[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-05-12: Ghost posting is now globally disabled. 2022: Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 566 KB, 640x900, 18th Century Fashion Plate 133 (1780).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10628717 No.10628717 [Reply] [Original] [rbt]

Itt: Historical costume/clothes thread

Making anything? Adding something to your to-make wishlist? Any favorite shops to buy accessories or full outfits, patterns, etc? Anything you wish would change about the historical costume community? Favorite videos or channels? Favorite books related to historical costuming? etc

chat up

>> No.10628843

Does interest in historical hair/wig styles count? I have a copy of "An Illustrated Dictionary of Hairdressing and Wigmaking" and found it very interesting. It has a lot of illustrations and photos of historical hairstyles but isn't limited to that

>> No.10628961

sure, I'd like to see it.

>> No.10629290
File: 15 KB, 250x428, medieval cosplay.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Rolling up to the con like this

>> No.10629331
File: 156 KB, 960x1200, ETJapv8WoAUUEru[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm getting a mid-18th century robe à la française made by a seamstress, mostly inspired by this beauty. I've been wanting to get into historical costuming for a decade and finally have the money and time to do so.

>> No.10629772

I'm drafting a "short bustle" (short in hem length) to see what it looks like with Lolita. I'm getting old and I'm seeking to make my dresses a bit more "lady-like".

>> No.10629789

Peasant kei

>> No.10629951

Same. I don't really have the skill or desire to make my own historical clothing, but I'm starting to get a collection of pieces made by other people. It's fun.

>> No.10629954

How much is it going cost you?

>> No.10629980
File: 228 KB, 1089x1500, 81NZgLY6ZDL._AC_SL1500_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Are the American Duchess Simplicity patterns worth it?

>> No.10630009
File: 109 KB, 800x800, american-duchess-guide-book-cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

No; by their book instead.
The patterns aren't terrible, but Simplicity had control over them each to change a lot of the historical/practical elements. The patterns in the book will fit you more accurately.

If you hate drafting a pattern from blank paper, then I'd say get both and read the book's instructions on fitting to adjust your dress to fit accurately.

>> No.10630013
File: 20 KB, 255x114, B_T_Header_Logo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Just want to elaborate: When I say "fit accurately" I mean that a robe ah la france is suppose to, like all fashion of the era, fit your specific body very precisely. Modern Patterns are generally not as fitted to the body and modern patterns by simplicity and others often add in a lot of "ease", which works for the "modern fit" but doesn't work with historical concepts of how fashion is suppose to work.

Other resources you'll want to check out are https://burnleyandtrowbridge.com/ for authentic materials / sewing supplies / fabrics / more patterns and books along with Abby Cox's youtube channel and the other costubers you'll be recommended through watching her.

>> No.10630027


>> No.10630028

Are there any shops for decent or good 18th century clothes? Looking around I mostly find stuff where they're clearly using mediocre patterns. I don't mind paying more, I just have trouble finding stuff that is basically accurate.

>> No.10630038

Here are some, but I want to give a bit of a warning; lots of people who COULD run a shop making 18th century clothing simply don't because the finished garments are so expensive and need to fit you, specifically, that it would be very hard to stock inventory. In real world modern money terms a dress could easily take 10 yards or more (more if it's a pattern for pattern matching) and most of the fabrics that would suit start at $30 USD from the fabric supplier. Futher, while you can machine-stich long seams, most of the pleating and sewing requires handwork, so labor would be a lot (the outer gown of a fancy dress would be over $500 USD, a farmer's wife would be under $300, closer to $200)

Corests & Stays both custom fitted and ready-to-ship. Be careful to zero-in on a specific time period and make sure your outter garment is the same style as your stays or it'll not fit. For 18th (1700s) you want "stays", not coresets. DO NOT plan to lace down; the goal is to smooth your shape, not to shrink it.

Good outer garments, check her YouTube channel for lots of videos of pieces she's made.

Last tip; save money by making your "inner garments" and your "whites". That is to say your shift (the base layer; a white t-shirt dress basically), your inner-most petticoat and buy whatever knee-high socks (tie under knee with ribbon to hold). Then, the whites; Your cape, your cuffs and your neckerchief; these three can literally be made out of any white fabric.

>> No.10630044

Around $1100. Which is a lot compared to some of the more off-the-rack pieces out there but I know the seamstress knows her stuff and cares about historical accuracy, including materials and sewing methods, it's worth it for me.

>> No.10630045

You could try asking for recommendations in historical costuming facebook groups. I personally like Historical Costuming Without Judgement.

>> No.10630046
File: 10 KB, 528x166, townsends.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

*cap, not cape. You'll end up wearing a hat or a bonnet-thing over your cap often and that you'll want to buy from somewhere, but the cap is so basic it's not worth paying for (it's like lolita; save up for the main piece).

If you want to do the white-powder hair, then you should get American Duchess's book on 18th century beauty and get ready to start mixing animal fats. A wig could work, but most women did not use wigs at the time (more often hair rats and homemade hair pieces to clip in/ pin in).

One more site;
Very American fashions of the era, more frontier. They offer clothing, but I would say they are excellent as an "accessories" shop for all the extra props/things you might want to carry with you. They carry a lot of suitable menswear ready-to-buy as well and re-printed books from that era. They also have a youtube channel, but the focus is mostly on cooking in the 1700s and their current project; building a 18th century log cabin homestead.

>> No.10630049
File: 786 KB, 1144x718, townsends.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Townsends is good for accessories, not so much for fashion, particularly women's. This is... oof. You'd be better off buying an etsy dress someone made with an inaccurate but more pleasant looking simplicity pattern.

>> No.10630050

I would like to make some general suggestions towards the Lolita community today, about historical fashion stuff, before I go for the day;

Consider intergrating historical fashion directly into your coords, instead of trying to source the "lolita-fied" version. It could be cheaper and it will ground your coord in a more "real world" way to have elements that people did actually use to wear. COnsider the following;

>pair a "Bum Roll" with a light petticoat
Instead of total uniform poof, see how a bum roll might balance out with wearing a softer petti; the shape will be reminiscent of different eras depending on the cut of your bodice.

>Try Clockwork Silk Stockings
Clockwork refers to how the knited design finishes up around the ankle/heel (not a literal clock design) and is a style of sock that nobody sees anymore, but that most people know is old-fashion. These can be cheaper then brand OTKs but made with silk instead of poly/cotton blends.

>18th century straw hats and cotton ruffle-trim caps
Consider a different straw hat from the boater; the 1700s lady's staw hat was almost completely flat like a disc, could easily be super decorated or super plain and tied under the chin with a ribbon. It was often paired with a headcap (with ruffle/lace trim); so you would pin up your hair into the cap, pull out a few decorative locks and tie the straw hat on top; a good option for fancy-looking, but low-effort up-does.

>> No.10630315

not colorful enough!

>> No.10630595

Thats awful, how can they even put their name/brand on that?

>> No.10630669

>>10630049 >>10630595
(disclaimer: I'm not a fan of Townsend, I'm not trying to defend this specific company exclusively, this explanation applies to ALL fashion of this genre)

The reason why this doesn't look great is because it's not fitted properly ON PURPOSE. The truth is, a proper gown of this time period, no matter upper class or lower class (this purple one is a middle-class frontier America), is suppose to be fitted to the individual. The only way this company, and many others, can produce reasonably priced garb (without tacking on another $200, $300 in labor, sending the garment out, having it sent back, re-fitting, re-sending out, etc etc) is to fit it just enough that then YOU only have to do the final adjustments/taking in.

In the 18th century most gowns below royalty had no exact patterns; people would measure with string cut at the point of overlap to use to the cut materials and would roughly copy the shapes of dresses based on pictures and dresses they already had access to. Once the rough shapes were cut out, they were then pinned DIRECTLY onto the future owner of the dress and the needed take-in points were marked. Ideally, you are suppose to set the sleeve of the bodice/jacket while it's on the actual wearer. As a last note, there were no snaps, zippers and a limited supply of buttons; your stomacher would be pinned directly into your Stays (corset) every morning and then you would unpin yourself every night.

With all this in mind, the only modern dress makers that will be selling custom fitted-correctly garments of this era will be charging you A LOT more and will require more measurements from you and or you might have to go in for fitting.

