Talk:1550–1600 in European fashion

message: Italy didn't exist as an entity in this period. There were a bunch of city states where it now exists, and their fashions varied. Looking at images from the period, Florentine and Venetian fashions are distinctly different, so the generalization that "Italian dresses kept the open front bodice with parallel laces" is making me cringe. That's Venetian. Florentine women wore doublets not unlike the English.  I'm about to update the image galleries to say what part of Italy they're from instead of just "Italian," but the paragraphs need some help too. I can pull out "Mode a Firenze: Lo Stilo de Eleonora di Toledo" and start citing from there for Florentine, but I don't have any books on Venetian fashion in my collection. Macoafi (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "Italian" clarification needed

message: More on hats and hairstyles.  German, French, and Spanish images.  More on sleeve styles.  Images of blackwork collars and cuffs.  Either the Pelican or Phoenix portaits of Elizabeth for the partlets and chemises (but this is still Anglo-centric as it is).  Work work work!  
:Added French, Spanish, and Swedish images, the Pelican portrait, hats and hairstyles, more links. Unless I take the leap and address middle-class clothing, I am pretty much done.  Will probably hold comment on Puritan styles and "sadd colors" for 1600-1650 in fashion.  PKM 21:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still to come

message: Added image galleries.  Thoughts? Better?  Worse? PKM 18:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Gflores Talk 02:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! PKM 05:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it difficult to compare description details with the images, as they are essentially in two separate places. If the descriptions were to immediately follow each image, this would eliminate the problem. Thanks 2001:5B0:2711:5068:395B:C29C:2AD3:6976 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Galleries

message: I have deleted this sentence:
:The gradual change in fashion could be attributed to the renewal of England and the acceptance of new thinking and ideas to influence society.
Fashion change wasn't particularly gradual in this era compared to the periods before and after, and I don't think this adds anything of use to the reader. - PKM 02:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: - PKM 03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit to General Trends

message: I have reverted back to what I think is the last complete good version after a  series of vandalisms and partial corrections.  I have have deleted any legitimate corrections I do apologize. - PKM 07:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Someone taggeed this "no footnotes" and someone else removed the tag, but I agree footnotes would be good and I will add some. - PKM 03:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: I've uploaded a new version of this image (below right) with the correct title. The painting was done in about 1571 (the sitter was born in 1553), and so it may be in the wrong section. See image notes. qp10qp (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Moved and replaced with a 1557 image I uploaded this week. -PKM (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Misdated picture

message: I going to tweak and tighten this entry:
: Infanta Catalina Micaela wears an entirely black dress with lace collar and cuffs, inner sleeves of golden white and white ribbons. A double string of pearls, a necklace, worked golden buttons and a belt are her rich jewelry. As in other court portraits, she rests her hand on an armchair in allusion to her high birth, while the other holds a feminine object, in this case her gloves. 
That's the description in Wikimedia Commons, but there are problems: Her sleeves are not made of ribbons, but have bands of gold embroidery or applied braid.  And gloves aren't "a feminine object": both men and women hold gloves in many (most?) Elizabethan portraits.  And that's a table, not a chair (though neither is relevant to this article). 
Great picture, though. - PKM (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Infanta

message: I have changed the doublet description to simply read "with sleeves" until I can get the research to properly cite the sleeve attachments.
I have removed this comment "with attached sleeves. (separate sleeves tied or laced was born out of necessity in the theatre & perpetuated by the Renaissance Faire circuit)."  The parenthetical comment doesn't belong in the text of an encyclopedic article - no need to refute what is not there in the text.  Ii someone can find a scholarly citation to support that statement, it should be in a footnote as a comment on the "popular notion" of tied-on sleeves.  I am sure I have an photo of lacing holes to attach sleeves - I just have to remember where.  
No question that tied-on sleeves with three or four ties at the shoulder as we all wore at the Faires back in the day is a bit off. - PKM (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Doublet sleeves

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://modehistorique.com/elizabethan/farthingales.html
** In 1550–1600 in fashion on 2011-05-23 03:35:12, 404 Not Found
** In 1550–1600 in fashion on 2011-06-20 05:24:34, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: This edit has made undiscussed changes to the referencing style, contrary to WP:CITE. Normally I would revert on sight, but it it was a bit scrappy before.  Are we happy with this? I think I'm neutral. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed change to referencing style 

message: The section on dyeing is a bit off for this period.  Saffron is used to dye yellow, but it was always very expensive and the more common yellow dye was weld.  Two important dyes in this period were woad and madder.  I could add all of this, but it's moving pretty far off topic - and little of it is specific to this 50-year period, or significant in distinguishing this period from those before and after. I am thinking a link through to natural dye and mention of kermes red and Spanish black is sufficient.  Thoughts? - PKM (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.
As I go, I am removing unencyclopedic and unsourced statements of opinion like "Wearing a matching partlet and sleeve set created a single silhouette to compliment the beauty of the dress/garment," "These adorned pieces were attached to the doublet to create the broad shoulder fashion that the ladies fancied," and "Apart from being fashionable, the partlet was essentially used as an undergarment to keep warm in the winter and prevent sunburn in the summer." - PKM (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: More changes needed

message: ihr dreckigen hurensöhne  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.129.7 (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ihr seit alle pisser 

message: Substituted at 01:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment