A Unique and Frugal Idea

I've made some dresses I really like. I've also made some dresses that I don't care for all that much. There have also been dresses that surprised me, like this dotted sheer. I was 100% AGAINST white when I decided to make a sheer dress, but being a cheapskate means beggars can't be choosers, so the dress material was bought for $5 a yard, somewhat grudgingly because...it was white.

It turned out to be extremely light and comfortable, and ultra-fashionable feeling! So cool in the dead heat of the summer too; I've worn it to a few events with 90 degrees +. The result was a nice surprise, but there were also a few drawbacks.

1. White in the sun makes you look like a blob. In pictures, and in real life. See below.

2. Apparently bugs are drawn to white. Not that that really bothers me, but people are always coming up and brushing the bugs off my dress.

3. A few people have said I look like Mary Poppins with my red waist. Now, I LIKE the red and white, but I hate associations. Not that I blame them, because it does.

And this wasn't even directly in the sun!

So my idea is to retire this dress, and make a new sheer/light cotton 1860's dress in a less bug-attracting color. Despite having owned this dress for maybe 3 or 4 years, it's in surprisingly good shape. Any stains have been successfully scrubbed out. Rather than keep this dress in my closet, I would love to pick it apart and remake it into something new entirely. The skirt is massive...at least 50% larger than the average 1860's dress. While that's not ideal, it does give me more cutting yardage for a new dress. I also have a yard or two up in my stash. I also made a dress for my sister in this same material, and if I give it a few years she'll outgrow it. Not that I want to wait a few years.....or that it won't be shredded by then.

Because I'm a fashion plate junky, I did some research of fashion plates that were sheer cotton, and with dots. Dots were typically flat-embroidered on in silk thread, rather than a little clipped tuft, so my material isn't perfectly accurate, but oh well. Here are some options in no particular order; keep in mind that each fashion plate has a different way of displaying the spots.

1. An 1880 house (or evening) dress, if of muslin made over a basic silk dress (the one on the right). I'm always a sucker for natural form, although I question whether I have enough fabric.

May 1880 Petersons Magazine

2. A 1799 Morning dress, with a little vest over the top. The length of the train might be limited to the length of the skirt, although by the time the tucks are let out it could be pretty long. I've already done a specifically 1799 dress, so this isn't my favorite option, but I'm leaving it on here because I really like the vest.

November 1799 Ladies Monthly Museum

3. An 1840 dinner or evening dress of white spotted gauze over white satin; the sleeves are black velvet (kind of a weird detail, right?). I feel like they might look like black holes on your arms in person. I could probably eek this out.

 March 1840 Le Follet

4. An 1841 evening dress, with an underskirt made in puffs. This one's a little frilly for me.

February 1841 Ladies Cabinet

5. An 1849 evening dress, with the underskirt of plain tarlatane. Love the basic-ness of it, and I definitely have enough yardage for this one.

February 1849 Godeys Magazine

6. An 1852 evening gown, trimmed with ribbon. I love almost everything about this design. I would probably need to wait, and use the skirt from my sister's dress for the upper layer.

March 1852 Le Moniteur de la Mode

7. An 1870 evening dress, with black bows down one side. I don't love bows, but I like black and white a lot, so there might be a way to come up with a different trim that suits my taste a little more. I would totally do black roses, if I thought they would be accurate. What I like about this one is I definitely have enough fabric, and it would feel a little like making an old dress over in a new style (rather than going back in time). Because of the square cut-bodice, I might not need to make a new bodice but just cut the current one down. Off-the-shoulder necklines typically need adjust and a basic cut-down from a high-necked dress usually doesn't work.

January 1870 Petersons Magazine.

8. An 1867 evening dress for the seaside; skirt and bodice of blue silk, with the overdress in dotted white. This might be a less frugal way of re-working this fabric, since it would only need a little bit, but there would definitely be enough; it's the figure on the right.

