Clothing and Kit Standards
*** Under Construction. Updated 1/8/17
Membership and participation in this group indicates that you endorse and agree to the standards hereafter set forth. It is the responsibility of individual members to research and justify the clothing, accessories, and miscellaneous objects displayed in front of the public at group events. Hypothetical garments and objects are welcome so long as a strong case based in primary source evidence is made in their favor. It is one of the goals of the group to explore and experiment with the processes and functions of crafts in the Early Modern Era, so it is expected that, at minimum, all clothing and objects are finished by hand with the intention of eventually making/acquiring/using fully handmade items. While it is not always possible to match the quality, composition, and/or construction of historical materials and products exactly, we seek to minimize compromises and aim for the highest level of historical accuracy we can achieve. When compromises are made, it is the policy of the group to be upfront and honest about them to the public.
Our group represents events between the years 1580-1610 and our focus for portrayals is English. Within that range, fashion continued to evolve rapidly with a multitude of styles which can be more or less pinpointed to a year or decade. New members may rely on borrowed clothing, when available, for up to one year from their first clothed event. For your first set of clothing, it is advised to make or select clothing which is well suited to the earlier chunk of the era for more flexibility in your portrayal; it is easier and more plausible to backdate things than it is to be jarringly fashion forward. With the addition or subtraction of particular accessories, you may be enabled to portray things comfortably at either end of the spectrum. It is also strongly advised that you begin with the highest quality, most accurate clothing and equipment you can get rather than spend more money and time replacing items down the road. Be sure to ask questions and share your ideas for your outfit and gear with the rest of the group before pulling the trigger to ensure that we are on the same page in effort to present the most accurate information to the public and pay respect to the real people we represent.
What follows is a starting point, and does not cover every possibility or style. Handsewing or materials or pattern alone do not make a garment more correct. The information described below is representative of what, as far as can be told at the present moment, was typically done historically. All recommendations and expectations are rooted in what we do know about the period.
Minimum Recommended Clothing
Our group represents events between the years 1580-1610 and our focus for portrayals is English. Within that range, fashion continued to evolve rapidly with a multitude of styles which can be more or less pinpointed to a year or decade. New members may rely on borrowed clothing, when available, for up to one year from their first clothed event. For your first set of clothing, it is advised to make or select clothing which is well suited to the earlier chunk of the era for more flexibility in your portrayal; it is easier and more plausible to backdate things than it is to be jarringly fashion forward. With the addition or subtraction of particular accessories, you may be enabled to portray things comfortably at either end of the spectrum. It is also strongly advised that you begin with the highest quality, most accurate clothing and equipment you can get rather than spend more money and time replacing items down the road. Be sure to ask questions and share your ideas for your outfit and gear with the rest of the group before pulling the trigger to ensure that we are on the same page in effort to present the most accurate information to the public and pay respect to the real people we represent.
What follows is a starting point, and does not cover every possibility or style. Handsewing or materials or pattern alone do not make a garment more correct. The information described below is representative of what, as far as can be told at the present moment, was typically done historically. All recommendations and expectations are rooted in what we do know about the period.
Minimum Recommended Clothing
- Shirt (men) or Smock (ladies)
- Stockings and/or Cloth Hose + Garters
- Shoes
- Coat or Cassock or Cloak
- Points (laces of various lengths for fastening)
- Doublet (jacket) or Cassock (depending on role)
- Breeches or Hose (trousers)
- Hat or knit cap
- Coif
- Kirtle/Petticoat Bodice (stiffened bodice + attached skirts)
- Petticoats (additional skirts for bulk)
- Gown or Jacket
- Apron
- Linen neck and/or wristwear
- Eating gear including cup, bowl/plate, knife, spoon, and linen napkin.
- Linen, hemp, or leather bag
- Purse or pouch
- Girdle or belt
- Gloves
Making
Research
It is absolutely vital that design decisions, patterns, color, and so on are based firmly in what is documentable, ideally in a number of sources. Not all art is trustworthy, and not all surviving garments are representative of everyday wear. A combination of visual, written, and archeological primary sources should be used when planning the making or acquisition of gear after having been judiciously curated for plausibility. Our collective knowledge of history is constantly evolving, and it is our goal to evolve and improve with it. It does a disservice to our peers today and the people of the past to knowingly perpetuate even slightly or possibly misleading or false information. Though our focus is English, many continental European images and extant objects may be of use if they can be corroborated (when possible) with English examples.
It is absolutely vital that design decisions, patterns, color, and so on are based firmly in what is documentable, ideally in a number of sources. Not all art is trustworthy, and not all surviving garments are representative of everyday wear. A combination of visual, written, and archeological primary sources should be used when planning the making or acquisition of gear after having been judiciously curated for plausibility. Our collective knowledge of history is constantly evolving, and it is our goal to evolve and improve with it. It does a disservice to our peers today and the people of the past to knowingly perpetuate even slightly or possibly misleading or false information. Though our focus is English, many continental European images and extant objects may be of use if they can be corroborated (when possible) with English examples.
Construction
It is not immediately required that everything will be completely made by hand, but it necessary that no machine work is seen. All visible stitching including but not limited to buttonholes, eyelets, topstitching, and so on must be done by hand. Whenever possible, seek out documented techniques; some are more efficient than many we might be more familiar with today and/or result in nuances and details which better evoke a visual or functional character of the era. It is also necessary to point out that historical objects were made to varying qualities and standards. In some, the interiors of garments may have been far less than immaculate and others may have been constructed shoddily. Even novice sewers may find that their ability level is quite appropriate for certain things. If pinking or slashing are desired in a garment, please stick to leather, silks, canvas, or fustian. There is no evidence as yet in circulation for wools being pinked or slashed beyond the brims of knit caps.