Retro-actively in the 20th century we've created sewing patterns for these garments by studying the surviving ones, but often (as mentioned with the simplicity pattern above) they still will never fit you correctly if you hire out the work and have it shipped back to you.

>> No.10630671
File: 596 KB, 783x588, nope.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

For $500? I wholeheartedly disagree with this defense.

It's not the fit, it's the construction. It's sloppy and inaccurate. It looks like Baby's First Historical Gown. The website also specifically asks you to various body measurements with your stays on so they can fit it closer, so there's no reason for all the example photos to look so baggy and off.

"You have to buy this dress and then have it all taken in and fitted so it doesn't look like a mess" is a ridiculous notion, especially since this is not indicated at all on the site. And you'd have to do so much more than fitting it around you to make this look good.

There are countless people out there who manage to make better looking gowns, more accurate looking gowns, for the same price. Sometimes less, depending on complexity.

>> No.10630673

Last little tack on, then I'll back off;

Overall, I would not reccomend TOwnsend (after reviewing their full inventory) for women's dresses above the status of farmer's wife / middle class American colonist. They seem to be very set in their specific location and era; likely they are using local historical sources to create a very accurate, but highly regional, line of products. In general, Early-America fashion looks really different, unfitted and not as pretty as what was going on in Europe, because Europe had access to 100x the resources, dressmakers and trade oppertunities. So for a "classic" dress of the era, I would go with something French or English-style and not American-style.

All of that said, most of the accessories are inter-exchangeable; Townsends prices for undergarments, the "whites" sets (cap, apron, neckerchief) could all be used with any outfit of the era, even going into court dress (at which point you'd dump the plain neckerchief and add expensive lace sleeve cuffs). So I'd say look at that store as a good US-based "basics" store for the era, but shop somewhere else for the main piece/ your gown.

And best, best bet would be to either make the gown yourself or to hire someone you know and trust locally.

>> No.10630675

I absolutely agree it's baggy, which is why I would not recommend it, but I wouldn't say it's shotty. The sleeves look set into the bodice correct for that era (again, it's a method you're suppose to fit directly onto the wear's arm, to fit their arm specifically) but it's been left a bit poofed because you're not there to fit it to. The waist needed to be nipped in way more, but I don't see any physical construction problems with it's technical assembly. The biggest gripe I have is I wish they pictured the model with and without petticoats. A farmer's wife/ working woman would only have one petticoat and maybe no bum roll and for that the dress hangs right; but I can't tell if a wealthier person, who would have spent money on more petticoats, bum rolls and structure could fit all of that under there. Skirts are suppose to be 4+ yards in with.

>> No.10630676

>Consider intergrating historical fashion directly into your coords, instead of trying to source the "lolita-fied" version.

so......."make your lolita coords not lolita"?

>> No.10630729
File: 775 KB, 591x797, samson.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

You'd be better off getting stuff from Samson Historical, which has as similar "clothes for lower-middle class" vibe but it's not nearly as expensive. I have a few short gowns and skirts from them, I like to wear them around the house.

The problem is that they're going for a polonaise gown look, but they're using basic materials and silhouettes equivalent to lower-middle class women, like the lower, loose unstructured torso and straight bodice. The end result looks like a cheap mish-mash, something you might make with a crappy Simplicity pattern or see at a high school community theater production. it doesn't look like anything we see in representations of colonial or early American women's clothing.

>> No.10630731
File: 279 KB, 500x333, Reeactors-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Here's the vibe that Townsends wanted.. a far cry from what they were able to produce. Maybe they should have hired someone who did a stint at the costume shop for Williamsburg.

>> No.10630742
File: 18 KB, 544x548, aclockworkwalmart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Instead of total uniform poof, see how a bum roll might balance out with wearing a softer petti; the shape will be reminiscent of different eras depending on the cut of your bodice.
so just throw out the lolita silhouette is what you are suggesting. Lolita dresses and skirts are created with a specific petticoat or coats in mind.

>Try Clockwork Silk Stockings
according to American Duchess for around 30 USD...

Honestly it half looks like diabetic socks you'd buy for your grandma at Walmart. The other half looks like the socks I can get made of cotton for 2-5$ but for 2 bucks it's actually thick.

I don't understand how you can compare brand socks to this, used socks aren't that expensive and add visual interest unlike this diabetic-kei

>70% Silk & 30% Nylon
>Top quality silk with woven tone-on-tone clock pattern at the ankles
Stockings come up above the knee, and stay up without garters

>"These can be cheaper then brand OTKs but made with silk instead of poly/cotton blends."
So instead of a cotton/poly blend you are suggesting a silk/nylon blend.
Silk is hard to wash and easily stains and I can tell you this as someone who owns a ton of it.
Lolita is a fashion, often worn daily, why would I want socks I can't wear and wash every day? You realize silk is delicate right?

>18th century straw hats and cotton ruffle-trim caps
You're describing something new but refusing to provide an image on an image board.

You are completely oblivious to what you are trying to "make some general suggestions towards" without actually doing surface research on the egl and not even bothering to lurk in any threads dedicated to lolita.
Some of this wasn't even lolita knowledge, most people know that there are delicate materials that are not intended for daily use.

Are you a larper, tradwife or a scrote?

>> No.10630824

Tagging for Gropey.

>> No.10631084
File: 511 KB, 812x1024, George-Romney-Mrs.-Billington-as-Saint-Cecilia-1787.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I finally made a chemise a la reine and I... I get it now. I get why this dress is so popular. It's like wearing a cloud that turns you into a princess. Fantastic.

>> No.10631099

Ooh, I've been wanting to try making one of these myself. Are they as comfortable as they look (because they look incredibly comfy)?

>> No.10631118

Yes, extremely comfortable. I plan to make a few more in different styles and fabrics

>> No.10631171
File: 929 KB, 1080x2340, Screenshot_20210613-204711.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Thanks for this. Someone found me on Facebook.

Good to see folks are rocking the 18th century. On that note this might be a good place to offer, I still have a bunch of girls gowns retired from my museum's clothing rental. I sold The vast majority of them, but there are still about a dozen size child's 9/10 left, because these were the most popular rental size. These are all based off of CW-932A.

All of them are an excellent condition, and I'm willing to trade for interesting things for my macaroni outfits or last quarter of the 18th century impressions.

Unrelated: has anyone messed around with that new of voila app for converting pictures into 18th century paintings? It's worked pretty well for me, and I'm getting ready to make some lover's lockets for myself and my better half.

>> No.10631290

>Unrelated: has anyone messed around with that new of voila app for converting pictures into 18th century paintings? It's worked pretty well for me, and I'm getting ready to make some lover's lockets for myself and my better half.

No, but that sounds pretty dope ngl.

Nice dresses btw.

>> No.10631630

Any new outfits lately?

>> No.10632055

Nyart, is there a pattern you recommend? I wanna be a cloud of princess, too.

>> No.10632267
File: 112 KB, 687x900, ea88a9_ab44f9d5ac784fa5b715404bb2e8e35d~mv2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I used the Laughing Moon pattern but there's a lot of tutorials out there if you don't like them or want to try without a pattern.

Chemise dress with video tutorial and free pattern in the description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw-oqLPgmEA&

Visual guide: https://freshfrippery.com/2015/04/07/easy-chemise-dress/

I did add additional layers to mine to give it more floof.

>> No.10632350

...do you work where I think you work?

>> No.10634691

Sooo does anyone have the tea on what happened at Colonial Williamsburg today that has people losing their minds on Twitter & Tiktok?

>> No.10634813

Basically it was an event organised at a formal plantation, invite only, with no non white people invited, held on Juneteenth

>> No.10634821

Wow did the black people not show up and reenact a plantation takeover?

>> No.10634833

Why are people sperging about lolita in this thread when it is about historical fashion, not lolita.

Anyway, does anyone here wear folk costumes or any sort?

or time periods older than the 1700/1800s.

>> No.10634847

This is what I've been able to find out.

Basically someone held a fashion show for their private costuming group, which was all white women, most of them wearing chemise a la reine gowns. Posted a video online. They had a table for their group, I don't know what the table was about/for.

