I believe that diagonal line from the armscye to the "corner" of the neckline is the actual shoulder seam.
If the bodice back is cut on the straight grain, extending the shoulder straps to the front would put them on the bias, allowing for more flexablity for range of movement. Imagine a Y.
I can't find it at the moment but there is an example of a corset done this way in one of Janet Arnold's books. And while her documentation is on something done a 100 years beyond 15c Flemish wear, there are certainly many other examples that support the skill of using bias to the advantage.
Hm. While thinking about this, I just thought of something. In our modern mindset, we tend to put shoulder seams on top. But why do they NEED to be there? If they are in front, as they are on Mary, one can reach and see to make adjustments to fit the garment, without the need for an additional person.
no subject
I believe that diagonal line from the armscye to the "corner" of the neckline is the actual shoulder seam.
If the bodice back is cut on the straight grain, extending the shoulder straps to the front would put them on the bias, allowing for more flexablity for range of movement. Imagine a Y.
I can't find it at the moment but there is an example of a corset done this way in one of Janet Arnold's books. And while her documentation is on something done a 100 years beyond 15c Flemish wear, there are certainly many other examples that support the skill of using bias to the advantage.
Hm. While thinking about this, I just thought of something. In our modern mindset, we tend to put shoulder seams on top. But why do they NEED to be there? If they are in front, as they are on Mary, one can reach and see to make adjustments to fit the garment, without the need for an additional person.