Talk:1650–1700 in Western European fashion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Fashion (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
B checklist
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Everyday life.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Great stuff[edit]

This is great stuff so far. PKM 05:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot! I need to add more pictures and captions. Also, to make it look nicer. As well, I need to add more info such as material, colors, etc. Imperial78
Let me know if I can help. You should also add some references - I can paste in the base set I am using, if you like (it covers this period). Are yoiu going to tackle women's fashion, or not interested? PKM 17:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added some external links (the ones I found for 1600-1650 cover both periods) - PKM 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I added an introductory paragraph as per Wikipedia Manual of Style and for consistency with the rest of the series. It's a bit long; we might split it into a first sentence and "General Trends" section in the future. Hope you like the image I included with it. -PKM 18:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent work! Also, the picture you added is perfect for the 1670s. Imperial78
Oh good! I hoped you'd like it. `-PKM 23:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Somehow there's a sad lack of mention of the fontange... ;-) Churchh 13:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL, I could probably write about women's fashion during this time, but I do not have as much knowledge in it. I wanted someone else to do it and I can tweak it. lol Imperial78
Anyone have any opinions on what I wrote? Perhaps someone can fill in on the materials on more regional variations. The clothing of the 1650-1665 is quite bizarre, wouldn't you say? Hundreds and hundreds of yards of ribbon and very short coat and baggy petticoat breeches or baggy rhinegraves with overskirts, the 1665-1675 transition, and the 1675-1790 look we are more familiar with. Imperial78
I am amazed anyone could contribute as much detail about this period as you did. I like it a lot. This isn't my period at all, so I can't help with regional variations much, without doing research.
I think the style gallery images are a bit large - how would you feel about sizing them down to thumbnails and make a single style gallery with dates on each image? I'd be willing to do the reformatting work - had a lot of practice lately - if you approve. I might also move some images up into the text to illustrate specific points.
Churchh - first one to mention "fontage" has to do the women's clothing section! Well, maybe not; I need to do some research but if no one starts it before I get to it I'll add something. Maybe we can tag-team it? I have no time during the week now, just weekends. - PKM 17:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm more preoccupied with 1795-1820 in fashion, which I finally started (but am finding tough going, because it's very different from what I've done at ). I know rather little about the fashion of this period, but have a soft spot for the fontange ;-) Blanche Payne calls the styles of the 1650's "fantastically unmasculine", and worries about whether they can be called divided skirts... Churchh 12:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will work in the female clothing line this weekend. Ah, please do fix the photos. I kind of lack the technical code work to fix those up. Note, the 1690s photo, one source listed 1695 another 1702! Not sure which one is correct. lol I believe the terms fontange and pinner are the same. I will have to do more reading! :) Imperial78

Images and gallery[edit]

Okay, I have moved and resized the images, and added captions as best I can - please flesh these out, as I am not sure about petticoat breeches and rhinegraves!!

I also made a few general grammatical tweaks and added bunch of links.

We need a picture of a Steinkerk. I will go looking. - PKM 18:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a steinkerk on a 1690s gentleman:

Compare him to a 1680 gentleman:

1680s: vertical pockets, large bow of ribbons under cravat...1690s steinkerk and no bow, horizontal pockets, a bit higher wig...


Women's fashion[edit]

I started it. It still needs more info on the lamentable fontange. And more stuff in general. - PKM 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good job -- the fontange finally receives its just place in the sun!  ;-)
Mary II of England seems to be wearing a "hair fontange"...
One thing -- in most of the other series articles, the women's stuff is usually first, isn't it? Churchh 04:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It actually varies; I vaguely intended to alternate men and women going first and see if anyone noticed. As it happens, whatever got written first is first, and men go first in 3 articles (#1, 3 and 4 starting with 1550-1600).
However, in the interest of consistency for the reader we should probably put women's clothing first in all of these; there is certainly more to be said about women's fashion in most periods (though this period may be the exception!).
So: overview, women, men, children (if any), and social/historical commentary (where appropriate)? - PKM 03:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good to me! Churchh 15:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- PKM 03:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1807 caricature


This 1807 caricature claims to be comparing contemporary styles to those of 1740, but wouldn't you agree that the alleged 1740 outfit actually looks more 17th-century? Churchh 19:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I missed this question entirely! It's an odd-looking dress, but the sack-back is definitely 18th century. - PKM 01:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dating a picture[edit]

Can anyone find a firm date for Image:Eleonore of Pfalz Neuburg.jpg? DShe became empress in 1676 and this certainly looks like 1670s, but I cannot find a museum citation for it. - PKM 01:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medinacelli/Medinaceli Image[edit]

User:Azalea pomp deleted Image:Medinacelli.jpg with this comment: "→Style gallery 1670s-1690s - Not sure that is 1684, probably 1678 since the description of the photo said he was 24 and he was born in I shall remove it until we can get a consensus".

