[Plans] Navy Blue Wool

 Cloth Type: 100% Wool
Yardage: 5 yards at 60" wide
Source: Jo-Ann's Fabric Store (purchased at store)
Description: I would say this is a flannel, rather than a worsted wool, but it is lightweight and buttery soft.  There is a slightly "hairy" quality to it so that it's not a straight blue, but rather has something of a "heathered" quality.

Intended Use: This fabric was purchased specifically for my Garb Quest to be an overgown.

The original idea for the overgown was a 1430's lower class gown that can be seen in many images in the 1432 illuminated manuscript of Le Decameron (such as that at left).  It is a simple kirtle, shown with no visible seams or lacing, of a solid color (blue and green are the most common).  The sleeves are often shown as rolled or push up to just under or just above the elbow, displaying the sleeves of a second kirtle underneath.  There is, otherwise, nothing remarkable about the dress, as it is not worn with a belt, has a very simple round neckline, and is form fitting at the top, like all kirtles of this period.

I love the idea of this overkirtle.  Its simplicity in and of itself is what provides a story- peasant and middle class women using "high fashion" from the 14th century in a very practical and straight-forward way.  There is no need for further decoration, as the dress provides the best fashionable accessory- a view of the female shape beneath.  I think I also fell in love with this gown because I'm a sleeve roller already.  I much prefer a 3/4-length sleeve than a long-sleeve any day of the week, and to find a style within my chosen time period that gives me that look (and is documentable) is cause for celebration.

I've been pondering the construction of this overkirtle for nearly a year now by studying similar garments in more realistically rendered paintings (such as those of Rogier van der Weyden).  I've made only one conclusion I'm willing to sake my reputation on, and that is that IF there is lacing on this overkirtle, it is positioned on the side (under the arm) and only extends from the base of the arm pit to the natural waist.  Note, however, that I say "IF".

Kirtles, by their very nature, slim the body and shape the curves in much the same way as a modern shaping garment.  If a kirtle is worn as an underdress, there is no real reason why these same properties need to be exploited in a second kirtle worn as an overdress.  (You wouldn't wear a bra over a bustier, would you?)  The second kirtle, therefore, can be treated more as a gown than a kirtle, even if the basic look of the kirtle remains.  This overkirtle, then, can be cut with slightly more ease through the torso, allowing the slimmed, kirtle-covered body to slip into it, no lacing required.  I've seen this in action on my own body many times, and I've found, more often than not, that my lacings are rarely ever undone in order for me to put a gown on or take it off.  The body is an incredibly versatile thing, and, as long as the sleeves of the overkirtle are sized properly for the arms to come at them from underneath, rather than something more like a jacket, it's easy for the body to move in just the right way to slide a tight dress on with no need for an extra opening.

I also believe that this overkirtle is a "flat front" kirtle, with no center front seam.  I recently created a flat front dress (with a waist seam and no lacing), and made some conclusions about the difficulty of fitting a dress of this type.  First, it's important to have a kirtle underneath to position the bust correctly (which I did not do), otherwise, your breasts are likely to be flattened instead of shaped.  Second, the curves of your side seams must overcompensate for the tightness under the bust, since there is no middle seam to distribute the load through the center.  These things are not impossible to overcome, just difficult to achieve without some practice.

The lacing/seam issues with this gown are the same with most of the kirtle-style gowns of the first half of the 15th century, even with the fancier versions worn by women of the gentry and noble classes.  In reviewing my Garb Quest, I came to realize that, though the rolled-sleeve kirtle is an ideal gown for me, it wasn't going to make the best use of this beautiful wool.  A slightly earlier and higher-class overkirtle, however, would provide more challenges in construction, and the end result would be more fitting for the fabric.

When I started really diving into 15th century clothing with an eye specifically for middle class garments, I immediately gravitated towards upper-middle class fashion as seen most typically on images of the writer Christine de Pizan.  There are other images of other women wearing a similar overkirtle, but images of Christine are the most prevalent.  This style is earlier than the peasant style- about 1410-1420, rather than the 1430's- but there is almost no difference in the two gowns in a broad sense.  The differences are litterally aesthetic.  Where the 1430's overkirtle is strictly utilitarian in theme, the 1410's overkirtle uses decorative sleeves ("sleeve flaps", as I call them) and a full contrast lining (that may be fur).  The headress, as well, is different- being the early variety of "horn & veil" headdress worn almost exclusively by middle class women in the first half of the 15th century, rather than the open hood worn more by the peasant and lower middle classes until the second half of the century.

In the end, and though it will require some shifting of my documentation, I believe the 1410 kirtle to be a better fit to my Garb Quest and the wool.