It is not immediately required that everything will be completely made by hand, but it necessary that no machine work is seen. All visible stitching including but not limited to buttonholes, eyelets, topstitching, and so on must be done by hand. Whenever possible, seek out documented techniques; some are more efficient than many we might be more familiar with today and/or result in nuances and details which better evoke a visual or functional character of the era. It is also necessary to point out that historical objects were made to varying qualities and standards. In some, the interiors of garments may have been far less than immaculate and others may have been constructed shoddily. Even novice sewers may find that their ability level is quite appropriate for certain things. If pinking or slashing are desired in a garment, please stick to leather, silks, canvas, or fustian. There is no evidence as yet in circulation for wools being pinked or slashed beyond the brims of knit caps.
Materials and Color
It goes without saying that the quality, composition, and naming of many materials have changed over the course of centuries. There are many fabrics readily available today which come quite close to originals, if perhaps being called something different, as well as many alternatives to some which are now more elusive. There are cases in which there are no readily available alternatives to a required fabric. In such a case, a compromise may be made if material of a differing fiber better matches the texture, heft, etc. of those of the period. Because we will very often be around open flame and firearms, any fibers you use must be 100% natural. Not all fabrics are appropriate for all garments, even if they are made of a documentable fiber. Wool, for example, can be woven in a number of ways which were simply not produced at the point in history we focus on. Where leather is needed, avoid chrome or modern tanning methods and seek oil or vegetable tan.
Seek out and select colors achievable with natural dyes and ensure that your chosen color is appropriate for the garment type, social rank, gender, and so on. In some cases there were many ways to produce one or another color. The hue, saturation, and/or lightfastness alone of a version of a color we take for granted today could be unlikely for someone elsewhere on the social spectrum. To give an example, a somewhat more subdued and often orange-red could be produced with the comparatively cheap madder root, whereas the rather expensive cochineal insect could produce a much more intense variety. Many fabrics went undyed, and there is a surprising variety of natural color available in in sheep’s wool or flax. If black is required, excepting individuals towards the upper classes, try and select a black which is washed out, from the natural color of black sheep, or one which is in actuality a very dark green, brown, or gray to approximate the qualities of black dye available to most people. Be aware that different materials take color differently. Dyed linen was known but was probably a very uncommon sight for outerwear, but it does appear with greater frequency for linings and interlinings in surviving garments and written records. Linen does not take natural dyes as readily as other materials like wool or silk, but blues and perhaps yellows and browns could be had easier than others. When brown is used to describe linens or hemps in primary sources it very likely means unbleached.
Fastenings
Speaking generally, buttons for outer garments tended to be 3/8” / 10mm in diameter or smaller and were often spherical or hemispherical. Pewter, tin, brass, bronze, silver, self-stuffed cloth, and some worked thread varieties (silk, linen, wool, or animal hair) are appropriate. If hooks and eyes are required, whenever possible seek those of brass or iron wire. Buttons of wood, horn, plastic, shell, or bone are generally not acceptable, nor are the flat disk sew-through type. Both conical and tubular aiglets are appropriate; the wider side should be, in general, without prongs. Avoid bolo tips and metal grommets. Metal eyelets for holes in belts may be acceptable, but grommets were a 19th century invention.
It goes without saying that the quality, composition, and naming of many materials have changed over the course of centuries. There are many fabrics readily available today which come quite close to originals, if perhaps being called something different, as well as many alternatives to some which are now more elusive. There are cases in which there are no readily available alternatives to a required fabric. In such a case, a compromise may be made if material of a differing fiber better matches the texture, heft, etc. of those of the period. Because we will very often be around open flame and firearms, any fibers you use must be 100% natural. Not all fabrics are appropriate for all garments, even if they are made of a documentable fiber. Wool, for example, can be woven in a number of ways which were simply not produced at the point in history we focus on. Where leather is needed, avoid chrome or modern tanning methods and seek oil or vegetable tan.
Seek out and select colors achievable with natural dyes and ensure that your chosen color is appropriate for the garment type, social rank, gender, and so on. In some cases there were many ways to produce one or another color. The hue, saturation, and/or lightfastness alone of a version of a color we take for granted today could be unlikely for someone elsewhere on the social spectrum. To give an example, a somewhat more subdued and often orange-red could be produced with the comparatively cheap madder root, whereas the rather expensive cochineal insect could produce a much more intense variety. Many fabrics went undyed, and there is a surprising variety of natural color available in in sheep’s wool or flax. If black is required, excepting individuals towards the upper classes, try and select a black which is washed out, from the natural color of black sheep, or one which is in actuality a very dark green, brown, or gray to approximate the qualities of black dye available to most people. Be aware that different materials take color differently. Dyed linen was known but was probably a very uncommon sight for outerwear, but it does appear with greater frequency for linings and interlinings in surviving garments and written records. Linen does not take natural dyes as readily as other materials like wool or silk, but blues and perhaps yellows and browns could be had easier than others. When brown is used to describe linens or hemps in primary sources it very likely means unbleached.
Fastenings
Speaking generally, buttons for outer garments tended to be 3/8” / 10mm in diameter or smaller and were often spherical or hemispherical. Pewter, tin, brass, bronze, silver, self-stuffed cloth, and some worked thread varieties (silk, linen, wool, or animal hair) are appropriate. If hooks and eyes are required, whenever possible seek those of brass or iron wire. Buttons of wood, horn, plastic, shell, or bone are generally not acceptable, nor are the flat disk sew-through type. Both conical and tubular aiglets are appropriate; the wider side should be, in general, without prongs. Avoid bolo tips and metal grommets. Metal eyelets for holes in belts may be acceptable, but grommets were a 19th century invention.
The Clothing
Underwear
At this time, members are not required to wear historically correct undergarments (excepting the shirt or smock, described below). Naturally it is encouraged, but comfort in this regard must come before anything else. It is possible that some men and women went without undergarments, and instead creatively tucked their shirt tails about their nether regions, but there is also evidence for linen drawers taking the form of boxers or briefs, likely white or unbleached. “Bloomers” were not yet worn by women.