August 1867 Godeys Magazine

While I don't really need another evening dress, I wouldn't mind one. I like the variety of eras to choose from; while I've already done Natural form and Regency, I wouldn't mine doing them again, but I also wouldn't mind doing a new era. 

Which one is your favorite?

HSF #2: 1880's Reproduction Corset

The goal with this corset: to make an awesome corset, no skimping on the flossing, all the way through, that could work under an 1880's dress.

I wanted to not get too crazy with color choices, so I looked around at all the corsets within this time frame. Overall, I really liked this particular corset because the seam lines were very comparable to the Truly Victorian pattern I already had. I copied the exact boning design; the back diagonal section I had to fudge a little because my corset overall turned out longer, and I think I may be a little smaller, so the exact angle is different. In fact, it didn't turn out the same on both sides, because I finally succcessfully got both sides even; so the one side has 6 diagonal, and the other 7.


 

c. 1880-85 Corset in the Royal Ontario Museum

After reading some articles and watching some videos, I decided to try roll-pinning. Roll-pinning is the theory that, if you pin something on a flat plane, and wear it on a curved sphere, the outside layer will be too small, and the inner too big. This process involves pinning the two layer together on a sphere; in this case, I used my larger pressing ham. His name is Hammie. The two layers were then hand-stitched together. It was a lot of work....because I haven't done more corsets, I don't know how it would have turned out if I hadn't pinned it like this. But overall, it lays pretty well without many wrinkles. So, success, I guess?

I also decided to try putting the seams on the outside (why?), and covered it with the boning channels. As I was constructing it, I wasn't sure why I picked that, but later it ended up coming in handy.

This is the closest I've come in corset-making to an even back.

Once the grommets, boning channels and busk were in, I tried it on. It had been like 6 months since the mockup had been worn. Initially, it took some time to figure out the best way to lace it up; the first time I laced it too tight in the ribs. Also, I stabbed my hands three times really hard because I pinned the bones in rather than baste across the top. Double hole for each stab, with the pin going in and out and I had to carefully draw it out. So I was hurting and frustrated. After coming back to it with more patience and time (and the bones basted in), I figured out the best way to lace it.

I only have two small regrets with this project that can technically be fixed:

1. The bust shaping. To fix the bust, I ripped the front casing off halfway and added in a really tiny gusset to round it out a little more. Once the seam allowance was trimmed and the casing back on, you can't even tell it's there! It's not perfect on one side, but better overall. Still want to perfect that.

2. I would never have even thought of the wider bone, except for the original, so I thought I'd try it. Whoops....didn't realize that exact seam line curves forward quite a bit, and it hits right at my hip bones. So the tighter I have it laced, the more the bone tweaks, although the hip bone thing is a little uncomfortable, but not as big a problem as I thought. Technically, I could remove the bone and leave the channel (it needs to cover the seam) and re-angle it so it's a little closer to my actual side, and more upright.

There are a few areas of this project that mystify me a little bit: the natural form tummy, and hip spring. Back in July, I had sort of a hip-spring revalation after adding gussets to my older corset. Wow! What a difference! So comfortable and attractive! I no longer looked top-heavy. With the old corset gussets, it gave me a lot more spring out the back. With this particular corset though, it gives me more spring out to the side, and more flatness in the back. Huh. Some people are amazing at that balancing act; I'm still trying to figure out if perfection is possible when you have less body to work with?!? Like, do I have to pick between the back or the side? And if I try to balance between the two will it not be so extreme and not even be worth trying?

The other undergarments made to go with this are a basic natural form petticoat, and a bum pad. Initially, the pad was made to wrap all the way around my hips to the side, but I decided that I was hippy enough without any help. Actually, I wasn't even going to make a hip pad, but after the petticoat was made it was clear that the silhouette was really, really sad without it. It took several tries to get this the right shape; I'm so used to mid-Victorian, with sudden fullness right below the waist, but to get the right shape it really needs to slope, with the fullness gradually being added the further down it gets.

