What have I long said about apron dresses? You cannot base a reconstruction on a few pieces of string on a brooch. And you cannot base a modern interpretation on the works of a woman who took unsubstantiated liberties with the information she had.

See? http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/uu-vdn022508.php

I have a rant building on the interpretation of extant garments, the definition of historical accuracy, and tools. Stay tuned today...

Many of you know that I'm a stickler for historical accuracy. I first got into studying historical clothing when I enquired what the Irish wore in the past and was told: "The same thing as the English, but green." ?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Anyway, you see why I do this. I have a fastidious brain. It wants to put things in little convenient boxes and write succinctly descriptive names on their neat little labels and put them on a shelf where everyone can get them whenever they like.

("Hey! Put the leine research back in its own box! You're getting the drawstrings disproof all over the Shinrone Gown quills info! Naughty!")

Well, you know where I'm coming from. I believe in "doing as they did". And I'm a real stickler about that. To me, it's important to get things right. That's not to imply that we will ever know everything about clothing from any historical period. Most likely, we never will. But to my black-and-white mind, making something that is not based on strict historical documentation and calling it "historically accurate" (as opposeed to "historically inspired") is a blatant and outrageous lie. And that kind of misrepresenation makes my blood boil.

Recently a couple of related things have happened that made my head explode, and I want to share them with you. My Patron Saint of Inspiration has been throwing the same theme into my notice for about three weeks now, and it's time I listened and had a good ol' rant about it.

( I say they dressed like this and you can't stop me! )