it is fur lined,check the lower part,it's clearly visible the lining. All in all a fabulous job!!
yes, i was thinking the whole time that they were not interpreting the painting correctly as per the direction of the fabric and the layers of picketed strips.
Im very disappointed in the sleeves!! The cut trim is just hanging down, not ruffled. I would have thought they would have slip stitched the pieces from one end to the other and pulled the threads which would have caused them to ruffle. Too bad.
yvonne herschberger Those ruffles look like a type of large smocking to me and I think it goes around the back. The way the fur is attached at the shoulder in the original is different and it appears like a built in cloak. A little confusing.
@@migraineyjoe2597 YES! Its obvious in the round mirror that the sleeve around actually doubles as a type of cape, its odd the production team didn't realise that
@Sunny Quackers read that again, you first add a slipstitch, and then you pull the thread (the one you used for the slipstitch). That will work even on felt.
A great job at the pattern, but using that special fabric needed a real fur to achive the look and to give it the propper weight and the worth to the dress to be dysplayed at a museum. I also think that the decorative pleats at the sleeves needed some stitching, in the portrait it looks controled and ornate, and in this reproduction just look a mess. Perhaps it took a backing fabric on every flap to give it more weight and also a surface to stitch the cuted slits to make them look controled. In that time the craftsmanship in finishing was highly apreciated because it meant a lot of work put into and the conquest of man over the materials, that is why i don't think those strings could be that crazy in the real one.
I totally agree with you on the sleeves. However, one can find meticulously made faux fur that looks entirely like the real thing. I personally think they made a lot of poor decisions when making this piece. I'm a complete novice at sewing, so I've no right to say much.
I’m surprised that there aren’t records from the dressmakers documenting the techniques. Almost every episode the costumers are guessing how these things were done. People spent their entire lives as dressmakers and their mothers were dressmakers and so on but these techniques apparently weren’t well documented. Maybe they were illiterate? They just kept it all in their heads.
tndrlytastefully more than likely they were, in fact, illiterate, dressmakers in the middle ages would likely have passed the techniques down through 6-10 year long apprenticeships with their own children or charges since schools didn't exist and only the rich could afford private tutors
Nope. Dressmaking was a skilled trade. Only the poor wore home-made garments and that was mostly underthings. Every woman being her own dressmaker was more a 19th century thing, mostly related to frugality and frontier life. As they were skilled trades, information was passed on via an apprenticeship, not through books. Trade secrets. What home sewing skills existed fell under "well, everyone knows this, why would we waste expensive resources on making a book?" But you can find dressmaking and tailoring pamphlets from later pre-modern decades if you want.
Was probably to keep their secrets much like other trades, baking, metal working, etc. They wouldn’t just want someone else replicating what they were known for
+Fernando Argon Yes and no, of course, many if not every master in a trade had his secrets but in many regions and trades, apprentices travelled between masters to learn different aspects of their chosen trade. But I think the main reason was that most people were illiterate.
Omg! I would love to work with these ladies recreating these historical garments ! To handle those amazing wools. Leathers, furs, silks, velvets etc. and with just hand stitching as the method….I am at a loss for words. Kudos all around ladies.
I think I'm on my third go around watching this series. I wish they would make more, Ms. Butchart is a great presenter and I enjoy the experts who actually make the clothes.
Especially moreso because the wife was dead at the time the painting was made. It was partially a memorial painting to her. She didn't live long after their marriage, and he had the portrait painted afterward. So while he looks like a ghoul, she's a ghost.
I find when I wear that dress style that my shoulders drop back and I thrust my belly out to retain balance. It's a natural thing with all that weight hanging off your shoulders. But it's not uncomfortable, and it is WARM.
Yeah, it's called the Gothic slouch. It looks a little funny to modern eyes from the front and side, but from behind, it's really attractive and highlights the waist and curve of the hips. It makes the wearer look very shapely.
This painting is an example of using optics for painting ultra realistically. Vermeer used this, it's a theory, but the only explanation for this extraordinary true to life painting.
@Sunny Quackers They're literally physical holes in the painting. That line up perfectly with the focal points. And have marks left from the strings. It's an old but known technique, not an idea conjured from thin air.
@Sunny bob Quackers Watch the movie. There is guessing, and then there is scientific reproduction that can help come to a more likely conclusion. There is skepticism, which is healthy, and then there is ignoring evidence to support one's own worldview. 😉 You can always take the stance that anything is conjecture, but until there is further evidence to the contrary, taking current theory as a workable solution is ok by me. It is always fine to say, "I don't know." I find it preferable to the people who think they have all the answers written down in one book - one that is obviously incorrect and contradicts itself on many things.
They did an amazing job. I do believe they made some poor decisions, though. The sleeves were near completely wrong, And the faux fur they chose was so stark. faux fur is made with patterns, I'm almost positive they could have found something that looked much more accurate. I'm personally just very disappointed in how they chose to leave the decorative pieces of the sleeve so unfinished..
