1799 Blue Tunic

Photo courtesy of my awesome sister Camille!

So the c. 1800 evening dress needed a little interest/color to it. I was open to almost any outer-dress option, except I didn't want an evening robe; basically all original full-length robes are trained, whether that's from a fashion plate, original, or painting. I've seen a lot of costumers just leave the train off because they want to dance in it, but to me that's the wrong way to go about it. I wanted something that would be accurate for the occasion, without fudging, because I knew that existed.

c. 1797 Open Robe from the MET

Little tiny sleeveless spencers, short jackets and half robes were what I was looking into. The possibilities for the styles, colors, and materials were endless! They can be seen in paintings, although they are very common in fashion plates. There really aren't any extant examples, so I didn't have anything to go off of there. I read as many descriptions as I could from magazines; the materials that I found were muslin, satin, lace, crepe, and sarcenet (a thin kind of silk; exactly how thin is yet to be determined). Yellow, blue and pink were the most common colors used, although I did find some black, orange and purple examples.

 April 1799 Ladies Museum Fashion Plate

January 1800, perhaps published in the Ladies Magazine?

May 1799 Ladies Monthly Museum

I decided on this last one....because Neoclassicism. Plus it didn't seem like very much work, and the amount of color per square inches was higher than the sleeveless spencers. Because there really aren't many actual existing half-robes for evening wear, I tried to go about the construction from the most logical standpoint. Unlined seemed best, and with the new discovery of the whole bodice-and-skirt-cut-in-one-with-a-drawstring, that seemed a good idea, keeping the cut of it as simple as possible. The original description (minus the long S, which doesn't exist on my keyboard) from Ladies Monthly Museum is this:

"The Greek vest, of blue muslin, fastened by a diamond clasp on the right shoulder, with a silver girdle and trimming of silver round the skirt; plain gown, with sleeves very short, and a neat pleating round the neck and sleeves. - Turban, a la Grec, blue muslin, with silver bandeau, and ostrich feathers. Shoes blue silk."

I draped the half robe on my dress form, trying to get the best neckline curve, and also balancing the fullness from the shoulder with the fullness at the waist.

This WAS version #1

This is one of my really not-smart moments.....I drafted the half robe in an afternoon of boredom probably back in August and then threw the finished thing back in my scrap bin. When I was ready to pick it up in September, I realized I had used that scrap for another mock up a week or two ago. Whoops. Let's be honest, it's a rectangle with a triangle at the top. It doesn't look like anything special.

The whole thing took me probably under 20 hours, completely hand-sewn. The material is this cotton voile from Mood Fabrics, which is close to historic muslin, just not as thin or as uneven; it took almost exactly 2 yards of fabric. The trim at the bottom isn't accurate at all, so I wasn't wanting two rows of it. Someday, I would like to sew on either real silk ribbon, or embroider the bottom so it's a little more authentic. Again, without existing examples, who's to say how this would have been carried out? It's still a shot in the dark. Yet we DO know rayon isn't accurate, I'm not kidding myself.

The waist originally was just a drawstring; you pull it on over your head and tighten it, adjusting it to be even all the way around. The ribbon at the waist was just sewn on one side, with a hook on the other. I discovered at the photo shoot that it would NOT. STAY. PUT. The ribbon kept slipping all over the place. You can see in some of the pictures it's too slippery. For pictures it was fine, but before the ball I permanently tacked the ribbon in place, so now the whole thing isn't adjustable. Oh well, adjusting the back was a pain.

In theory, this picture would be really cool. But when a white dress meets sunlight.....I call it, "blobbing." New verb for the day, folks.

The little pin on the shoulder I already owned, it was cool to recycle that. The description from the Ladies Monthly Museum mentions a diamond clasp, even though you can't see it in the picture. I think more research would be required to know exactly what was accurate, but I figured that the only accurate way to do that would be to wear real diamonds, which I couldn't afford anyway. I like the size of this one, it feels like a piece of jewelry, without being too heavy on the shoulder.

