Not Yo Average Field Trip: 1848-51

One of the biggest take-aways from Costume College 2016 was how many of the most knowledgeable people there spoke specifically of dresses that they had seen in person. They spoke of what they had seen at the such-and-such museum, and how they had seen the so-and-so technique used inside a garment they had handled.

My first thought: how do I get my hands on original garments, so I too can speak from first-hand experience? Whatever knowledge I possess has been through the internet, and construction is something I've been interested in. Finding pictures of the inside of a garment is tricky, and even misleading. So I did a little research, and discovered that my local museum actually has a huge collection, just not on display. In fact, it's not really even catalogued anywhere that you can access.

After coming home from Costume College, I knew that spending time at the museum was something I wanted to do, but you can't just waltz in and grab an antique garment off a rack at the museum. You have to send in a physical paper form requesting permission, and they have to actually vote to give you access. 

I brought my camera, a measuring tape (actually a few) and a notebook and pen. I was worried there would be more that I needed and couldn't think of, but nothing came up.

There are four dresses altogether; they were c. 1847-52, c. 1855-59, c. 1862-65, and c. 1866-68.

The first dress (c. 1847-52) is a shot silk, blue and brown. It has a full front with very controlled pleating that fans up to the shoulder; it's lined with a fitted lining, of which I can't remember what it was. The buttons up the front aren't functional, but the edges on the front are barely sewn together, almost like someone wanted a front opening dress, then changed their mind. It hooks up at the back of the bodice.

This picture is showing the pleating, as shown from the backside.

The waist is very dropped (maybe 2'' below natural waist on the side) and the length of the skirt doesn't quite seem proportionate. It's possible it was shortened for something theatrical, especially when you see a picture of it on a person without any proper undergarments.

*Forehead smack*

Although you can see how the length is *now* proportionate. The back story to this picture is this dress was allegedly was worn as a wedding dress in the 1860's by this woman's great great great grandmother, or something or that sort. It's plausible to me that this could have been a wedding dress, but certainly not in the 1860's. I've heard some researchers say that family stories are the hardest ones to believe, because stories and dates can easily be twisted through the years. Especially if the story skipped a generation. Something like this:

Gen. #1: This dress belonged to my grandmother. She was married in 1848.
Gen. #3: This dress belonged to my grandmother; I can't remember the date she was married, it might have been in the 1860's.
Gen. #5: This dress belonged to my grandmother, who was married in the 1860's and because it's been in the family for so long it must have some importance. Therefore I assume this must have been her wedding dress.
The other reason family heirlooms are tough is because if the garment was donated to the museum, the museum is obligated to include any information they provide, even if incorrect. And telling someone that they are wrong about a family heirloom is also a sticky spot, so shutting up and just putting a really broad date range like Nineteenth century appeases everyone.

The sleeves are open, meant to be worn with undersleeves (supposedly these ones); the silk on the underpart of the sleeve doesn't actually reach the armscye, but a patch of cotton is sewn and the sleeve cap covers it. The strips sewn onto the edge of the sleeve and cap are of blue silk velvet.

I like how the above picture shows the exact blue in the fabric in the upper right, by the pleats.

Upper portion of the sleeve.

The skirt is bag-lined with a really small turned hem and a braid running around the edge. It's now occurring to me that this dress might have had, at one point, a flounce of some sort running around the bottom that would have lengthened it considerably, but I don't remember there being any evidence of anything being removed. Then again, I didn't spend a lot of time on the skirt.

Now for the research: in order to date this dress, I'm looking at a few key things that stand out to me:

-The open 3/4 length sleeves, and the cap on top.
-The dropped waist
-The pleated front
-The shot silk (normally color doesn't come into account at all, but shot silk was just enough of a fad in the 1840's that I'm using that)

First the sleeves. I found evidence of open sleeves just barely coming in in 1846, but they were just short of full length and not open at all. You might describe them as a "funnel sleeve"; just looking at at original, it might be easy to say something like, "this lady must have had slightly short arms". I couldn't find any fashion plates until 1848 that looked even close to the shape I was looking for, but 1849 and 1850 were much closer.

