Needed, an 18th century ball gown

March 5, 2013, 7:00 am

≫ Next: Unveiling a secret project- A wild man masquerade costume, anno 1778

≪ Previous: A few portrait lovelies from Tate

I never really made a fancy 18th century gown, though I have been a member of Gustafs Skål for 12 years. (Yikes, is it that long?) This year Gustafs Skål turns 20 and there will be celebrations and it would be fun to have something really nice to put on and a gown like that have been on my to-do list for a long time. So it wouldn't make me deviate too much from my plan to not starting a lot of new projects this year, especially if I use fabrics from my stash and not buy new. This leaves me with two options.

Piemontaise

First, a green/blue (dominantly green) shot taffeta that was bought to the express purpose to make a ball gown. I have been dithering to and fro on cut and eventually ended with my first plan, to make it into a piemontaise. In case you have missed this rather uncommon 18th century gown I can tell you that it is basically the love child between a French and an English gown. The back-pleats is actually a separate pattern piece, mounted on the gown.

It would be fun because it would be a new pattern and also because I could decorate it along the lines of this dress, which I have always liked, though I think I would like some gold details.

Court gown, 1775-1780

Then there is the option in doing something 1790's along these lines.

Dress, ca 1795

Dresses, 1790-1800

As for fabric, a couple of years ago I made this 1790's outfit with a taffeta skirt and velvet jacket.

I actually have enough of the blue-grey taffeta so I could make a matching bodice. It would mean that it would be in two parts, which probably isn't truly period, but with a sash it wouldn't be noticeable.

It would definitely be the easiest option as I have a true and tried 1790's bodice pattern. However, I would need to embellish it, which would take time as well. So at the moment I'm undecided on which one I should make. What do you think?

↧

Unveiling a secret project- A wild man masquerade costume, anno 1778

March 16, 2013, 1:24 pm

≫ Next: Stays with tie-on sleeves

≪ Previous: Needed, an 18th century ball gown

Livrustkammaren in Stockholm have several masquerade costumes from 18th century. Some of them have belonged to the future Karl XIII, among them this one, "a wild man's dress" dated to 1778. I have always wanted to make it and this past month, or so, it has been my very secret project. So secret that I haven't even told you that I was working on one. I was a bit afraid that it would turn out looking awful. But here is how J looked last night at a masked ball Gustafs Skål held and I think he looked great!

The original is in three parts, a close fitting jacket in white silk, a printed "leopard skin" kilt in silk and a "bear skin" in cotton flannel with claws made of tin. It is also decorated with leaves in silk. The lack of pattern, good pictures and written information made it impossible to truly copy the suit, so I opted for closely inspired. Instead of silk I made the jacket and leopard skin in the same cotton flannel as I used for the bear skin, I bought several yards of white flannel and then died it brown and sandy brown yellow to suit.

Making claws out of tin was not an option, so instead I sculpted them out of paper clay, painting them silver. They each have a wire skeleton, ending with a little loop, making them easy to sew on. Having no real idea how the skin was shaped I drafted a, in my opinion, likely shape, directly on the fabric.

The original has a seam down the middle, but my fabric was wide enough for the whole skin. I then lined it with common red polyester lining- very unhistorical, but there was a time restraint so I couldn't hunt up a suitable silk lining. And last I attached all the claws. Even if paper clay is pretty lightweight, the combined claws gave the skin some weight. It was pinned discreetly into place to prevent slipping of J´s shoulders.

The jacket was drafted using Pattern Cutting Men's Costume by Elizabeth Friendship as a guide
and lined with plain white cotton. The original has no collar and invisible, and therefore unknown, closure. As I got the flu in a very untimely fashion I got rather behind on my schedule, so yesterday I just sewed the jacket shut. I plan to fix that.

I found a free pattern for a leopard spot stencil online and cut it out on a plastic sheet. Then, being possible mad, I spent quite some time printing the spots. Of course I could have bought faux leopard skin, but as the original is in fabric, I wanted the same. Unfortunately I bought too little of the brown fabric paint, so I had less fabric in making the kilt than I had anticipated. I don't know how much fabric that went into the original, but the skirt looks fuller. The hem is also cut uneven, making the red lining show. I did, however, add a tail, even if it doesn't look the same as the original. The kilt is lined with the same red fabric as the bear skin.

The leaves are cut from silk taffeta, green shot with red. The size of them was a guess and I think they got a bit bigger than the original leaves. Again because of lack of time, my wild man's suit doesn't have as many leaves attached as the original, but I have a lot of leaves left and will add more of them. I also attached several leaves to hair pins, to decorate J's wig.

As I liked the idea of going as a matching pair I used the scraps left over of the leopard skin and made a small skin for me, lined with red. There are a number of paintings of ladies dressed as Diana where they wear a white dress, a small leopard skin draped around their bodies and usually a half-moon decoration in their hair. There are a couple of them in the Pinterest album I made about 18th century masques and theatre costumes. As I was going as a wild woman I omitted the moon and just dressed my hair with a few leaves. I also made a sash from the same fabric as the leaves.The gown is the 1790's linen gown I made a couple of years back. I think we made for a nice couple, don't you?

My friend Marianne wearing the same type of dress and a leopard skin came as Diana, but I'm sure that everybody who saw us noticed her moon tiara and my leaves and spotted the difference... Well, perhaps not.

Lithia went as a Harlequina and I just love her waistcoat. The lattice pattern is made out of velvet ribbons and perfectly done. I should have got a better picture of her hair, because I put it up and I think it came out pretty well. Her hair is dark red and with white hair powder on it turned into a very pretty dark pink.She is also using the Spanish white I made. As she is very pale it was hard to say if it really made her whiter, but it gave her a lovely pale glow. I used my Marechale powder which you can't really tell, because the colour of the powder matches my own hair very well. it did get a nice powdered look though, and it smells divine.

↧

Stays with tie-on sleeves

March 18, 2013, 4:42 am

≫ Next: A Robe Piemontaise it is

≪ Previous: Unveiling a secret project- A wild man masquerade costume, anno 1778

Front- and backlaced stays with tie-on sleeves, ca 1750, Italy

Gustafs Skål's big jubilation party will take place May 9 (Do come, it will be fabulous!) and will be a full day event. I will need a ball gown for the day, but also something and would like to have something a bit simpler for the day. I recently stumbled on these brocade covered stays with tie-on sleeves.

There are a few of them around, all, as far as I know, have been from the first half of the 18^thcentury. It seems to me that it was an informal fashion, being a bit more dressed than just wallowing around din your stays. Most extant examples I have seen have been Italian or French, so it might have been a pretty local fashion as well.

Stays, 1735-50

And the sleeves to go with it

Stays with tie-on sleeves, 1760, possibly France

I don't know anything about these, but they are beautiful!

There are also a few paintings.