The petticoat is the Truly Victorian pattern, the only adjustment being that I added a tie right at mid-thigh level to pull the fullness to the back. The bum pad is tacked on one side, and then the other side gets safety pinned to the waistband once the waist is tied. I found that the bum pad wouldn't stay up on it's own, and kept riding up in the front and falling down in the back. I'd rather have it sewn permanently to the petticoat, with the petticoat closing at the side front. But....I'm lazy, so that isn't happening.

What the item is: Natural form corset, petticoat, and pad. 
Material: Coutil, silk-faced satin, cotton sateen, muslin.
Pattern: TV 1880's pattern, and the TV basic petticoat
Year: 1870's-1890's for the corset, and 1877-1882 for the petticoat.
Notions: Metal busk, German plastic boning, 2 wider metal steels, thread, embroidery floss, twill tape, metal grommets, stuffing (for the pad)How historically accurate is it? The corset is based on an extant, and I can't think of any techniques which aren't accurate, other than the plastic bones. The stuffing for the pad is polyester, because there comes a point where you just don't care. Patting myself on the back with an 80%, although for natural form I'm a little flat in the belly area. I was wanting to make some combinations to finish this challenge off, but that's going to have to wait.
Hours to complete: 60 hours for the whole thing, started way back in July or August.
First worn: For my next project, it's been a constant on-off act, so I've already worn these undergarments for a few hours at a time maybe 8 times.
Total cost: $80; satin was expensive, coutil was stash, busk and boning was new, I had to buy a new grommet-setting kit because I was tired of the size 0's so I'm counting that as part of the cost. 

By the way....if you see any black galloon beading lace....LET ME KNOW. I searched high and low for something close, to no avail, and I wasn't willing to settle since it seemed like a simple request. 

1820's Undergarments

This technically counts towards the Historical Sew Monthly, so I guess I'll start there. It's kind of lame, so stick towards the end of the post for the real coolness.

This undergarment ensemble really needed a chemise. A basic Regency chemise is typically square necked, either high or low, with straight sleeves and a gusset in the underarm. I have one of those already, BUT I chopped the sleeves off once I decided I wanted it to be invisible under my sheer dresses. 

I've really been enjoying Cassidey Percoco's Regency Women's Fashion book. The dresses themselves aren't spectacular in my opinion, but that is what makes them so perfect as the base for whatever design you want. Just comparing to Janet Arnold, which are iconic in their own right, a lot of her dresses are designed around specific elements that you can't leave out. Anyways, a chemise pictured in their is almost EXACTLY like the ones I've drafted from the free pattern from the Sewing Academy. 

Except with a puffed sleeve. Enter a Re-do, from a chemise pulled the stash. See, I said it was lame! The holes from the original plain hem are still visible, although after a washing maybe not. 

This is the before, in its wrinkly state.

After is way cuter!

The Challenge: Mend, Re-Shape, Re-Fashion

Material: Cotton muslin

Pattern: Self-drafted using The Sewing Academy Pattern, modified to match the 1820-1840 one from Regency Women's Fashion

Year: 1820-1840

Notions: Thread

How historically accurate is it? Since almost the exact measurements are comparable to a pattern taken from an original, the shape is very good, although sewing machines weren't invented yet and it's done completely by machine. I'd give it an 80%. 

Hours to complete: 1 for the re-shape. 

First worn: For pictures, 1/26/18

Total cost: Nothing

For a complete 1820's undergarmnet wardrobe, a few things are needed:

-A chemise

-A corset, typically corded during this era, with minimal waist shaping but with a high bust and straps

-A petticoat, stiffened at the bottom with plenty of fullness to the back, and relatively smooth in front. These were made like earlier Regency petticoats, in that they need either straps or a bodice to hold the whole thing up. This is mainly due to the fact that the corsets are smooth all the way down, and without a well-defined waist it won't stay up. Whether or not these need to be layered to get the correct silhouette is yet to be determined; usually the actual dress on top was padded at the hem to hold it out, so I'm thinking I may be good with the one if I dip starch it. 