1848 Godeys Fashion Plate; this sleeve is considerably longer and less open.

1848 Les Modes Parisiennes. The dress on the left has open sleeves with undersleeves, while the dress on the right has closed, straight sleeves, so sort of a cross-over going on. All fashion plates prior to 1847 with open sleeves are barely open, so rather unlikely.

This 1848 fashion plate is much more open that the last plate, so obviously there is a range of what could have been worn. 

1849 Godeys Fashion plate. The shape is much closer to this dress than any other open sleeves from previous years. 

1850 Le Follet

There comes a point, when dating garments, that the date it was probably made and the years it could have been worn are a bit of a gray area. To me, the overall flavor and attitude of the dress match 1847-49, but the style of dress technically isn't out of fashion until around 1851. Even though there is a fair amount of guesswork when dating garments, taking into account how specific the dress is can give you a good idea of how broad of a range it might have been worn.  For example: I'm making a dress, and I want it to be conservative so it doesn't fall out of fashion too quickly. I would be more likely to choose a conservative color, and made it in a style that was less specific. If I want a dress that is more fashionable, I'll make it as current as possible with the intention of only wearing it a couple years. This dress has enough key points that show that it was definitely fashionable, and therefore would have been discarded and replaced with something current, so erring on the side of cutting off the end of the year range is not out of the question.

Now I noticed that most of the dresses that had open sleeves between 1847-1850 did NOT have caps on the top, but decorative caps did seem to be commonplace on straight sleeves. At first I thought this might have been more of a personal preference thing, but after looking at a number of extants I saw many different types of caps encompassing many different sleeve styles.

This dress is almost identical in design, except with gathers instead of pleats and a round waist instead of pointed. From August Auctions

c. 1845-50, from The Metropolitan Museum of Art

An earlier example; these are a good example of the earlier open sleeve, which show up on occasion between 1844-47 before becoming more commonplace. c. 1844, Museum at FIT

As for the pleating down the front, those are sometimes difficult to spot in fashion plates, although different variations of controlled shirring, pleating, and even creative methods like a honeycomb pattern were used very often.

1849, Ladies Cabinet

1851 Le Moniteur de la Mode

As to color, it is difficult to say exactly when shot silk went out of fashion. For those of you that don't know, shot (or changeable, I can't discern if shot and changeable are different) silk is a silk that has a different color warp from the weft. It was very common to have two violently opposing colors, which leaves the overall effect rather muddy, but iridescent from certain angles.

I search every Godeys magazine within this narrowed search range for "shot silk". In reference to dresses, it was mentioned quite a lot in descriptions and in the general fashion column until abruptly in 1852, it is declared quite out of fashion.

Here is an excerpt from a humorous story called "Sketches from Real Life" published in the 1847 Godeys. In it, the main character and a Mrs. Dawkins are discussing how Mrs. Dawkins' son (called Jeemes) is in love with the main character's cousin Judy (called Nabby) and discussing what she should wear in order to appear to her advantage.

"But here comes Nabby with her changeable silk on. It's my mind for her to wear that. It's one her Grandmarm Dawkins gave her. I took a mighty fancy to it the first time I ever see the old lady wear it. Jest examine it; you'll parcieve that the warp is a bright yaller; e'en jest an orange color-and that the fillin' is a dark blue. Now, if I could have my choice, I would ruther by one half have it than Mrs. Feeswind's tarnaltane."
"I like the stuff the ground's made on well enough," said Nabby, "but I don't like the set on't. Do you Hepsey?"
"The waist is not quite long enough for the fashion," said I.
"That's nothin'," said Mrs. Dawkins, "Nabby never looked well in a long waist and never will."

In October of 1851 Godeys, it describes a dress "One of the most elegant dresses we have seen is a Jasper silk (shot with seven different colors, but so blended that they seem one soft shade of violet)..."

While in 1852 Godeys, it says this:

"Some of the plainer, or less expensive fall silks are in graduated stripes, shot or changeable fabrics being entirely out of vogue."