Well, I admit that you can't see what it looks like underneath the neckerchief, but the sleeves are tied on.
A Young Lady With Two Dogs by Giacomo Ceruti

Watch the reading girl!
Women Working on Pillow Lace by Giacomo Ceruti, 1720's

Portrait of a Lady by Francesco Zuccarelli

I have a pair of stays that I made a couple of years ago that fit well, are structurally sound, but have started to look pretty shabby. They are also strapless, which I don’t like. If I cover them with a nice shell fabric I can add straps and if I make a matching petticoat I think I will look quite presentable, if undressed. Also, for evening I could just lace myself in a bit better, loose the sleeves and don my evening garb without much fuss.

For some reason I am stuck with thinking it should be pink. Why I do not know, as I’m not a pink sort of person. Though with a green ball gown accented with gold, a glimpse of a pink petticoat underneath would probably look quite nice. I have been drooling at Pure Silks and I’m now stuck with these three.

I confess, my heart beats a bit harder for this pink/gold silk brocade. But would teh fabric work for the 18th century. I want to say yes, but perhaps it is just because I want it. Any takers?

Pinkish lavendel shot with gold is pretty nifty too

On the other hand, my skin tone is better with cool shades.

↧

A Robe Piemontaise it is

March 23, 2013, 8:00 am

≫ Next: Leather stays in Sweden

≪ Previous: Stays with tie-on sleeves

Basically everyone asked says that I should do the piemontaise and I must confess that I feel most inclined to that one as well. So a piemontaise it is. I need it to be finished in May and have everything I need when it comes to fabric and lining material. What I do need are additional decorations. I would like something in gold.

Of the scant handful of extant piemontaises around, there is, the one in Denmark is available as pattern. The cut is really quite simple, a narrow back, a wide front, sleeve, the petticoat and the pleated panel for the back. I already have a fitted bodice pattern that looks like that, so I will start with cutting out the lining and fit it. I also need to think a bit about the front closure.

Bodice, sleeve, overskirt and the separate backpleats.
I have never made sleeves with that cut before.

The petticoat made out of three panels of fabric
and waistband.

I will, of course, ogle other extant piemontaises for inspirations. They are really pretty.

The Danish one is quite simple, but the others are much more extravagant. All three gowns below are Spanish. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Gorgeous creme coloured gown with embroidery.

Source

The pleated back panel is really just applied on top of everything.

A somewhat less embroidered one.

Source

´

Unfortunately no picture of the back.

Source

A piemontaise, probably from the 1780’s and altered in the 19^th century

Scroll down for a modern interpretationof the piemontaise in green stripes, the only one I have ever seen.

↧

Leather stays in Sweden

March 26, 2013, 11:56 am

≫ Next: Come to an 18th century party in Sweden

≪ Previous: A Robe Piemontaise it is

Are leather stays controversial? I sometimes encounter that view online, which have always puzzled me as I know there are extant ones around. Perhaps it is due to regional differences, what was common in Sweden wasn’t common elsewhere. There are several extant ones in Swedish museum collections and they seem to have been popular as working stays and for children. The ones in this post are all located at the museum Nordiska in Stockholm, but they are not the only one. There are, for example, a pair of children’s stays in Gotland who are cut and boned like adult stays and have also decorative stamping that mimics the look of fully boned stays.

The stays in this post range from fully boned stays, half-boned and what are more unboned bodices, though they shape is similar. In the 18^th century women in the rural areas of Sweden wore what in the next century would be called folk costumes. They varied from place to place, but an essential look was a shift, several skirts and a sleeveless bodice. In fact, quite close to what is sometimes called “wench-costumes”. These bodices were, and are, cut like stays and could be quite heavily boned, or not boned at all. Not all of them were made out of leather, of course.

NM.0001007

Dated to 1750-70, though my personal view is that they are earlier. Made of chamois leather with lining in coarse linen. Much mended with linen in various qualities. Fully boned with whalebones. Enforced with sturdier whalebones around the waist and across the bust. Cut with a front that narrows down to a point and is laced in the back. The shoulder straps are sewn to the back and tied to the front. There are traces of silk at the seams on the inside, which may indicate that this was originally a bodice in silk that has been covered with chamois leather.

Nordiska also have a pair of leather stays that are, so far, not photgraphed (NM.0109352). They are, according to Britta Hammar and Pernilla Rasmussen in Underkläder, made for a young girl. The museum dates it to 1720-29, though the stays itself are marked with "Anno 1687", ie, the year 1687. They are front-laced and in dark brown leather, edged with chamois leather. Made out of four pattern pieces with a seam at the center back and side-back. 12 tabs. It's a bit unclear if there are any boning left at all.

NM0004796

Stays in light-coloured chamois leather, 1750-60. Front-laced, 10 pattern pieces with 20 boning channels. Boned with whalebone. Has been altered to be smaller by a new seam in the back and the front folded back with new lacing holes made. Possibly originally boned with iron boning at the lacing. Lined with unbleached lining. Has been owned by a Sara Hazelius, wife of a dean.

NM.0001252

Stays in brown calf skin, ca 1750. Front-laced, six pattern pattern pieces and 18 boning channels. Boned with iron at the lacing holes and reed. Eight tabs, overlapping each other. Lined with coarse, unbleached linen with leather reinforcment where the boning channels end.

NM.0001313

Dated 1750-1799. In brown stamped leather, but no bones, though the shape is similar to boned stays. The stamps are very decorative and depicts, for example, straight and wavy lines and bows.

NM.0001127

Bodice in brown calf skin, 1780-1820. 12 boning channels, 10 overlapping tabs. Lined with unbleached linen.

NM.0044668

These are undated and lack other information as well, but due to the high waist I think that they are from the 19th century. I have included them anyway because of the boning that harks back to the 18th century and for the bummroll attached on teh inside, under the tabs.

NM.0194150

Bodice in pale chamois leather, 1750-90. Boned at the lacing with iron, the diagonal channels are boned with reed or something similar, so are the three boning channels in the back. Overlapping tabs. Edged with white leather. Front,, neck and armhole decorated with pinked white leather. Lined with unbleached linen. Said to have been made as an engagement gift.

NM.0011194

Bodice in leather, seemingly unboned, but cut like stays, 1763-1773. Worn by Helena Olosdotter, a farmer's daughter, as a young girl.

I would like to make myself a pair of leather stays, because they seem to be quite comfortable. Front-laced with a few bones at critical points seems to be the most common ones. Well, I have time to think about it, I have plenty of sewing projects to make first.

Read more on other blogs:

A tutorial for making a pair of leather stays at Three-headed Snippet

Historically Speaking making a pair of leather stays

The Costume Historian on extant leather stays

↧

Come to an 18th century party in Sweden

April 8, 2013, 11:52 pm

≫ Next: What a child should wear in 1712

≪ Previous: Leather stays in Sweden

Svartsjö Palace. The main building was started in 1734.

On May 9 Gustafs Skål is holding their grand party to celebrate that the society is turning 20 this year. The party will take place at Svartsjö Palace in Stockholm and will start at noon and end one hour after midnight. Much amusements and good food have been promised!