The exaggerated A-shape with the cording is very particular to the 1820's. 1830's petticoats have more of a bell shape with more fulness at least coming to the sides, and layering of petticoats to get the right amount of poof. I searched other blogger's websites for how they went about 1820's undergarments, and let me tell you folks, there ain't much. Whenever the question is thrown out about which era is the least represented, people always say, "1830's!" or "1840's!". That's because they forgot about the 1820's. So what works and what doesn't in terms of undergarments is only partially tapped territory. My thanks to Annaliese of The Young Sewphisticate and Quinn from The Quintessential Clothes Pen for providing ideas for 1820's undergarments. Per Quinn's suggestion, I decided that sleeve plumpers (AKA, croissants for your arms) aren't neccesary for 1825, as the sleeve done up in taffeta can hold it's own shape.

Mine is based on an example in the V and A; I haven't researched these extensively, mostly because this one was exactly what I was looking for! It's hard to see in the picture, but through other detail shots you can see that it has straps, and that it has 12 rows of cords, sewn at intervals. I couldn't figure out why it had that seam at knee level, although I figured it out halfway through the project. 

1820-1829 Petticoat from the V and A

The pattern was drafted using just the skirt part of another pattern in Cassidy Percoco's book. Looking back, this pattern wasn't perfect for this, just because the front panel needs a little more shaping a little closer to the front, rather than way back at the sides where the next panel joins. The person who originally wore this was at least 6'' smaller, and I didn't realize this when I first started. As a base though, it's fine. 

There are two different ways you can do cording: the sandwich method, where you sew a facing to the back and the cords in between the layers, or the tuck method, where you iron your fabric like you're sewing a tuck and then squish the cord in. Because the panels are A-shaped, I opted for the tuck method, just because I wasn't envisioning a facing on a diagonal panel. This actually ended up being really frustrating, because ironing on a curve is annoying and I just sort of stopped caring if the seams lined up. I was ironing yet another tuck when I realized: the extant petticoat was made with the cords sewn into a long rectangle of fabric, and then sewn onto the bottom of a short A-shape petticoat. This was a forehead smack moment, and I wish I had thought of it sooner. Oh well, I'm still really happy with the shape of it, and it lays nice and flat without any shirring.

This corset I've had for maybe 2 years now, and this is it's first blog appearance since it's been finished. It's not much to look at, in all it's flossed-in-two-colors laced-closed glory, but it's very comfortable and gives me the shape I want.

Stay tuned, I have a really cool announcement in the next few days!

Ca. 1800 Reproduction Evening Dress

Pictures taken by my illustrious sister Camille at the Idaho State Capitol.
This dress was first completed last October. It was my first real attempt at an accurate Regency dress; I'm pretty happy with how it turned out. I chose the design because of the Neoclassical lines; I also loved the sleeves, the length and drape of the train, the gathers in the front with pleats in the back. It's simple enough that it could be worn anywhere between 1795-1802, or even later depending on who wore it. This is a reproduction from the LACMA; the original dress is c. 1795. Because I raised the waistline into more of a true Regency empire waistline, it's just a tad later.

Sleeve detail comparisons

I lopped the sleeves off my chemise, and I didn't realize until we got into better light that the show-through looked a little weird...

It was completely handsewn, except for the long skirt seams. The only reason I did that was because, originally, I didn't know how the train would lay. So I cut the front and back both the full length of the train, then chopped off the front while it was on my dressform.

The construction was pretty simple; after doing some research, I took the Simplicity 4055 that never ends, even though I really am disliking that pattern every time I use it. I had to hack it pretty hard; I took a strip of muslin and figured out the fulness ratio I wanted across the bust, then transferred that to a well-fitting mockup.

This picture turned out so crazy!