Shirts and Linen Accessories
In English, men’s shirts were simply called shirts and those of ladies’ were called smocks. At this period, shift was both a noun to describe a general change of clothing as well as a verb for the action of changing. It appears that chemise was not use to describe the clothing of English people. Body linens provided a barrier between the skin’s oils and other garments and so were laundered, unlike outer garments, as frequently as possible. This layer was considered underwear, and unless in the home, at work, or dealing with severe heat, it was more or less improper to be seen in one’s shirt sleeves.
Linen or hemp are the preferred materials for both shirts and smocks. Colored shirts at this time were exceptionally rare, and the majority would fall somewhere in the range of the natural gray-brown of linen in its original state to bright bleached white. This degree of whiteness might be reflective of your economic status, as would the fineness of the material. The fabric could span the gap from very delicate and near translucent to something coarser or similar to canvas.
Shirts and smocks used a rectangular pattern, meaning that they comprised of varying sizes of rectangles with no complex shaping or fitting beyond pleating or gathering. No yoke should be present and sleeves should be set plainly into the body with no gathering except at the cuff. Sleeves seem to have been universally full-length and might end in a hem or narrow cuff, and were not excessively full. Either might have a short collar, though smocks sometimes had a scoop or square neck, which then may have been covered by other garments. Small, built-in ruffs appear to have faded from fashion to a large degree by the 1580s, though those present should be finely gathered or cartridge pleated. Box pleating cannot be documented for this purpose. Foldover collars may be appropriate for both men and women.
Fasteners might include single pairs of eyelets, single tiny buttons or toggles made of matching fabric or thread, hooks and eyes, or sewn-in matching cord. Lace-up shirts were a 19th century invention, and buttons of anything but thread or cloth are not acceptable.
Separate articles of linen neck and wrist wear, called bands, were quite common and often made of a finer material than the shirt or smock. These may have been temporarily adhered to either the shirt/smock or doublet/gown using pins or basting stitches for ease of laundering and re-setting. The falling band rapidly gained popularity towards and into the 1580s, while ruffs continued to be worn into the 17th century by varying degrees. Either of these might be starched for structure and for ease of cleaning, as starch provides a barrier between grime and the fine linen.
At this time, members are not required to wear historically correct undergarments (excepting the shirt or smock, described below). Naturally it is encouraged, but comfort in this regard must come before anything else. It is possible that some men and women went without undergarments, and instead creatively tucked their shirt tails about their nether regions, but there is also evidence for linen drawers taking the form of boxers or briefs, likely white or unbleached. “Bloomers” were not yet worn by women.
Shirts and Linen Accessories
In English, men’s shirts were simply called shirts and those of ladies’ were called smocks. At this period, shift was both a noun to describe a general change of clothing as well as a verb for the action of changing. It appears that chemise was not use to describe the clothing of English people. Body linens provided a barrier between the skin’s oils and other garments and so were laundered, unlike outer garments, as frequently as possible. This layer was considered underwear, and unless in the home, at work, or dealing with severe heat, it was more or less improper to be seen in one’s shirt sleeves.
Linen or hemp are the preferred materials for both shirts and smocks. Colored shirts at this time were exceptionally rare, and the majority would fall somewhere in the range of the natural gray-brown of linen in its original state to bright bleached white. This degree of whiteness might be reflective of your economic status, as would the fineness of the material. The fabric could span the gap from very delicate and near translucent to something coarser or similar to canvas.
Shirts and smocks used a rectangular pattern, meaning that they comprised of varying sizes of rectangles with no complex shaping or fitting beyond pleating or gathering. No yoke should be present and sleeves should be set plainly into the body with no gathering except at the cuff. Sleeves seem to have been universally full-length and might end in a hem or narrow cuff, and were not excessively full. Either might have a short collar, though smocks sometimes had a scoop or square neck, which then may have been covered by other garments. Small, built-in ruffs appear to have faded from fashion to a large degree by the 1580s, though those present should be finely gathered or cartridge pleated. Box pleating cannot be documented for this purpose. Foldover collars may be appropriate for both men and women.
Fasteners might include single pairs of eyelets, single tiny buttons or toggles made of matching fabric or thread, hooks and eyes, or sewn-in matching cord. Lace-up shirts were a 19th century invention, and buttons of anything but thread or cloth are not acceptable.
Separate articles of linen neck and wrist wear, called bands, were quite common and often made of a finer material than the shirt or smock. These may have been temporarily adhered to either the shirt/smock or doublet/gown using pins or basting stitches for ease of laundering and re-setting. The falling band rapidly gained popularity towards and into the 1580s, while ruffs continued to be worn into the 17th century by varying degrees. Either of these might be starched for structure and for ease of cleaning, as starch provides a barrier between grime and the fine linen.
Stockings and Shoes
As of the middle of the sixteenth century, knit stockings as we think of them were relatively new. Before their inception and for a time after, stockings made of wool fabric cut on the bias (diagonal) for stretch were common. There is some evidence for stockings or hose made of linen in England, but to a large degree they seem to have been relegated to the layer worn next to the skin under stockings of other materials, occasionally left visible and perhaps trimmed with lace. Knit stockings would have been around twice the price of those of cloth, and often retained the characteristic back seam and triangular gores at the ankles common to the period. Please avoid tights, cotton stockings, and socks, and choose only solid colors; no stripes. Twills are ideal for cloth stockings, and frieze and kersey are often mentioned in the period.
Garters of knit wool, wool or silk braid or fabric are recommended. There is some scant evidence for stockings being temporarily sewn into the breeches as well.
Shoes should be of sturdy leather. Common features of the era included a rounded, slightly almond-shaped toe (which gradually became more blunt as the 17th century wore on) and a very low heel or none at all. There is overwhelming evidence for right and left-lasted shoes for this time for people across social classes.