The cost is 675 SKr for members of Gustafs Skål, Wästgiöta Gustavianer, Carlscrona Rediviva, Forum för historisk dans & music and Helsingfors goda borgare. For everyone else, the price is 775 SKr.

The amusements will include a walk in the park with music and something for the body as well as for the mind. Dowager-queen Lovisa Ulrika will invite you for something that has to do with beauty (yes that might include my participation…). Dancing, of course as well as perhaps a bit more naughty amusements as well. A dinner, a play and a number of surprises are also included.

If you are interested, mail: elisabeth.goldstein (at ) telia.com

A feast to mark that the hay is cut outside Svartsjö Palace by Pehr Hilleström, ca 1780

Personally I think it will be an absolutely fantastic party!

More info (in Swedish) can be found here.

↧

What a child should wear in 1712

April 10, 2013, 10:44 am

≫ Next: Late 18th century hat

≪ Previous: Come to an 18th century party in Sweden

The Enraged Musician by William Hogarth, 1741

A comment from Kendra on my post on leather stays made me do a search for them on Google books and actually found a few, very few mentions of them in British texts. In 1758 there is a note on poor girl being issued leather stays when they are admitted to an Asylum. I did a search for leather bodice and found a description af a country wench in her leather bodice from 1771 and then, a rather facinating list on the cost of clothes for children in a British charity school in 1712. Girls are then supposed to be provided with a leather bodice with a stomacher. But the whole list is worth a post, I think. Being charity this is what is considered the minimum of clothes a child, aged 7-12 should wear. A quite useful guide for 18^th century re-enactors with children, I think, the quality would be better for a richer child and he or she would have more underwear, but the basics are here. I kept the spelling.

An ACCOUNT of the RATES of Cloathing

Poor Children belonging to C H A R I T Y-s C H O O L S

The Charge of Cloathing a BOY

A Yard and half-quarter of Grey Yorkshire Broad Cloth 6 quarters wide, makes a Coat: 3 s.

Making the Coat, with Pewter Buttons and all other Materials: 1 s.

A Wasitcoat of the same Cloth lined: 3 s. 6 d.

A pair of Breeches of Cloth or Leather lined: 2 s. 6 d.

1 Knit Cap, with Tuft and String, of any Colour: 10 d.

1 Band: 2 d.

1 Shirt: 1 s. 6 d.

1 Pair of Woollen Stockings: 8 d.

1 Pair of Shoes: 1 s. and 10 d.

1 Pair of Buckles: 1 d.

1 Pair of Knit or Wash-Leather Gloves: 7 d.

Total: 15 s. and 8 d.

The Charge of Cloathing a GIRL.

3 Yards and half of blue long Ells, about yard wide, at 6d. p. Yard, makes a Gown and Petticoat: 4 s. 8 d.

Making thereof, Strings, Body-lining, and other Materials : 1 s.J

A Coif and Band of Scotch-Cloth with a Border: 9 d.

Ditto of fine Ghenting: 1 s.
A Shift: 1 s. 6 d.

A White, Blue, or Checquer'd Apron: 1 s.

A pair of Leather Bodice and Stomacher: 2 s. 6 d.

1 Pair of Woollen Stockings: 8 d.

1 Pair of Shoes: 1 s. 8 d.

A Pair of Pattens: 8 d..

1 Pair of Buckles: 1 d.

1 Pair of Knit or Wash-Leather Gloves: 7 d.

Total: 16 s. 1 d.

The Graham children by William Hogarth, 1742

I think it is interesting that girl’s costs more and that there are no warm outwear for either sex. The mention of a leather bodice is interesting as well. I think they are more like stays, even if unboned they would probably add some stiffness and as a gown is listed, the bodice is probably meant more as underwear. I didn’t know what pattens was, but have now learned now that it protective overshoes. I am stumped on the fabrics for the girl’s clothes, though. Anyone who knows what Ells, Scotch-Cloth and Ghenting are? My guess is that Ells is a wool of some sort and the other two are different qualities of linen, but I’m not at all sure.

EDIT: Rae Arnold kindly provided me with answers: "
Scotch-cloth is another term for nettlecloth, which is linen-like, but from nettle, not flax.

Ghenting is a flax linen woven in Ghent.

The only time I’ve heard Ells used is as a measurement (27–45", depending on the country), never as a fabric description, but Googling "long ells fabric" returns results describing it as a light woolen (possibly "peculiar to Devonshire")"

↧

Late 18th century hat

April 11, 2013, 9:50 am

≫ Next: Sewing plans

≪ Previous: What a child should wear in 1712

I have actually finished something! I had planned to finish it on Monday so it could fit in into Historically Sew Forthly, but I didn’t quite made it and then it took a few days before I had time to take pictures. It is a hat, as you can see. The base is a cheap masquerade felt top hat. I removed the plastic bands and steamed the brim to get it a bit flatter. It is covered with green dupion with a pleated brim. The sides of the crown are cut on the bias for the stretch factor. The crown is wider at the base and the band is stretched there and eased on the top. For visual effect I made the seam on the crown diagonal and put it on one side instead of mid-back. The decoration is an irregularly gathered strip of pink taffeta.

The hat is made to match a pink jacket and petticoat with green trim. It has been on the “almost” finished stage for way too many years, but I have decided to get it ready for the big party in May. It only needs a stomacher… The piemontaise will be put on hold, though. I realize that I won’t have time to make it as I want it, so it will be the pink ensemble for the day and the stays with sleeves for the evening.

The original hat

The inspiration for the hat comes, in general, for the kind of top hats that can be seen from the late 1780’s onward:

Source

Detail from The Squire's Door after an engaving by Benjamin Duterreau after George Morland, 1790.

Journal de la Mode et du Gout, September 1790.

Journal des Luxus, 1791

↧

Sewing plans

April 18, 2013, 10:12 pm

≫ Next: More on stays with sleeves

≪ Previous: Late 18th century hat

The Embroidered by Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin, 1736

April is more than halfway through and I feel the need to reevaluate my sewing for this year. I started out aiming to not start any new projects, but only finish off all my already started ones. That hasn’t been an absolute success. I have finished two of my old ones, the Edwardian blouse and the late 18^th century hat, but I have also started two new ones, the covered stays with sleeves and a 1930’s evening gown. As I managed to get the flu, the evening gown didn’t get done for the party I had planned it for, and is right now on hold. The stays with matching petticoat have to be finished in May. I have also started two projects that were planned, J’s wild man’s dress and the piemontaise.

The To do-app has been a very good help. It’s easy to see what I have planned and it’s easy to change priority of projects. As of now my A listed projects are these:

18^thcentury: The covered stays and petticoat in pink brocade. I’m currently covering the stays, which is the most finicky part. The sleeves are probably quite straightforward and I can sew petticoats in my sleep. Only they take forever to hem.

The pink A-line jacket I started years ago. It still only needs a stomacher and as I plan to wear it in May, it has a deadline as well.

The 40’s wardrobe: Raincoat with two sides, the two fabrics needs to be attached to each other.