I was stumped at first as to how you would get dressed in this dress. The back is cut on a fold....there's no apron-front....and the front is cut on a fold. Huh. It took me a while of pondering and asking around before I realized...that it actually didn't need it. It has a drawstring that runs from the shoulders to the front, and a drawstring from the side seams to the front. To get it on...pull it open, then it just goes right over your head and you pull up the strings and it ties on the inside. It really is the most adjustable dress in the world; it fits my sister who is a different shape and size as well.

It didn't occur to me that, with the more pure Neoclassical lines of the dress, the waist should have been not so close to the bust, but more dropped. Whoever dressed the mannequin of the original dress  had to take a complete shot in the dark in regards to how big the lady who wore it was in the bust; with a drawstring top and bottom, it's anyone's guess. This mannequin is more busty, but it could have been a smaller lady, in which case the waist would have laid not so high on her. Oh well. Live and learn.

I also learned, through purchasing Cassidy Percoco's Regency Women's Fashion and looking at the diagrams, that this type of construction you would have cut the front bodice and skirt in one long piece, and run a drawstring through that. So ridiculously easy! Except I was convinced that the skirt needed ALL. THE. GATHERS. But I didn't want to look puffy on top. So I lightly gathered the skirt to the bodice, then put a drawstring on. My only regret, in this whole design, was over-doing it on the skirt gathers. If I had known that cutting them in one was a thing, I would have tried it.

The sleeves were interesting. Last year, I ran out of time and sewed on quick puffs. After wearing it to the ball, I decided it was way too boring; with the train pinned up, it was your basic, boring little white Regency dress. So this year, I went back to the original design and created a shaped cuff, with cord sewn in for a 3-D swoop. I made the cuff the overall correct length on one side, then sewed it to another side that was overly long. Then I sewed a curved line.

Next I laid the cord inside it, pushing it up against the stitching as close as possible.

Rather than sewing the piping evenly sandwiched between the cords, I rolled the cord even further past the stitch line so that it's basically only being held by the outer layer.

I just recycled the old puff, but I had to mess with the shape of it to get it to lay correctly without any weird puffs in the underarm area.

The first time around where it wouldn't lay right.

Corrected underarm, about to be topstitched.

For dancing purposes, I sewed on some tiny bars to them hem, and then the corresponding hooks were sewed at different intervals to the outside of the petticoat. The hem doesn't look fantastic when it's pinned up. When the hem is down, the side seam gets dragged towards the back quite a ways, pulling fulness from the front. When the train is up, a lot of the side falls forward, adding more of a "might possibly be pregnant but trying to hide it" sort of look.

I will talk about the hairstyle in another post!

#7: Made for Someone Else

This dress was made just for fun. Camille was wanting a nice dress that could be worn with a hoop, so the hoop is new as well. This dress was made around a year ago, and has been worn maybe 3 times since then. We don't get out much.

The half-high lining that shadows through you can kind of see in the upper sleeve. The lining is boned, and buttons up the back. It's a seperate garment, so it can be washed without the dress.

I really wanted to recreate this particular fashion plate from 1862, but Camille wanted a high-necked, long-sleeved dress with a half-high lining. She once wore a low-necked, short sleeved dress to an event, and she burned her upper shoulder and neck area really badly. So I think she sees the practicality of covering more skin, so it is practical for outdoor wear, despite being white. This fabric is relatively easy to spot treat/scrub.

1862 Magasin des Demoiselles fashion plate

At some point I would really like to make this fancy belt with a sash; I think it's awesome, but she doesn't care for it.

This was the first dress were I allowed a significant drop in overall length; it feels much longer than her previous dresses. Almost full length, but in reality is still 8'' off the ground.

The bound ruffles are what inspired the trimmed tucks; I don't have documentation for silk-trimmed tucks, but the overall effect is plausible. We have plans to sew on covered buttons down the back.

This belt buckle is from Ensembles of the Past. It is absolutely beautiful, and I really want one in every color!

The bonnet was made in winter of 2015. It looks very well with the entire dress.

The hoop was made using The Laced Angel's instructions. Most of the hoop measurements were used, with slight modifications. This is the first day dress she's worn with a hoop.