This hairstyle is based on a Roman bust from the Louvre, called, "The Kaufmann Head", ca. 150 BC. I wanted to do something that was more purely Classical, rather than Regency.

Female head, modeled from the Aphrodite of Cnidus, called the Kaufmann Head. 

 

I texted my hairdresser, and asked how I could get my hair like this. She said, "Oh, you can't...you have to have naturally curly hair."

Challenge accepted.

So I Googled how to create naturally-curly looking hair for people with straight hair. I came across...the straw method. It is the most unglamourous and undignified process in which I won't even care to describe, although if you are interested you can Google it. It works like a charm though, if you use enough product; it's the only way to curl your hair so close to the scalp. A heat tool you would burn yourself pretty easily. It also stays put through 5 hours of dancing. I'm surprised that someone actually came up with this; I wouldn't recommend it for the average day, it's way too much work for results that are a frizzy disaster waiting to happen if you don't put it up.

So, this particular bun is not my finest moment, but I WAS CONCENTRATING ON THE FRONT PEOPLE.

I pinned the back and undersections into a bun, curled the rest, pulled them into a ponytail over the bun, then gently arranged the curls over the base. Pin, and done. That part is super easy. Finish off with ribbon or trim. The overall effect is simple, yet stunning. If you leave the curls as-is, it looks more sleek, although maybe a little too perfect. I like to gently pull the larger curls in half; it adds a tiny bit of frizz, which gives it the "I woke up like this and carelessly threw it up yet it still looks perfect" look. Because anyone with naturally curly hair will tell you that no frizz is really hard.

Since I've brought up the whole, throw-away-an-almost-finished-mock up mistake, what is YOUR most embarrassing costuming mistake?

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!

#2: Current Projects

I have a couple projects going on at once.

This late Victorian corset has been fun; this is my first attempt at roll-pinning, so we'll see how that goes. I'm basing the boning pattern off of one from the ROM. There was a LOT of hand-basting involved.

Last year, I made a Regency evening gown (still no good pictures, sorry!). I ran out of time before the ball to truly reproduce the original sleeves I was basing it on and instead did a plain puff sleeve.  I pulled it out recently to replace them with the more interesting ones. The lower half cuffs are really interesting!

Woman's dress, c. 1800 via the LACMA

My computer is being finicky and now the picture is sideways....you get the idea. The cording is done by lining the cuff, then laying the cord between the layers. Instead of flat-sewing them into a channel, I sewed the curve that I wanted, then squished the cording up against it, then rolled the cord over the stitching line and did another row of stitches The result is that the cord is encased in only the outer layer, and the stitching is hidden beneath the cord. On the underside, there are two rows of stitches almost on top of each other. 

Which leads me to my next project, and the reason I ever revisited it in the first place. I was wanting something to wear over it, because it was rather boring, especially since I pin up the train for dancing. Open robes are automatically out, because they ALWAYS have a train in originals. I've seen costumers simply cut it floor length, but considering that we don't see any extants like that...that isn't the way to go about it. So the only parameters I was looking for were a colored garment of some kind that did not have a train.

Originally I thought a little sleeveless bodice, BUT....since you now know that I love research, I started researching designs. The white under-dress is appropriate for 1797-1802, so I tried to find a fashion plate within those dates. While going through several 1798-99 magazines, I found a few designs that showed what was called a half-robe. After looking through dozens of various half-robes and sleeveless bodices, I picked this one, because of the Neoclassicism; the Grecian lines are my favorite!

1799 Ladies Monthly Musuem

Janet Arnold has a pattern for a half-robe, but she states that they were only worn over a dress or petticoat for morning wear. However, the fashion plates and advice from 1799 clearly show a few that are intended for evening, or full Dress. A half-robe and half-dress are very different; a half-robe is a short robe, while half-dress refers to the level or formality of dress, being sort of half-formal.