Thats historcially accurate, fabric used to be more tightly woven so fraying wasn't that much of a problem, and a dress like this wasnt likley to be washed regularly
Sounds like ‘boiled wool’ which is washed though not boiled and it creates a beautiful soft luxurious fabric. I’m in the UK. I know the feel of that fabric.
This was wonderful and that dress was spectacular. I think the fur was ermine as silver fox would have to be trimmed or sheared to have such a low welt especially if the whole dress was lined in it. The presenter is truly beautiful and I would like to see an episode using Holbein's image of Anne of Cleves head gear or Sargent's Madame X with her wearing that infamous black dress. Velasquez' Las Meninas was also a double portrait subject to various interpretations. Thanks again.
I've been obsessed with the dress in this painting for a looOooong time. What a blessing to see Amber & team recreate this in reality! Thank you fellow fashion history nerds!!!!
My explanation of the woman's posture: she's offering herself indicating her role as the receiver and bearer of life; literally "lifting her skirts," for him as she stands in front of the bed. Further, the volume of fabric clutched at the front, expresses the hope or intention to be in the family way. The man's raised hand shows his dominant position of the two while his extended hand taking hers shows his commitment, tenderness and he honors her. Her hand open towards the viewer? She comes with "clean hands," I guess. No "issues" in her past. A virgin.
I used linen as a child to stabilize the clothes I hand sewed for my barbie dolls. Either I am a genius to figure that out due to lack of a modern stabilizing method OR they are so used to proper way that a common sense approach isn’t even in their paradigm. Pretty sure I am not a genius lol.
Loved the episode, loved the music at the end of it. I had a hard time looking for the name of the song, but found it! The name is Everlasting by Phil Stevens (in case somebody else is looking for it 😊)
All the hard work that goes into making this final dress makes you gain a new appreciation for medieval tailoring and dressmaking. The people who made the clothes were not only good at what they did but probably;y some of the best in the world at that time. I would give anything to have a peek into that studio so long ago. Plus, my other question was, how did they make such incredible fabrics in the 14th century?
Same as that factory, but all by hand. so wire comb like things to seperate the fibers off the wool, someone spinning the wool into yarn, and somone to hand weave it. it probably took so much longer to make it back then aswell...
What a fascinating, educational video! Thank you so much. It was great to see folks working as historical clothing detectives, something that is not seen very often. I do have mixed feelings about the final dress, however. I felt, ( and this is just me, mind you. ) the under-sleeves, were the wrong fabric, ( The new dress seemed to sport a rather inexpensive looking satin, could be wrong there, and wrong color, ( Original dress sported a lighter, softer blue and it seemed heavier with a faint pattern. --again, could be wrong). Perhaps they ran out of time/money? Also, I would have tried a different technique for the ruffles. . Finally, it would have been SO, SO much better to have the narrator wearing the COMPLETE outfit as it looks from the original painting, head covering, hair tucked away and all. But as I said, these are only my opinions. I'm just one small person. But BOY- did those ladies find the perfect material for the green dress and those pleats in the front? Drop dead gorgeous! If you can say that about pleats. It was ingenious the way you ladies figured out how to do them. Not to mention, the actual crafting, and draping, construction of the garment, all coming from ONE extant source. l loved learning about the dying of fabrics. Smelly or not, it was fascinating to see it actually work! I learned so much from this program. I can't wait to watch the next one. Thank you, sincerely.
If she had died in childbirth (like the lone extinguished candle above her would suggest) it would make sense that she looks like she was recently pregnant. That the fold of her dress would create the illusion she was pregnant but just that an illusion done on purpose by the artist. Modern scholars believe she's possibly the deceased first wife of the man shown in the portrait.
The seamstresses in theses episodes are just awsome, he time consuming and delicate some of the outfits are, great host in these documentaries also. Learn a lot from watching, thanks.
Seeing this magical and lovely dandy talk with such deep knowledge and passion and give deferent respect to the knowledge of experts in these esoteric labor-intensive handicrafts...ah, it gives one a good feeling all over.
My house is now more comfortable with extra insulation and a heat pump. My electric bill is less than $100 a month. Check out modern insulation standards in Germany. I think the current British government is actually pushing for people to switch to heat pumps. I used to get by with wool socks and no active heating, but that was when I wasn't in my 60s. I used to fight over the thermostat in the house I grew up in as it always felt drafty to me. The sawdust furnace we used cost about $50 a year in the 1970s to keep an un-insulated late 1800s 4-bedroom house warm.
@@Nina-hl5qk Use the rat landlord to plug the rat hole? I had a rash of mice for several years - nothing since I repaired the mesh on the foundation air vents.
I think what they did for this show is amazing, but I'm wondering if they had a high quality photo for reference. If you look at a decent resolution of the painting, you'll see that lower, decorative drape of sleeve is attached at the back, and the back falls like a cape or "sack-back,", over the belt. The belt was not visible from the back view. Also, I'm wondering if the "pinking" wasn't top-stitched? www.flickr.com/photos/28433765@N07/3829101257
The fur trim on the sleeves is finished incorrectly. Look at the top of the sleeve opening. In the painting, the trim lays flat. It the modern copy, it sticks out. Disappointing that they cut corners when it came to the finishing touches. What's the point? Do it well or not at all.