Which brings me to my last dating point - dropped waists. Thus far, we've already heard in 1847 that dropped waists were fashionable from the story. In 1850, we hear ".....made with full skirts, sleeves gathered at the wrists, and infants (gathered) waists, corded with silk, and gathered full with a straight belt. No point whatever......the waist cannot be too long from the arm to the belt, but the length is not increased at the bodice." However, there are plenty of fashion plates that refute the idea that round waists were universal. Looking at fashion plates is completely misleading, and the exact intention of waist placement is hard to tell, partially because magazine figures weren't even close to accurately proportioned to begin with. So I'm going to turn to another textual (exact date known) source: paintings (you may need to zoom into the painting to see what I'm talking about).

Katherine Mary Webb Palmer, 1846

Another 1846 dress, with a decidedly natural waist. Dona Marie-Louise Ferdinand de Bourbon, by Franz-Xavier Winterhalter, 1846.

While the point on this one is extreme, the waist is also at a natural placement. Queen Isabella II of Spain, by Federico de Madrazo, 1849

From what I'm gathering....personal preference was everything. A lot of overlapping dates on when waists were dropped, and in different contexts. And then I realize....I don't remember the exact provenance of this dress. Where it came from, etc. All the people that could afford an expensive portrait were in Europe. We have a couple expensive Winterhalter paintings of Spanish and Austrian royalty, and that hardly seems relevant.

So hitting a brick wall on the dropped waist, but the overall idea that I'm getting is that long-waisted dresses were a decidedly 1840's idea, so I'm still sticking with my 1848-49 original creating date.

Another interesting tidbit that I discovered in a copy of the 1850 Godeys Magazine, June, in the advice and questions column towards the back. Here is what it says:

"Some excellent friend lady friend has asked of us the meaning of a term prefixed to our fashion plates, and, as the request is a fair one, we shall take pleasure in defining the precise definition of Americanized as applied in the modes which we give.
In the first place, American ladies have not yet given up waists of a respectable and natural size, a part of the figure the French artistes des modes sometimes omit altogether, if we accept a faint shadowy line connecting the bust and skirt. Again, our ladies like a little more drapery than the Parisians consider in good taste, and it is therefore necessary to add sleeves and corsages to some of the costumes that are otherwise graceful and pretty. These are two of the principal items; and, as we have matters of more general interest to discuss, we leave the subject for the present to our friend's kindly consideration."

Use of Cotton in Fashion Plates

This is an overview of a research topic that I've been working on. Part of what sparked the idea for this research topic was, a) discovering how much I love fashion plates, and b) how much I wanted to recreate them, but being discouraged at how expensive it would be. I assumed that everything was made of expensive silk, which is usually upwards of $14 a yard. Then I figured out that cotton did exist in the historic fashionable world! Cotton can be anywhere from $3-$15 a yard, which is much more affordable. Cotton was used quite a lot, but more concentrated in certain types of garments during specific times of the year. You probably wouldn't want to be wearing a thin cotton dress while tramping through the snow, but for a hot day in July you wouldn't want to wear anything else!

1857 December Godeys: Fig 4, evening dress for a lady just come out of organdy

I've been searching original Godey's Lady's Books, Les Modes Parisiennes, Le Moniteur de la Mode and Le Follet for the fashion plate description and looking for certain key words, between the years 1840 and 1865. I used Cunnington's Englishwomen's Fashion in the Nineteenth century as a reference for different fabrics; there is an index in the back that has been invaluable. My list of key words include: cotton, muslin, batiste, cambric, mousseline (French for muslin), organdy, tarlatan (the spelling varies), gauze, voile, India muslin, jacconet muslin, Swiss muslin and book muslin. A couple different fabrics came up in which Cunnington conflicted with different opinions, so both percale and foulard are question marks in terms of whether or not they are cotton, although I found the context to not match the rest of the cotton genre.

Le Moniteur de la Mode 1851: Fig 2, of Swiss muslin. The same exact plate appears in Godey's in 1853, but as a course wood-cut plate instead of steel.