Then someone made a vagueposting Tiktok about it, with lots of eyebrow-judging expressions, saying that there's a costume event happening "on a former plantation, with no black women or BIPOC women in sight, on JUNETEENTH." Which blew up.

Then people started making comments & responses suggesting that actually, the chemise a la reine is cultural appropriation because "it was made by BLACK WOMEN" (even though its exact origins are contested, and even if we subscribe to the idea that its origins derive from the French colonies and it was designed by black women uh, it was definitely based on luxury clothing worn by elite slave-owning light skinned mixed women, not slaves, but y'know) and then people started referencing that really poorly written Medium article that blames Marie Antoinette for the American slave trade (because the author somehow believes that MA liking the chemise a la reine sparked the demand for cotton in the Western world and not uh, the... existing demand for cotton which led to Britain repealing its import/export laws regarding cotton years before the dress became popular)

Then someone made an Instagram post demanding white people who wear chemise gowns pay reparations

Someone in the group who got doxxed made a tiktok being like "We're gonna do better!!" which naturally got them torn to shreds. Another person in the community made a video yelling at her fellow white women for doing this.

Colonial Williamsburg actually had a number of slavery related talks and events on the 19th, so I guess the crux of the issue is that this was taking away from that. Too bad they didn't do it a different day.

>> No.10634856

It wasn't a fashion show. It was a picnic. A group of friends planned a picnic, and it ended up going from an informal "let's go dressed up and have a picnic" to an event with a group and more attendees. of 100 people who said they were going, 30 ended up going. Some of the planned intendees were POC but they had to cancel. They didn't have a fashion show, just took a video where some of them wearing the same types of clothing were walking in a row and added music to the video of it later.

Supposedly (can't find out the truth) they set up their picnic near some of the official Juneteenth events and it was distracting from the actual events. Which if this is true, yeah that's not appropriate to take attention away from the actual people working at Williamsburg. But I also see a bunch of the attendees were sharing photos/videos of the Juneteenth interpreters, so it kind of becomes "are they assholes for... attending on this day at all?" idk

But of course it's now blowing up into "you were dressed as slave owners!! yt people!"

>> No.10634893


>> No.10634897

jesus christ is this the new lolita? Same garbage drama just with longer more expensive dresses. It almost makes me laugh but its actually very sad that this is the "tea'.

Those tiktokers and circulators are insane and shouldn't be allowed into the historical dressing community, they're making it so incredibly toxic. In 5 years we'll see ita threads be replaced by the historical reenactment equivalent.

>> No.10634953

Historical costuming has always been filled with drama. The difference is that TikTok-esque culture now ramps it up to ridiculous levels that are faster and more intense than the type of drama previously found in the historical fashion community.

Look at that lady that made a negative Tiktok about the bee lady who handles hives without gear, long hair, etc. It took less than a week for some popular TikToker to attack her and now her business had to close because Tiktokers review bombed it, gave it bad press, doxxing, attacks, etc.

Should Colonial Williamsburg start making its employees wear lower class clothing? Since according to this new argument, the picnic group were "dressed in slave owner clothing" because they were wearing polonaise, anglaise, chemise, etc.

>> No.10634958

To add to the confusion: There is debate about whether or not they were... actually there on the 19th or the 18th. The main account that people are targeting with this said Saturday night in her stories: "just to be clear, I was not at CW today. i was on my way home this morning." Other tagged people have said the same thing, they left in the morning. Also multiple people in stories clarifying that no, they didn't pretend like they worked there and yes, they tell people they aren't employees.

So was this on the 18th, after all?

I want to figure out what actually happened here, because it's starting to look onto other sites and of course when people repeat it, they're adding/embellishing and now the group "made a spectacle of themselves."

Also sorry, don't mean to clog a thread with drama, just since it's relevant to the costuming community I want to figure out wtf actually happened.

>> No.10634968
File: 487 KB, 897x1024, Man and Child Drinking Tea, circa 1720 Artist unknown, England.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

All right y'all this is what I've discovered after indulging in a shit-ton of videos and stories, including videos + stories from people that work at CW and were there on Saturday.

Colonial Williamsburg is one of the few living history spaces that allow guests to come dressed in historical costume. It is not unusual for people to plan meet-ups there, because you can dress up in a historical setting, take photos, videos, etc. A meet-up was planned for the weekend of June 17th-19th, which went from an informal thing to a group with a Facebook. It was open-invitation, but primarily white people joined the groupo/event. Some people are focusing on this, and blaming the costumers for not having BIPOC friends, and essentially saying they should have reached out to BIPOC people to make sure they were coming too.

There appears to be no issues with the group on the 17th or 18th. On the 19th, however, the group decided to have a picnic--this was a planned picnic, in which they brought their own tables, food and decor (specifically, bowls of citrus fruit).

They set up the picnic tables... across from a living history event put on by employees of Colonial Williasmburg, specifically, black living history interpreters who were educating guests about the lives and struggles of enslaved people at Williamsburg. So picture the Colonial Williamsburg walking paths with seemingly two events on the side: a picnic full of women in fancy gowns giggling and eating, bowls of fruit, etc, and then the other side a platform stage of black people in homespun looking clothes sitting 6 feet apart, talking.


>> No.10634969


Not surprisingly, guests started going over to the group of women huddled together in pretty dresses and talking to them as if they were employees. Because most people would assume that people dressed in historical clothing at Williamsburg work there. Some of the people in the group were not very forthcoming about the fact that they were just visitors. Others were not. Some of the people who were there on the 17th-18th were not there for the picnic, and had left in the morning. The video of the women walking in a line was not from the 19th, but taken on the 18th and uploaded on the 19th.

Anyway. The meat of the issue that the group detracted from the serious living history interpretations that the black employees of Williasmburg have been working on for months, years in some cases, on the very first official Juneteenth. They set up tables and did indeed "make a spectacle of themselves" within visual and earshot of Williamsburg employees and their work.

I'm reminded of when Traci Hines would pull stunts like this at Disney Parks, though it's even more extreme here since you're fully allowed to be in historical costume. (Anyone else think CW might switch to the "costumes only on designated days/events" now like most living history spaces do?)

The "well they should have invited BIPOC people!!" argument is monumentally retarded, because the problem is that they took attention away from the employees and a serious historical living history event, not that none of the giggling women taking attention away from living history interpretation going on right across the way were black.

Finally, Abby Cox chiming in with an aNgRy vIdEo with her tight-almost-in-tears "HHHHow fucking DARE YOU!" crying videos about this, when her white ass got married at a plantation, and the video about "why" she did it was so ridiculous, she was laughing and giggling while talking about it, never took accountability, is hilarious.

>> No.10634970

Why didn't the workers do the explaining since they do have legitimate authority in this situation?
It feels like it wouldn't be hard to say
>"please ignore the visitors sitting in the park, we have a policy allowing historical costumes to be worn on site while visiting CW. Thank you."

>> No.10634974

>Why didn't the workers do the explaining since they do have legitimate authority in this situation?

Because they were in the middle of a living history interpretation. Sounds like there wasn't any way for them to find a way to get a different employee who wasn't "on" to steer people away or talk to the women having a picnic.

CW needs to start having "handlers" like the way they do face characters at Disney. Someone on hand to handle situations like this.

>> No.10634978

thank you for the context anon, but I can't find the Abby Cox video or any groups or accounts talking abt this. how were you able to dig this up?

>> No.10634991

>its a living history interpretation!
Bitch I'm sure if I started screaming "why is this n***er yapping" they would break character or find a handler.

Security would be called and character would be broken that way or its equivalent would happen. The workers just allowed that situation to happen, they did not prepare and frankly not having a handler for a racially charged event is disorganized.

I don't care how many years the idea was baked, if heckling is not anticipated then it is poorly planned.

Honestly the workers that took part in CW probably wanted something like this to happen

>> No.10634995

>Bitch I'm sure if I started screaming "why is this n***er yapping" they would break character or find a handler.

O...kay? that's not what happened.

What racially charged event? No one excepted a gaggle of white women in rich ladies gowns to descend upon an active living history event on a platform and set up a ridiculous tone-deaf cottagecore-esuqe picnic across the way.

