From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #3 Reply-To: h-costume Sender: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Errors-To: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk H-Costume Digest Wednesday, January 3 1996 Volume 4, Number 3 Compilation copyright (C) 1995 Diane Barlow Close and Gretchen Miller Use in whole prohibited. Individual articles are the property of the author. Seek permission from that author before reprinting or quoting elsewhere. Important Addresses: Send submissions to: h-costume@lunch.engr.sgi.com (or reply to this message). Adds/drops/archives: majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com Real, live person: h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu Topics: mid-19th century women's collars Re: 1770's Frock Coat Question??? Re: Costume: Victorian stockings? Who Wore What and Dressed for the Photographer busks and long line bras napoleon RE: napoleon Monthly reminders: how to unsubscribe, etc. Re: 1770's Frock Coat Question?? Re- Kid Gloves ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 22:21 CST From: vbetts@gower.net (Vicki Betts) Subject: mid-19th century women's collars I tried this request on cw-reenactors, now I would like to try it on the h-costume folk. Mid-nineteenth century (late 1850's-mid 1860's) ladies' collars were sewn to fabric tapes, which, in turn, were basted into the dress. What did this tape look like? Was it usually cotton or linen? How wide was it? Was it a twill tape? I assume that it was white, unless a mourning collar. Was there a raw edge where the collar attached to the tape, or was the seam felled, or was the tape inserted between the top fabric and the bottom fabric of the collar, and sewn in. How about the broader fancy cutwork collars of the latter 1850's--were they two pieces of fabric (top and bottom), or only one? Just *how* do you interpret the collar patterns in Godey's for the period--I'm talking especially about those circles with the dots in the middle--are those holes? Has anyone made a collar from a Godeys' design? Does anyone have a good source of original collars and cuffs--for purchase? I do not get to see that many originals in Texas, and would appreciate any input from other more fortunate sections of the country. Vicki Betts vbetts@gower.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 09:40:27 -0500 (EST) From: betsyp@vnet.net Subject: Re: 1770's Frock Coat Question??? Julie Adams said, > > IMHO, a gentleman should have been able to hunt, shoot, ride a horse, drive > a carriage, dance a waltz, and fight a duel in the same coat, so you see > should see ease at both front and back of the arm for the capability to do > those functions comfortably. Think every day clothing, not "costume". In the period we were discussing, the late 18th century, a gentleman who rode a horse and danced a minuet in the same coat would have been either (1) recklessly spendthrift or (2) unable to find a dancing partner. Court dress for gentlemen was made of silk; riding gear, of wool. Silk does not hold up well under mud splashes; mud-splashed wool does not increase your chances of success with the opposite sex. There are ample records to document that gentlemen fought duels in their shirt-sleeves, since the high tight armsceye of the coat did not permit free arm movement. The eighteenth century valued formality; gentlemen chose their clothes to suit their task. We, by contrast, value comfort, and are more likely to demand that clothes be suitable both for formal and informal tasks. We have satisfied this demand by loosening the constraints of formality, not by the excellence of our tailoring. (And, to be fair, by developing 'formal' fabrics that launder well.) Betsy Perry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 09:17:06 -0700 (MST) From: cwood@primenet.com Subject: Re: Costume: Victorian stockings? >Hello Historic Costume List, > >I have a question for y'all and may have more in the future. A friend of mine >is writing a novel set in Victorian England, and I am encouraging her to make >it historically accurate. She is now wondering what women's stockings were made >of during that period, and how they were held up. The character is of the >middle or upper economic class. > >If such questions are not appropriate for this list, just let me know, and I'll >stop. If it's OK, there might be more in the future. I just told her that women >wore fine garments under their corsets, to help keep the corsets clean >(something I learned on this list), and that was news to her, so this list has >been helpful already. > >Anyway, any info on stockings in Victorian England (late 19th c.) would be very >much appreciated. Thank you! > >Christina > I thought some one more erudite than I would leap into this question, but since no one has here is my tenative two cents. Costume Experts, feel free to correct me! I can't swear about the stockings, but I believe they were made of basically the same natural materials that we use today: cotton, silk or wool depending on the occasion and the income of the wearer. If your character is upper/middle she would probably wear cotton stockings for regular wear and perhaps silk for special occasions. As for what held them up: garters until the late (mid?) 1880s when the first garter belts were invented. Orginally the belts were worn over the corset, then the garters were attached directly to the corset. The one detail that I am unclear with is whether the garter went above or below the knee. Speaking from personal experience, I can't ever keep stockings up with garters over the knee, nor the currently popular thigh highs. No matter tight I make the garter (ouch) eventually the stocking comes down. Since elastic wasn't suitable for garters until pretty late the 19th century, I believe that the garters were tied with ribbands, but still I can't see how that would make a difference. I suppose since skirts were so long the garters could have been below the knee and still been invisible, unlike today when they must be higher not to show under the skirt. There are several good books about underpinnings out there. Of course, none are immediately coming to mind, but you might check the library. As for corsets, a woman would wear a chemise under the stays themselves, then the corset, then a corset cover, then her drawers and then petticoats. Hope this helps. As I said, Costume Experts feel free to point out any fallacies in the above! Ysabeau ps. Working on a historical novel myself--the key is research research research!!! And Inter Library Loan! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 21:54:18 -0800 (PST) From: Allan Terry Subject: Who Wore What and Dressed for the Photographer In answer to inquiries about my reviews: I reviewed _Who Wore What_ and am in the process of reviewing _Dressed for the Photograper_ for _Rags_. This is a new journal specializing in reviews of costume and textile arts books. A small sample issue was sent out a few months ago, and I think the first "real" issue will be sent to subscribers this month. I am also reviewing _Dressed for the Photographer_ for the _Wisconsin Magazine of History_. Re Cindy's comments about photos: _Dressed for the Photograher_ actually addresses all the issues Cindy mentions. The author, Joan Severa, is fully aware of the existence of atypical and joke photos. For example, her book includes a conventional photo of a man and a joke photo of the same man's shirtless back and unhatted head; an 1840s photo of a conventionally dressed woman and man with the woman sitting on the man's lap with her arm about his neck, both gazing defiantly at the camera as if to say "We're an item and we dare you to criticize us"; a photo of a (partly) Native American woman who added her mother's Native American jewelry to her conventional Victorian costume to display her pride in her heritage, even though records show she never wore such a combination in real life; and a photo of a woman in her corset cover, but the same skirt and jewelry as if she were fully dressed. However, Severa has included very few photos of the type made for sale (such as actresses' publicity photos) and these are clearly identified. Severa also includes a fairly representative (population-wise) sample, including women, men, children, lower- as well as middle-class people, blacks, Orientals, and Native Americans. Severa discusses each photo in detail, whether conventional or unconventional, including ways the clothing may have differed from the subject's ordinary dress. Quite a few of the subjects are identified. For these Severa gives names, ages, where they lived, and often information about their social and economic status (sometimes including quotes about clothing from family letters and diaries), and the occasion for which the photo was taken. This is in addition to descriptions of what the subject wore, whether it was probably ready-made, homemade, or custom-made by a skilled professional, how it corresponds to the current fashionable ideal, how it relates to the subject's age and economic status, and even extrapolations about possible colors. All photos are identified to a narrow range of years, where possible to a specific year. Severa also dicussses what people could afford to wear and what proportion of their income was spent on clothing (including period budget studies and personal account books, also unpublished letters and diaries discussing clothing construction and the time spent on it). She also discusses the cost of photography and who could afford to be photograhed (the book includes many photos of the not-very-affluent). My point is: Not whether Cindy has seen period photos or knows how to look at them. But that it is irresponsible to automatically assume that an author (who is after all a fairly prominent costume curator) does not know how to look at period photos, and that the author's book must therefore be bad, without reading the book. And that it is particularly irresponsible to announce this assumption in a public forum. The research methods used for _Who Wore What_, on the other hand, are not nearly as good, and are not well described. (Someone sent me e-mail indicating that Leisch is describing her research methods in articles for a reenactment newspaper. However, her book should have described them in detail. How can one expect its readers to also follow a series of articles in an entirely different, not widely circulated publication?) Leisch attempts, and fails, to make a statistical study of who is wearing what in photos of women from the American Civil War era, based on the subjects' age, geographic location, and economic status. There are a great many problems with this study, including (but not limited to) the following: * Leisch does not say how many photos she examined. * She says the photos were drawn from her personal collection and other--unidentified--additional collections. However, a personal collection is seldom representative--the collector chooses items that he/she finds attractive, that relate to his/her special interests, that he/she can afford, and that he/she can obtain either locally or by mail. While a museum collection may be no more representative, collecting goals are usually clear to the museum and often expressed in written documents. * Leisch says her sources include surviving garments and written primary sources. It's unclear where these came from, how many were examined, or whether they are representative. * Although Leisch discusses how to date photos (based on information other than what the subjects wear) no dates are given. * No geographic locations are given. * The subjects are not identified, so any information on their age, economic status, and geographic location is completely speculative. * Although Leisch's introduction mentions age, economic status, and geographic location as factors in what women wore, and implies the book will discuss them, the only one she pays significant attention to is age. She divides the women into four age groups and analyzes what each group wears--but again, their ages are unknown and judging their appearance one year off could put a woman into a different group. * The subjects all seem to be white. * Exact measurements are given for things like collar widths in the photos, to a degree of precision that can't be determined by looking at the photos referred to. * The last third of the book abandons all attempts at a statistical study-- without explaining why. * There are a number of obvious errors. Such as the use of "print" to describe any woven or printed fabric. And a description of a cape as a loose, sleeveless garment--illustrated by a loose, sleeved jacket. Even the discussion of what the style of Scarlett O'Hara's picnic dress in _Gone With the Wind_ means. This isn't a Civil War dress, it's the creation of a 1940s Hollywood designer. I think _Who Wore What_ is a dangerous book, because it falsely claims to be scientific. I also object to Leisch's goal of getting reenactors to conform to (what she defines as) the "norm" for appearance. If too many people portray the norm, the picture given of a society is actually inaccurate. (For example, if we were to say that today's normal, average American is a white, middle-class person, even if this were statistically true, what picture of our society would it give if future reenactors all did their best to look white and middle-class?) At most events I've attended, the range of costumes shows less diversity than period sources. This is partly because modern costumers choose what's attractive to the modern eye and partly because many buy from the same relatively small selection of reproduction patterns. And partly, the costume in some groups has become standardized because some group leader (who may or may not be knowledgeable) has insisted that exactly such-and-such a look is "right." I think this is where Renaissance Fair wench wear came from. . . Fran Grimble ------------------------------ Date: 03 Jan 96 09:17:09 EST From: Dee Wilson <100545.3105@compuserve.com> Subject: busks and long line bras Regarding the discussions about busks - two questions..... My experiences with modern long line bras are that the bones can be really uncomfortable. The phrase " I can't wait to get this thing off" comes to mind because of the bones which dig in. Does the traditional busk not dig in so much because it is longer ? Recent comments on busks in this list say that modern wearers do not find the busk uncomfortable -as long as you don't drive 20 C cars !. Even in the late 19 Century the corsets for girls had rigidbusks - for posture ? Is this type of busk likely to be uncomfortable or restricting for say a 10 year old ? I have seen a 1880 ref to a 10 yr old wearing stiff stays and that she now "sits staight at table". Is this due to the busk or would ordinary boning achieve the same result ? Dee 100545.3105@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 09:41:10 -0800 (PST) From: Kimberly Smay Subject: napoleon Wars were fought very differently at the beginning of the 19th century than now. I remember reading about how much the british hated the american colonists during the revolutionary war because they didn't fight by the rules. They hid behind trees and wore their own(drab-coloured) clothes. I designed a show set during the peninsular wars in grad school. The rules of war were very specific and the bright and specific colours assisted soldiers in identifying their own side. properly fitted high boots would have been practical for riding a horse and for keeping mud out of one's shoes. I know less about the enlisted men's uniforms. Incidently, the peninsular wars formally introducd the first "modern" troops dressed in camoflauge. The british riflemen wore dark green and black and did covert operations. Kimberly Smay ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 12:02:03 -0600 (CST) From: Deb Subject: RE: napoleon Sorry, but I can't let this go by without commenting: >Wars were fought very differently at the beginning of the 19th century >than now. I remember reading about how much the british hated the >american colonists during the revolutionary war because they didn't fight >by the rules. They hid behind trees and wore their own(drab-coloured) >clothes. There was some hiding behind trees, yes. There were some drab clothes. But even the Continental army (the current U.S. - the guys who won) had regimental colors -- when they could manage to outfit a whole unit. They had a hard time getting the uniforms they wanted, but they DID want them. With colors. Mostly blues and greens, I think. AND -- the Continentals were LOSING until the French came over and taught them how to fight in the line-em-up-and-fire-lots-of-lead-down- the-field style. Snipers behind trees were NOT winning the war. They undoubtably continued, but the bulk of the war was fought using the same tactics that the British used. <===========================================================> < Deb Baddorf Marie Susanne Godin Viviat Rev War re-enactor Baddorf@fnal.gov trader's widow from Kaskaskia, Miss.River Baddorf@fnal.bitnet Fort Ste Joseph's milita, NWTA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 10:53:18 -0800 (PST) From: close (Diane Barlow Close) Subject: Monthly