I mean, cut them a tiny bit of slack, they're working with faux fur, which is a tiny bit more rigid than actual fox fur. It's really hard to get everything 100%. They did amazing on the other 99%
If you look at the back view in the mirror the pinking goes round and up the back and gives the dress a more flamboyant and of course a more expensive finish but for an experiment well done all
the painting is amazing but i've always thought the man is creepy as hell. his wife couldn't have had a very good life with him. she even looks a bit shy towards him sort of: "pls. don't touch me..."
I doubt he would go out of his way to have her painted with him if he treated her badly..plus they didn't smile back then so of course they will look weird or sad/shy
I don't think you're wrong this painting has a tad of a melancholy aura. In fact, the woman died the year before it was made. It is thought Arnolfini had this portrait painted honour her memory. Kind of romantic, in that sense ..
Beautiful dress. It's so weighty, fully fur lined and rather oversized--part coat, part dress.The wool fabric is phenomenal. I agree with everyone that the sleeves are quite off. They are clearly edged with oodles of cut ruffles, suggesting there was even more fabric and labour involved. I can also see the criticism leveled at the well to do at the time. why is the dress ridiculously long at the front? It trails on the ground, and we all know the conditions of three streets back then--dirty, muddy, full of dung. It would have been an awful task to hand launder the bulky, heavy thing. It's definitely not practical to wear outside the home for the average working woman. I can picture the green lady at a work table settling accounts, making records and counting coins.
My mom actually made that dress for a art history student in 1985!!! Back then she waa limited on the client's budget so I remember her using a heavy upholstery fabric to make the dress, she did sit & cut & hem all those rows of the edging on the sleeves(that took the longest!!), she used fabrics & furs available at her favorite fabric & craft store & as I recall, the dress was indeed heavy, it was a very good likeness & the art history student got an A!! (she had written a paper about the painting & the dress was part of her presentation for her final!!)
wow i was born in 1985
What a great story!
She deserved an A+++ plus a job as a teacher if she replicated that dress
Jen Nicholson
Wow, a lot of work!
in the painting could the sleeve not actually be a type of cape? if you take a close look at the back of the gown in little mirror in the middle of the painting it looks like the sleeve is going all the way around the back in an upside down heart shape (not sure how to explain the shape)
To everyone saying the dress was only trimmed in fur, if you look at the edge of her skirt where it's lifted off the groud, you can see the fur continues up the inside of the skirt. And like they said, it was significantly colder back then than it is now. The gown was likely fully lined.
Thanks. I realized the sleeves were lined in fix, but I too was wondering if the skirt portion was lined as well.
I think it's faced. There are records of medieval garments having fur facings. Bit more substantial than just trimming but I think a fully fur lined garment like that would drape like a duvet, no matter how voluminous.
Amber would look great in anything especially the old stuff. She looks she just stepped out of the victorian era.
Must have been cozy 😍😊
That was bugging me too! Also, given the time period, the fur was probably squirrel, not fox.
I really wish they had shown the full finished dress more than they did. Like when she was trying it on, they kept centering in on her face instead of the dress. I felt short--changed.
Really interesting to see how the ladies reverse-engineered that dress. I did think the fringe decoration on the sleeves looked like they were two layers of fabric, and when the garment was finished I felt that even more strongly. The fringes seemed to float rather than hang heavily as in the portrait. But overall, a beautiful project. Incidentally, the fact that the fabric changed color in the air is a chemical property of indigo, which is in both woad and indigo. As the fabric is removed from the dye bath, it magically changes color before one's eyes.
When the Dye artist put her hands in the stale pee I about died !
Lol! Shes playing in it.
And she touched her face afterward ksfhksdhfkjshdf
and then touched her mouth..ahhhh
However gross it is (and I would never go near that without gloves), pee is sterile
Jegeriufane NOPE. Not sterile.
I once spent almost two weeks shooting a TV commercial in a semi-restored medieval castle in La Mancha, Spain. It was August and outside it looked and felt like Death Valley but inside the stone walls it was often, frankly, cold. I couldn't imagine what it would've been like inside there in the winter and there weren't a lot of fireplaces around. So, a lot of heavy layers, gloves, head coverings and the like - and everything padded or fur-lined - if you were rich. And everyone crawling with bugs.
We don’t consider wool a luxury item? I disagree. It can be and is usually very expensive in good quality form.
I think she means like mainstream wise like often brands would use cheap wools and not only that in films and tv shows, show peasantry wearing wools and tartans and the wealthy wearing silks, cotton, lace and embroidered fabrics
Limited fabric in those times. Cotton was from 'other places'..flax can be made into cloth, wool is bit more useful....and has differences in itself that vary the value of the wool.