>I don't care how many years the idea was baked, if heckling is not anticipated then it is poorly planned.

People don't really heckle like this or make big "oh shit we need security" stinks at CW.

>> No.10634997

A lot of story hopping. Almost all of this is in stories. Start with sewstine, she had one of the employees stories in her story; that employee had another employee, along with one of the living history interpreters working that day, in her story.

abbyelyn is Abby Cox's instagram, it's in her stories as a repost from her tiktok.

>> No.10635004

>Black history event
>On Juneteenth
>not racially charged

Pick two. Race is a very touchy subject right now and always has been so pretending that an event with attention on the times of slavery not being potentially disrupted intentionally isn't that far sighted.

What if people decided this was the thing they want to protest?
What if this was the event that was going to become the "orange fool" Townsend moment for CW?

How the fuck was a contingency plan not developed?

>> No.10635015


This. It reads as terribly uninformed to normies- I narrated the events to my incredibly normie bf and even though he isn't into woke culture he thought it was incredibly tone deaf.

I could imagine the nyt or even a local newspaper picking this up and blowing this up into an attention grabbing headline.

Even cynically speaking you really need to be thinking about things like this. I agree it's blown out of proportion but understanding why it was will hopefully let the group know in the future to plan a bit better for those contingencies.

>> No.10635025

Just hopping into this discussion but historical reenactment space doesn't seem racially charged to me, especially one that acknowledges slave life considering the most intense racists pretend slavery either never happened or was "lazy black people taking advantage of the generous plantation owners" and ridiculous revisionist stuff which wouldn't be someone going to CW I would wager lol. Most people are there to learn or for the interest in aesthetics or craftsmanship and whatnot, right? Blaming the people working there who have seemingly never had this issue before for not trying hard enough or calling them lazy for not breaking character what was mostly a misunderstanding, not legitimate antagonism or anything, seems silly.

Like idk historical communities are typically way too chill (and often boring to normies) from my perspective to attract hecklers beyond immature school kids on a field trip so I can see why this wasn't an issue before. Most rules exist because someone did something that caused problems for people, so now that this situation happened whether the intentions were bad or not, they can develop better systems for dealing with it like handlers or specific rules on dates you wan wear historical clothes and all.

>> No.10635029

I'm not sure I understand why you're bringing up examples like "well yeah but what if I screamed racial slurs at them!" when that's not remotely close to what happened?

Colonial Williamsburg regularly has slave and freed black person interpreters on site talking about their experiences without incident and has for a while now. The only difference is having specific events all day about the history of slaves and black people at Williamsburg, and the focus for the day being on rather than them rather than the focus being split between black and white history interpreter events.

In the case of what actually went down... what were they supposed to do? It's not against the rules for guests to meet up in big groups, even in historical dress. It's not against the rules for guests to have picnics on site. It's not against the rules for guests to be dressed up near living history interpreters. They weren't breaking rules or doing anything wrong on paper. They were just being tone deaf morons who didn't think about the implications of creating a bucolic elite woman eating fruit picnic tableaux right across from a living history slave interpretation.

>Even cynically speaking you really need to be thinking about things like this.

Right. I don't think the women in this case were malicious, but they're just moronic. Why did not a single person in the weeks leading up to this say hmm... should we really be descending on Colonial Williamsburg in a big group (remember there was about 100++ people originally signed up to go!) to have a pretty picnic on June 19th? Or while they were setting up... why did no one say hey guys, we're kind of close to those people doing their job and holding an event, don't you think?

>I could imagine the nyt or even a local newspaper picking this up and blowing this up into an attention grabbing headline.

Oh I suspect it's coming.

>> No.10635289

Its the job of CW not of random friend groups to police patron behavior. If I was in goth at Medieval Times and kept getting harassed by patrons and getting filmed I would be upset with the establishment. The visitors were harassed and that is undeniable. That is unacceptable that when the workers saw non-workworkers getting approached by people that there was no warning that they are not part of the picture/reenactment.

The workers chose to not address it and as someone who volunteered at children's events with licensed characters I know you can redirect people away from non participants.

>> No.10635323

You are responsible for your own behavior. These were grown ass adults who chose to do something blatantly time deaf and moronic, so they chose to reap the consequences.

>> No.10635328

By showing up to a meet-up? June 19th is special for black people but it is not as well known as you think it is among everyone else.

>> No.10635333

Colonial Williamsburg advertised their Juneteenth events excessively. No one going to Colonial Wlliamsburg at Saturday would have been unaware of what the emphasis was on that day, even if you didn't know what June 19th was, unless you're a moron and somehow can't understand that there might be a reason why suddenly CW has all black history related living history exhibitions for a day, aside from the people working in the shops.

Regardless, merely "showing up to a meet-up" is not what happened, either.

They got picnic supplies, brought them to a specific area which happened to be literally across from a very obvious ongoing living history event being held by people hired to work at CW, then set up a spectacle picnic complete with tables and decorations right across from it, then continued their LARPing when guests started going over to them to see what was going on.

Why did they set it up there? There are plenty of other areas at CW to set up picnics that wouldn't have been literally right across from employees performing as slaves.

Only a moron with no self-regulation would see any living history event going on across the way and think "tee-hee, yes, perfect spot for our picnic." It takes a massive amount of entitlement to not realize that you'd be detracting from the employees, and a massive amount of idiocy not to stop and think about the implications of "group of white women dressed in elite luxury gowns having a cottagecore Petit Trianon-ish picnic across the way from people talking about their lives as slaves."

Even taking away the context of June 19th, you're a rude bitch if you show up to a living history space and take away attention from the employees by drawing attention to yourself so close to an obvious employee set-up and all without making it very clear that you don't work there.

>> No.10635335

You seem so pressed over this. Were you exiled from the comm or something?

>> No.10635336

Maybe they just wanted to watch the event ? You know, to appreciate the work of the employees ?

It's not that deep.

>> No.10635354

I'm responding to someone who is blaming the employees for not breaking character to throw out people who were being assholes without breaking rules, while bringing up nonsensical examples like "YEAH B-BUT WHAT IF I JUST SCREAMED OUT 'HEY YOU FUCKING N*GGER GET OFF THE STAGE!!! WHAT THEN? HUH? YOU TELLING ME THEY WOULDN'T BREAK CHARACTER, BITCH?"

>Maybe they just wanted to watch the event ? You know, to appreciate the work of the employees ?

sure, Jan. That's why they set up bowls of lemons and oranges to daintily pick at them and giggle like they were extras on a Sofia Coppola movie.

>> No.10635356

I mean I don't like people who nag either but there's no need to yell about hating them

>> No.10636498
File: 399 KB, 761x236, 332.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Someone finally posted a photo of the set up. I legitimately not expect them to have actually set up their own table with a linen cloth, silver bowls, silver platters, decorative "how long did you spend doing this" fruit tower, etc. For some reason I was expecting picnic tables to already be there and based on the comments about citrus, for there to be a bowl of oranges or something.

Another detail had come out that when the event started getting bigger, it was being advertised as a "Colonial Williamsburg takeover!!" because the intention was to have dozens (around 100 said they were coming) of people swoop into Colonial Williamsburg. Again, with no one even doing something as little as checking the website and seeing that they were advertising all the June 19th programming related to slavery and black history. The reason why people were so pissed makes more sense now.

>> No.10636501

Source to the "CW takeover"?

>> No.10636819

I have some being made, but nothing particularly new lately since the blue and grey suit.

I do, but I honestly don't want to talk about it, because it's been a real pain in the ass, and I have July 4th coming up.

I will confirm both these posts as the most accurate, with most other takes on this thread being pretty questionable at best.

>Just hopping into this discussion but historical reenactment space doesn't seem racially charged to me

Then you are not paying attention.

I'm out. See ya'll next thread. I've been dealing with this shitshow enough firsthand.

>> No.10636829

>historical reenactment space doesn't seem racially charged to me
Are you fucking retarded?