A couple different things came up while searching that I wish I had known before. First of all, original Le Follet and Les Modes Parisiennes are my favorite way more than say Godey's or Peterson's. The sketches are more individual, and in terms of fashion they are straight forward and the descriptions are easier to find. Speaking French is a huge plus, although you can find some that are already translated.

Le Moniteur de la Mode 1851: Fig 1, muslin morning dress

The other thing I learned is that, year to year, not every magazine is the same. I started with Godey's in 1865 and worked backward; from about 1865-1856 everything was going well, and the layout was the same as the year before, but as I got further into the early 1850's and the 1840's the descriptions were more sporadic and harder to locate; my usual keywords of "steel plate" with the month started to not work. Part of that was because, in Godey's earlier years, fashion plates weren't always made with steel. As the steel ones became more popular they even mention in the description how expensive it is to use the detailed steel plates.

Godey's 1853 woodcut fashion plate: compare this plate to the very first plate, which was French, published in 1851, and steel printed.

I also couldn't even find a copy of Godey's between the years 1844 and 1847, so there is a small gap, but I was getting frustrated with the 1840's anyway. Sometimes they would say something like, "This months plate is so simple we will not trouble our fair readers with a description"; others were more blunt and said, in a nutshell, "even a simpleton would understand what is going on in this picture."

Godey's 1840: Fig. 2, dress of white figured cambric

What I found out was not exactly surprising, but still interesting. Between the years 1860-1865, cotton in fashion plates comes up almost wholly between June and August for day dresses, and evening dresses in cotton were found the most often in the winter. The 1850's were quite different, and because of the vast amount of ruffles lighter materials were preferred in general, so cotton was used in day dresses between March and October, again with cotton still being used in the winter for evening dresses. I have less to say about the 1840's; between the less than helpful descriptions and the several year hole in research, I would say that cotton was used during the day more year-round than the 1860's, but less than the 1850's.

Godey's August 1863: Fig 1, of French muslin. I do not know what is up with the floating lady in the background...

In terms of color, about half of the dresses were white, while the other half were printed, striped or a color of some sort.

Godey's August 1842: Fig 1, dress of India muslin

Of the evening dresses, I would say 1/15 was not white, and of the white ones the description usually makes a point of saying that they are for young or very young ladies. Most of the evening dresses I saw that used cotton had a layered skirt of some kind, whether it was ruffles, tiers, or a mixture of both depending on the current trend. Most of the late 1850's and early 1860's evening dresses are incredibly "cupcake-y", while the early 1850's ones are my favorite.

December Godey's 1859: Fig 4. Of tarlatan for a young lady; the full description here.

Compare the style of the dress in the above plate on the right to the below dress on the left, which is made of taffeta. Because of the thinness of the cotton, layered effects and profuse usage of ruffles and the like were more common in cotton. Cotton is less expensive, so if you were in need of a ball gown you would be in the market for something expensive; in other words, spend the same amount on a crazy amount of cotton yardage and use it all, or less on more expensive silk.

Le Follet, 1863 (actually it might be of moire instead of taffeta, I can't remember)

I also discovered a trend in terms. Muslin and tarlatan is the favorite fabric in the 1860's, while during the 1850's the different kinds used were much more broad.

Les Modes Parisiennes 1862, Fig 2. of blue tarlatan

It is a common reenacting mistake, especially in Civil war reenacting, to think that cotton was only used for work or summer dresses. It is true that work dresses were most commonly made in cotton, but even a ball dress could be made in cotton! It depends completely on the fineness of the fabric in question, and also the amount of trimming to determine the suitability of the style. PLEASE, don't take this to mean that quilting cotton from Joanns will work. As I mentioned before, most cotton evening gowns were very elaborate and I've seen quite a few reenactors make the mistake of making it too plain. There are a lot of very simple original ball gowns floating around on Pinterest, but all of them are silk. Or, if they are cotton, they could have even been a girl's plain day dress. The dress below is a confusing example: ball gown? Girl's party dress? We might never know. 