@@charlessoutherton8946 gaaaaatcha, thanks for the clarification ^-^
Its because most of the wool we have now is a either a cheap synthetic imitation or the fabric is described as "woolen" and people assume woolen and wool are the same thing
@@MylkT1023hell yeah man.. twas why I said in "good quality form"
It’s thought provoking to consider the depth of the dye color as it relates to status. So not only is the lower class putting a lesser quality fabric through its paces by higher activity level and manual labor, they’re wearing more muted tones. Often I’ve thought of clothes from the period looking faded, presumably due to wear and tear, but mulling it over, it’s also likely to the way the cloth is dyed. Fascinating.
There's also the problem that cloth dyed with plant materials fades over time, and even faster in the sunlight. Brand-new clothes would have very stunning colours, but give them a few years and they will be drab and greyish. Which is why beggars and other poor people would wear such drab clothes... their clothes are literally hand-me-downs from those more fortunate and had been worn for a much longer time too.
In my native Flanders we have a particular expression for poor people: "het grauw" (meaning both "the grey" and "the pale") and the sound giving the added connotation with a growling animal. Colour defined class !!
I'm in love with this channel, I find historical dress absolutely fascinating! And being able to see these garments be created by using traditional textiles and rediscovered techniques is a privilege to witness. Programs like this really play into my love of all things historic.
I thought she was pregnant and was trying to hide it by holding her dress 😂😂😂
Agreed 😂
She isn't? I just started the episode...
Adult women spent most of their existence pregnant,i dont think hiding it was a thing back then.
P Heart my art teacher told me that it is speculated if van Eyck actually did portray a pregnant woman. She‘s with a man who‘s going to marry her since he was the one that got her pregnant. The painting would have been extremely scandalous since it basically depicted a shotgun wedding.
But that‘s just a theory.
melancholia that’s what I learned in school, too
I love the presenter's hat and headpieces
How to determine a person's wealth? Simply ask how many times their dress was dipped in stale pee water. Duh.
How many times was your dress dipped in stale pee water?
I'd be happy to urinate on a rich person if it made them feel wealthier. They "trickle down" on us all the time.
Yaddahay smarmalite me too! I’m piss poor!
@@yaddahaysmarmalite4059 Wonderful! Made me laugh out loud. Thank you
VASO DE AGUA TIENES VACA
My theory about the painting is that it’s an advertisement of the family’s goods. They may have been able to afford a dress like that but they wouldn’t have been able to wear it due to social constraints on fashion. By having a painting done of the couple with the dress and the oranges, they can show how they are able to get those items for their customers.
Interesting idea!
that dress is gorgeous but, im not sure they got the sleaves right. the pinking part of it. it just doesn't look the same
I think the original sleeves come from near the shoulders not from half way of the upper arms. Beautiful and Stunning dress though.
I was thinking the same thing. It looks to me that the pinking should be two layers together and then pinked. It's beautiful either way though!
I don't think the sleeves depicted in the painting were lined in fur either. It looks to me like the fur was used as trim. Not sure why they thought otherwise.
The sleeves in the painting were boxpleated. I have no idea why they woukd just cut weird slits like they did.
@@louisacapell I totally agree Lousia. Im a tailor myself, and I would say it consists of layers or 'boxing' too, I wouldn't have thought it was ribbon strips that have been chisel-pinkered that way. Also they filled the sleeves with fur too, I thought it would have been a 'deep-trim' not totally lined that way. No wonder it was incredibly heavy.
“dying was perhaps the most important of the finishing processes”
story of life lol
Hahaaa!
Great pun!
beautiful! although i feel those ruffles at the bottom aren't 100% , the shape feels a tad off. but the ladies did a spectacular job
right, I feel the ruffles are doubled up in the real dress there there is only a single layer. Maybe that's it.
And the cut edges looked like they were sewed/lined
I agree. I wondered if the edges weren’t embroidered in some or other way. Still absolutely brilliant job
My assumption is that they were puckered up with stitching, and detailed with gold thread ... something that they've skimped out on.
It looks like the under gown in the painting is also edged with fur at the bottom hem. I very much enjoyed learning about the techniques available so long ago. I look and look at the painting and am not sure the decorative hangings are strips as decided on here. It looks like ruffling might be part of the technique and it also appears that the edges of the strips were stitched with a lighter colored thread. I suppose it is anybody's guess how they did it. Maybe it was an ultra complex takeoff on daggoting?
Thanks Dr Kat of Reading the Past for the heads up on this gem of a programme. I am constantly amazed that fabric is often so inexpensive, given the long, involved processes of production. Fascinating insights into the history of cloth, and clothing. Thanks for posting this.
i do think the intricate ornaments of the sleeve were somehow sewn together. the little x shaped cuts are placed very orderly. in the reproduction the sleeves look as if they went through a shreddre
yes they look like they are sewn in the painting, i noticed too
Yes, it would have been nice to see all sewn and more like the painting, but it would have taken a Major amount of time beyond what was already spent creating the piece. It seems from the painting, that rather than hide stiching, the work involved was shown off on those decorations!