>> No.10636840

Hi. I was there on Friday and Saturday with the group. A lot of what is going around is pure speculation. We had several PoC who came on Thursday and Saturday but we're not in the pictures/video circulated. At least 10 PoC were invited but chose not to come - I invited two but they already had plans. We also had non-cis folx there, myself included. On Friday most of us wore chemise dresses because of the heat but there were several folx in other garb and we spent 30 minutes on the Palace Green walking from the Governor's house to the Main Street (Duke of G) and then back to the Gov's where we split up into separate groups. My group left CW for ice cream so I don't know where the other attendees went. I personally knew about Juneteenth as did a few others and most of us had already decided that we wouldn't dress up on Saturday out of respect for the holiday and we would attend the events at CW if still there.

As for the picnic, it was set up by an older woman and her spouse. I didn't expect the whole table set up, but they were against one of the trees so they were partially blocked from view of the lane. I was leaving that day and saw them from across the way but there were only the couple and another older man there. As far as I know most of the ladies left that morning as well. I didn't see any CW events at all taking place across from them, it was about 11:30am, so I'm not sure if something popped up later.

I see how everything can look insensitive or tone deaf from the outside. It was honestly a group of friends and fellow costumers who got together for the first time since before lockdown to hang out. While the timing wasn't ideal, considerations were made to honor the holiday and to involve non-white folx. But all the vitriol and doxxing has been crazy and people really should have asked the attendees what happened instead of believing hearsay Tiktoks from folx who weren't there and only got their information from IG pictures.

>> No.10636842

Fwit I am sincerely sorry to be a part of all the bad behavior that happened over this weekend. Most of the girls were disgustingly rude to staff and guests, and we were all kicked out of the tavern restaurant. I noped out of the picnic after I saw them disrupting the programs but still played a part.

>> No.10636844

Meant to say
>we were all but kicked out of the tavern restaurant

>> No.10636846

>but they were against one of the trees so they were partially blocked from view of the lane.
you can see the lane in the photo?

>> No.10636848

>mfw this drama has the potential to bring down American Duchess (even though as far as I can tell, she wasn't there on Saturday)

I bet Abby is glad she got fired

>> No.10636849

Do you know where the table was set up, exactly? Like what area of CW?

>> No.10636851

Oof. That's rough clown senpai. Sorry you had to deal with these bitches.

Your spin doesn't match all the other accounts or photos...

It looks like Abby's using this as a chance to get back and everyone's good graces, to make up for the whole plantation wedding fiasco.

>> No.10636852

In the middle of the governor's green in front of the mansion.

They had a whole catered table brought in. This wasn't a "small picnic".

>> No.10636855

>all the kicked out of the tavern restaurant


>> No.10636856

It was small, it was just the one table with a few chairs.

When I passed by it looked like they were setting up on the grassy side of the tree and it was a bit obscured. But there was definitely nothing set up across the lane - no stage or workers of any kind.

Not sure what to say other than that's what happened from my experience. Like I said there's a lot of speculation going around.

>> No.10636859
File: 160 KB, 900x600, 953hpr_aa2a63904ae6bcf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

To clarify, do you mean Palace Green? Or the smaller circular green patch literally in front of the governor's palace?

Legit wish someone would point out her plantation wedding on Instagram. You don't get woke points for almost-crying-hoarse-voice-hhhow-dare-you!! when your ass 1) had a plantation wedding and 2) went off laughing off your plantation wedding as "like idk!! I didn't even really want it tho lol hahaha" in that video. Her friend that hosted it was way too nice.

>> No.10636860

>Your spin doesn't match all the other accounts or photos...

To be fair, the only firsthand account of the actual picnic day is from one person who set up the tables, and we don't really have any particular details from her. All of the other people I've seen who went to the event were saying they left in the morning and didn't go to the picnic. Other people commenting were commenting on what they heard, not photos, videos, something tangible.

No photos of the picnic, so no clear idea of how many were there, who went, etc. No information about what living history events were going on across the way, or if they were specific planned events (the ones which were listed on the CW website) or simply the living history actors doing what they do, aka the "organic" performances that happen every day.

No one who talked about this, including Abby, including employees who work there, provided exact details or information. I'm not even sure if the employee(s) in question were working that day or saw it themselves rather than hearing info from the grapevine. Colonial Williamsburg is massive.

Given the drama surrounding it, and the fact that people are blowing up at those who mention they were there but not at the picnic, I don't know if we'll ever know all the info.

>> No.10636861
File: 490 KB, 867x1390, aerial-view-of-colonial-williamsburg-showing-the-governors-palace-the-palace-green-and-other-historic-buildings-MTM13N__01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The picnic was where the X is marked.

>> No.10636862

Employees like Clown senpai probably /can't/ talk about it in detail due to contract stuff tbf

>> No.10636864

Multiple employees have talked about this, though, active employees.

>> No.10636866

And all of them have been saying how terrible the event and the people were.

You have to take into account that they have to post anonymously, which of course the defenders will say are not real employees, but the petticoat mafia would go for blood if someone outed themselves.

>> No.10636869
File: 88 KB, 648x455, map.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Thank you. If this is true, then this confirms that they were actually across the way from an active event-event, not just general living history actors walking about. There was an outdoor play going on at the outdoor Play House stage about an enslaved child who learns her best friend is being sold. I circled the area on the map.

The play was being held at 11:30 and 12:30. >>10636840 said they saw the picnic at around 11:30.

>> No.10636870

No no, they weren't posting anonymously is what I'm saying. They were posting under their real names and photos, which are connected to their employment. So if there is some sort of clause/contract, then the other employees certainly aren't following it.

>> No.10636873

Ok, yeah, I passed right by there. It was closed off from the lane by a fence and it was completely full because I saw visitors crowding the entrance. The picnic was on the other side of the green, but it wasn't close enough to interrupt the event - it was a fairly long length away.

>> No.10636874

Adding to this, some big names actually posted. Lindsey Foster is one of the programming directors and character interpreters, and she went to war over How of these women treated the staff and other guests terribly. Even named names, and pointed out that half of the ladies there were the same ones with the Jane Austen society who got the group band as a whole from several hotels and venues for bad behavior in the past.

>> No.10636875

I don't think it was close enough to literally interrupt it, but it's the optics. One side of the Palace Green, a play about an enslaved child learning to deal with the realities of slave life, on the other side, white people in pretty dresses with a silver-platter catered picnic.

I'm mostly thinking now that the initial employee(s) who spoke out about this are responsible for the "taking attention away from __" narrative because I think a regular passer-by would not have connected it as a distraction, whereas someone that works there would connect the set-up as a distraction to the play going on, a play which the actors would have been serious and protective about.

>> No.10636878
File: 108 KB, 640x640, 4dd4e4ccc9a58685b0ded304b0c7f7c0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Unrelated to the drama but I really want to go to Colonial Williamsburg now. Never been.

On the note of what I want to see more of: fantasy style 18th century clothes, like the faux shepherdess costumes from portraits or plays

>> No.10636879

You can try to damage control this all you want, but you're little party has some pretty shit optics.

>> No.10636881

Yeah, it seemed completely separate to me. I didn't know it was a play going on, I just heard music and speaking from over the fence and couldn't see anything.

>> No.10636882
File: 150 KB, 653x1223, c5636a6b52c34dbb9ae8c10712a1798c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.10636884

>me pointing out the shitty optics
>you can try to damage control!! but this is shitty optics!!!

Yes that's... what I said. I wasn't there. I've never been to CW.

>> No.10636887

It's definitely worth going and they generally love people to dress up and join the life of the town. Gropey and a bunch of gulls work there and are super sweet and invited me to a hidden garden for tea when I was there last.

>> No.10636944

wow I never realized grammar could be so piss poor, anon.

It makes my bleeding heart smile seeing the drama the historic community is in after telling gulls to wear bum rolls and jthe jabs that our clothes are cheap.

>> No.10636950


Same, anon, same.

I've dabbled a bit in historically inspired fashion and I've definitely gotten the weirdest and most 'akshully' comments there, so I don't feel that bad that the community is currently imploding.

>> No.10636968

Its kinda nice, I like knowing that those who hate-lurked our threads and drama are now performing soap operas in the thread. Plus I can't believe gulls are better at organization than larpers. Just icing on the cake.

>> No.10637085

>I'm losing the argument so I'm going to lash at out at the obvious phoneposting autocorrect
NTA, you're just sad.