There appear to have been two main types of shoes worn during the period. The first, today often called a latchet shoe, had one or two pairs of eyelets at most and frequently featured a small decorative hole set into the side seam. These holes grew in size as the 17th century continued, but for our target date, these tended to be small (around the size of a quarter to half-dollar) or narrow. The other type might slip on or feature a hidden lace and resembled slippers. Ties for either might be of plain leather or a point (a ribbon, braid, or cord tipped with metal chapes at either end).
Boots were uncommon amongst regular people excepting those associated with one’s work such as waders for fishermen, low boots for countryfolk and farmers, and tall boots for husbandmen. Boots of any kind are near impossible to document for women. If your portrayal warrants riding boots, you must also have proper spurs and ideally a horse.
As of the middle of the sixteenth century, knit stockings as we think of them were relatively new. Before their inception and for a time after, stockings made of wool fabric cut on the bias (diagonal) for stretch were common. There is some evidence for stockings or hose made of linen in England, but to a large degree they seem to have been relegated to the layer worn next to the skin under stockings of other materials, occasionally left visible and perhaps trimmed with lace. Knit stockings would have been around twice the price of those of cloth, and often retained the characteristic back seam and triangular gores at the ankles common to the period. Please avoid tights, cotton stockings, and socks, and choose only solid colors; no stripes. Twills are ideal for cloth stockings, and frieze and kersey are often mentioned in the period.
Garters of knit wool, wool or silk braid or fabric are recommended. There is some scant evidence for stockings being temporarily sewn into the breeches as well.
Shoes should be of sturdy leather. Common features of the era included a rounded, slightly almond-shaped toe (which gradually became more blunt as the 17th century wore on) and a very low heel or none at all. There is overwhelming evidence for right and left-lasted shoes for this time for people across social classes.
There appear to have been two main types of shoes worn during the period. The first, today often called a latchet shoe, had one or two pairs of eyelets at most and frequently featured a small decorative hole set into the side seam. These holes grew in size as the 17th century continued, but for our target date, these tended to be small (around the size of a quarter to half-dollar) or narrow. The other type might slip on or feature a hidden lace and resembled slippers. Ties for either might be of plain leather or a point (a ribbon, braid, or cord tipped with metal chapes at either end).
Boots were uncommon amongst regular people excepting those associated with one’s work such as waders for fishermen, low boots for countryfolk and farmers, and tall boots for husbandmen. Boots of any kind are near impossible to document for women. If your portrayal warrants riding boots, you must also have proper spurs and ideally a horse.
Hats and Caps
In the period, there appears to be a distinction between caps and hats. When cap is used in period texts, it seems to suggest something soft and often knit, whereas hat tends to indicate something more substantial such as a blocked felt hat. There is no evidence for a biggin or white linen coif being worn underneath or instead of a hat by men beyond children and perhaps the elderly. Learned men such as doctors, lawyers, and government ministers might have a red or black coif likely made of wool or a silk. Ladies’ coifs are discussed in the ladies’ clothing section.
Hats, blocked from wool or fur felt, tended to be high-crowned (around six inches tall or more and often with a tapered and domed top), and typically featured a narrow brim, though on occasion these are slightly longer and could be turned up in a few different ways. The modernly-popular “cavalier” style with one side of the brim turned up is very hard to document, and so it is recommended you pick a different configuration. Black and natural shades appear to be the usual. It is likely that these hats would feature a hatband and might be lined. Some images appear to indicate a lining of silk in the brim. Some varieties of felt hats with a low crown may be appropriate for continental impressions. Straw hats may be a possibility for rural laborers.
Numerous types of knit caps were worn across Europe. Englishmen were required to wear knit wool caps produced in England on Sundays and holy days per a 1571 statute, while it was specified that their wives wear a white knit cap. It is however uncertain as to what these looked like as there are no known images of English women wearing a knit cap in the period.
People today are perhaps most familiar with the flatcap, which appears to have usually been knit and perhaps fulled. Hats similar in shape to these existed but tended to have the crown made larger and pleated in, rather than the stacked disks and donuts which are often produced today. The flatcap was by the 1580s fading from popularity but might be appropriate for older-fashioned or less-affluent portrayals. There is a surviving cap in the Monmouth Museum which may be of a type referred to as being issued to soldiers and recommended for new colonists. It is not dissimilar in appearance to a beanie or toque, but has a brim as well as a knit button at the top and a small loop at the bottom. A similar cap fashioned more like a hat with a wide brim may have been in use at the period, but this is only hypothetical and based on a combination of artwork, written sources describing hat caps for soldiers, and the existence of surviving examples in other countries. Seafaring folk from across Europe are known to have worn thrum caps produced by working short ends of yarn back through the weave of a knit cap, then fulling it to produce a waterproof and warm shell of strands.
In the period, there appears to be a distinction between caps and hats. When cap is used in period texts, it seems to suggest something soft and often knit, whereas hat tends to indicate something more substantial such as a blocked felt hat. There is no evidence for a biggin or white linen coif being worn underneath or instead of a hat by men beyond children and perhaps the elderly. Learned men such as doctors, lawyers, and government ministers might have a red or black coif likely made of wool or a silk. Ladies’ coifs are discussed in the ladies’ clothing section.
Hats, blocked from wool or fur felt, tended to be high-crowned (around six inches tall or more and often with a tapered and domed top), and typically featured a narrow brim, though on occasion these are slightly longer and could be turned up in a few different ways. The modernly-popular “cavalier” style with one side of the brim turned up is very hard to document, and so it is recommended you pick a different configuration. Black and natural shades appear to be the usual. It is likely that these hats would feature a hatband and might be lined. Some images appear to indicate a lining of silk in the brim. Some varieties of felt hats with a low crown may be appropriate for continental impressions. Straw hats may be a possibility for rural laborers.
Numerous types of knit caps were worn across Europe. Englishmen were required to wear knit wool caps produced in England on Sundays and holy days per a 1571 statute, while it was specified that their wives wear a white knit cap. It is however uncertain as to what these looked like as there are no known images of English women wearing a knit cap in the period.