Here is a 1799 half-robe for half-dress.....

...and a 1799 half robe for full dress! The image on the right is also a good example of the trained open robe I was referring to.

Since I love to be different, I decided that a half-robe it is! Especially since I haven't really seen one done accurately for formal wear. The Simplicity 4055 pattern (which I have successfully used several times) is an example of how most modern people interpret that look, by having the outer layer and overskirt sewn as one to the dress. Historically, the half-robe was a distinct look created by wearing a basic dress or petticoat, and then another dress over the top. This makes it easier to have many looks in one by simply swapping out the over dress, rather sewing them together.

So here is the draped half robe on my dress form. I was merely going for the overall shape and fullness ratio, obviously it will be a bit longer. I also wanted something that was easy, so essentially it is 2 rectangles with one corner cut off, sewn up the long edges only up to the waist edge. It will close with a drawstring around the waist, and some sort of clasp or pin on the shoulder. The original description says it should be a diamond clasp...however, I'm on a budget and cannot afford a diamond clasp.

I don't have the fabric for the half-robe yet, and I don't have the hardware for the corset yet. Funds are low, so I'm waiting to be paid in August to order supplies.

Extant Garment: 1850's Dress

This is Part Two in the 4-part series about a trip to the Idaho Historical Museum, in which I saw several different extant garments. See Part 1 here.

This next dress was simply written down as just 1850's; read to the end of the post to hear my thoughts on the actual dating of the dress.

This dress was absolutely breathtaking, but was ripped apart to some degree for theater. I did a pretty good job of not even bothering to take pictures of the modifications. Some of those things are: ripping off whatever lovely gauging was originally there and putting in a drawstring waist, shortening the skirt between the two tiers (although this was actually pretty discreet and might have been original), and putting in a large 3'' panel between the two front edges of the bodice because whoever wore it wasn't even close to small enough. That panel though....ack! If the dress is too small, then why bother?

Photo Credit: Idaho Historical Museum

The skirt panels were maybe the most beautiful fabric I've ever seen. They did a good job of matching the pattern across each tier, so it was close to seamless. The bottom ruffle measured 20'' from hem until the bottom edge of the next tier, then the next tier measured 18.5''. There was a section above that that didn't get measured, but the overall length was a little more than both of these combined. There was no hem along the bottom, because the print runs along the selvage, which was very small and neat. The skirt was lined with brown glazed cotton that stopped where the bottom tier was mounted on. The bottom edge had a narrow tape wrapped around it.

(Yes, that is a seam line right there)

Photo Credit: Idaho Historical Museum

Photo Credit: Idaho Historical Museum

The bodice is a solid gold silk, lined with the same brown glazed cotton as the skirt. The sleeves were so beautiful! They were open pagoda sleeves, lined with white silk halfway up. The inside of the sleeve was trimmed with box pleated white ribbon. The outside portion of the sleeve was trimmed with a matching brocade ribbon, 1 1/4'' wide and pleated, with tassels hanging from the points on the sleeves.

Photo Credit: Idaho Historical Museum

Photo Credit: Idaho Historical Museum

The back pleats were positively divine and laid so well, and thankfully hadn't been messed with. The original stitching on these was a little sloppy, but I think this dress must have fit it's original owner very well. A 5'' bone was stitched inside a casing up the center back; the total length of the pleating out the back measured 16.5'' from the natural waist to it's longest point.

Photo Credit: Idaho Historical Museum

Photo Credit: Idaho Historical Museum

This picture is of the underside of the basque, showing the sloppy stitching used to sew on the lower portion of the basque to the main bodice. 

Photo Credit: Idaho Historical Museum

The darts are boned with whalebone, with the bone being encased in a dart. The dart take-up was left inside the dress, but clipped. The waist of the bodice was 26.5''. The neck edge, armscye and bottom edge were all piped.