>> No.10637109

What's everyone's opinions on best headwear? Which time period and social class has the best head accessory?

>> No.10637124
File: 168 KB, 1200x824, hats.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

18th century crazy hats are my favorite

>> No.10637171

Why lie?

>> No.10637180

Townsends is pure trash. If you want to want to be made fun of buy their items. People in the Historical Costuming and Living History community hate people who wear this garbage. If not going take the time to research and put an effort in you probably deserve to be made fun of.

>> No.10637185

I think you are the retard.

>> No.10637187

I'll do Townsends for non-clothing certain things but yeah, it's not even remotely worth it. There are decent sellers on etsy selling dresses for $500-600 with solid quality for middle class garments that are a much better option.

It's a shame that Colonial Williasmburg shut down their online shop. Depending on whose working in that area at the time, you can get some genuinely nice pieces.

>> No.10637188
File: 265 KB, 1588x2364, il_1588xN.3079525228_9kjm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Speaking of buying on Etsy.

Avoid RoyalAffairCostumery. They take other people's items and impose a different background on them. For instance they're selling the Resplendent Galaxy chemise for $450... this dress was $130 with Devil Inspired's mark-up.

>> No.10637189

Good luck with that. Just don’t show up to an event looking Farby. No one at re-enactments likes people like that.

>> No.10637192

It is nothing new. Living history and reenactment has always been dramatic. Not as bad as Lolita though. Most SJWs would die at a reenactment.

>> No.10637194
File: 120 KB, 554x831, brap_chamber.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

ah yes, the BRAP chamber dress, whoever made it was a true visionary

>> No.10637200

Most of the staff wears working class clothing. Also half the people on here using the term “slave owner clothing” are probably retarded. There were upper class who were against slavery in the 1700s. Williamsburg also does a ton of educational programming on slavery. These same retards screaming about upper class probably wear 18th century inspired Lolita. Jesus Fucking Christ reading comments from the Lolita community about reenactment is cringe. I suggest you all stay in your circle jerk comms. Where it is like a safe space. You all would die if you ever went to any reenactment event especially a Civil War or 1940s one.

>> No.10637202

Yes. They do have some alright display and personal items. Samson is awesome though as well. Williamsburg still sells dresses but they are only able to be purchased in person. If you don’t sew another option is to find someone who can make you items and you purchase the fabric. Often times it is a lot less to do it that way.

>> No.10637230

Why not make this thread on /his/ and not give recommendations to lolitas about how to dress if you don't want gulls interacting?

Why not stay in your lane and not comment on lolita threads if you want containment as a community?

Literally none of the gulls would have been reading this thread if your community didn't venture into spaces they were not invited to and didn't try to start shit.

This goes beyond cgl too.
Your online community and hostility is trash.
Just absolutely tired of your shit.

And you're not better than us for wearing silk, its a delicate and impractical material for daily use

>> No.10637243

You're defending somebody who claims that the historic reenacting hobby isn't racially charged?


>> No.10637245

>Why not make this thread on /his/
Because /his/ is just /pol/ part 2.

>> No.10637250

>You all would die if you ever went to any reenactment event especially a Civil War or 1940s one.
You sound like a fucking boomer. "omg you fucking snowflakes!! you can't handle the REAL world!"

>> No.10637256

PREACH IT!! I hope you are a lesbian transwoman of color and beat their asses.

Also why is social justice a bad thing??? What are you a fucking neo-nazi? You are what is wrong in the world. Your the problem. You are a terrorist and are spreading extremism on this board. Fuck you nazi shit. Your unhinged and need meds

>> No.10637275

Synopsis thus far:

>POC members of the community
"This is problematic"
>Museum and historical professionals
"This is problematic"
>The average normie
"This is problematic"
>Privileged little white girls playing princess dress up

>> No.10637278

Um??? Your all nazis...... Your complicit in upholding white supremacy when you wear clothes that are from colonials.... all this attention on whiteness and times when white ppl were overtly racist.... that makes ur actions almost a hate crime

>> No.10637282

> that makes ur actions almost a hate crime
Tell me you've never experienced actual racism by not telling me you've never experienced actual racism.

>> No.10637284

Get off this board you illiterate sjw moron. I hope you say something ' not racist' to the wrong person and they beat you to death

>> No.10637286

Nah u right this is a fucking hate crime.

>> No.10637287

Well thank good you Retards are not in Living History. You would watch a WWII battle and cry when the German reenactors show up. You think I am a man? Well that is better than being a fucking fragile doll that would cry if someone has a different opinion than you. Grow a pair sweetheart.

>> No.10637288

Says the puffball calling people Nazis. Make sure to snuggle with your emotional support plushie babe!

>> No.10637289

Gropey already said the only ppl involved in that are neo-nazis.

>> No.10637290

White people are allowed to exist in society and have history around the world, sorry that it pisses you off so much you dumb racist piece of shit.

You literally have no control of what people do in the world. Keep raging over everyone else's actions, dumb little racist.

BTW white people exist outside of the US.

>> No.10637291

Last I checked it is mainly people like you on meds. Get a hobby sweetheart.

>> No.10637293

Sure if that helps you sleep at night.

>> No.10637297

Your just proving my point. Your hobby attracts neo-nazi Trump supporting fascists.
You should recognize your privilege any stop glorifying oppression and its reign.
And don't try to pull "the middle class wasn't involved in slavery" they were privileged and benefitted from the racist system.

>> No.10637300

Millennial men are so fucking fragile, holy shit.

>> No.10637302

You are literally retarded. If you think that cool. There are actually a lot of moderate and liberal people in hobby. But they hate people like you all. Uneducated fuck heads that try to get events canceled because there are Germans or Confederates at it. I personally don’t do German or Confederate but I know now why they hate you all.

>> No.10637304

Well the expert already said that nazis are the only ones into that soooooo shut up /pol/

>> No.10637307

nAziS oNLy? Bitch please. You probably don’t care about history anyway. So do you like to rock back and forth and cry when you see anything history related? Are you an Imperal Japan sympathiser? You obviously like the fashion but know nothing of the history. On that note you should inform all the IJA reenactors they are “Nazis” even though most of them are Aisan.

>> No.10637309 [DELETED] 

All countries benefit from a racist system. You need to really go learn some world history instead of JUST black history. Spoiler: Black history is not real history either. The US is founded by the English and if you don't like it, then move. The majority of white people don't have any issue with black people, but people like you are crazy. Go find a new country.

>> No.10637310 [DELETED] 

Lolita is inspired heavily by the 18th and 19th century so that means...those of us who do wear it also are White supremacist in slavery slit the sympathisers by poxy.

>> No.10637312

I mean that makes those of us sympathisers and white supremacist by proxy jfc.

>> No.10637316

No, it doesn't. 18th and 19th century FRANCE.

>> No.10637320

France had slaves you fucking dumb ass. They also had colonies. Read a fucking book you Low QI retard. They were also responsible for some of the worst conditions for enslaved people. Does Haiti ring a bell? If not read about it. Not to mention what led up to the Vietnam war in Indo China. What’s wrong little girl you don’t know your history?

>> No.10637321

>one guy talking to himself to start drama

>> No.10637323

Are you denying that you are complicit??
Because you fucking are.

>> No.10637324

Spain and Portugal as well but it some how is only The United States.

>> No.10637325

You... think that France didn't have slaves? France? The country with the colony famous for its slave rebellion? The country well-known for importing men, women and children to gift to elites as presents to be dressed up as exotic "servants who weren't technically legal slaves in mainland France, but who could either work for their 'employers' for life or get deported to Haiti to be enslaved there"? That France?

>> No.10637328

You said France. So there for if 18th century fashion is racist so it the modern fashion. Don’t change the topic. You clearly don’t know the history of France and the awful things they did. So do you want to take a breather and read up on that before going on? Or do you want to go in circles Babe?

>> No.10637332

Wow you are so incredibly fucking racist and xenophobic. You really want to erase poc contributions to America??? What is wrong with you
Haiti was heroic for finishing its oppressors off and taking back what is theres. The French were fucked up for refusing to give aid after generations of neglect and abuse towards Haitians.

