Review from England

I was fortunate enough to take a 10-day trip to England two weeks ago. I had made study appointments at Platt Hall/Gallery of Costume in Manchester, and the Museum of London. I had stopped working on my shift for a bit- I was secretly very nervous that after getting up close and personal with so many extant pieces that I would be doing is "wrong".

My trip was wonderful. I got amazing pictures, and everyone I worked with was very helpful and knowledgeable. And the trip confirmed a lot of what I was already suspecting, which of course makes me paranoid about confirmation bias. ;) Some details: every piece I looked at was of English provenance, late 16th to early 17th centuries. There were no reversible pieces- even pieces, such as forehead cloth 2003.65 from Platt Hall, which is blackwork and cutwork, was NOT reversible, even though it really looked like it could be. All of the collars were lined, so even if they are reversible, we can't tell.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no double-running reversible pieces currently existing of English provenance. Which, if one thinks about it, just makes sense. Why would people be making reversible pieces, if no one is ever going to see the back?

"But Amy", I hear you asking, "Portraits of Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard by Hans Holbein show geometric ruffles on the ends of her sleeves; surely they would be reversible, because one could see the other side?" And yes, those paintings exist. And looking at them, it's hard to say for certainty if those are actually reversible- they look like they could be. There's few extant English pieces with wrist ruffles- I'd love to examine boy's shirt T.112-1972 at the V&A- it does have embroidered wrist ruffles, although I haven't seen the undersides. Smock T.113 to 118-1997 does seem to have both sides of the ruffle the same- however, since there's use of detached buttonhole on both sides, does that actually count as "reversible embroidery" the way we suggest? What does "reversible" actually mean in embroidery? Does a neat underside count? Or do both sides have to be absolutely identical, with one the clear, precise, reverse of the other?

So my current thinking is that I could produce an shirt for use with a 1540s ensemble with an embroidered collar and embroidered reversible ruffles, and I may be able to defend that. I would be a little weak on evidence, having only a few pieces, and most of those paintings, to defend it. If I produce the same thing and wear it with a 1580s ensemble, then I'm getting WAY off track- by this time, English monochrome embroidery is very much evolving away from the earlier styles.

As always, my object is always to challenge preconceived ideas of thinking. Look for yourself, and draw your own evidence-based conclusions. Come see me at Pennsic, and argue with me about what you found. I'll happily incorporate new pieces into my own schema, provided they are a. English provenance, and b. dated 1500-1625. Have fun!