People today are perhaps most familiar with the flatcap, which appears to have usually been knit and perhaps fulled. Hats similar in shape to these existed but tended to have the crown made larger and pleated in, rather than the stacked disks and donuts which are often produced today. The flatcap was by the 1580s fading from popularity but might be appropriate for older-fashioned or less-affluent portrayals. There is a surviving cap in the Monmouth Museum which may be of a type referred to as being issued to soldiers and recommended for new colonists. It is not dissimilar in appearance to a beanie or toque, but has a brim as well as a knit button at the top and a small loop at the bottom. A similar cap fashioned more like a hat with a wide brim may have been in use at the period, but this is only hypothetical and based on a combination of artwork, written sources describing hat caps for soldiers, and the existence of surviving examples in other countries. Seafaring folk from across Europe are known to have worn thrum caps produced by working short ends of yarn back through the weave of a knit cap, then fulling it to produce a waterproof and warm shell of strands.
Protection from the Elements
Men or women might have a woolen petticoat or waistcoat underneath their outer layers for warmth. These might be knit or sewn fabric and may or may not have sleeves. Men would wear this tucked into the breeches so as not to interfere with pointing or trussing them to the doublet. Another variant, seen in continental images, might have had eyelets stitched around the waist to hold up the breeches in lieu of a doublet when working or in conjunction with other outer garments.
Jerkins are frequently found in records for men and very occasionally for women. They would likely follow the general form of a doublet with skirting, wings, and collar but might or not have sleeves. They often buttoned up the front and could be practical or decorative. Wools, leather, and silk are ideal.
A variety of wool coats, with or without sleeves, are also possibilities. One type, possibly having a connection with working men and servants, would follow the form of a doublet and then have hip or thigh-length pleated skirts. Another type would be somewhat looser-fitting and end somewhere near the thighs or hips.
Cloaks were known but appear to have been more of a status item and made of finer materials. Hoods do not seem to have often been present, though collars show up on extant pieces. Knee-length seems typical.
A cassock, having a trapezoidal shape in the torso and attached sleeves, would be a practical choice for a mariner or working man. This would usually be pulled over the head and fastened at the neck slit with a small handful of buttons or perhaps eyelets. Based on sailor’s wills, it is likely that they were often worn over the waistcoat for greater range of movement. Similarly patterned cassocks appear on soldiers in funerary illustrations of Sir Philip Sidney, whereas a front-opening variant with hanging false sleeves appears on a woman in de Bruyn’s illustrations in the 1580s.
Men or women might have a woolen petticoat or waistcoat underneath their outer layers for warmth. These might be knit or sewn fabric and may or may not have sleeves. Men would wear this tucked into the breeches so as not to interfere with pointing or trussing them to the doublet. Another variant, seen in continental images, might have had eyelets stitched around the waist to hold up the breeches in lieu of a doublet when working or in conjunction with other outer garments.
Jerkins are frequently found in records for men and very occasionally for women. They would likely follow the general form of a doublet with skirting, wings, and collar but might or not have sleeves. They often buttoned up the front and could be practical or decorative. Wools, leather, and silk are ideal.
A variety of wool coats, with or without sleeves, are also possibilities. One type, possibly having a connection with working men and servants, would follow the form of a doublet and then have hip or thigh-length pleated skirts. Another type would be somewhat looser-fitting and end somewhere near the thighs or hips.
Cloaks were known but appear to have been more of a status item and made of finer materials. Hoods do not seem to have often been present, though collars show up on extant pieces. Knee-length seems typical.
A cassock, having a trapezoidal shape in the torso and attached sleeves, would be a practical choice for a mariner or working man. This would usually be pulled over the head and fastened at the neck slit with a small handful of buttons or perhaps eyelets. Based on sailor’s wills, it is likely that they were often worn over the waistcoat for greater range of movement. Similarly patterned cassocks appear on soldiers in funerary illustrations of Sir Philip Sidney, whereas a front-opening variant with hanging false sleeves appears on a woman in de Bruyn’s illustrations in the 1580s.
Miscellaneous
Girdles or belts can be worn by men and women alike, but seldom held more in the period than a purse. There are illustrations of school boys carrying pen cases and handkerchiefs from theirs and one of an early-mid 17th century surveyor carrying the same as well as an early 17th century jailer with keys, but beyond few examples like these girdles should be mostly clear. Mug straps or hooks are a modern invention and should be avoided. Swords would be carried in a dedicated girdle with an integral or separate hanger piece utilizing various buckles, sliders, hooks, or leather buttons for suspension. Baldrics were known but were quite uncommon excepting a handful of high status pieces (owned by the likes of Walter Ralegh and a single officer in images of the London trained bands), and some early baldrics in the hands of common soldiers may have been waistbelt-style girdles worn across the chest based on the paintings of Sebastian Vrancx.
Girdles or belts can be worn by men and women alike, but seldom held more in the period than a purse. There are illustrations of school boys carrying pen cases and handkerchiefs from theirs and one of an early-mid 17th century surveyor carrying the same as well as an early 17th century jailer with keys, but beyond few examples like these girdles should be mostly clear. Mug straps or hooks are a modern invention and should be avoided. Swords would be carried in a dedicated girdle with an integral or separate hanger piece utilizing various buckles, sliders, hooks, or leather buttons for suspension. Baldrics were known but were quite uncommon excepting a handful of high status pieces (owned by the likes of Walter Ralegh and a single officer in images of the London trained bands), and some early baldrics in the hands of common soldiers may have been waistbelt-style girdles worn across the chest based on the paintings of Sebastian Vrancx.
Purses or pouches are seldom seen in images but can be worn. Buckled purses at this period seem to have fallen from favor having perhaps been replaced with buttons. Leather was the universal choice for regular people.
Gloves may be desired for colder weather or martial activities and might be wool or leather. Be mindful that the cuffs of many gloves or gauntlets available today do not match images from the period and may need to be modified.
