In the SCA, one of the most popular fashions, next to the T-tunic, is the sideless surcote. Women and girls alike, who say they represent a wide span of SCAdian time, wear it. But, is it really worthy of all the praise and use that it is given? Turns out maybe not.

Let us first consider that all of the sources that we have of this style are the artwork (in many forms) from the period. There are no actual surviving examples of these garments for us to use. Therefore the "artist’s representation" of the truth is all we have to go on.

The sideless surcote seems to have begun as a cotehardie or houpelande with sleeves that were slit slightly larger and longer than a normal armhole. This style could have been seen in men’s clothing, but was primarily an element of women’s fashion. They would have been worn over a fitted gown, with a chemise or shift under that. The openings gradually became larger as the fitted dress became tighter. In approximately 1350, a fur or embroidered edge was added to the surcote. The fur edging was, more than likely, the fur lining that was brought out to the outside edge. Eventually the top panel, called a placard or placa, was entirely made of fur.

As the styles changed, so did the persons who wore them. During the 14^th century, the sideless gown seems to have been worn by only the far upper class, nobles and royals. Come the 15^th century, the style had become strictly worn by queens, as official royal robes, i.e. robes of state. At this same time the sideless surcote was used in artwork as the preferred style for St Catherine of Alexandria, St. Ursula, St. Helena, and St. Barbara. All of these women were known to be "royal" saints, meaning they came from royal birth or had married into royalty. Alas, by the end of the 15^th century, the fashion had even faded with the queens, except as a "costume". In one piece of art, we see Queen Victoria wearing a similar style to the sideless surcote, but it was when she attended a costume party. The gown eventually became a symbol of a virgin bride or a virgin martyr when accompanied by the hair down and unrestrained.

One of the most common sources of figures wearing the sideless surcote is funerary art. These mainly included phages and brasses. However this may not be a totally accurate depiction of when and how these gowns were worn and by whom. Most funerary art was made after the memorialized person had died and was usually made to the specifications of the persons family. It is believed that the brasses were made from a stock pattern and that details were added at the request of the family. For example, a man could walk into a brass shop and order a brass for his wife, who had died as many as 20 years prior. He could say, "I’d like a number 22, but make her look like a queen." Perhaps then the brass maker would stamp the stock pattern (number 22) and add in a sideless surcote, to make the woman appear as a queen. She may never have been a queen, nor ever worn a sideless surcote in her lifetime, but she will always be remembered this way because of the brass.

As modern pattern makers tried to translate the sideless surcote into modern "patterns", some strange concepts arose. In the early patterns of the gown the front and back of the gown was fabric from shoulder to hem. Some designers believed that the placard was an entirely separate piece. Some designed it to be a vest and some a jacket, and some even attached the skirt to the vest, an almost impossible feat in practice.

In conclusion, though the sideless surcote is a popular garment in the SCA, there is no definitive evidence that it was an actual style worn by women in the 14^th and 15^th centuries. It seems to be that it was a symbol that artists used to denote queens and those of noble blood. This would be similar to the Seneschal of a group wearing his or her gold key. Perhaps this existence of this garment is one of the great mysteries of fashion...