I am by far not a person who can sew. When I was at the Armour Archive months back, I remembered a lot of talk about how the stitching on several different garments was incorrect. Two examples I'm interested in specifically are the surcoat and the brigadine.

I'll use the surcoat as an example, as the bradine would likely be similar in make to it. As far as I am aware, a surcoat has open sides. There may be and likely are exceptions to that but I am unaware of specific examples. Which of the two drawings below would be how it is sewn?

Behold my artistic wonder!

M.

---

 Attachment: 13.44 KB
Artistic genius in progress! [ Download ]

Well, some were open on the sides and some weren't. Some had sleeves, others didn't. Surcoats can be fitted garments, not just "blankets with a hole in the middle." Basically, the surcoat (or surcotte) was a loose, robe-like, outer garment worn by both men and women during the 11th through 14th centuries. For a man-at-arms, a surcoat was worn to keep rain and sun off his armor and to identify him while wearing a helm/helmet. Attached is a picture of two knights, the one on the left wearing a surcoat which is not open on the sides.

---

 Attachment: 81.7 KB

As far as I know, extant garments that are of a surcoat-like nature have separate front and back panels.

If you look at http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/cloth/type5.html and http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/cloth/type6.html you'll have descriptions of extant garments of the type you are after, with and without sleeves.

If you go to the overview page http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/cloth/tunics.html the garments under the two different types might give you some ideas.

But, a surcoat and a brigandine are pretty far apart when it comes to construction. I would think that the fabric pieces for a brigandine would have a more complex/fitted cut than those of a surcoat, especially when it comes to the tailoring of the main panels.

Johan Schubert Moen

Incorrect stitching? I'd say all seams and stitches that can be done by hand is correct (although some stitch-types are more suitable than others)

If you are serious about making a surcoat yourself then I highly recommend getting a good book or two on the subject of Medieval tailoring. I personally recommend The Medieval Tailor's Assistant by Sarah Thurston and several other books out there have good reputations. If you search here, Firestryker or Armour Archive for sewing books you should get some good info.

One of the reasons I say this is because if you have no prior knowledge of sewing then there are some important basics, such as how to do a backstitch, that you need. A simple 'stab-stitch' will not produce good results.

I highly recommend researching first, then making mocks out of cheap cloth and then making the final garment. The end result is much better.

I may well commission a friend of mine to sew it for me, if she's up for it. I might make 2 -- one for armoured surcoat and the other for unarmoured.

M.

What period are you looking at?

My 13th century surcote is made in the same way as my tunic, but without the arms. It features gusets in the side and front.
[ Linked Image ]

BTW;
A surcote that isn't stiched in the sides is a tabbard, and belong to a later period.

Likely the 13th or 14th century -- rise of the longsword and the emergence of plate era.

M.

So, you are basically looking to be a longsword-toter in mixed mail and plate?

As the 14th century progresses, the surcotes becomes shorter and more tighter fitting (like the civilian tunics)
They are , however, tailored.

Since the garment is shorter, you do not need the front split gussets, which 13th cent overachievers (me) have.
you still want shaped arm openings, and most likely side gores, if rather narrow ones.

You could also skip the gores, but the tailored arms are still recomended. its not that much extra work.

---

 Attachment: 13.13 KB

What are goers? And by tailored arms, do you mean matching it to the slope of my shoulders?

M.

Hah!

Goers serve a function or are they just for style? It explains to me why the effigies in surcoats tend to have a puffed out appearance.

M.

Makes sense Mark. I had forgotten the fact that it's not an open sided garment (I associate that with surcoat easily).

M.