In general, avoid favors, pins, embellishments, heraldry, regalia, symbols, and so on including those associated with other organizations.
Men's Clothing
Doublets
The doublet should be fairly-fitted, fasten down the front, and have fully attached sleeves. They usually had a collar, and might have tabs or wings at the shoulder and/or skirting/peplum at the waist. The side and back seams should end at your natural waist (about the level of the bottom of your rib cage), while the front might be cut straight across or dip to a point from the side seams to below the bellybutton. Be mindful of changes in fashion, particular styles of peplum (or a lack thereof) are very strongly indicative of certain dates. The type comprised of numerous small trapezoidal tabs appears to originate towards the very end of our range. Wool doublets appear to have been in the minority. Seek linen or hemp canvas, fustian (a blend of cotton and/or linen and/or wool taking the form of a canvas or mock-velvet), worsted wool, leather, wool broadcloth, or various silks. Doublets should be interlined in the body with stout canvas as well as additional structural layers if needed; some doublets featured additional quilting, padding, or stiffening depending on their intended context and/or date. Linen and fustian are appropriate for lining.
Doublets must fasten down the front with buttons; many also featured buttons at the wrists and collar as well. There are examples with tied or hooked closures but these appear to be rare, not English, and/or intended for particular contexts. Yoked doublets are modern invention and are not appropriate for our use.
Primary sources seem to suggest that men's doublet sleeves were most often fully sewn on and not removable, and so for our purposes it is expected that sleeves be sewn on. Separate pairs of sleeves were common amongst women, but for men there is limited evidence for doublets with what appear to be sewn-on sleeves of a differing material as well as practical separate sleeves made of leather or wool for protection from messes or cuts while at work. The only evidence available for doublets with open armpits is a Scandinavian example from the 1650s. Other, non-English, extant examples are children’s garments or apparently meant specifically for the context of fencing.
Doublets should have a strip stitched with eyelets behind the skirting or, in rare cases, either eyelets stitched directly into the waist when there is no peplum (roughly 1570s and earlier) or eyelets stitched into the peplum itself. Points would be run through matching pairs of eyelets in the waistband of the breeches to connect the two garments, prevent unsightly gaps, and keep breeches up at the natural waist level. Into the 1620s, large pairs of hooks and eyes started to replace points.
The doublet should be fairly-fitted, fasten down the front, and have fully attached sleeves. They usually had a collar, and might have tabs or wings at the shoulder and/or skirting/peplum at the waist. The side and back seams should end at your natural waist (about the level of the bottom of your rib cage), while the front might be cut straight across or dip to a point from the side seams to below the bellybutton. Be mindful of changes in fashion, particular styles of peplum (or a lack thereof) are very strongly indicative of certain dates. The type comprised of numerous small trapezoidal tabs appears to originate towards the very end of our range. Wool doublets appear to have been in the minority. Seek linen or hemp canvas, fustian (a blend of cotton and/or linen and/or wool taking the form of a canvas or mock-velvet), worsted wool, leather, wool broadcloth, or various silks. Doublets should be interlined in the body with stout canvas as well as additional structural layers if needed; some doublets featured additional quilting, padding, or stiffening depending on their intended context and/or date. Linen and fustian are appropriate for lining.
Doublets must fasten down the front with buttons; many also featured buttons at the wrists and collar as well. There are examples with tied or hooked closures but these appear to be rare, not English, and/or intended for particular contexts. Yoked doublets are modern invention and are not appropriate for our use.
Primary sources seem to suggest that men's doublet sleeves were most often fully sewn on and not removable, and so for our purposes it is expected that sleeves be sewn on. Separate pairs of sleeves were common amongst women, but for men there is limited evidence for doublets with what appear to be sewn-on sleeves of a differing material as well as practical separate sleeves made of leather or wool for protection from messes or cuts while at work. The only evidence available for doublets with open armpits is a Scandinavian example from the 1650s. Other, non-English, extant examples are children’s garments or apparently meant specifically for the context of fencing.
Doublets should have a strip stitched with eyelets behind the skirting or, in rare cases, either eyelets stitched directly into the waist when there is no peplum (roughly 1570s and earlier) or eyelets stitched into the peplum itself. Points would be run through matching pairs of eyelets in the waistband of the breeches to connect the two garments, prevent unsightly gaps, and keep breeches up at the natural waist level. Into the 1620s, large pairs of hooks and eyes started to replace points.
Breeches/Hose
Breeches/hose should reach up to the natural waist. Codpieces were more or less extinct or headed in that direction by our time frame. It appears that many varieties of breeches either had no fastening or perhaps a modesty placket; with the large number of pleats there is very rarely a gap using the latter method. Otherwise, buttons, hooks and eyes, or perhaps single pairs of eyelets are ideal. Many wools, linen/hemp canvas, fustian, leather, silks, and so on work for breeches. Some examples appear to have been interlined, and the lining would often be of linen. The inside of the waistband should be lined in addition to the rest of the interior. Pockets set into the sides or slashed into the fronts were becoming increasingly common and were often made of leather.
Narrowing down which name described which style of breeches can be tricky. What follows is only hypothetical, and it must be understood that many of the terms used in the period were vague and very likely interchangeable. Venetian hose tended to be very full at the waist and tapered down to a relatively close fit just below the knee. Slops appears to have been a catch-all for any sort of baggy, full breeches. Roundhose (sometimes called trunkhose) seem to have been very full at both the waist and the leg and likely ended above the knee or higher. If terminating higher up, they might have canions, which might be close-fitting extensions of the breeches or perhaps a separate pair of breeches worn underneath extending to the knee. Stockings would be worn and gartered over these. Galligaskins or Gascon hose might be quite similar to the round hose but may have ended right above the knee and were very full.
