From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #81 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, March 27 1996 Volume 4, Number 81 Compilation copyright (C) 1996 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: Victorian Underpinnings Re: Felt hat blanks Re: Felt hat blanks underpinning patterns Re: ACW corset fitting Apology 14" width fabric Lily Magazine Re: Victorian Underpinnings Norse Women's Costume House of Doucet Corset hardware Re: corset shapes Re: 14" width fabric Re: Patterns ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 10:32:28 PST From: DGC3%Rates%FAR@go50.comp.pge.com Subject: Victorian Underpinnings Has anyone on the list had any experiences with making corded petticoats? I am contemplating making a corded petticoat for that pre-hoop look (circa 1850). So far, the only visual depiction I've found is Hannah Jarvis' undergarments at Snowhill, which appears to have about 12 rows of small cording an inch apart near the bottom of the petticoat (the photograph also shows wonderful little pillows on her arms, to support those giant sleeves). _Corsets and Crinolines_ mentions corded petticoats in the text but saves their illustrations for more structurally interesting crinolines and bustles. The _1837 Workwoman's Guide_ mentions that petticoats usually have a "body" (or bodice) which may or may not have sleeves. Servants and "lower orders" typically omit the bodice of the petticoat. This is the closest I have seen as a period citation for that slip-petticoat Jean Hunisett shows for Regency underpinnings, which has been mentioned in some recent postings. The Cunningtons also think it's appropriate for the Regency, and show some cording similar to the Hannah Jarvis garment. One friend who had a corded petticoat made said hers is quite heavy and is anything but a romantic rustle of underthings. Her petticoat used very large cord, about 1", placed where the hoops would be, as I recall. I'd appreciate hearing from others on this topic. Danine Cozzens - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Danine Cozzens Internet: dgc3@pge.com Phone: 415/973-1388 Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco, CA - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Opinions entirely mine own. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 12:15:28 -0800 (PST) From: erin1@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Erin Harvey Moody) Subject: Re: Felt hat blanks Catherine, I have a few sources for you: California Millinary Supply in L.A. I don't have their number on hand but I have bought all kinds of wool felt blanks from them in the past. The book "From the Neck Up" has a source list in the back you might check out. Also, since you are in the SF Bay Area, try Julie Peterson at the San Jose Historical Museum. She specializes in hats and could probably give you good sources, and perhaps some local ones. She also sells some millinary supplies out of the shop on site there. Hope that helps, Erin Moody ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 15:19:41 -0500 From: Kevin Richard-Morrow Subject: Re: Felt hat blanks At 09:13 AM 3/26/96 -0800, you wrote: >Could anyone tell me where I can find felt hat 'blanks'? I know there must be >a more precise term for this. As far as I know the exact term for felt hat blank is ..."felt hat blank" :-) . If you have WEB access look up Jas Townson and Son at: OR Email at: jastown@halcyon.com OR phone 219-594-5852 They have hat blanks ($14.95) and a book, FROM THE NECK UP (don't recall the author and she's not listed in the catalog). I have borrowed this book from the local library and it's about just what you want to do. Kevin Richard-Morrow ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 12:57:02 -0800 (PST) From: erin1@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Erin Harvey Moody) Subject: underpinning patterns To get back to commercial patterns: Again, Past Patterns has the best commercial patterns for underpinnings available. However, there is a void of good underpinning patterns. The pattern PP has for chemises is earlier than ACW (1850s I think) and it is very high necked, appropriate for day wear but inconvenient for ballgowns. There is nothing out there that I think is good for ACW eveningwear. Also, that pattern is commonly used by ACW people but it is not the most common type of chemise I found for 1860-1870s. I found chemises that had fuller sleeves and a different yoke treatment. I like the PP Edwardian combinations pattern very much, but the sides of the legs come up higher than the actual garments I examined. This is an excellent pattern for evening wear, the neckline allows you to loosen the tie enough for lowered neck ballgowns. The PP drawers pattern is too baggy in the legs and too long. Heidi Marsh's corset cover pattern is decent but again, atypical from the actual garments I examined. I looked at scads of corset covers in collections and they looked different from her pattern will acheive, but it is a decent pattern to start from. The buttons recommended are way too big. The real garments had very small, thin buttons. There is NOTHING out there that is good for 1865-1895. The best pattern for that period is a combination pattern found in Hunnisett's book. However, I still had to make adjustments to match the actual garments I examined, such as more fabric to acheive the "baggy butt" found in 1876-1892 combinations and drawers. And again, the final product has a neckline that is good for daywear but you will need to make a different pattern for eveningwear. Erin Moody ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 13:08:15 -0800 (PST) From: erin1@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Erin Harvey Moody) Subject: Re: ACW corset fitting Deb said: I am used to a corset which >supports my breasts. The 1870's one doesn't come anywhere near >my breasts, when I cinch it where the soft spots of my tummy are. >I am inclined to hitch it upwards about 2 inches, so that it >supports my bust -- but then the cinch part is