Photo Credit: Idaho Historical Museum

Photo Credit: Idaho Historical Museum
This dress might have been worn over a hoop petticoat or crinoline, which were invented in 1856. However, the 1858 Ladies Home Magazine advises that ladies choose the older style of horsehair or corded petticoat over the hoop skirt. Listen to this:

"....but, of course, a horse-hair skirt of modest dimensions, or a corded one is indispensable, unless a resort is had to hoops, and they take all the life, grace, and taste out of a skirt, by inflating it equally all round, instead of gracefully casting off the skirt more fully behind, and thus giving it an oval shape instead of a round hooped one." 1

A few key things I'm looking for to date this dress:

- A double-basque in the back, but doesn't extend around to the front
-Double tier skirt

-The pagoda sleeves (really large, open sleeves to be worn over puffy under sleeves)

-While I did use the color of the last gown, a semi-neutral color isn't helpful. But...I will look for - TASSELS!!

When looking at different 1850's fashion plates, a lot of skirts that look like a triple tier are actually a double skirt, with a basque that acts like a a third tier. Like this:

1858 Ladies' Home Magazine

The above plate is actually almost exactly what I'm looking for. The overall design is exactly the same, and hits 3/4 of the things I'm looking for. The only difference is that the basque extends all the way around, while the original golden dress is only in the back.

Basques:

1855 Peterson's

Basques are generally seen starting in 1855, but the overall dress design and silhouette is a little different than what I'm looking for. 

1855 Peterson's

In the 1858 Ladies Home Magazine, they state:

"As to basques, being confined to walking and home dresses, and not allowable for full dress, they are rather tolerated than commended and will last only another season. This affords a good opportunity for those ladies to whom they are unbecoming, and this includes all but the very tall, to discontinue them." 2

Towards the end of the same year, same magazine, they describe almost the exact same dress, but say that the ladies in Paris and New York think that the basque part of the dress is rather old-fashioned, having been in for 5 or 6 years. 

1857

In 1859, they are still used but are not so common.

In 1860, the references to basques are found mainly to describe coats, and counting the skirt part of the coat as a basque, but generally basques are completely disappeared.

After searching through literally 100 plates....I did not see a single dress with a basque only being attached in the back. I have a theory, but no way to prove it, so take it with a grain of salt.

When something new comes into fashion, it makes sense that, because it is new, you go ahead and make one in the most current style. But after something has been in style for, say, a year or two, and the overall style hasn't changed...you might branch out, and make one in a more unique and creative style. It doesn't make any sense that you would make a unique basque the exact year they have come into fashion, but it does make sense if you are looking to change it up a bit because you've seen the same thing for a year or two. So if we put basques between the years 1855-59...it makes sense that we might be seeing more creativity between 1857-59. I won't use this in the final decision on the dating of this garment, but it is food for thought.

Double skirt:

In 1855, skirts are usually either plain or many flounces. I saw one French plate with a double skirt, on a ball dress.

In 1856, about half and half between double skirts, and more tiers than that.

1856 Peterson's

In 1857, quite a few different number of tiers are being used, but they recommend a double skirt. "....for the plain skirt over a crinoline or hooped petticoat, is rather too balloony in appearance; and numerous flounces do not enliven a skirt which is so distended as to deprive it of drapery; thus the double skirt, here presented, is the accommodation entered into by and between hoops and petticoats." 3

1857 Ladies Home Magazine

In 1858, the Ladies Home Magazine says, 

"The skirt question is the most important one just now, and it seems to be regarded as of too great consequence to render a full decision upon yet, for flounces, double skirts, and quilles (lais de cotes) are equally fashionable."4

1858 Godey's Magazine

In December of 1858 in Godeys magazine, it says, 

"Double skirts are more worn than ever before; nearly all the imported robes, even in the richest cashmeres, mousselines, and all the silk and wool fabrics have them. Where the stripe or ornament occurs alternately, at the distance of a breadth apart, they are called robes a lez." 5

1859 Walking Dress, from Godeys Magazine. 

1859 Godeys Magazine

Tassels:

Interestingly enough, I could not find very many, if any, fashion plates with tassels. Fringe galore, but tassels are only in reference to coats and the like. But after flipping through other extants, there are plenty of examples, they just won't help prove a point.

c. 1858-60 Day dress, via the MET

ca. 1858 Day dress, via the V and A

 And then we have ALL THE FRINGE AND TASSELS....AT THE SAME TIME!!!

c. 1858 Day dress, via the Philadelphia Museum of Art. 