Breeches/hose should reach up to the natural waist. Codpieces were more or less extinct or headed in that direction by our time frame. It appears that many varieties of breeches either had no fastening or perhaps a modesty placket; with the large number of pleats there is very rarely a gap using the latter method. Otherwise, buttons, hooks and eyes, or perhaps single pairs of eyelets are ideal. Many wools, linen/hemp canvas, fustian, leather, silks, and so on work for breeches. Some examples appear to have been interlined, and the lining would often be of linen. The inside of the waistband should be lined in addition to the rest of the interior. Pockets set into the sides or slashed into the fronts were becoming increasingly common and were often made of leather.
Narrowing down which name described which style of breeches can be tricky. What follows is only hypothetical, and it must be understood that many of the terms used in the period were vague and very likely interchangeable. Venetian hose tended to be very full at the waist and tapered down to a relatively close fit just below the knee. Slops appears to have been a catch-all for any sort of baggy, full breeches. Roundhose (sometimes called trunkhose) seem to have been very full at both the waist and the leg and likely ended above the knee or higher. If terminating higher up, they might have canions, which might be close-fitting extensions of the breeches or perhaps a separate pair of breeches worn underneath extending to the knee. Stockings would be worn and gartered over these. Galligaskins or Gascon hose might be quite similar to the round hose but may have ended right above the knee and were very full.
Ladies' Clothing
Coifs, Aprons, and Partlets
Speaking generally, the head would be covered across most of society both in and out of doors. Ladies' hair would be worn up using some arrangement of tapes and/or braids and/or a bun with a coif or arrangement of (usually) white linen fabric over it. Coifs may be one or two layers, though the latter may apply to those with embroidery or other embellishment as needed. Some coifs might have an additional piece, called a forehead cloth, worn over or under it for more coverage or protection from spills while carrying buckets. A blocked felt or structured hat of some sort would often be worn on top of the coif.
Aprons might also be of clean, white linen for special days and showing crisp, regular creases in them may have been seen as a source of pride. For more practical tasks, darker-colored (such as blue and green) aprons in wool or linen appear to have been in common use.
Common women might wear a partlet for protecting from the sun or warmth, depending on its patterning and materials, over or under the kirtle. Black or white wool or white linen seem to have been typical and might pin to the smock or outer layer and/or tie under the arms. Linen partlets might have a built-in ruff.
Speaking generally, the head would be covered across most of society both in and out of doors. Ladies' hair would be worn up using some arrangement of tapes and/or braids and/or a bun with a coif or arrangement of (usually) white linen fabric over it. Coifs may be one or two layers, though the latter may apply to those with embroidery or other embellishment as needed. Some coifs might have an additional piece, called a forehead cloth, worn over or under it for more coverage or protection from spills while carrying buckets. A blocked felt or structured hat of some sort would often be worn on top of the coif.
Aprons might also be of clean, white linen for special days and showing crisp, regular creases in them may have been seen as a source of pride. For more practical tasks, darker-colored (such as blue and green) aprons in wool or linen appear to have been in common use.
Common women might wear a partlet for protecting from the sun or warmth, depending on its patterning and materials, over or under the kirtle. Black or white wool or white linen seem to have been typical and might pin to the smock or outer layer and/or tie under the arms. Linen partlets might have a built-in ruff.
Bodice/Kirtle and Petticoat
The bodice, or bodies/pair of bodies, at this period forms the supportive layer worn over the smock. Extensive boning appears to be quite uncommon across all social strata until the very end of the 16th century, and even then may have only clad the wealthy. For most portrayals, it is preferred that support is achieved through a good fit and layers of canvas, with or without quilting/padstitching for structure. It may be helpful to run the grain of interlining layers of canvas in alternating directions. This can lace up in the front, back, or possibly side, and it is preferred that the spiral or straight lacing method is used. Some boning (often using bents or reeds) may be desired on either side of the eyelets for structure. Bodies should not have wings; these are a modern invention. It seems that it was typical for the skirt, known as a petticoat, to be stitched or possibly laced to the bodies, and this combination may have been referred to as a petticoat bodies, bodied petticoat, or sometimes kirtle. This petticoat was very often made of red wool, and need not match the bodies. An additional petticoat might be worn underneath that over the smock. The petticoat would be slit either in the front (to be covered by the apron), or at the side. There is no evidence for petticoats made of linen, while a variety of wools and occasionally silk are documentable choices. The waistband of petticoats might be fastened with a pair of eyelets or perhaps hooks and eyes. Petticoats should be heavily pleated or gathered into the waistband. A bumroll is not necessary and the silhouette is often surprisingly narrow for regular people. Lining is not necessary for the petticoats but it is a possibility. A pair of separate sleeves might be pinned or laced on to the bodies and some bodies may have had attached sleeves. These were made in a range of materials.
The bodice, or bodies/pair of bodies, at this period forms the supportive layer worn over the smock. Extensive boning appears to be quite uncommon across all social strata until the very end of the 16th century, and even then may have only clad the wealthy. For most portrayals, it is preferred that support is achieved through a good fit and layers of canvas, with or without quilting/padstitching for structure. It may be helpful to run the grain of interlining layers of canvas in alternating directions. This can lace up in the front, back, or possibly side, and it is preferred that the spiral or straight lacing method is used. Some boning (often using bents or reeds) may be desired on either side of the eyelets for structure. Bodies should not have wings; these are a modern invention. It seems that it was typical for the skirt, known as a petticoat, to be stitched or possibly laced to the bodies, and this combination may have been referred to as a petticoat bodies, bodied petticoat, or sometimes kirtle. This petticoat was very often made of red wool, and need not match the bodies. An additional petticoat might be worn underneath that over the smock. The petticoat would be slit either in the front (to be covered by the apron), or at the side. There is no evidence for petticoats made of linen, while a variety of wools and occasionally silk are documentable choices. The waistband of petticoats might be fastened with a pair of eyelets or perhaps hooks and eyes. Petticoats should be heavily pleated or gathered into the waistband. A bumroll is not necessary and the silhouette is often surprisingly narrow for regular people. Lining is not necessary for the petticoats but it is a possibility. A pair of separate sleeves might be pinned or laced on to the bodies and some bodies may have had attached sleeves. These were made in a range of materials.
