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?

Regency Attire and the Greeks: Looking at History Through Rose-Colored Glasses

This is a long-standing research project for me, and it has taken me to parts completely unknown. It all began with: what is historicism?

Historicism is a fascinating topic; it is derived from the idea that history long ago is influencing choices that we make today. Well duh! It can be as complicated or as simple as you choose to make it, but there as many different facets to historicism that are played out in different ways. In the world of fashion, we are constantly being influenced by things that have already been done, and finding new ways to make it "the new vogue"; in other words, taking something that was already tried, but in an exciting way that fits the newly adapted modern taste. Sort of a rose-colored glasses-type of thing.

When recreating historical clothing, most people agree that peering through a modern lense of any sort dilutes the true accuracy of any garment, simply because contemporary tastes are different than 100, 150,  or 300 years ago. But another question to ask yourself is, what if looking through a lense would actually benefit us, as long as the lense was situated in the correct position?

Consider this: looking at a garment without any context is rather boring. You can learn a lot with an open mind,  but with no expectation there is not really much to look at. When you look at a dress, you have no idea appreciation for why it is what it is. And we have already established that a timeline working backwards from where we are today is useless, as it tells us nothing we don't already know other than, "My, that dress is ugly!" of  "I can't believe people actually wore that!" or "Wow, I was born in the wrong century! Except for corsets...." You have no historical lense.

1830-34 dress from the V and A....1830's are probably the most misunderstood and most hated decade of fashion in the history of fashion.

To get into the correct mindset, it is important that you adjust your glasses to the date you are researching, and look both backwards and forwards. What has been accomplished at this current point in history? What is happening? What is everyone interested in? What was everyone interested 10 years ago? That is the backwards. Now the forwards: what can I do with this current dress in 2 years to keep it fashionable? Or 5? Is there a forseeable future for the next fashion-forward step, or is it unexpected? The most interesting thing I have learned in this research project is the importance of not only understanding the fashion timeline, but the previous 50 or so years in politics, art, music, religion, and mindset.

For a series of challenges which I sometimes participate in, one of the challenges was Historicism. Cool! I was excited to see what everyone came up with. A few who accepted the challenge chose to use Regency attire, simply because it's an easy default. Literally every costumer knows that as the 18th century came to a close, the good people of Europe and the America's looked to the Greeks for fashion inspiration, particularly when it came to color and a high-waisted, simple style. The Neoclassical era was born, and history was changed forever.

C. 1804 Neoclassical dress from the V and A

I began contemplating what I knew already about the Neoclassical era, which is pretty much summed up in the above statement. As it churned the idea around in my mind, it began to sound off. I pulled out my calculator and punched in some numbers. The amount of time that passed from the end of the Classical era of art (around 31 B. C.) to the beginning of the Neoclassical era was......


 1,826 YEARS!!!  Ludicrous! Hilarious! Actually, quite ridiculous. That's like us, looking to Jesus Christ for fashion inspiration. Or the Bayeaux tapestry.

Those helmets need to make a comeback....oh, and the shields. Note the blue horse.

What the heck were they looking at? No internet, 1,800 years after the fact. As seperated as we feel from even 100 years ago, with internet and resources, the Regency perspective of ancient Greece must have been even more romanticized that ours. Their rose-colored glasses were definitely on for this one as they examined the only source that they had: statues.

Next Up: The Neoclassical Era, and the Reality of 1800 years

Dress Purpose and Difference, 1860's

After talking a little about the reality of a lady having a dress for every single occasion, there then follows the discussion of what type of dress can be labeled as what. What does a day dress look like? Is it any different from an afternoon dress? If an afternoon dress exists, then does a morning dress exist? If there is a morning and afternoon dress, then when would a day dress be worn? Is there a difference between an evening dress and a ball dress? Fashion plates even include things like promenade dress and a house dress. What the heck is that?!?

Again, the status of the lady and what kind of day it is will dictate whether there is any difference at all. Also, understanding the typical schedule makes a huge difference. Whether a dress is supposed to be worn during what time of day isn't really important, it's more the mentality behind it.

From my experience (which isn't a lot), there is no difference between an afternoon dress and a day dress; anyone who calls it an afternoon dress usually is referring to the fact that there may have been a reason she would have worn something different in the morning. For instance: a lady wakes up and has a good amount of housecleaning to do, including scrubbing the floor and removing all the ashes from the stove, but she's been invited later on to attend a quilting party. If she gets soot all over her dress, she would very well not wear her day dress she plans on wearing later, so she might put on a wash dress (a work dress). It probably wouldn't have been called a morning dress, because it isn't so much a dress that you wear in the morning so much as a work dress. If she was working all day long in one dress, you couldn't call it a morning dress.