I don't use extants to date other extants, however looking through a list of originals is surprising. Browns, golds, and tans were very popular. If you just scroll through my 1850's Pinterest board, that color scheme is very common. Border prints (meaning large motifs worked across one edge of the fabric, instead of all over) were very popular, because of how well they could be shown off in a tier. Just for fun: the original dresses' twin!

c. 1859 American dress, from the MET

Now, in regards to the sleeves, it's a bit trickier because open sleeves worn with under sleeves was a popular style for a really long time. Take a look at my last research project, where I studied in-depth when that style first came into fashion, which was around 1848. For this particular dress, looking at the exact context and shape is important, because not all open sleeves look alike. 

First, you have sort of a tiny, funnel-shaped sleeve which is very long, coming at least to mid-forearm, but often longer than that:

1849 Godey's Fashion Plate

Then the sleeves graduate to a very long open sleeve, which is often slashed up very high in front. The actual shape of the sleeve is very triangular, and because of the slashing it tends to be very droopy. When I describe triangular, I'm not talking about the points on the sleeve, like this dress has; I'm referring to the way the top of the sleeve comes down from the armhole, with very straight seams. Some curve, especially on the inside of the arm, may be necessary, but especially the back of the arm will be very straight. The under sleeves that are worn with this particular style have to be longer than earlier and later styles, because of how much arm is exposed without them. This style is considered a pagoda sleeve.

1858 Ladies Home Magazine

And then later in the 1860's, the coat sleeve (a shaped, curved style that is fitted to the wrist without any gathers) is meshed with the pagoda to create what is considered an open coat sleeve. It's a little more tailored in appearance, without any droop, but can be anywhere from a modest-sized opening, to gigantic. There is a decided curve in the arm part without any major slashing, coming down to about mid-forearm, or slit a little up to the elbow, but not above. One key fact with open coat sleeves, is that it is generally curved enough to fit around the under sleeve that the inside part of the open sleeve doesn't show. With this golden dress, they took the time to trim the inside of the sleeve...because it was meant to be shown. The fancy lining and box-pleated trim would have looked amazing, drooping down over an under sleeve. So this dress has pagoda sleeves. Both the pagoda and open coat were worn up until 1862, but generally the droopy triangle shape is not so much worn. 

1862 Petersons' Magazine

This particular dress has pagoda sleeves, based on the fact that there isn't any crazy shaping. There is a small slash, but it doesn't come up very far. It's a bit generic, and style could have been worn anywhere between 1855-1860.

Overall conclusion: 1856-59, but really leaning more towards 1857-58.

I can't attach every single 1850's gown from my research board, but if you feel like looking through it, it's really easy to see a lot of similarities. Double tier, basque, open sleeves.....tell me if you find any with tassels used in this way!

1 Ladies Home Magazine, Volumes 11-12, Page 110

2 Ladies Home Magazine, Volumes 11-12, Page 51

3 Ladies Home Magazine, Volumes 9-10, Page 198

4 Ladies Home Magazine, Volumes 11-12, Page 155

5 Godey's Magazine, Volume 57, Page 570

Link to a Pinterest board with original 1850's dresses:
https://www.pinterest.com/michaelacoy9/1850-1859-day-dress/
Link to Pinterest board with 1850's fashion plates:
https://www.pinterest.com/michaelacoy9/1850-1859-fashion-plates/