Gowns and Jackets
While the bodies with petticoat over the smock may be suitable for working, it would be proper to wear something else atop them. A waistcoat or jacket is both highly practical and very documentable. These by and large appear to have been made of wool or fustian excepting high status linen examples covered in embroidery, and may or may not have had a lining. Pins or hooks and eyes are likely methods of fastening for these, though there are early 17th century examples which close with ties. While embroidered waistcoats have triangular gores or gussets spaced about the waist to shape the garment over the hips and bulk of petticoats, non-embroidered waistcoats seem to only flare at the waist without any inserts. Hollar's English Countrywoman from 1640 shows what might be gussets, but they nearly touch at their bases and so may be trim. Otherwise, images of English and Dutch working women seem to clearly show a flared waist or A-line body, sometimes gathered in by apron strings. The first (unembroidered) linen waistcoats seem to appear around the middle of the 17th century.
A fitted or loose gown may be another option. The fitted variety would have a waist seam whereas the loose type would not. Either might be fastened with hooks and eyes, pins, ties, or a sash at the waist. Sleeves might be full, half, or one-quarter-length, and towards the early end of the period might be puffed and paned if one-quarter. If the gown is to be worn open in the front, a decorative stomacher may be used to cover the gap over the kirtle/bodies.
Doublets for women seem to have been less common, especially for common folk. Unlike men’s doublets these might have stuffed rolls as wings at the shoulders.
While the bodies with petticoat over the smock may be suitable for working, it would be proper to wear something else atop them. A waistcoat or jacket is both highly practical and very documentable. These by and large appear to have been made of wool or fustian excepting high status linen examples covered in embroidery, and may or may not have had a lining. Pins or hooks and eyes are likely methods of fastening for these, though there are early 17th century examples which close with ties. While embroidered waistcoats have triangular gores or gussets spaced about the waist to shape the garment over the hips and bulk of petticoats, non-embroidered waistcoats seem to only flare at the waist without any inserts. Hollar's English Countrywoman from 1640 shows what might be gussets, but they nearly touch at their bases and so may be trim. Otherwise, images of English and Dutch working women seem to clearly show a flared waist or A-line body, sometimes gathered in by apron strings. The first (unembroidered) linen waistcoats seem to appear around the middle of the 17th century.
A fitted or loose gown may be another option. The fitted variety would have a waist seam whereas the loose type would not. Either might be fastened with hooks and eyes, pins, ties, or a sash at the waist. Sleeves might be full, half, or one-quarter-length, and towards the early end of the period might be puffed and paned if one-quarter. If the gown is to be worn open in the front, a decorative stomacher may be used to cover the gap over the kirtle/bodies.
Doublets for women seem to have been less common, especially for common folk. Unlike men’s doublets these might have stuffed rolls as wings at the shoulders.
Recommended Sources
Tertiary
Before the Mast: Life and Death Aboard the Mary Rose (The Archaeology of the Mary Rose). Julie Gardiner, Editor. Oxbow Books.
Clothes of the Common People In Elizabethan and Early Stuart England Series. Stuart Peachey. Stuart Press/Historic Management Associates.
The Modern Maker: Men's 17th Century Doublets (Volume 1). Mathew Gnagy.
Patterns of Fashion 3: The cut and construction of clothes for men and women c. 1560 - 1620. Janet Arnold. Macmillan.
Patterns of Fashion 4: The cut and construction of linen shirts, smocks, neck wear, head wear and accessories for men and women c. 1540 - 1660. Janet Arnold. Macmillan.
Seventeenth-Century Women’s Dress Patterns Book 1. Edited by Susan North and Jenny Tiramani. V & A Publishing.
Seventeenth-Century Women’s Dress Patterns Book 2. Edited by Susan North and Jenny Tiramani. V & A Publishing.
Stepping Through Time: Archaeological Footwear from Prehistoric Times until 1800. Olaf Goubitz. SPA Uitgevers.
The Tudor Tailor: Reconstructing Sixteenth-Century Dress. Ninya Mikhaila and Jane Malcolm-Davies. Costume and Fashion Press.
The Tudor Child: Clothing and Culture 1485 to 1625. Jane Huggett, Ninya Mikhaila, and Jane Malcolm-Davies. Costume and Fashion Press.
Before the Mast: Life and Death Aboard the Mary Rose (The Archaeology of the Mary Rose). Julie Gardiner, Editor. Oxbow Books.
Clothes of the Common People In Elizabethan and Early Stuart England Series. Stuart Peachey. Stuart Press/Historic Management Associates.
The Modern Maker: Men's 17th Century Doublets (Volume 1). Mathew Gnagy.
Patterns of Fashion 3: The cut and construction of clothes for men and women c. 1560 - 1620. Janet Arnold. Macmillan.
Patterns of Fashion 4: The cut and construction of linen shirts, smocks, neck wear, head wear and accessories for men and women c. 1540 - 1660. Janet Arnold. Macmillan.
Seventeenth-Century Women’s Dress Patterns Book 1. Edited by Susan North and Jenny Tiramani. V & A Publishing.
Seventeenth-Century Women’s Dress Patterns Book 2. Edited by Susan North and Jenny Tiramani. V & A Publishing.
Stepping Through Time: Archaeological Footwear from Prehistoric Times until 1800. Olaf Goubitz. SPA Uitgevers.
The Tudor Tailor: Reconstructing Sixteenth-Century Dress. Ninya Mikhaila and Jane Malcolm-Davies. Costume and Fashion Press.
The Tudor Child: Clothing and Culture 1485 to 1625. Jane Huggett, Ninya Mikhaila, and Jane Malcolm-Davies. Costume and Fashion Press.