In other words: if you want help finding a fashion plate description, come to me. If you are interested in just looking at the way I document stuff, check out my Pinterest boards. I know a lot of people say Pinterest isn't research, but it is if you use it as a way to archive and organize stuff. By not saving it to the computer, it is easier to share and you can access it on any device anywhere.

https://www.pinterest.com/michaelacoy9/

Something Governess-ey

I'm a costume junkie, although a lot of people who read this blog are probably exactly the same. Anyway, I've recently discovered I love Halloween because it gives me an opportunity to try some type of costume which I normally wouldn't try.

Several weeks after Halloween I've been invited to a costume party, the theme being books. Dress as someone from your favorite book. While I could go as Jane Eyre (who I love), I've decided to go as a different well-loved literary governess with a dress inspired by Jane Eyre. I'm going with something 1840's-ish with a dash of 1850's. Historical accuracy isn't neccesary, although the shape and a few historical techniques have to be thrown in (come on, how else do you get 160'' down to 24'' without the right techniques?). A couple things I will leave off is piping except at the waist edge, and a large hem facing (a turned hem by machine is way faster).

With the theme of only being governess-ey, and also working on a budget, I'll be working with cotton/poly broadcloth in brown, for as my heroine once described her dress as being "somewhere between russett and bark", while her pupils insist that it is "somewhere between stick and mud".

Here are a couple sketches of what I'm going for:

A plain jane, with a slightly dropped waist, bias cut sleeves, and a dull point found in a lot of 1840's dresses. and buttoning up the front. Most 1840's dresses were fastened up the back, but my character shows quite a bit of independence and wouldn't have wanted help getting dressed. This dress is the most similar to what she wears on the front cover. I was experimenting with armscye placement, disregard the lopsided seams.

A little similar, but with a basque. This is the only dress which borrows and element that was very popular during the 1850's, but I thought it was an interesting way of adding another detail that was unusual. It could be either cut in one with the bodice with shaped seams, or sewn separately and maybe even with gathers. And whoops, I left off the head.

And the last is a fan front, which reads as very governess-ey, but the dress fastens up the back and I personally hate not dressing myself. I've always wanted to try a fan front, but I don't think this is the best opportunity to try it.

I have several other costumes to get done before the 2nd week in November, although I'd like this dress to be done by Halloween. As my favorite governess once quoted from the founder of her beloved school, “When the impossible becomes only difficult, that is when you know you’ve won.” Have you figured out who it is yet?

1800's Fashion Timeline: 1840-1855

This period of time in the fashion industry for women was rather heavy. Literally! By this time, women were trying to make there skirts as large as possible without hoop skirts. Many layers of petticoats stiffened with cording and horsehair were used. I do not like to think about how hot it must have been.

Anyway. Beginning in the 1840's, the large sleeves from the 1830's were replaced with tight-fighting sleeves. Remember, by now the waistlines had gone all the way down to the natural waist. In this age and era, no one knows where their real waist is. It is a bit ridiculous, actually. Your waist, ladies, is right at your  last rib. It is not on your hip bones, where your pants come up to. It should be the smallest place around.

The one thing that makes me think of the 1850's is ruffled skirts. This style is not limited to the 1850's, there are just a lot of fashion plates with rows and rows of ruffles. Remember: fashion plates were the cutting edge!

Another thing that was a part of the 1840's was smocked bodices, like the one below. I don't know if I have ever seen a smocked bodice in the 1850's, but the museum says the one below is from 1850. Go figure. 1850's was similar to the 1860's, in that tight bodices like the one above and the last one, with gathered bodices for work dresses.

Although skirts were certainly not limited to ruffles! This one is very nice as well.....

1840's Evening Dress

When I saw this dress on the Metropolitan Museum of Art page (this website) I think I just died. Someday I think I will have to make this dress. I love absolutely everything about it, from the color and the neckline to the cool trim on the sleeves.

 I know on my blog the pictures on smaller; on the museum's website the pictures are larger. In those pictures, it appears the skirt is knife pleated, with changes in direction on all four sides (front, back, and sides) so it almost appears to be box pleated.

What I love about it is it is definitely something I could do one day, although I have no idea where to find a trim like that....