>> No.10637337

You don’t know anything about France other than your fluffy dresses. Never said anything about removing contributions. That is all your wording. (`・ω・´)

>> No.10637341

No your just denying that the wheat French are bad people

>> No.10637346

If you are going to have the whole coloniser debate you should know the history. Just about every major European country was involved. But some how anyone who dresses nice in historical clothing is a racist? Gatekeeping is what you all do. The French are incredibly racist. Go visit and you will see that first hand.

>> No.10637347

You idiots realize this is a troll, right?

>> No.10637350

You have selective hearing and selective reasoning. What's it like to be the dumbest human alive, despite having resources to actually read US history online? POC contributions are a very small part of US history. You went to an all black school and only learned selective history and it shows.

>> No.10637351

Them not knowing how to sell you're, no, I don't think they are a troll. This is the majority of libtards in the US.

>> No.10637352

Should I also memorize every nazis life story if I want to criticise the Holocaust? You really think that I should have to memorize a white perspective prioritizing story if I want to say that objectively slavery is wrong?? Umm no. France is also fucked up which is why colonizer history shouldn't be a focal point. Why necessarily dress as rich old white people who hurt others for no other reason than their skin color?? Do you really feel the need to do that? Why not study history of poc and marginalized groups?? Because you'll have to confront your privilege? Yeah I thought so

>> No.10637353 [DELETED] 

>history of poc and marginalized groups
So you're telling me you've read about history of Africa and how they massacred the whities, right?

Sure sounds like you actually don't know about your origin

>> No.10637356

Yes actually I have. Did you also know certain powerful tribes would sell captives they had to the Europeans? They is how the slave trade was fuel as it would have been difficult otherwise for European nations to even have a foot hold in Africa if they did not build relationships with power tribes. A perfect example of this the Zulu Wars that took place in the 1800s. The Zulu gave the British a very hard time. Next.....

>> No.10637357

You mean fought back from people who wanted to kill, enslave and oppress them?? Yeah that's self defense

>> No.10637359

You know sweetheart...there are people who actually dress in nice clothing and also talk about slavery and teach about it as well. But you associate nice clothes with being racist and that is pretty fucking dumb. And it is pretty dumb to idolise an era that opressed their own. That’s right you all love Marie Antoinette. She was pretty dimwitted. What kind of a fashion fucking takes inspiration from a woman who had a fake village and she would dress up and pretend to be poor in it? A fucked up one. It goes both ways.

>> No.10637361

Yeah because regular modern farmers deserved to be killed because they are not black? The mental handicap of this thread just got real.

>> No.10637363

Don't call me sweetheart I don't idolize racism like you

>> No.10637364

No he fucking didn't. But there is a large amount of neo-Nazis in WWII reenacting.

>> No.10637365

You probably should if you are going to argue with people. It is good to know all sides. But you are fragile I don’t recommend reading into it since you cannot handle it. You are pretty liberal so I am going to go out on a limb here:
You probably are anti-Israel. If you are you should probably shut up.

>> No.10637366

Samson also pushes the "Irish slaves" myth, and The owner's son, who is their social media manager, had a screaming meltdown in a LARP thread here on /cgl/, so take that as you will.

>> No.10637367

What you think they were genocided or something??? They're white and you're obviously messed up if you equate marginalized ppl without power getting genocided to what happened to the farmers. You're a nazi for bringing it up.

>> No.10637368

Yes there are sadly. But that retard is a dimwit. They probably have never been to a living history event in their life.

>> No.10637370

So he is also a racist nazi... what a surprise

>> No.10637372

Except that he did. Sorry you got outed you neo nazi shitstain.

>> No.10637373

So you are retarded then? Pulling words out of your ass. Not knowing anything. So you revert to calling people “Nazi”. Don’t you have any better material?

>> No.10637374

He didn't say all of them, he just said that they're a legitimate problem in the WWII hobby, same as American civil war. I've seen the discussions about it before, so unless you have a screenshot, fuck off.

>> No.10637377

Why would I perform unpaid labor for you? They can just confirm it or deny it and we'll know that deep down Gropey is a sympathizer

>> No.10637381

Typical SJWs wants to be keyboard warrior. Not following up with proof.

>> No.10637383

>using libtard unironically
you know what you need to do.

>> No.10637384

...He's ethnic gypsy with family who were in the camps you tool.

>> No.10637390

Still has white passing privilege I bet

>> No.10637396

JFC why are SJWs this Autistic...

“i bEt hE hAs wHiTE [email protected]

You all hate anyone even if they are not white and don’t agree with you.

>> No.10637400

Do you understand that this is a troll pretending to be the "lol retarded SJW"?

>> No.10637402
File: 50 KB, 352x411, anastasia disapproved.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Oh a historical fashion thread this should be fun--aaaand morons falling for trolls have ruined it again.

>> No.10637405

/pol/ was a mistake.

>> No.10637420
File: 55 KB, 500x263, F530003A-99B0-4BBD-B011-3B31B97DA6FB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Looks like this thread has been successfully “Colonised”.....

LOL it was to good not to say.


>> No.10637455

it's why I stopped posting on /his/. They gave up on moderating it and it wasn't even worth trying to have a decent thread on after a certain point.

>> No.10637466

Nuke this thread and try again, I suppose

>> No.10637483

I don't think most people have even heard of Juneteenth. I literally only heard about it last year because some SJW on Instagram that I (used to) follow made a post about it. I still don't even fully know what it is. To celebrate slavery ending? It's just a new radical left thing. It's probably just another reason for SJWs to cry racism about everyone celebrating Independence Day. "Not everyone was free, and your racist because you didn't celebrate Juneteenth". I can see it now...

It seems like just another leftist reminder to black people that they are lesser and always were. To evoke an emotional response. And make sure they know their place. I don't see any good coming from this.

>> No.10637486

Juneteenth has been a thing for over a 150 years, dear.

>> No.10637505

>I haven't heard of it, so obviously no one else has
Oh sweetie...

>> No.10637507

Can confirm. Lolita SJWs lose their shit over WW2 reenactors. They are terrified of 'Nazis'. Even fake Nazi reenactors. It's laughable.

>> No.10637511


>> No.10637520

This has to be trolling. I loled so hard. This can't be real.

>> No.10637647

Tbf most lolitas who’ve chosen to publicly post pictures of themselves in the iconic nazi dress have turned out to be, at the very least, /pol/tards, and at the most full on neo-nazis. So the lolita community actually aren’t really wrong to react like that, or at least they haven’t been so far. Plus, you don’t immediately get booted out of the community just for wearing a nazi dress - look at WF, she’s still active and posting, as is nef.

>> No.10637648


The 'you would die in my play pretend war' is not the flex you think it is, but thanks for the laugh.

>> No.10637658

Is there any secondhand market for actual historical clothing? Asking because I impulse-bought a box of late 1800s clothing and hats at a museum that was closing down. Do people buy this stuff

>> No.10637716

probably on ebay

>> No.10637757
File: 48 KB, 960x960, Balloonnoose.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>non-cis folx

>> No.10637776

Got any pictures of the hats? Someone here might be interested in them.

>> No.10637794

DD was booted for wearing sexy goth Nazi shit. The SJWs blew up all over the place over that. They went nuts! And the picture wasn't even recent. SJWs for sure go crazy over it.

Anytime someone brings up Nef SJWs go crazy, even on this board. WF is insufferable SJW shit. I wish people made a bigger deal and booted her kek.

>> No.10637824

I wish David Glover was cancelled for appropriating Black culture as a tan italian, most ppl just dont give a fuck about racism tho

>> No.10637867

Mainly auction sites and places like EBay. You wear original pieces? WTF is wrong with you?

>> No.10637874

>not wearing antique clothing
Are you a baby?

>> No.10637878

“wEAriNg lATe 18o0s cLotHing”

Late 1800s is antique clothing you worthless Trash Sloth. Jfc a lot of historians and collectors hate people like you.

>> No.10638342

Well, we hate collectors like you too. You know you can take care of clothing you wear. At least we're offering a second life to these garments.

>> No.10638359

I literally called it antique clothing, dear. Are you having trouble reading?