reminders: how to unsubscribe, etc. To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to: majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com In that message, say one of the following as the body of the message: unsubscribe h-costume end (if you are signed up to the direct mail version) or unsubscribe h-costume-digest end (if you are signed up to the digest version.) Archives are available by using e-mail, from the archive server, majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com. To get an index of available files, send a message with the words: index h-costume as the body of the message, to majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com. Then use the command: get h-costume filename where "filename" is the actual name of the file, as listed in the index you got back (above), to retrieve the named file. Multiple requests per message are allowed. I suggest starting with the files CONTENTS and TOPICS. Note that they are spelled in all capital letters -- the server is case sensitive. When you get an index of files back, you'll notice that some file names are spelled in all capital letters and some are a mix of lower case letters and numbers. Request them exactly as you see them listed. I.e. if you request "contents" you'll get back an error message, but if you ask for CONTENTS you'll get back that file. The CONTENTS file is a list of all the topics discussed, split up by volume numbers. The TOPICS file is an alphabetical list of all the topics discussed, and a notation that tells you in which volume they can be found. So, if you wanted the file called TOPICS you'd send: get h-costume TOPICS as the body of a message to majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com and the server would send you back that file. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 14:40:01 CST From: TOMBGUARD Subject: Re: 1770's Frock Coat Question?? As I started this whole mess perhaps I can add my two cents in now. I have done a little bit more research. The fit seems to be due to a posture that was more accepted during that time period. I have gotten this from a few different sources and if I am wrong, please correct me. I have also looked carefully at different portraits from the 18th century. Of course there was different clothing for different occasions and as a competitive fencer (although the fighting style has changed since the 18th century) I can definately say that I would only fight in a frock coat if I were caught by suprise, it is not a garment that give one a large amount of movement and move become what fencers call telegraphed or easily seen by the opponent due to the excess material. I have looked carefully at some military uniforms which use the frock coat as the base and see why and how some of the things are cut, i.e. the sleeve (which was my original concern). The sleeves are very tight. However, the sleeve has a very sharp bend in it making the bottom half end up being cut on the bias as it were and thus giving more movement. So, I do feel that the coat was meant to be tight. However, I also feel that it was not a comfortable garment. When I was in The Old Guard, the Armies Ceremonial Unit, we sacrificed everything for a certain "Look", I believe that this was more important to the 18th century gentleman, than being comfortable, for what amount of work did he actually do, it is not as if he needed an outfit which fit well so that he would be comfortable in is office chair all day. Any comments. Robert Robert H. Neidlinger NEIDLRH@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU "The Tomb Guard" Robert.Neidlinger@BGAMUG.COM "Ask me a question and I'll reply, Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie" Winnie the Pooh ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 1996 13:00:35 -0800 From: "Carole Newson-Smith" Subject: Re- Kid Gloves 1/3/96 12:53 PM Re: Kid Gloves Joan Broneske writes: >I just bought two pairs of ladies gloves at an antique store today. >I am assuming they are kid leather because they are that really thin >leather that older gloves were made of. > >Anyways, they are a tad grungy and I was wondering if there was anyway I >could clean them up or freshen them up a little. Okay, I'm probably showing my age on this one. When I was in my teens I wore white kid gloves for special occasions, like church and parties. My mother taught me that the gloves were very delicate - kidskin is really thin - and that grease or makeup would stain the gloves very easily. She showed me how to wash them, using mild soapflakes dissolved in warm - - never hot - water. Never use a detergent as it takes the natural oils out of the leather, making it stiff and brittle. I was to essentially wash my hands with the gloves on, thus attempting to minimize stretching the wet leather. Once the gloves were soaped and rinsed, I then carefully took the gloves off by grabbing the edge and turning them inside out. Then I turned them right side out again, and gently blew into the gloves to inflate them a little. They were placed on top of a clean dry towel and left to dry - away from sunlight or additional heat. A day or two later when they were dry, I would put the gloves on my hands again, which would take out the slight stiffness that occurred because of the washing process. If Joan's antique gloves are too brittle to put on, the remainder of the above process should work. Good luck! Carole Newson-Smith@net.com ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #3 ***************************** A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, send the command lines: unsubscribe h-costume-digest subscribe h-costume end in the body of a message to majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com. Thanks and enjoy the list!