Brown jacket. I’m making adjustments for a second fitting

Other historical costumes: A dark purple 1640’s gown

Other sewing projects: Checkered skirt. Needs buttons and hemming.

The idea now is to really, really not start anything new the rest of the year. So many of my projects are in the almost done-state and if I set my mind to them and finish them, I will feel terribly accomplished. For example, the blues stays only have a couple of hours work left on them, and the embroidered polonaise is more than halfway done as well. But as it has been a lot of 18^thcentury for the past months, I plan to concentrate more on my 40’s wardrobe now. I have one white and one dotted dress that are almost done, for example.

Late 18thc. sewing box with straw work and parquetry

I don’t want to get myself any more hard deadlines either; there have already been too many of them this year, and after May I will try to work without stressing out. I’m still going to try to fit in as many projects as I can into Historically Sew Forthnightly, but f I won’t make it, I’m going to let it go.

One damper on my sewing this year has been sore neck and shoulder, at times it has been so painfully that I haven’t been able to sew. This is only my own fault for not taking breaks and moving. The last month I have re-started my Pilates and try to do 30 minutes of it every third day. I have also started to time my sewing and take a small break after one hour of sewing to move a little, My shoulders and neck has got so much better in just a few weeks, so evidently I do something right.

↧

More on stays with sleeves

May 5, 2013, 6:16 am

≫ Next: The finished stays with tie-on sleeves

≪ Previous: Sewing plans

Child's stays with detachable sleeves

My sleeved stays are progressing nicely, which they have to as I need them finished on Thursday. It is a bit difficult to get an overview as I’m working on several parts at once. Sewing the brocade on the stays is fiddly and best made at home and when I’m not tired. The petticoat, on the other hand are perfect to work on when I do feel tired and the shoulder straps and sleeves are small enough to take with me. So today my tally looks like this: The stays have 2 ½ pieces of brocade left to finish and then the shoulder straps need to be sewn in. The shoulder straps are halfway done. The sleeves are finished apart from the lacing holes. The petticoat is hemmed, but need to be pleated and attached to the waistband.

But right now I’m taking a sewing break and show you a few more sources for stays with sleeves. The picture sources I have found are still Italian or French, but I have found a few written sources that are British. In “The Gentleman’s Magazine” from 1791 there is a letter that mentions “stays or boddices with sleeves”.The 1790’s seems a little late for this fashion which seems to belong to the first half of the decade, but the letter writer says this happened several years previously, so we can’t be sure of the exact year. Thanks to justawench on LJ I found Old Bailey Online and when searching for sleeves found several cases of theft where separate sleeves have been stolen. I don’t know what they are supposed to be attached to, if it is stays or not, but up until the 1750’s they emerge quite often. They are usually not described, but sometimes they are mentioned to be of linen or Holland or once or twice cotton. One pair is described as lac’d, but if that means that they are meant to be laced on or have lace on them, is unclear. It is also uncertain if they are worn by both sexes. Some are stolen from men and some from women, which may not mean much, but in one case they are said to be women’s sleeves. Not exactly on the topic of stays, but the further in into the century you come, sleeves that belong to shift turn up again and again. What does that mean? That you habitually changed sleeves of a shift when they got too worn but the body of the shift was sound? I have no idea.

Corset blanc (white corset), from M. Garsault's Description des Arts et Métiers, 1769

Magdaleine Pinceloup de la Grange by Jean Baptise Perronneau, 1747
These and the ones below has more laced on sleeves than tied on. These don't look like they are boned either.

Girl In A Blue Dress by Pietro Rotari

Giovane donna con rosa by Giacomo Ceruti

Giacomo Ceruti

↧

The finished stays with tie-on sleeves

May 10, 2013, 1:26 pm

≫ Next: 1630's gown

≪ Previous: More on stays with sleeves

I did manage to finish two outfits for the party yesterday, but when it came to the pink jacket/petticoat with green trim, another stumble block emerged. The petticoat, which have been finished for five years, or so, and which has been in my sewing room forever, was not to be found. Anywhere. No doubt I will find it tomorrow. A bit annoying, but this means that I have a brand new, never worn outfit, waiting in the wings. As I have promised myself no more costume deadlines this year, that is a good thing.

I also did, as you can see, finish the stays with tie-on sleeves. Previous posts on the subject can be found here and here. I'm really pleased and I don't think I have ever made such a romantic gown. I felt very pretty. The stays were quite hard to cover. There is a inner layer of flannel to prevent the boning from showing and each tab are covered separately. There is also a strip of brocade et the edges front and back. Each side of the stays have three brocade panels each, plus the shoulder strap. Though the stays are machine stitched and, horror upon horror, metal grommets (I know, but these stays were originally made to be just a mock up, only it worked too well for being just that) the brocade are completely hand stitched and took an insane amount of time to finish.

The sleeves are made after my usual 18th century sleeve patters, though I cut of a few centimetres at the top. They are tied on with three ribbons on each side, but after wearing it I have decided to add at least one more toward the front. I also want to change the plain white cotton ribbons to silk, preferably in gold or cherry red, as those colours are in the brocade as well.

The petticoat was somewhat improvised. As this gown is quite early, 1730-50-ish, it really ought to have a panier and not my smaller pocket hoops, so they are not pleated to the waistband but shaped more like a square. The plan is to put in a drawstring to make it adaptable, but I didn't have time for that. So for the evening it was more or less artistically pleated and pinned. You can sometimes see petticoats that look like that on early paintings, so I think it might have been done when the petticoat and panier didn't have the same size.

My friend Lithia stitching her last at her La Mode Illustree gown. Untold yards of silk organza decorating pink-striped silk.

Being very giggly at this point and making BFF-photos.

And destroying each others hair in the process.

There were, of course, many other beautiful ladies there.

Madame Berg had made this awesome belt herself.

↧

1630's gown

May 15, 2013, 1:12 am

≫ Next: The bared bosom in 17th and 18th century art

≪ Previous: The finished stays with tie-on sleeves

After finishing three 18^th century projects this year, I feel a bit tired of that century. I want to focus on my forties wardrobe and I want to finally get a 17^th century outfit. Two, actually, J need one too. I have a dark purple taffeta that I plan to make into a bodice and skirt, based on the one at V&A I posted about here. I’m going to simplify it a bit and forego the slashing and pinked edges, making it look more like this one.

Anne Sophia, née Herbert Countess of Carnarvon by Sir Anthony van Dyck, 1633-35

I like the plain collar and there is a pattern for a similar one in Janet Arnold’s Patterns of Fashion 4. The gown is terribly low-cut, though. Judging by the curve of her breast the nipples must be over the edge of the dress, though they are hidden by the linen band. For my 21^st century sensibility that feels a bit risky, not to mention that my bosom needs a bit more support. So I will raise the neckline accordingly.