An excellent, used work dress from Alabama, 1863

Later on, she might change into something more like this; the style is very conservative, but just by having specific working clothes keeps her day clothes nice.

The typical order of events in a day was get work done in the morning, and then social events in the afternoon. However, a lady who lives on a farm and does work all day long might never have the free time to do any kind of social events regularly, and likewise Mary Todd Lincoln will never ever have occasion to do any work in the morning at all.

If a lady had no work to do whatsoever in the morning and of the upper class, her before noon attire (i. e. probably not going anywhere and no one coming over), she might wear a morning dress, or a house dress. Fashion plates depict both as being excessively frivolous, although I'm guessing the reality was not nearly so. Later, during the time of afternoon she may or may not change depending on whether she plans to leave the house or expect visitors at home, although on a typical day either/or was the usual. Conclusion: a morning dress, the proper type, is not the same as the lady who woke up and had housework to do. The actual difference was like the difference between yoga pants with a sweatshirt and a little black dress with stilettos.

Another term for house dress could be a wrapper, which could have many functions for at home wear ranging from fancy silk to faded cotton to maternity wear. Women from many different social standings wore wrappers, but some were more useful and could have been worn as the most informal kind of dress. They are comparable today to a dressing robe. The main difference between a dress and a wrapper is that a wrapper typically has an adjustable waist and was meant to be worn with less undergarments (reading into that, without a corset). Some were very intricate (like the first one), and others were much less so (the one underneath is shown without a belt or drawstring, in cotton).

Isn't it funny how, when invited to someones house for dinner, or attending a party, and the invitation says 'casual', you then proceed to wear your nicest "casual"? Casual is an extensively broad term nowadays and means basically everything under the sun except black tie apparel. But the unspoken rule is that casual at home could mean your pajamas if you so chose, but going to a casual party doesn't mean your casual at home wear (yikes!). See what I'm saying? One person's casual is anothers sleepwear, and another person's everyday wear (like suit and tie to work) is anothers formal.

Back to the past.

The term promenade dress and afternoon dress are almost synonymous, in that both were the clothing that you wanted to be seen in. Using the above example, the range of acceptable was entirely personal; one ladies day dress might be someone else's evening dress, and vice versa. The words promenade and afternoon were probably replaced with the description day dress. I don't call my grungiest clothes morning clothes and then my rest of the day clothes afternoon clothes, I just spend more time in one or the other more. Also, anyone who calls their afternoon dress a day dress could be in denial that they spent time in anything less nice.

Promenade Dresses, c. 1858

A wool day dress

A printed wool challis day dress

A silk day dress, from the MET

Silk moire day dress, c. 1862-65, from Augusta Auctions

See how much of a variety there is in terms of how nice a day dress can be? The first two were more plain, but the last is far most expensive, but still a day dress.

Another way to tell the difference between a morning dress and an afternoon dress (i. e. will I be at home by myself/receiving visitors, or out walking and visiting?) is the actual structure of the garment itself. Fashion plates say that "house dresses" or "morning dresses" were very fancy. If they never left the house, they could have been made excessively nice and kept that way for years. An "afternoon dress" or "promenade dress", while still needing to be very nice, might have used some techniques to keep it nice and may have needed to be less excessive out of necessity. 

Did you know that there is a difference between an evening dress and a ball dress? Let's look at the expectations between the two, and why they might be different.

If invited to a fancy dinner by the richest lady on the block, you might have several wardrobe options, depending on your income status. If your husband was on the lower end of the spectrum, then your nicest silk day dress will do, but if you are the wife of a politician then you probably have a specific dress just for such an occasion. It's cut more low than a day dress, more similarly to a ball gown, but it is saved specifically for an occasion like this. If an impromptu dance starts, there is no reason why you can't dance in whatever you are currently wearing.

A very nice day dress will do fine...

But an evening dress is even better!