I’m so intrigued by fashion history and the recreation of these garments. This is so right up my alley I could watch for hours and hours!❤️
Wow! These tailors are so talented! To make something so fantastic just by sight is amazing. So much respect for this series' tailors!
"Plus, I really love the color green."
Beautiful work! Two wishes: that you had gone into more depth about the details of the painting and that you had also done the headdress
Interesting tidbit: current research suggests the woman in the portrait was dead when it was painted, and that this was a memorial portrait. One clue is that the candle has been snuffed out showing a little puff of smoke.
I just need to take a moment and sit in awe at the fact that Jan Van Eyck painted the fabric so well that you can actually see and almost feel the type of weave it has...not an easy feat for any painter.
Loved all of the science that went into the making of this garment: the stale urine dye, the depth of the color and weight of the fabric that indicated extreme wealth, the pleats and fur. This was a wonderful presentation that really adds richness to the symbolism of this portrait.
The obvious inaccuracies in the reproduction of this fine wedding dress are evident if one studies the details and history of the painting. The mirror beyond shows the reverse of the subjects, revealing that the dress is actually an over dress with a continuous mantle or cape draping in a tier structure across the back, rather than seperate long sleeves as misinterpreted here.
The tooled leather bodice belt is concealed at the back, beneath the mantle. The cutwork detailing to the mantle is a double layer of delicate clover shaped sections, affixed in three tiers of continuois banding all the way around the mantle cape and rising in a scallop at the centre back. The husband was from a family of wealthy fabric manufacturing merchants from Lucca, specialising in fine silks, velvet and fur. This double portrait demonstrates the fine quality of the materials typical of his trade. The fur lining and trim on the dress would be grey and white squirel; his outfit is similarly an over mantle with vertical fur pelts in red sable on velvet. The brides blue underdress is silk. The over dress may have been a fine wool but it is appears more likely to be a flat lustre velvet broadcloth if you examine the white edging revealed in the slashing/ cutwork trim. This would not be visible in a wool felt fabric. The fur trim to the lower section hems are narrow, not broad like the trim of arm openings. The brides wears plated gold cuff bracelets, as typical of Florentine gold work of the time. I feel the dress reproduced here looks more pantomime than a historically accutate representation of such a famous work of art.
It would have taken alot longer beyond the scope of their budget to totally recreate the garment. The sleeve work was obviously way off and a disappointment but they didn't have tbe luxury of time to do it up as it reallly was. Imagine how long that took.
WOW!! They did an absolutely stunning job! I'm so glad they didn't consider using real fur :)
Therealmlw
They should have recycled vintage fur. Synthetic fur is extremely horrible for the environment!
Humm I not sure it would hold up but, some faux fur is actually made from the spun fibers of recycled plastic bottles. Let's pretend that's what we have here :)
Therealmlw
I mean that's great, but the issue is that these fibers will never break down so we're just creating thousands and thousands and thousands of non biodegradable strands of plastic! Same goes for polyester threads.
They should have picked a (faux)fur in a diffrent colour than neon white, though ...
Fake fur is tacky and vulgar
I have to confess, as interesting as the history of the world in fashion is, my eyes are drawn to Ambers Tatted collar. I am a tatter and it's nice to see this neglected needle skill showcased.
Such an interesting show!I find the sleeves weren't as accurete though...and to all the people thinking the gown wasn't entirely fur lined,you can see in the portrait that the inside of it is fur lined,check the lower part,it's clearly visible the lining.
All in all a fabulous job!!
yes, i was thinking the whole time that they were not interpreting the painting correctly as per the direction of the fabric and the layers of picketed strips.
wish i'd known the trick of steaming the pleats when I was making my Van der Weyden houppelande! Fantastic video.
Gorgeous dress makes me wish we still dressed like this.
Im very disappointed in the sleeves!! The cut trim is just hanging down, not ruffled. I would have thought they would have slip stitched the pieces from one end to the other and pulled the threads which would have caused them to ruffle. Too bad.
yvonne herschberger Those ruffles look like a type of large smocking to me and I think it goes around the back. The way the fur is attached at the shoulder in the original is different and it appears like a built in cloak. A little confusing.
@@migraineyjoe2597 i think they bothched it and tried to play it off.
yvonne herschberger lp
@@migraineyjoe2597 YES! Its obvious in the round mirror that the sleeve around actually doubles as a type of cape, its odd the production team didn't realise that
@Sunny Quackers read that again, you first add a slipstitch, and then you pull the thread (the one you used for the slipstitch). That will work even on felt.
A great job at the pattern, but using that special fabric needed a real fur to achive the look and to give it the propper weight and the worth to the dress to be dysplayed at a museum. I also think that the decorative pleats at the sleeves needed some stitching, in the portrait it looks controled and ornate, and in this reproduction just look a mess. Perhaps it took a backing fabric on every flap to give it more weight and also a surface to stitch the cuted slits to make them look controled. In that time the craftsmanship in finishing was highly apreciated because it meant a lot of work put into and the conquest of man over the materials, that is why i don't think those strings could be that crazy in the real one.