closer to rib cage, >and not the soft bits. Should I have altered the pattern >(lengthed it?) or is this how it is supposed to fit? If you find your corset iches upwards, it is a patterning problem. First, your waist is probably not cut long enough. Second, your hips may not be cut wide enough. If you cinch the corset too tightly close to your ribcage right underneath your bust, you will push the bustline out of proportion and get "cantilever" bust. I know the inclination to *feel* supported is to have a tight fit right underneath your breasts (like modern bras) but this is not how Victorian corsets work. Victorian corsets should be snug at the waist and lower ribcage. They should rust on the hips, and give gradual and realistically sloped bustline support. It should not push your breasts up too hoigh or thrust outwards. The bust should rest just inside the support of the corset and be drawn slightly inwards towards the body for support and control (and to avoid that awful ridge at the top). Hope this makes sense...... Erin Moody ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 13:28:25 -0800 (PST) From: erin1@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Erin Harvey Moody) Subject: Apology To all on the list who read my email: Please excuse my awful typing. I am sure you can read through the typos of my last post, and know that the corset should REST on the hips (not RUST), etc. Erin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 14:09:33 PST From: michael.di.matteo@autodesk.com Subject: 14" width fabric Does any one know where I can get 14" traditional Japanese fabric that won't cost me an arm and a leg. Also if you know of someone who weaves I would like to discuss costs. Thanks sew much. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:25:42 -0500 From: Ladnier@aol.com Subject: Lily Magazine I am in Richmond, Virginia. Question: Can anyone tell me where is the closest location I can view a Crinoline Period "Lily Magazine"? Or if someone has a copy of one, can you please fax me a few pages. Please include the date of issue. I need this for a class. Fax: 8047451927 Thanks, Penny $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Pennies from Heaven, where it’s always reigning money Penny E. Ladnier, Virginia Commonwealth University s0peladn@cabell.vcu.edu $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:08:28 -0800 From: gwjchris@ix.netcom.com (Bill and Glenna Christen) Subject: Re: Victorian Underpinnings You wrote: > >Has anyone on the list had any experiences with making corded petticoats? I made one after seeing a wonderful reproduction and one original. There were most likely a wide range of methods and styles of corded petticoats beside the one I saw. Past Patterns is supposed to be coming out with a pattern for a "Stick Out" petticoat. This is how one woman described her corded petticoat she wore for hospital work during the Civil War. Since that pattern isn't available yet, and being somewhat sewing impaired I based mine on the basic lines on Past Pattern's over the hoop petticoat, but cut it down to 75" in diameter at the hem as it will be worn under a work dress that is only about 90" at the hem. I used the technique used on the original which was to sandwich rows of very small cording between two layers of fabric. I made the mistake of buying very soft cording for the first 6 rows. When I went back for more cording I discovered the really stiff stuff in the upholstery section. I separated the bottom 6 rows from the next set with the leftover cording that was too short for another row. I cut it up into short lengths (approx. 2") and stitched them into "V" patterns around the top of my lowest rows of cording. I then stitched a baseline above them and started more rows of cording. The original I saw had much more elaborate designs than this, but I'm not that talented :-(. I now have a total of 12 rows of cording packed together in two groups. I will try this arrangement out and if my petticoats don't wrap around my legs when I walk I'm done. If not, I will add more rows further up the petticoat, nearer my knees. Being a frequent passenger on long road trips I made my petticoat all by hand, but I'm sure a sewing machine with a zipper foot will work just fine and a lot faster! One thing to keep in mind when going for the pre-hoop full look, those women also wore a number of heavily starched and sometimes flounced petticoats, not just one corded petticoat. Straight liquid bleach and good quality cotton or linen fabric makes for some pretty stiff fabric also. After trying the multiple petticoat option I can see why cage crinolines were such a hit. They are much lighter and less cumbersome to wear! Good luck! Glenna Jo Christen gwjchris@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:57:55 -0600 From: "Terry A. Harper" Subject: Norse Women's Costume Does anyone have a list of sources for Norse Women's wear? Bibliographies would be appreciated. Terry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 22:03:48 -0500 From: "Augusta, Karen" Subject: House of Doucet - -- [ From: Augusta, Karen * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- A friend asked me to check my sources for an explaination of a term she had encountered in "Vintage Fashions & Fabrics" by Pamela Smith. She doesn't have the book now, but she said it refered to an article of clothing from the 1850's. It refered to outerwear and it was also known as "Nouveautes (accent on last e) Confectionnees (accent on the next to the last e)". In the 1860's it apparently became associated with women's underpinnings! It's all news to me. Does anyone know anything about this garment? The House of Doucet was one of THE major couturiers in Paris during the last half of the 19th century. Not only was Doucet a contemporary of The House of Worth, both establishments were located down the street from one another on the rue de la Paix. I happen to know Pam Smith (she used some photographs of mine in her book), and I believe she was quoting (a bit out of context) a