Google search results gives 1659 as his date of birth "[PDF] Bulletin of Spanish Studies DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE LIVING AND THE ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat (t) Cogolludo: Don Luis Francisco de la Cerda, Marquis of Cogolludo and ninth Duke. of Medinaceli after his father's death; he was born in 1659 and married ..." That birthdate would have him turn 25 some time in 1684 and supports the date in the Burlingon Magazine.

Any objection to putting the image back? The article specifically dates the portait to 1684, and I used "c. 1684" in the caption. In any case, I'd like to restore the image even if we give a date range of "c. 1678-84" - PKM 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The picture seems to date anywhere from 1678-1682. It could be 1684, but honestly his fashion would look to be very outdated for 1684 due to his wig, cravat, and the cut of his coat. I honestly think it is not a great portrait to include due to the date being in question. There is not a definite date on it as the caption of the photo itself says "probably", so the person dating the picture does not know for sure either. I did find a date of birth as 1660 for the Duke, although the caption says 1654. Azalea_pomp

Mantua citation request[edit]

I have the reference for the mantua citation that was requested at home - I will add it. - PKM 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Added. - PKM 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new peaceful and more relaxed feeling in Europe[edit]

The sentence:

"With the end of the Thirty Years' War, the fashions of the 1650s and early 1660s imitated the new peaceful and more relaxed feeling in Europe."

Seems to be to be OR (or sourced from a fashion article that is trying to make a generalisation that for a whole continent but the devil is in the detail). The Thirty Years War ended in the 1640s. Britain was under a military dictatorship for much of the 1650s and was nearly continuously at war throughout the period (Among other things this dictatorship banned theatre and Christmas -- "peaceful and more relaxed feeling[s]" is not how most contemporaries would have described the decade. So while Germany and parts of Scandinavia were now at peace that was not Europe wide. The Dutch, Spanish French and [British] Commonwealth were at war for much of the period:

So this bland generalisation needs to be removed-- PBS (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree in principle, except I think I actually have a source for that notion (from back in the days before we were encouraged to cite everything). It should be rewritten or cited, one or the other. Let me see if I can find it, and if not I'll change this. - PKM (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because there is a cited source does not make it correct. Even if a source can be found then as it is quite easily demonstrably false if you want to include it then it should be attributed to the "expert" who made it. -- PBS (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two Different Styles of Dress[edit]

I noticed there seems to be two established styles of dress for gentlemen (I especially note France) in the early 1660s (maybe even in the late 1650s?). The first style includes petticoat breeches and a very short doublet. The second style includes a long coat with short sleeves and rhinegraves. I am defining petticoat breeches as non-collected while rhinegraves as collected. If there is an overskirt, the rhinegraves are white. If there is no overksirt, the rhinesgraves match the coat. Two are from paintings faithfully based on I assume are older tapestries. Painter Jacques Laumosnier apparently copied these two tapestries decades later. First, the tapestry/painting of Meeting on the Isle of Pheasants shows a gentleman second from our left, wearing a long blue coat with short sleeves and white rhinegraves. Over these white rhinegraves is apparently an overskirt. This overskirt has loops of ribbons that go all around the bottom of the skirt. This is in contrast to petticot breeches where the ribbon loops are only worn on each of the outer sides at the bottom. These same white rhinegraves are worn by King Charles II of England’s coronation portrait by John Michael Wright. Contrast King Louis XIV’s small amount of ribbon loops versus the aformentioned man in the blue coat. Second, the tapestry/painting Marriage of Louis XIV to Maria Theresa of Austria shows a gentleman at our far left wearing an elaborate long coat with short sleeves. He has white gathered rhingraves with an apparent overskirt due to the wide circumferance of ribbon loops. The painting can be found at the French wikipedia article for Jacques Laumosnier. Third, an engraving of King Louis XIV visiting the Royal Academy of Sciences. The engraving can be found at the article: French Academy of Sciences as the third image. The two gentlemen in the center wear the two styles. King Louis XIV on our left wears a long coat (maybe a short waistcoat, vest or doublet on under the long coat?), overskirt and rhinegraves. The gentleman on our right as a short doublet and petticoat breeches. Fourth, the 1663 painting of The Reception of the Ambassadors of the Thirteen Swiss Cantons from 1663 has a gentleman on our far right in a brown long coat with shortsleeves and matching rhinegraves. There is no overskirt nor ribbons on the bottom of his breeches. Fifth, I have seen a painting of a seated Louis XIV in wide white rhinegraves with a long coat and an apparent overskirt. The painting was said to be from 1665. Does anyone know the origins or any context why the two different styles were worn? ElkandAcquerne (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]