If you are invited to a ball, which might be dinner and dancing, then you may or may not need both an evening dress and a ball dress. If you are attending a ball, you probably are rich enough for both, although whether you want to take the time to wear both in an evening is debatable. The main difference between a "proper" evening dress (the one that is saved specifically for fancy dinners) and a ball gown is the color. Gas lighting produced a really low-lit room, and wearing lighter colors really made you stand out and created a nice graceful look. Many ladies have said that, if wearing a darker colored dress to dance, in low light it makes your dress look detached from your neck and head. The reenactorism is "floating head syndrome", which is fairly accurate. If you are an older woman or if you have no inclination to dance, then wearing a darker colored dress was just fine. The first two are more of a ball gown, the last two are evening. Some dresses fall somewhere in the middle of the color scheme in which you may use your imagination.

Ball gown, ca. 1860 via the MET

Ball gown, ca. 1860-64, via the MET

Evening gown, 1858-59, via the MET

Evening gown, 1865-68, via the MET

We've talked about many different types of dresses and the occasion they could be worn to, but the gist of what different actual dresses (despite what they would have been worn to or called) are as follows:

-Work dress: made of either cotton or wool, depending on whether you wanted it laundered or not. Not every lady owned a grungy work dress, some needed only a less nice dress than a typical 'day dress', and some wouldn't dream of being seen in something like that.

-Wool dress: the range of when wool is appropriate is almost limitless; wool was like the jeans and t-shirt of the era, and could be dressed up or dressed down as much as needed. A plain wool could be a work dress, another one with more trim could be a day dress, and sometimes even sheer wool could be worn as an evening dress, although silk was the most desirable and appropriate.

-Silk dress: of the day dress style, with a high neckline and never with short sleeves, could be worn either as a day dress or an evening dress, or as only the very best of a lower income woman.

-Silk dress: of an evening or ball style, with a low neck and short sleeves. To decide which, take into account the color. For a ball, the lightest weight material is the most desirable, while a heavier silk was more appropriate for an evening dress.

-Sheer dress: of either sheer cotton, sheer wool or sheer silk, I wore my sheer white dress to a reenactment and was asked very bluntly, "what is it for?" Sheer dresses had many different uses, and could range from a work dress in extremely hot weather, to a day dress, also in hot weather, to being an evening or ball gown in an extravagant style. When making my own, I didn't really have an occasion in mind, but mine is definitely of the nicer day style in the summer. It has the potential to be dressed up quite a lot, and I definitely wouldn't do any work in it just because it's so white.

Swirling Thoughts

As you probably know by now, I get really excited about new projects. Right now, I am just bursting with excitement, and also a little anxiety. Anxiety, because I haven't figured out what to do next. The possibilities are just so overwhelming I don't know what to do.

My next personal goal with this new dress is that I want to reproduce something. Be it fashion plate, original, or CDV.

Here is what I have to work with:

Isn't it great? It's a very large scale green and cream silk plaid. Actually, it's more of a very large gingham, but I never think of gingham as anything other than tiny checks. At first I thought it might be a good opportunity to try a different era, but then I decided that the plaid was way too huge to work well with anything other than a hoop skirt. In terms of what to reproduce, well....I have a couple ideas. At the very least, the skirt will be worn with a fitted blouse, but I have enough to also make an actual dress. So....what kind of bodice?

WOW!!!!!

 Even the colors and scale are pretty close! Well, not exactly; the original has a very small pink stripe worked in, but at a distance it's similar. This ball gown is in the MFA in Boston.

Now I'm stuck; we attend a Civil War ball once a year, and I already have a ball dress, so my first thought was that a ball dress was out of the question.  Except, it's made out of dark red polyester with a double skirt. The skirt is about the heaviest thing you've ever felt, and it was not made to go over a corset. I probably could modify it, but the thought of dealing with my early sloppiness makes me shudder. Also, my face gets pink when I dance a lot, especially in a heavy man-made textile dress that is dark red! So probably also not the best color choice.

After experimenting with dancing in my corset, it wasn't terrible; I was worried that during a ball, I would not handle dancing well. But it wasn't too bad; I couldn't be as crazy as I usually am, but that isn't exactly a bad thing. So a ball dress fitted over my corset is not out of the question.

Pinterest has proved to be excellent; so many dresses in almost the EXACT SAME COLOR. Not many have the same huge scale, but enough to give me some ideas. As a rule of thumb in my personal replicating goal, I'm not going to worry about the color being the same, but the plaid scale of the original should be at least a little similar; I've found that a lot of trim just doesn't work with large scale. It's almost too large to incorporate any bias-cut trim, although based on a lot of pictures I really like black contrast.

And then I had a thought: exactly how many day outfits do I need? I only attend between 3-4 events per year, and half of that has to be spent in a wash dress as a laundress.