Pearls stringed like this can be seen on several portraits, which are pretty but seems a bit fragile. Here you can see that the pearls are just decorative; there is a pink ribbon that does the real job of holding the bodice together. I think it is worn over a white stomacher, though I guess it could be just the chemise. A stomacher seems much more likely, if one look at the fashion for the time, though. In either case, I will make a stomacher, either white or in the same fabric as the gown. I’m keeping the bows, but haven’t decided on the colour yet, even if white is pretty.

The cuffs are ruffled, but plain. One of the reason this painting appeals to me is just the absence of lace. Finding the right lace would add to the cost of the gown, but that’s not really the reason- I just like the plainer elegance of the collar and cuffs on this gown.

The first step, though, is to create a pattern. I could enlarge the pattern in HH, but that would demand heave alterations. Instead I will use my 18^th century stays patterns as a base and then re-draft it with the 17^th century pattern as a guide.

The first step in J’s costume is the skirt. In Patterns of Fashion 4 there is a pattern for a skirt worn by Admiral Claes Hansson Bielkenstierna when he was wounded in 1659. It appeals to me for several reasons. It’s Swedish and of the right time period, but it is also a plain and practical skirt, even if it was worn by a nobleman. The picture Livrustkammaren provide is very bad, as you can see, but if you check Arnold you can see that even if it is plain, it has a funny little spider web detail at the bottom of the front slit.

Livrustkammaren 21454 (5793:1)

↧

The bared bosom in 17th and 18th century art

May 25, 2013, 9:31 am

≫ Next: Making a 17th century shirt- Preparations and cutting

≪ Previous: 1630's gown

Mary Robinson as Perdita by John Hoppner
Though perfectly decent, a closer look reveals that the
neckline is so low that if it wasn't for the neckerchief, she would,
indeed, show a lot more.

Recently I found an 18^th century beauty recipe that baffled me. It basically contains pigment and essential oils and amenirdis at Livejournal suggested that this could be a recipe for nipple rouge. Though I haven’t been able to prove that, if does make sense and it lead me to read up on bared breasts and revealed nipples, mainly during the 17^thand 18^th century. If painted nipples offend you, then be warned that this post contains lots of them.

The Countess of Somerset,
early 17th century

The naked female breast has always been sexually interesting. The favoured shape and size may vary, but the interest remains and so it has always been popular to depict bare-breasted females in art. This post will not delve into the abundance of naked goddesses and nymphs that frolic though the woods in Western art, but their more everyday sisters. Showing a nipple or two was, up until the early 19^th century, not such a big deal. It might feel odd for us who live in a society where exposed nipples still are taboo and highly sexualized. No doubt breast and nipples where considered sexy a couple of hundreds years ago as well, but showing them- not really a biggie. Exposed legs would have been much riskier. But, even if you can find bare breasts in paintings, did women really flaunt them in public?

Pauline Bonaparte by Robert Lefèvre, 1806.
Covered up, but talk about sheer!

I think the answer is yes, to a point. Dresses so low-cut that the nipples showed (or threatened to show) were fashionable several times during the 17^th and 18^th century. The early 1600 saw dresses that go so deep down that you almost expect the belly button to show. Necklines continued to be low for the following two centuries and paired with stays that pushed the breasts upwards, spillage could happen by mistake, and, at times, evidently by purpose. Emilie du Chatelet, the mistress of Voltaire was a scientist and intellectual, but also a fashionista and in the mid-18^th century she was known for her flamboyant gowns and for starting a fashion in not only revealing, but rouging her nipples. There is also a miniature of the Danish queen Caroline Matilda where her rouged nipples are visible. In the 1780’s it became popular with gowns cut so low that the nipples showed and there is a number of fashion plate that shows of most of the breasts.

1780's fashion plate.
Follow the link for more fashion plates
with very low necklines.

The Regency and its see-through fabrics could reveal quite a bit, but when Victoria entered the stage, the nipple disappeared from fashion.There are also satirical drawings of ladies being very exposed, which is quite good evidence that this actually happened. You don’t make cartoons of something that doesn’t exist.

17th century woodcut

1780's cartoon

L'essay du corset, engraving from 1788
Low-cut stays for a low-cut gown.

Lady dressed as Flora by Isaac Oliver, early 17th century.
Though not low-cut, her shift is so transparent that the
nipples are visible.

Other areas where breast could be publicly displayed were masques, plays and ballets. Inigo Jones designed several costumes were the nipples showed in the early 17^th century. Some of these were meant for queen Henrietta Maria and even if it is not known if she actually wore them as intended (at least one design were re-made into a more modest version), it doesn’t seem that anyone though it odd to suggest such a costume for the queen of England. In the 18^th century costumes for the ballet Swan Lake was very revealing and there was a dancer in England who was known for exposing one breast when on stage.

Costume study for A Daughter of the Moon from "Oberon the Faery Prince" by Inigo Jones
Follow the link for more revealing costume designs.

Anna du Pare as Granida by Bartholomeus Van Der Heist, 17th century

Madame de Porcin by Jean-Baptiste Greuze, 1774

Swedish actress and courtesan Charlotta Eckerman by Adolf Ulrik Wertmüller, 1784

Marie-Thérèse Louise de Savoie-Carignan Princess of Lamballe
byJoseph-Siffrein Duplessis, last quarter of the 18th century
Childless and never (at least not until after the French revolution)
sexually linked to anyone but her husband, the Princess Lamballe's
visible nipple indicate her birth and morality.

So, fashion slaves and performers could have gone bare at times, but that still seems to be more of an occasional and rare nature. Art, however, display a lot more nakedness, but then that could also have a number of symbolic meanings that sometimes overlapped and sometimes contradicted each other. It may seem odd, but showing off the breasts could be seen as an implication of chastity. The idea was that the high youthful breast belonged to a woman who hadn’t born a child and, perhaps, hadn’t even had sex yet. The exposure of just one breast could be seen as a symbol for high birth and outstanding moral character.

That visible nipples and breasts could indicate innocence sometimes makes my modern eyes react with a hiccup. Like when I spotted the nipple glimpse on the portrait of a very young Carline Mathilde or the shadow on Pinkie’s bosom, which might be the shadow of her hand or a nipple showing through the thin fabric of her gown. These are portraits commissioned of the girl’s families and evidently they didn’t protest. However, take a peek through Greuze production and the mass of very young women that show their breasts starts to feel quite sleazy.

Princess Caroline Matilda of England, aged 4 by Jean Etienne Liotard, 1755

"Pinkie", Sarah Goodin Barrett Moulton, aged 11 by Thomas Lawrence, 1794

Sophia Hedwig, Countess of Nassau Dietz, with her Three Sons
by Paul Moreelse, 1621

It could also stand for maternity and love. In 1621 the Countess of Nassau Dietz was portrayed as Caritas with her three sons, and as Countess she wasn’t just a mother for her own family, but for her people as well. When Mary of Orange became queen of England in 1689 a popular ballad praised her modesty while the illustration showed off her breasts. Elizabeth of Bohemia, in another ballad, showed her with her children, with her bosom uncovered. The nakedness here points toward the royal ladies nurturing aspect and not loose morals.