I totally agree with you on the sleeves. However, one can find meticulously made faux fur that looks entirely like the real thing. I personally think they made a lot of poor decisions when making this piece. I'm a complete novice at sewing, so I've no right to say much.
So that painting is the modern day equivalent of an Instagram or Facebook posting. Those so called #blessed curated photos.
I’m surprised that there aren’t records from the dressmakers documenting the techniques. Almost every episode the costumers are guessing how these things were done. People spent their entire lives as dressmakers and their mothers were dressmakers and so on but these techniques apparently weren’t well documented. Maybe they were illiterate? They just kept it all in their heads.
tndrlytastefully more than likely they were, in fact, illiterate, dressmakers in the middle ages would likely have passed the techniques down through 6-10 year long apprenticeships with their own children or charges since schools didn't exist and only the rich could afford private tutors
Nope. Dressmaking was a skilled trade. Only the poor wore home-made garments and that was mostly underthings. Every woman being her own dressmaker was more a 19th century thing, mostly related to frugality and frontier life. As they were skilled trades, information was passed on via an apprenticeship, not through books. Trade secrets. What home sewing skills existed fell under "well, everyone knows this, why would we waste expensive resources on making a book?" But you can find dressmaking and tailoring pamphlets from later pre-modern decades if you want.
tndrlytastefully yes they were illiterate. Most people were. Reading isn’t important to sewing. And yes it was all in their heads.
Was probably to keep their secrets much like other trades, baking, metal working, etc. They wouldn’t just want someone else replicating what they were known for
+Fernando Argon Yes and no, of course, many if not every master in a trade had his secrets but in many regions and trades, apprentices travelled between masters to learn different aspects of their chosen trade. But I think the main reason was that most people were illiterate.
Please please make more Stitch in Times. I'm obsessed!!😍😍
My favourite painting. No matter how many times I've looked at it, the details never cease to amaze me.
Omg! I would love to work with these ladies recreating these historical garments ! To handle those amazing wools. Leathers, furs, silks, velvets etc. and with just hand stitching as the method….I am at a loss for words. Kudos all around ladies.
I think I'm on my third go around watching this series. I wish they would make more, Ms. Butchart is a great presenter and I enjoy the experts who actually make the clothes.
I’ve always found this painting really creepy.
The man especially looks like a ghoul. And all of their things almost seem... occultish.
They look like aliens that are in a cult on their home planet, and go planet to planet to preach the "good news" about their beliefs.
Especially moreso because the wife was dead at the time the painting was made. It was partially a memorial painting to her. She didn't live long after their marriage, and he had the portrait painted afterward. So while he looks like a ghoul, she's a ghost.
Lupa Lupo - and the wife looks like she has horns.
Now you know the sitters were just a couple of show-off nouveau-riche wanna-be's!
I find when I wear that dress style that my shoulders drop back and I thrust my belly out to retain balance. It's a natural thing with all that weight hanging off your shoulders. But it's not uncomfortable, and it is WARM.
Yeah, it's called the Gothic slouch. It looks a little funny to modern eyes from the front and side, but from behind, it's really attractive and highlights the waist and curve of the hips. It makes the wearer look very shapely.
Weighed down by wealth! Maybe thats where the phrase comes from?
The VanEyck painting is my favorite. An absolute masterpiece. Thank you for adding so much to my knowledge of cloth making and exquisite sewing.
wooooooowww that's GORGEOUS!!! I want to get married in december and have that dress as my wedding gown!!!!
The whole team is really amazing and so knowledgeable
No one is going to say anything about the man in the painting wearing a "Jamiroquai" hat? 😂
xD omg was scrolling down just thinking SOMEONE has to have noticed aswell hahahahahaha i'm not that crazy xD
This painting is an example of using optics for painting ultra realistically. Vermeer used this, it's a theory, but the only explanation for this extraordinary true to life painting.
Nah, you can see the pinholes Vermeer used for string perspective in his paintings.
@Sunny Quackers They're literally physical holes in the painting. That line up perfectly with the focal points. And have marks left from the strings. It's an old but known technique, not an idea conjured from thin air.
@Sunny bob Quackers One person appears to have recreated Vermeer's technique using a camera obscura. Watch "Tim's Vermeer" - 2013.
@Sunny bob Quackers Watch the movie. There is guessing, and then there is scientific reproduction that can help come to a more likely conclusion. There is skepticism, which is healthy, and then there is ignoring evidence to support one's own worldview. 😉
You can always take the stance that anything is conjecture, but until there is further evidence to the contrary, taking current theory as a workable solution is ok by me.
It is always fine to say, "I don't know." I find it preferable to the people who think they have all the answers written down in one book - one that is obviously incorrect and contradicts itself on many things.
They did an amazing job. I do believe they made some poor decisions, though. The sleeves were near completely wrong, And the faux fur they chose was so stark. faux fur is made with patterns, I'm almost positive they could have found something that looked much more accurate. I'm personally just very disappointed in how they chose to leave the decorative pieces of the sleeve so unfinished..
