Main > The Armoury

Surcoat/Tabard

<< < (5/8) > >>

Sir John of Felsenbau:
As you can see from my "knight of the week" thread, I have so many surcoats, I can equipt my own Army of Knights. Each surcoat was sewn by hand by me, and has a coat of arms of the knight that I have researched.

I recently was doing one that originated in "Roxburg, Scotland" and much to my surprise, I found that one of the first settlers in Roxborough (or Felsenbau in german) was from Roxburgh, Scotland. As a matter of fact, Roxborough's first name was Roxburgh, named after his home land.

Sir John

Sir William:
Sir John, what pattern do you use when you sew your surcoats?

Sir James A:

--- Quote from: Sir John of Felsenbau on 2012-02-03, 14:17:35 ---I found that one of the first settlers in Roxborough (or Felsenbau in german) was from Roxburgh, Scotland. As a matter of fact, Roxborough's first name was Roxburgh, named after his home land.

--- End quote ---

Wow, that's a mouth full. Is it a regional / dialect difference between Roxborough and Roxburgh? They seem similar enough I'd think they are the same.

Sir John of Felsenbau:
Sir William,

The surcoats are quite simple, so I just sort of winged it in making them. Although I did take the liberty of sewing the sides together at with wait for a few inches. It's not the way surcoats were made, but it looks much better and the sides don't move to give a sloppy look.

Sir James,

Well, in Scotland it was spelled various ways as time went on. I guess one main difference was why the name was chosen. Roxburgh in Scotland, in galeic came from "dark castle" while here where I live it was first named Roxburgh by an early settler from Roxburgh, Scotland who named his estate after his homeland. But later Johannes Kelpius (known as the Hermit of the Ridge) in a letter used the term: "Rocks-burrow" after the foxes holes and rocks he encounted when he built a sanctuary for himself in the area. That sanctuary still remains! When the area became a township in 1707, it took its name from Johannes Kelpius, but changed it to Roxborough, even though Roxborough was NEVER a borough.

Sir John

Sir Edward:

--- Quote from: Sir John of Felsenbau on 2012-02-04, 15:17:40 ---The surcoats are quite simple, so I just sort of winged it in making them. Although I did take the liberty of sewing the sides together at with wait for a few inches. It's not the way surcoats were made, but it looks much better and the sides don't move to give a sloppy look.

--- End quote ---

I'm assuming the part I bolded above was ment to say "at the waist"? If not, then I'm not sure what you had intended to type. :)

Actually the surcoats worn over mail were joined at the side, or only partially slit from the armpit down to close with laces. From the bottom, the only slits were front and rear, primarily to facilitate sitting on a horse.

The tabbards worn with later period armor, after plate had become more standard, could sometimes be open on the sides and held together with a belt.

A jupon worn during the transitional period of the 14th century would be very close fitting and not much longer than waist length (sometimes just covering the hips, sometimes not), and these would have a lace closure somewhere, probably on the sides.

Long story short, the long surcoats should be mostly closed at the side and have a narrow arm-hole if possible. So I think you're doing them right. Ideally they should flare out wider at the base than at the waist, which can either be done with the shape of the front/rare panels, or with triangular gores inset at the bottom.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page