Queen Mary on a ballad sheet, late 17th century

Royal mistresses, who by definition couldn’t be called virtuous, have also traditionally been portrayed with the breasts in full display. Nell Gwyn, one of Charles II’s mistresses excelled in that- she seem to reveal something in almost every painting of her that I have seen. Generally the showing of both breasts pointed more toward a lack of moral, but as many of these mistresses also often were picked from the nobility, they are very often portrayed with just one breast showing. Somewhat ambiguous, yes?

Nell Gwyn, the studio of Sir Peter Lely, second half of the 17th century
This portrait was modified by later and more prudish generations, the chemise raised to hide her nipples.

Hortense Mancini by Jacob Fredinand Voet, ca 1675
One of the nieces to cardinal Mazarin, Hortense was definitely the upper crust. A great beauty who had a great deal of lovers, Charles II, for example. So what does her naked breast allude to?

Anna Maria, Countess of Shrewsbury by Sir Peter Lely, ca 1670.
At first glance it looks like her nipple shows, but look closer, it is really a lock of her hair.

More of a fun fact, perhaps, is that several low-cut paintings make a play of the displayed, of perhaps not displayed nipple.

Madame de Pompadour by Francois Boucher, 1749-50.
The rose placed exactly were her nipple would be, do indeed look like one at a distance.

Wilhelmine Encke, Countess Lichtenau by Anna Dorothea Therbusch, 1776.
Here the nipple do show, but all the pink and the buttons at the neckline makes it hard to spot. She was, incidently, the mistress of King Frederick William II of Prussia.

Le bouton de rose by Pierre-Alexanre Wille, second half of the 18th century

↧

Making a 17th century shirt- Preparations and cutting

June 12, 2013, 8:51 am

≫ Next: 1790's gown wants

≪ Previous: The bared bosom in 17th and 18th century art

Today I cut out and started sewing a 17th century shirt for J. I'm basing it on a pattern in Janet Arnold's Patterns of Fashion 4, on page 74-75. Shirt patterns didn't change much over the course of the 16th to 18th century and all the patterns I have seen after extant examples looks basically like this: A long rectangle forms the body, smaller rectangles the sleeves and there is a square forming a gusset under the sleeves. There are small rectangular pieces forming cuffs and neckband. Details differs and measurements, but that's the general idea. The reasons for choosing just the patterns I did, are several.

The original shirt, complete with blood stains.
Livrustkammaren 21454 (5793:1)

It fits the time period. The shirt was worn by Admiral Claes Bielkenstierna when he was killed in 1659. J's planned outfit will be mid-17th century.
　

It is Swedish. As I'm a Swede, I always enjoy the chance of using a pattern of a garment that has actually been worn in Sweden.

　
It is plain. Most extant shirt has been persevered because they are very pretty, with embroidery and lace. Livrustkammaren, the Swedish Royal Armoury where Claes Bielkenstierna shirt is, has had a bit different view on garments worth saving, like being a shirt worn when somebody important was killed. This particular shirt is very much an everyday shirt, even if the linen is fine and linen quite nice. Despite the plainness it still have some interesting details like a pleated section on the sleeves, a little spider web design on the front sleeves and some decorative back stitched on the neckband. There are also small worked bars at key-points to prevent tearing as well as extra fabric added for reinforcement at several places.
　

The material I will be using is white shirt weight linen. I plan to sew it completely by hand as I like to have a project that I can take with me and work on at odd moments. I also plan to follow the original construction as close as possible. There are a few differences in the measurements. The original shirt is about 120 cm long, mine will be about 100 for tech simple reason that I didn't have enough linen. The original sleeves measure ca 89X64 cm but as J is tall I had lengthened the sleeves to 67 cm. The gussets is 8X8 cm, as is the original ones. I haven't cut the cuffs and neckband yet, but will cut those to fit J.
　

All set to cut. The tail belong to Spiff who helped by wighing down the fabric.

The original fabric was just 100 cm wide which is also the width of the shirt, making the most use of the selvages. Modern fabrics are much wider and tech selvages looks different. So another difference is that I will make a tiny hem all around the body piece before I attaches the sleeves and the gussets. I will also hem the sides of the sleeves the same way. The original shirt has such an hem on edges that doesn't have selvage, so it doesn't feel too far-fetched. The original have hems that are just 1.5 mm wide, which is far too tiny for my sewing skills- my hems will be about 2.5 mm.
　

So now a lot of hemming is in the stars. I will return to you on the shirt subject when it is time to make the neck band.
　

Read more

A dicsussion on the early modern shirt and the making of one at The Costume Historian.

　Making a plain shirt.

An extant shirt in England, similar to Claes Bielkestierna's.

↧

1790's gown wants

June 15, 2013, 6:31 am

≫ Next: Making a 17th century shirt- The neckband

≪ Previous: Making a 17th century shirt- Preparations and cutting

Or; I need a new project like, well, like not at all. But...

But I recently found this wonderful striped linen. It is a lovely quality and drape and would make for a wonderful summer's gown.

And then I found this picture.

Source

And I already made this kind of dress twice, so the patterns is true and tried.

And my 17th century shirt project is going so well that I will probably finish it within a few days and then I will need a new hand-sewing project. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a striped, 1790's gown make for a wonderful hand-sewing project? It is almost like I has no choice. Right?

↧

Making a 17th century shirt- The neckband

June 18, 2013, 5:56 am

≫ Next: The joys of hand sewing

≪ Previous: 1790's gown wants

10 meters of linen hemmed! It took me about 15 hours and they did get neater as I went by. I got the tip from Virginiadear at LJ that you can starch the linen for even more neatness and then wash it out, but as I had already started I kept going. I will keep it in my mind for the next time, though! I whipstitched the top and bottom of the sleeves as they aren't hemmed. Arnold doesn't say anything about that, but for my own sanity I wanted to keep any fraying at bay.

Next I cut the neck opening. Many of the shirts in Patterns of Fashion 4 has just a slit, but this shirt has an oblong shape cut out, with a slit 16 cm down the front. I kept the original proportions and whipstitched the raw edges. I also hemmed the slit with the same tiny hem as the rest of the shirt.

Next I cut two trapetzoid shapes that are re-inforcing the shoulder area. I kept the original proportions here as well, adding 0.5 cm on each side for the hemming. The ends are hidden when the neckband and sleeves are in place, so they are left unhemmed.

It is sewn to the wrong side of the garment, but the stitches can be seen from the right side. I am, by the way, using white cotton thread, not linen as in the original.

The neckband is s simple rectangle, folded lengthwise so it ends up being about 4 cm high. I added 0.5 cm all around for hemming. The neckline is gathered, but not all around. The "corners" of the oblong shape are left as they are, the front and the back are then gathered and the neckband sewn on. It is top-stitched from the right, which keeps the gathers in place, but also serves as a decorative element. I derived once again from the original linen thread and used buttonhole silk instead.

