821-150gender.jpg

From the Henry’s new digital archive of its costumes and textiles collections, which has a Google Earth component.

Here’s a Norman Norell dress in the collection that Lauren Bacall wore.

778-108evening.jpg

Future Henry collections to be archived this way online: Photography and New Media, and Northwest artists.

Jen Graves (The Stranger’s former arts critic) mostly writes about things you approach with your eyeballs. But she’s also a history nerd interested in anything that needs more talking about, from male...

11 replies on “Is This A Man’s Garment or a Woman’s?”

  1. Well, by the embroidery, I’d say it’s European, and not many European female outfits I can think of involve a vest. The intricacy of the embroidery also leads me to think it was a garment meant to be seen, so even if someone tried to tell me this is some kind of obscure antique female underwear, I probably wouldn’t believe it.

    Nice collection. I think the collection could have chosen a more interesting example for gender identity than a waistcoat though (even if it’s embroidered with flowers).

    How about heeled shoes? Or Italian Renaissance doublet and hose? The move from hose to pants is definitely bigger than breeches to trousers.

  2. @1: Ok, to be fair, I know fabrics tend to go first, and that most clothing that survives tend to come from no earlier than the 19th century.

    In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a textile/costume collection with a genuine example of a full costume from anything earlier than the 18th-c at the most. Anyone know one?

  3. @2, the Victoria and Albert would be the first place I’d start looking. And if you’ll accept leather, wasn’t that frozen dude in the Alps from 2,000 years ago wearing a pretty complete outfit?

  4. Man’s. It buttons so that the wearer can unbutton a couple and slip his sword-hand in to keep it warm and supple. Late 18th Century. Probably French. I’d wear it.

Comments are closed.