Thats historcially accurate, fabric used to be more tightly woven so fraying wasn't that much of a problem, and a dress like this wasnt likley to be washed regularly
Sounds like ‘boiled wool’ which is washed though not boiled and it creates a beautiful soft luxurious fabric. I’m in the UK. I know the feel of that fabric.
I love this series. It is extremely well done and so great to understand how art, fashion, and history intertwine.
BBC has a unique way of immersing the watcher in History. Thanks a lot to all those people who gently upload these shows .
This was wonderful and that dress was spectacular. I think the fur was ermine as silver fox would have to be trimmed or sheared to have such a low welt especially if the whole dress was lined in it. The presenter is truly beautiful and I would like to see an episode using Holbein's image of Anne of Cleves head gear or Sargent's Madame X with her wearing that infamous black dress. Velasquez' Las Meninas was also a double portrait subject to various interpretations. Thanks again.
I've been obsessed with the dress in this painting for a looOooong time. What a blessing to see Amber & team recreate this in reality! Thank you fellow fashion history nerds!!!!
My explanation of the woman's posture: she's offering herself indicating her role as the receiver and bearer of life; literally "lifting her skirts," for him as she stands in front of the bed. Further, the volume of fabric clutched at the front, expresses the hope or intention to be in the family way. The man's raised hand shows his dominant position of the two while his extended hand taking hers shows his commitment, tenderness and he honors her. Her hand open towards the viewer? She comes with "clean hands," I guess. No "issues" in her past. A virgin.
I used linen as a child to stabilize the clothes I hand sewed for my barbie dolls. Either I am a genius to figure that out due to lack of a modern stabilizing method OR they are so used to proper way that a common sense approach isn’t even in their paradigm. Pretty sure I am not a genius lol.
The dress looks to be lined in the fur.. at 9:53 it shows the bottoms of the dress where it’s lifted up and it does look like it’s completely lined
Loved the episode, loved the music at the end of it. I had a hard time looking for the name of the song, but found it! The name is Everlasting by Phil Stevens (in case somebody else is looking for it 😊)
Who knew that pee could make fabric colour look so beautiful?!
Me
Better than collecting it for gunpowder - another historical use. 😉You can also use it to help soften leather.
The white fur was called Miniver and it's the white fur from the belly of the squirrels
Love her tatted collar to her cape.
Yoooo. I learned about that painting in history!!! People made jokes about the man looking like Putin 😂
I love Amber's outfit in this. The emerald green is so beautiful
Wow! Absolutely incredible to watch
That dress would be gorgeous for Christmas!
All the hard work that goes into making this final dress makes you gain a new appreciation for medieval tailoring and dressmaking. The people who made the clothes were not only good at what they did but probably;y some of the best in the world at that time. I would give anything to have a peek into that studio so long ago. Plus, my other question was, how did they make such incredible fabrics in the 14th century?
Same as that factory, but all by hand. so wire comb like things to seperate the fibers off the wool, someone spinning the wool into yarn, and somone to hand weave it. it probably took so much longer to make it back then aswell...
What a fascinating, educational video! Thank you so much. It was great to see folks working as historical clothing detectives, something that is not seen very often. I do have mixed feelings about the final dress, however. I felt, ( and this is just me, mind you. ) the under-sleeves, were the wrong fabric, ( The new dress seemed to sport a rather inexpensive looking satin, could be wrong there, and wrong color, ( Original dress sported a lighter, softer blue and it seemed heavier with a faint pattern. --again, could be wrong). Perhaps they ran out of time/money? Also, I would have tried a different technique for the ruffles.
. Finally, it would have been SO, SO much better to have the narrator wearing the COMPLETE outfit as it looks from the original painting, head covering, hair tucked away and all.
But as I said, these are only my opinions. I'm just one small person.
But BOY- did those ladies find the perfect material for the green dress and those pleats in the front? Drop dead gorgeous! If you can say that about pleats. It was ingenious the way you ladies figured out how to do them. Not to mention, the actual crafting, and draping, construction of the garment, all coming from ONE extant source. l loved learning about the dying of fabrics. Smelly or not, it was fascinating to see it actually work! I learned so much from this program. I can't wait to watch the next one. Thank you, sincerely.
I've been rewatching these episodes. These are just so homey and well made. They're calm and don't have stupid duhn duhn sounds loll
❤ It Is Such a treat to watch this. I love clothing from this time period.
I f***ing love this show! As an art historian this is so very interesting!
You're a f***ing art historian? How f***king unfortunate for art history.
That guy basically said " You have such a long impractical dress it drags through the shit." 🤣
If she had died in childbirth (like the lone extinguished candle above her would suggest) it would make sense that she looks like she was recently pregnant. That the fold of her dress would create the illusion she was pregnant but just that an illusion done on purpose by the artist. Modern scholars believe she's possibly the deceased first wife of the man shown in the portrait.
The seamstresses in theses episodes are just awsome, he time consuming and delicate some of the outfits are, great host in these documentaries also. Learn a lot from watching, thanks.
Beautiful gown!