Also I don't know of any historians or collectors who would be pissed about someone wearing the type of antique clothes we're talking about here. Yeah, if you find an extremely rare extant chemise a la reine and wear it, people would be pissed. But there's thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Victorian-era dresses, tops, hats, etc, and no need to treat each one as if it belongs in a museum. It doesn't.

You seem like the type of person who thinks that Civil War era marbles are The Most Exquisite Precious Item Oh God Don't Let the Children Touch Them simply because they're old.

>> No.10638700

Listen you Autistic Rock. They don’t hold up well due to their age. The oils and sweat on a person causes them to deteriorate. They are ment to be stored also a certain way to preserve them. Wearing antique clothing will cause damage to them in the long run. Are you a historian do you work in a museum you stupid bitch? I doubt it. There is a reason why most people make reproductions if them and don’t wear them. I honestly say I have never seen anyone wearing an 1860s or 1870s dress or outfit that was an original. Do the historical community a favour and wear a Paris Green coloured gown. I don’t think you would be a huge loss to the community. Or just stick with Lolita. JFC....whenever I see all of you at historical site or event I want to vomit. None of us will ever say it to your face but many of us historians and interpreters are put off by you all and how you act. The impression many of us have of you is basically the same some of these crazies have in this thread about the Picnicking ladies. You all act like you know everything and distract the public from programming or events. You all also have a tendency to be rude to people. The historical community may have drama of it’s own....however many of us do agree on not wearing clothing older than 80 years and certain things with Lolitas. While we may not say it to your face. We do definitely mock and make fun of you all after you leave.

>> No.10639464

There's nothing wrong with autism.

>> No.10639480


>> No.10639484

I have a pair of hand-knotted lace gloves from the 1890's that I wear with my coords. The right index finger has lipstick stains on it that I haven't been able to clean off with Oxiclean. Do you have any laundering tips? Should I try a stronger bleach?

>> No.10639731

Do you want a historical recipe for hemorrhoid cream? It sounds like you need it.

Nobody cares what you and your little clique thinks, sweetheart. You're not cooler than anyone, and harping on about how ~~we totally make fun of you~~ (who is you, btw? My random tourist ass in a t-shirt and jeans? I don't wear lolita.) makes you sound like a 19 year old. If that. Your opinion means less than nothing to me, and less than nothing to those around you.

Not all things are precious and must be preserved for all time. All clothing is damaged when you wear it. All items are damaged when you touch them. A random dress from the 1880s is not some precious artifact that must be preserved at all costs.

By your logic, should the women who modified 18th century gowns to wear them in the 19th century, a common practice, have slit their wrists open? They wore old clothing!! oh god!! If only they knew that a retarded LARPer who wishes they were born in the 1800s would be bothered by it, I'm sure they wouldn't have done it.

>You all also have a tendnency to be rude to people
You just told someone to kill themselves for wearing antique clothes. I think you need to look in the polished mirror, sweetums.

>> No.10639737


>Listen you Autistic Rock.
>Proceeds to ree about wearing old clothes and how their literal grandma sewing circle is superior to other hobbies

My sides, thanks for the laugh.

>> No.10640241
File: 46 KB, 512x657, 2004_NYR_01342_0017_000(072920).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anyone catch Karolina Żebrowska's newest video?


>> No.10640369

Genuinely shocked that she pointed out that it's a myth that Marie Antoinette pretended to be a peasant at her hamlet. it's not often that people actually point out this is a myth... it's why the 'stitch in time" chemise a la reine episode annoyed me so much, it relied on the "oh tee-hee she thought this is what peasants looked like and she liked to pretend to be one" myth.

>> No.10641185

Is the Laughing Moon chemise pattern sold out everywhere? I don't like digital patterns but I can't find a physical one to buy.

>> No.10641189

check etsy, I saw a few there a while back

>> No.10641342

Already did, only digital unfortunately.

>> No.10642010

They don't sell physical patterns at all anymore. You'll have to find a shop that's selling it elsewhere.

>> No.10642084

Its really sad that its almost impossible to wear some clothing from the 19th century outside now because of global warming.

>> No.10642344

I love that lesbian with dry hair. Its such a powermove to reject the male gaze so vehemently

>> No.10642385

I have seen random sellers selling their physical patterns there before.

>> No.10642396

Check out "Vogue Patterns Inc." The chemise pattern is sold out but they have some other Laughing Moon physical patterns still in stock.

>> No.10642973

I mean Vogue Fabrics Inc, sorry: https://www.voguefabricsstore.com/sewing-patterns/Laughing-Moon-Mercantile/

>> No.10643440

"The chemise a la reine is RACIST!! but anyway here's my version that I clearly made before the Colonial Williamsburg blow up so now I have to pretend like I'm woke about it"


>> No.10643480

this honestly doesn't seem like that much, i expected it to cost in the 5-10k range.

>> No.10643491

Really depends on the quality, who you're getting it from, style.A place like, say, Atelier de Saint-Honore charges around $3,000-5,000 for a robe francaise, but $1,800 for a pastoral gown.

>> No.10644722

Christine….is totally a grifter. She makes very high end 1700s and early 1800s clothing. She has not room to speak on anything. Some of the replies in hear sound just like her actually. She has gone to many historical events and sites in her over the top clothing. She should probably stfu.

>> No.10644734

Where are you getting your information?

>> No.10644850

NTA, but you can see easily on her social media that she makes elite style clothing.

Though the "woke" information in this video is incorrect, and honestly she should be doing her own research instead of just going "oh thanks to (random social media person) for pointing out that ACTUALLY this is a slave dress appropriated by slave owners" when it was not. It was always worn by elite women. It's like a circular style. Wealthy women in the French colonies were mimicking the looser styles of dress on the mainland with lighter fabrics, then women in the mainland mimicked the dresses of the wealthy women in the colonies.

I think it's fine to acknowledge that luxuries in the past (and today) were inherently based or related to exploitation and slavery and similar concepts. But it's super clear that she's only doing this because of the Colonial Williamsburg "if you wear a chemise a la reine you should be paying reparations~~" social media backlash. Right down to 'she wore this at a fucking elite picnic to 'test it out' making it clear that the wokeness was added afterwards, and she doesn't practice what she's now preaching. Don't tell others that you must always reflect on the reality behind luxury clothing when you didn't do it until now.

And also, when you do discuss issues like that, you do your own damn research and don't just quote someone's instagram post based on BS.

>> No.10644878

Wow, thank you anon! I was missing a lot of bg/context.

>> No.10645054

Abby Cox: makes rage tear-filled video screaming HHHOOW DAAARE YOU calling out an all-white group visiting Colonial Williasmburg in historical clothing on Juneteenth, because it's "disrespectful and WRONG and goes against what WE, living history interpreters, are doing"

Also Abby Cox: Goes with 100% white women group to an exhibit about women's suffrage dressed in elite women's historical costuming, all the while not acknowledging in her post that the women's suffrage movement was filled with white supremacists and only guaranteed white women the vote

Gee, I wonder if her video and faux outrage was more about calling out Lauren from American Duchess because Lauren fired her from the company due to Abby spending more time on her personal Youtube channel than the company that was paying her? I wonder, I wonder.

>> No.10645057

Abby Cox: makes rage tear-filled video screaming HHHOOW DAAARE YOU calling out an all-white group visiting Colonial Williasmburg in historical clothing on Juneteenth, because it's "disrespectful and WRONG and goes against what WE, living history interpreters, are doing"

Also Abby Cox: Goes with 100% white women group to an exhibit about women's suffrage dressed in elite women's historical costuming, all the while not acknowledging in her post that the women's suffrage movement was filled with white supremacists and only guaranteed white women the vote

Gee, I wonder if her video and faux outrage was more about calling out Lauren from American Duchess because Lauren fired her from the company due to Abby spending more time on her personal Youtube channel than the company that was paying her? I wonder, I wonder.

>> No.10645075

Tbh…Both Abby and Christine are trash. Christine and her both will drift from side to side so they can promote themselves. Like Christine is actually really wealthy. She is a doctor or something of that nature. So her talking about oppression and other social issues make me laugh. Idk how she can consider herself a historical seamstress when all of her clothing is made via sewing machine. She then sells them at super high prices that cost more than an actual hand made piece. The embroidery I can understand using a modern machine for that but Christ…..

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.