So now I'm left with two options: MFA replicate, or a day bodice. I'm having a hard time finding a specific picture or original that I love for a day bodice, although I'm guessing that it'll probably be a picture because I've spent much time looking at other original plaid day dresses and none are popping out at me.

Which would you vote: ball gown, or day dress?

Change of Plans

Even after making a long list of ideas for the August Heirlooms and Heritage challenge, I found something pretty cool. I took the Longfellow poem about my family's inn, and how he talk's about the landlord of the inn, who is a distant uncle of some sort.

'But first the Landlord will I trace;
Grave of aspect and attire;
A man of ancient pedigree,
A Justice of the peace was he,
Know in all Sudbuy as "The Squire."

Proud was he of his name and race,
Of old Sir William and Sir Hugh,
And in the parlor, full in view,
His coat of arms, well framed and glazed,
Upoon the wall in colors blazed;
He beareth gules upon his shield,
A chevron argent in the field,
with three wolf's heads, and for the crest
a Wyvern part-per-pale addressed
Upon a helmet barred; below
The scroll reads, 'By the name of Howe."
And over this, no longer bright,
Though glimmering with a latent light,
was hung the sword his grandsire bore
In the rebellious days of yore,
Down there at Concord in the fight.'

I had known nothing of a coat-of-arms, and using what he mentions in the poem, I found it! Just so you know, "gules" is an old English term for red. Chevron argent (a chevron, argent another word for silver); and I had no idea what a wyvern was! Of course, my fantasy-oriented sister knew; it's kind of like a dragon, but with only two legs and a barbed tail.
Just Googling Howe coat-of-arms brings up all kinds of things, but none matched the description. Except for this one:

Notice the Wyvern, with the barbed tail, the red crest, the three wolves, and the silver chevron. Bingo! By the by, the scroll at the bottom says Howe.

Apparently, in 1871, some ancestry geek wanted to have a Howe get-together, celebrating the Howes. There is actually a book available that he wrote about the entire gathering. The only reason I say he was a ancestry geek is because he wrote a song. Come on, no one writes a song unless they're obsessed. The first verse is as follows:

You meet today to celebrate with fillial heart and brow,

as children of one family, the dear old name of Howe.

Brothers and sisters by that name you hold in reverence dear,

how fitting you should set apart, this day for friendly cheer!

No joke.

I got it into my head that I wanted to put this family crest on something, and the only item I could come up with is a pair of 18th century pockets; the type that tie around your waist. Like this:

The main reason being, it's one of the few garments that is basically always embroidered. Flowers seem to be the most common, but I'm okay with taking a few liberties. I already have the pattern from Patterns of Fashion 1, and some heavy mystery cotton that might be canvas, or duck. 

The only problem is: I'm not really into embroidery. My sister is, but I can't make up my mind if I want to push through and do it. I would love to have something with the coat-of-arms, but it's kind of a big undertaking for someone who isn't in love with embroidery. I don't know. I may just skip this challenge, or revisit it for the do-over challenge in December.

Historical Sew Monthly Challenge #8: Heirlooms and Heritage Inspiration

This month's sewing challenge guidelines is "sew something that reflects on family heritage, or use an heirloom, or make a new heirloom." Or something along those lines. My family is rich with history, and also in stories and heritage. No heirlooms to speak of, but what to pick? Who to choose? How do I make an item that has to do with any of this?

My great great great great great great great great great (9 greats) grandfather's name was Samuel Howe. He was born in Massachusetts in 1642, and in 1702 he deeded some property to his son David.  I am a direct descendant of Samuel's other son Nehemiah, but David went on to build the Wayside Inn. The Wayside Inn is the current oldest inn in America, and is still open to the public. In 1862, Henry Longfellow, the famous poet, visited the Wayside Inn and wrote a series of poems about the inn and it's visitors. Someday, I hope to see the inn for myself.

Grist Mill, which is part of the Wayside Inn estate.

Even though Howe is part of my family's name, I have found no evidence that I am in any way related to Elias Howe, the inventor of the sewing machine. Pity, that would have been nice for the upcoming sewing challenge.


I am also a descendant of Benjamin Russell. With his partner, Caleb Purrington, he painted what is thought to be the longest painting in the world, called Whaling Voyage Round the World. It is 8 1/2 feet tall, and 1,275 feet long! That is comparable to the Empire State building, or the Statue of Liberty stacked up 4 times!