I think it looks quite neat if I may say so myself!

The end of the neckband has the sewing allowance folded against each other and then whip-stitched together. On the wrong side the neckband is hemmed so the raw edge of the neckline is completely covered. I also embroidered a "J" at the wrong side of the neckband, center back. The original has a "C" for Claes there, so I thought it fitting to add J's initial.

I then added the little spiderweb design at the end of the slit. Onca again this has a practical purpose and not just decoration. The end of a slit is a very fragile place and Arnold notes that several other garments have tears in just that place. The cute little spiderweb re-inforced that fragile area. I used buttonhole silk, first just outlining the design with a few threads and then covring those with buttonhole stitches.

The end result is nowhere as neat as the original, but it serves its purpose, I suppose.

Now: Onward to the sleeves!

↧

The joys of hand sewing

June 21, 2013, 4:35 am

≫ Next: Hand sewing and the 18th century

≪ Previous: Making a 17th century shirt- The neckband

A Girl Sewing by Philip Mercier, ca 1750

I’m stitching away on my 17^th century shirt and I thought that a post on hand-sewing wouldn’t be amiss. I think it needs more love. I know that many thinks that it is difficult to sew by hand, but as any other skill it is more a matter of practice. Most garments can be made with some very basic seams that aren’t hard to do, but it does take practice to get them neat and even. But, hand on the heart, what did your first machine stitched garment look like? Mine looked awful, with crooked seams. To be able to use a sewing machine takes practice too.

I don’t sew my historical clothes completely by hand, well, not all of them at least, but I do a lot of hand-sewing on every project nevertheless. I use my machine for assembling my clothes, to stitch a skirt together, or a bodice. Basically because it is faster. And I sew my stays on a machine, because my hands can’t cope with sewing so many seams through all those layers of fabric. But hand sewing can offer a lot that a noisy machine can’t.

The Needlewoman by Diego Velázquez, 1635-1643

LooksFinishing a garment by hand does improve its general look. For example, imagine a beautiful 18^th century silk gown, made after a correct pattern, but with the hemming made on a machine, leaving a very visible stitch line all around the petticoat. I have seen that, and it isn’t pretty.

Period accuracy Well, duh, of course! The sewing machine didn’t reach the general populace until the last half of the 19^th century, so of course you are period correct if you sew you clothes by hand. But what you may not think about is that the clothes were designed to be sewn by hand, not with a machine, and if you try to sew a period pattern on a machine, you may have difficulties that disappear when you do it by hand. My big revelation on this subject was 18^thcentury sleeves. I insisted for a very long time to do them on the machine, fighting a very uneven battle and a lot of seam ripping and teeth grinding. Then I tried to set the sleeves as they are described in one of my books, completely by hand, and everything just feel into place and the sleeve looked so much better. Some things are easier to make by machine, but trust me, not everything.

Interior with Woman Sewing by Wybrand Hendriks

ControlWhen you stitch by hand, it is much easier to control the fabric. It is, I admit, a bit of a skill to make sure that your stitches end up exactly where you want it, but fiddly and tiny bits are so much easier to get right if you can use your fingers to control it rather than your pressing foot.

Social One of my favourite things with hand sewing is that you can do other things while you sew. At the machine you have to concentrate very closely on what you are sewing and it is usually not noiseless either. I can talk with family and friends while I hand sew and I can watch movies or TV. My son and I are currently having a Doctor Who-marathon and I do a lot of sewing while watching.

MobileSmall projects or smaller parts of one are easy to bring along. I have a friend who always sews on her train commute. I sew at breaks at work, or in a waiting room.

Young Woman Sewing by the Light of a Lamp by Georg Friedrich Kersting, 1823

↧

Hand sewing and the 18th century

June 25, 2013, 11:02 am

≫ Next: New outfit and a trip to Sala silver mine

≪ Previous: The joys of hand sewing

A peak inside a blue silk brocade gown, 1775-1790

What a nice response I got on my post on hand sewing! Thank you!

If hand sewing is often thought as hard work or taking too long, I also think that there is an air of superiority and elitism over it that can probably feel a bit daunting to someone who has never tried it. I would really love to see that tought go away! I do think that hand sewing gives you a better feel for the garment you sew, especially if you sew historical clothes, but it doesn’t, automatically, makes it better than one made with the help of a machine. Sewing skill is one thing, then there is the matter of choosing the right pattern, fabric and colours and knowledge about the fashion you want to re-create. I have heard, though thankfully only once, someone with a badly cut gown worn without the proper underpinnings, trying to trump a beautifully executed one with the right silhouette and colours with a “Well, mine is totally hand sewn”.

I really, really don’t like “I am better than thou”-sentiments. And a badly made garment is still badly made, even if it is sewn by hand.

The inside of a pair of silk broacade stays, 1700-1720

With that said, I still think hand sewing can really alter the way you perceive the garment you sew and I would like to talk a little how it has helped me understand the fashion of the 18^th century better.

An 18^th century bodice usually has an outer layer and a lining, but no interlining or extra stiffening like men’s wear, though boning is frequently found. That does change a bit toward the end of the century when masculine garments like the redingote find its way into the female wardrobe and stays may have extra layers for stiffening, but those are exceptions. The lining may mimic the shell fabric in cut, but sometimes the lining forms a close-fitting foundation on which the outer layer are pleated. The Robe Française is an excellent example on that. But for the sake of simplicity, I will talk about a bodice where lining and shell fabric looks the same. 18^th century clothes are also cut very economically. Sewing allowances are as small as possible and when there are not, the excess fabric are not cut away, but are left, so a later un-picking would result in larger pieces. A good example is petticoats. To look right, a petticoat worn over hoops need to be longer at the sides than they are CF and CB. You can cut the fabric, but 18^th century petticoats often have the excess fabric just folded back to give the needed curve.

This yellow jacket is beautiful, isn’t it?. Looking at it like this it is easy to think that all the seams are made up the same, but in fact they are all made differently! Some treats the lining and shell fabric as one layer, some don’t. Some are sewn from the wrong side, some from the right, each chosen to fit that particular seam and its purpose.

Silk brocade jacket. Dated by Pernilla Rasmussen to the mid-late 18th century, though the fabric is older.

When I first started out making 18^th century clothes I usually made up lining and shell fabric as two separate pieces. I sewed the pattern pieces together with putting the right seams together, sewing a seam, and pressing it apart. Then when they were finished, they are put together, right side to right side, and finished. Not very historically correct, but quite fast.

A couple of years ago I decided to make a gown after a pattern taken from this extant robe.

Silk brocade gown, 1790's

It has a fitted back and a gathered front and was made in the 1790’s. The fabric, however, dates back to the 1770’s and it is very clear that is re-made from an old gown, probably a Robe Française. There is a lot of piercing going on, especially in the trail. The bodice look like it has a very narrow back, but in reality it has a center back seam and then the narrow fabric piece is sewn on top of it. An illusion, in other words. The armscye looks larger than it is as well. It is normally sized, but the sleeves are sewn well into the back to enforce the look of a narrow back. If unpicked, the back would provide much more fabric than it looks like from the outside.