How did they think that the sleeves looked the same?
I think in the real dress the cuts had small hand stitching to make they more shapely.
This is such a fascinating show. There isn't enough content about the history of clothes and their cultural/historic importance!
They never did figure out those sleeves, did they?
Seeing this magical and lovely dandy talk with such deep knowledge and passion and give deferent respect to the knowledge of experts in these esoteric labor-intensive handicrafts...ah, it gives one a good feeling all over.
How amazing. I love this show .
it wasn't until that last shot comparing the dresses that i realized the lady in the painting was wearing something blue underneath
Yes, that's her kirtle or gown. A houppelande like the green dress is an over garment.
Fur lined dress suddenly seems very appealing when I look at my energy bill in 2022
My house is now more comfortable with extra insulation and a heat pump. My electric bill is less than $100 a month. Check out modern insulation standards in Germany. I think the current British government is actually pushing for people to switch to heat pumps. I used to get by with wool socks and no active heating, but that was when I wasn't in my 60s. I used to fight over the thermostat in the house I grew up in as it always felt drafty to me. The sawdust furnace we used cost about $50 a year in the 1970s to keep an un-insulated late 1800s 4-bedroom house warm.
@@ssgtmole8610 my landlord is unable plug a rat hole for 3 years. I think heating options are an utopian dream.
@@Nina-hl5qk Use the rat landlord to plug the rat hole?
I had a rash of mice for several years - nothing since I repaired the mesh on the foundation air vents.
Her capelet would look fantastic in an old school lolita coordinate. I have many period clay pipes, they're very exciting to find with designs on.
So amazing! It is such a shame that last shot was out of focus, I would have loved to see the full dress side by side super clearly
I need to know where you get all your velvet head wraps 😍
I'm sure she has them made just for her.
Vintage, maybe.
I am pretty sure she makes them herself 😀. It is possible you know.
They look so pretty against her skin tone and hair. That teal color almost matches her eyes. I could use a few to keep my curly locks under control
I believe you can get it from the clothing line Lazy Oaf, if I'm not mistaken.
I think what they did for this show is amazing, but I'm wondering if they had a high quality photo for reference. If you look at a decent resolution of the painting, you'll see that lower, decorative drape of sleeve is attached at the back, and the back falls like a cape or "sack-back,", over the belt. The belt was not visible from the back view. Also, I'm wondering if the "pinking" wasn't top-stitched?
www.flickr.com/photos/28433765@N07/3829101257
The fur trim on the sleeves is finished incorrectly. Look at the top of the sleeve opening. In the painting, the trim lays flat. It the modern copy, it sticks out. Disappointing that they cut corners when it came to the finishing touches. What's the point? Do it well or not at all.
I mean, cut them a tiny bit of slack, they're working with faux fur, which is a tiny bit more rigid than actual fox fur. It's really hard to get everything 100%. They did amazing on the other 99%
If you look at the back view in the mirror the pinking goes round and up the back and gives the dress a more flamboyant and of course a more expensive finish but for an experiment well done all
Wonderfully interesting and informative! Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and the fruits of your research. Well done!
Wow amazing. So pretty. So elegant.🌷
Just wonderful...more please...
the painting is amazing but i've always thought the man is creepy as hell. his wife couldn't have had a very good life with him. she even looks a bit shy towards him sort of: "pls. don't touch me..."
I doubt he would go out of his way to have her painted with him if he treated her badly..plus they didn't smile back then so of course they will look weird or sad/shy
@@DeniseF i mean they did smile, just nor for portraits
i find it best not to judge the character of people by their appearance. beauty does not equal morality
I don't think you're wrong this painting has a tad of a melancholy aura. In fact, the woman died the year before it was made. It is thought Arnolfini had this portrait painted honour her memory. Kind of romantic, in that sense ..
I want to know more about those pleats and the construction!!! Man! This is awesome!!!!!
What a fabulous garment
Beautiful!
Mystery solved: she wasn't pregnant, it was the dress.
Very exciting fashion investigation. Loved the making of the wool.
I wish they'd taught us history like this in school - a way I can understand as I was always such an art buff
Beautiful dress. It's so weighty, fully fur lined and rather oversized--part coat, part dress.The wool fabric is phenomenal. I agree with everyone that the sleeves are quite off. They are clearly edged with oodles of cut ruffles, suggesting there was even more fabric and labour involved.
I can also see the criticism leveled at the well to do at the time. why is the dress ridiculously long at the front? It trails on the ground, and we all know the conditions of three streets back then--dirty, muddy, full of dung. It would have been an awful task to hand launder the bulky, heavy thing. It's definitely not practical to wear outside the home for the average working woman. I can picture the green lady at a work table settling accounts, making records and counting coins.
It's to show that she's so well-off she doesn't need to leave home.
My jaw dropped when she put the dress on ❤️
LOVE, LOVE this series! Love Amber, you're adorable and I wish you would do more!
Thank you so much for adding these episodes!! They are such a delight!
I really hope she does a series of episodes on Henry viii’s wives!
That was wonderful!