Just a small snippet of the panorama

Jemima Sawtelle's (or Sartelle) story is pretty interesting. In 1755, she was married and had 5 sons and 2 daughters. I am unsure of the daughter's age, but I'm guessing they were older than the sons. The sons were all under 8 years old. This was also the year that France and Britain were warring over the possession of Canada. Indians came down from Canada and kidnapped her and her children and took her with them to Canada. Her husband Caleb was scalped. Eventually, after being separated from her sons for years, she was sold to a kind family who helped reunite her with her family, and they moved back to the homestead they had left behind. She also remarried an Indian.

Even with all this information, what am I going to do with it? How am I supposed to sew something that might reflect on any of these stories? Ideas are much appreciated, but my brain is somewhere along the lines of farming. I come from a long line of farmers, which is almost double irony because my dad is a Farmers Insurance agent. Go figure.

Inspiration for #7: Accesories

It was a little overwhelming, trying to decide exactly what I would do, because I am in need of basically every kind of accesory out there. My new, higher fashion white sheer has absolutely nothing to go with it. I have no shoes, gloves, bonnet, belt, purse, hankerchief, earrings, brooch, etc. etc. I could go on, but will spare you. Because of wearing only white, everyone thinks I'm getting married.

So, I kind of just picked one and ran with it. Bonnet. There. That's good. A friend of mine drafted a pattern for a drawn bonnet, which is just a style of bonnet that has canes sewn in to draw up the fabric to shape. Using actual cane isn't high on my priority list, so I'll be using plastic boning. Don't gag on me, I know, but it still works and no one will know...except you.

I have a partially completed drawn bonnet, but decided to recycle the bones from it because I didn't care for the color (cream).

Hours and hours I spent, looking over colors and trying to decide what color scheme to go for. It was agonizing, and anyone who knows me will know how terribly indecisive I am. I finally settled on turquoise and red, although afterwards I wondered if I should have been better about picking colors directly across the color wheel.

The turquoise is for the bonnet, and the red is for another upcoming project...

I haven't decided yet (again) on how exactly I'll decorate it, but I have no idea how much fabric I'll have left over. All I know is that it will only lace up the back, and not the front and back, because there are only so many eyelets I will willingly agree to handsew.

Now, the excruciating wait until the fabric arrives from Thailand....

A Little Bit About Visual Perception

There are plenty of thoughts on corsets; everyone is, I suppose, entitled to their own opinions, but fact should rule over fiction, and not much truth about the matter is used.

The truth about corsets...wait, let me rephrase that...the truth about fashion in the past is visual perception. Corsets were not only part of life, but the way they work is not often thought of much. When lacing a corset, it pulls evenly. This means that corset actually pull you into a round shape. Everyone knows that, normally, the waist is sort of oval shaped, making you flat in the front and very small from the side. When pulled into a round shape, it makes you small in the front, but from the side it may make you appear larger. Sadly, I have no diagrams to describe how this works, but you get the idea.

It should be acknowledged by everyone that people were healthier and naturally smaller back then. I'm not going to say that everyone was skinny, because that is most certainly not true. Corsets are part of what make you appear smaller.

The clothes worn on top also play a huge part as to how we percieve them. Take this picture for example. I love this picture, because it throws people way off all the time on Pinterest. 

To use the visual perception example: she wears large skirts, which makes the waist they sit on look very small. Large sleeves also contribute. But the trim is key: notice how the trim on the front makes her look wide at the shoulders, then tapers down into a tiny point. This draws attention to that point, thus creating a 'wow, look at that waist!' moment. In reality, you can see her waist is not actually a part of that point, but the trim makes it look so.

Another fact about corsets: you cannot eat very much while wearing one. Your stomach simply doesn't have space for 'extra', so you basically can only eat the amount that your body needs. I've had it happen; I'll try to eat the amount that I normally do while wearing a corset, and major stomach aches quickly ensue. That is basically the best diet in the world!

Now, this girl, I would say, is sort of 'normal' sized, or appears so because the trim does not 'point' as well as the last one, although in our standards, she is fairly small.

Now, this image  (the one below) has quite a few theories, mainly why she is photographed from the back. I can't think of a reason why not to, with such a beautiful dress and hair. Several suggestions were in mourning, or post-mortem. After the post-mortem theory, one lady commented suggesting that maybe she died of 'small waist syndrome, or lack of oxygen'. I got a laugh, although computers do not convey the tone in which the original is speaking. This lady is also very small compared to modern standards, but I wouldn't say unusually so. Her skirts, very full worn over a hoop, lend the slendering effect I've already mentioned.