As I wanted to sew my gown as closely as possible to the original, I had, for the first time, to really look into the way it was made and I found that there was no way around it, I had to do a lot of hand sewing to pull it off. The back piece, for example, is not functional for the gown’s construction and you have no choice but to sew it from the right side. By hand.

The skirt is cartridge pleated to the narrow back pleated, then pleated until the side seam. The front is gathered with the bodice front.

The sleeves, as they aren’t sewn into the armscye at the back, also had to be sewn in by hand. And they were so much easier to do that way! The lower half, that does match the armscye, is sewn like you usually do, right sides together, but then then the sewing allowances are folded under and the sleeve is finished from the right side.

The way the sleeves and its lining was put together was also fun and for me unusual. The technique can be dated, at the very least, to early 17^th century and it remained used during the 19^th century.

This is a two-piece sleeve. If not, the first step is not needed. And that is to sew one of the sleeve seams. As well as the same seam on the sleeve lining.

Right click on the pictures for opening a larger version in a new window

Then you put sleeve and lining on top of each other, pin (baste) and sew that seam as one.

Please note that you should put right pattern pieces together. I didn't. I put the sleeve together with the identical lining, when it should have been the opposite. It should NOT look like this:

But like this:

Hmm, I realise that it's hard to see the difference as the lining is a bit sheer, but trust me- on the second picture the pieces mirrors each other.

Press seams and then start to pull the sleeve the right way. Don't bother with the lining at all, concentrate on the sleeve itself. Because when it's turned right, the lining is neatly right inside as well. You probably need to fiddle a little to make it all wrinkle-free, but I thought it really easy.

Tadaa!

Check out Katherine's post on the same method.

As I have said before, I do use my machine, mainly for long, boring seams, but I find that I sew more and more by hand as the years go by. And I can heartily recommend anyone to give it a try! I had in mind of making a post about the different stitches, but I think there already are plenty of good instructions online. I have included several links, even if the information overlaps a lot. I have done that in the hope that everyone can find an explanation that suits them.

The inside of a Robe Francaise, 1765-1775

As for the bibliography I must once again lament the fact that costume books rarely seem to be translated into English. Both Kvinnligt mode and Skräddaren, sömmerskan och modet are treasures when it comes to construction analyses. The latter also have schematic illustrations on different seams and when they are used. Both contains pattern of extant clothes, especially Kvinnligt mode. Skräddaren, sömmerskan och modet have fewer patterns and those are mostly the same as the first one, but with a more in depth discussion on the sewingtechniques. There is also a pattern for a bed jacket dated to the 1790’s-1810’s which I would love to make!

Links

Archaeological Sewing

Basic Hand Sewing Techniques at The Renaissance Tailor

Medieval Sewing Techniques

Stitches and Seam Techniques Seen on 18thCentury Garments in Various Museum Collections (pdf)

Stitches and Seam Techniques Seen on Dark Age /Medieval Garments in Various Museum Collections (pdf)

The inside of a silk jacket, late 18th century

Bibliography

Arnold, Janet, Patterns of Fashion: Englishwomen's dresses & their construction. 1, C. 1660-1860, London : MacMillan, 1977

Hammar, Britta and Pernilla Rasmussen, Kvinnligt Mode Under Två Sekel, Lund : Signum, 2001

Rasmussen, Pernilla, Skräddaren, sömmerskan och modet : arbetsmetoder och arbetsdelning i tillverkningen av kvinnlig dräkt 1770–1830, Stockholm : Nordiska museets förlag, 2010

↧

New outfit and a trip to Sala silver mine

July 4, 2013, 9:55 am

≫ Next: Ladies and gentlemen in plaid in the 18th century

≪ Previous: Hand sewing and the 18th century

Last year we went to the 18th century festival at Sala silver mine and had such a great time that we repeated it this year, especially as I was asked to hold a little talk on 18th century beauty. You can read more about that here. I also had the opportunity to finally wear my pink/green jacket and petticoat. Remember that I couldn't find the petticoat when I was going to the party at Svartsjö castle? Well, now I just went up to the attic and found it in a bag at once. I swear it wasn't there the first time! I don't remember now when I started this outfit, but it was years ago, at least six. I wanted something like a fashion plate, but I think I have an inner restraint because no matter what I do to try for something over the top, I never seem to manage. I am still very pleased with it all. I did have a particular image in mind when I started, but it has disappeared since then. A friend of mine did recognise though and have promised to find it for me again.

The material is pink silk taffeta with green silk trim, stomacher and hat. The jacket has a zone-front, the petticoat is worn over a false rump. I have re-drafted my bodice pattern since I cut out this jacket and the neckline needs to be tightened around my collar bones. The fishu hides it though. I was also a lot thinner when this project begun, so there had to be some fiddling around teh waist to make it look good, but an apron is good at hiding imperfections as well.

The original plan was to make the stomacher pink, but I ran out of fabric. I quite liked it green though. I think I have enough green fabric left to make another, more narrow, row of gathered fabric on the petticoat.

The hat stays in place with the help of a big comb and it stayed on surprisingly well. I wasn't aware of how crazy the angle looked until I saw the photos!

Lithia in a new gown.

Madame Berg in her leather stays, made after this pair.

The Wild Man re-appeared, this time with buttons in his jacket.

The noble savage.

He was roped in by a fair maiden.

Given a brief lesson in manners.

And turned into a gentleman.

There was also an Opera Buffa, unfortunately without any songs or music, but very funny nevertheless.

But there were some music at least.

Sunday was a bit colder than the Saturday, with some rain.

↧

Ladies and gentlemen in plaid in the 18th century

July 5, 2013, 8:04 am

≫ Next: Making a 17th century shirt- setting in the sleeves and the gussets

≪ Previous: New outfit and a trip to Sala silver mine

Once upon a time I heard that there were no plaid, or checkered clothes in the 18th century. Clearly that was not the case, as there actually are extant ones. Not to mention paintings.

Robe à la Française, 1760's

Robe a la Francaise, ca 1765

Robe à la Française, 1770-1790

Not exactly plaid, but the pattern makes for a checkered look at a distance.

Robe à l'Anglaise, 1784-87

Silk caraco jacket, 1770's

I love this fashion plate and I live in hope that someone will make it one day.

Journal des Dames et des Modes, 1797

François-Hubert Drouais, 1757

Princess Frederika Sophia Wilhelmina of Orange, nee Prussia by Johann Georg Ziesenis, 1768-1769

Her apron is clearly plaid, but is her caraco jacket? I think it looks spotted, but some say plaid.

Plucking the Turkey by Henry Walton, 1776

Young Moravian Girl. Johann Valentin Haidt

Oyster vendor after Mercier. Mezzotint

Portrait of a woman, unknown artist

Tartan were around in the 18th century, and evidently not only used for kilts. An article on 17th and 18th century Scottish costume can be found here.