description of the Doucet House from Elizabeth Ann Coleman's book _The Opulent Era_. Ms. Coleman was explaining changes in the Doucet's marketing (a direct result of the new competition from Worth) as recorded in a Parisian trade directory. In her book she states that..."Edouard Doucet appeared in the directory for the first time under "nouveautes confectionnes" for ladies offering "trousseaux, layettes, et manteaux pour dames." "Manteaux" was the all encompassing word covering fitted, semifitted, and unfitted items of apparel worn as outer attire.".... The direct translation of "nouveautes confectionnes" is "ready made fancy articles" - it does not describe any one particular article of clothing. Moreover, many members of the Doucet family had been in the clothing business since the very early 1800's. Jacques Doucet, the most famous, did not become active in the business untill the last quarter of the 19th century. Cordially, Karen Augusta ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 02:30:20 -0800 (PST) From: Conrad Hodson Subject: Corset hardware I have been learning how to make victorian corsets and for the most part I am happy with the results. However, I have been dissapointed with the quality of the qrommets I have found through sources such as Amazon Drygoods. They just aren't heavy enough or strong enough to handle the pull of tight corseting. Eventually the material starts to pull out of the grommet. I would like to find grommets akin to the quality of, say, B. R. Corsets. Any suggestions out there? Chris Prescott - I think, therefore I sew. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 06:44:12 -0500 From: NeenH@aol.com Subject: Re: corset shapes I have read suggestios to lace only moderately tightly, but pad the bust and hips to give a greater differential between them. I have never tried this, it would need to be done carefully to avoid looking fat or weird, too large, etc, but it just might work, especially on stage! For the decollete, you would place the padding under, and across the front of the breasts, just below the neckline pushing them up. I think. Colleen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 06:20:37 -0800 From: Stacey Weinberger at WADSWORTH Subject: Re: 14" width fabric New Text Item: 14" width fabric Try Kasuri Dye Works in Berkeley, CA. They specialize in Japanese fabrics and papers. Their number is (510) 841-4509. Good luck! Stacey Stacey_Weinberger@wadsworth.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 06:23:57 -0800 From: Bmpugliese@aol.com Subject: Re: Patterns In a message dated 96-03-25 16:35:53 EST, Erin Moody writes: >I understand that Past Patterns claims that their patterns are based on >actual garments which I do not controvert. However, I have done extensive >research in this area, studied many actual pieces in museum collections, and >own a decent collection of garments from the period myself. I find Past >Patterns and construction instructions to be atypical of the periods they >represent. They are, however the best *commercial* patterns available. > >Also, my personal approach to corsetry is to achieve the correct >"silhouette" of the period, not specific measurements or malformations >(shape vs distorating the figure). I can't remeber the specific names and >pattern numbers of the corsets on hand but here it goes: Not to quibble, but we simply do not understand what is being said here. There seems to be a suggestion that shape (i.e. the three-dimensional distribution of volume within the corset) is independent of silhouette (i.e. the cross section of that volume from different angles). If Erin means that compromises in, say, the relative size of bust, waist and hip, must be made to allow for the fact that we have not been even mildly corsetted since childhood, this seems perfectly reasonable to us. But we would call this simply "fitting" the garment, in this case a corset, to the individual.. >The gusseted 1860ish corset has you leave the last few inches in the back >attached. This is not typical and very difficult for re-entactors to put on >and off alot. The majority of the corsets from that period I studied were >open and laceable all the way down the back. That pattern is also more >suitable for those with long torsos, and a small to medium bust. Even >though it is based on a corset from the 1860s, I find that more often than >not, people who have made it and wear it for 1860s costumes look more like >an 1880s silhouette. The 1860s silhuoette is shorter waisted and the >bustline more low-slung/funnel shaped than that corset produces. It sould be >a very good starting place for people wanting to make an 1880s gown. We are presuming that this is pattern #703. This has long been our favorite pattern for mid-nineteenth century, but we too found the connection at the base of the back incomprehensible. In fact, we have long advocated simply opening the back and continuing the lacing from top to bottom (thereby allowing for weight changes by permitting the opening to be wider or narrower at will). We have also advocated using longer side bones than specified in the pattern (i.e. than were in the original) to avoid an uncomfortable poking in the hips. It turns out that there is an explanation for the joined back, which Saundra Altman of Past Patterns has fairly recently discovered. The #703 is based on what turns out to be a defective example of a Dayton Skirt-Supporting Corset. Quite soon now, Past Patterns will release a pattern based on a complete Madame Foy skirt-supporting corset. The supporting element is a quarter-inch diameter curved bar which sits in a casing at the base of the corset. It is because of the bar that the corset must be joined at the base. By the way, it appears that skirt-supporting corsets were probably not a rarity, or even atypical. While we don't know how many 1860's corsets survive in indexed collections, Saundra was quickly able to turn up four examples of the Madame Foy version alone. As for the silhouette it produces, while not as straight-sided as the nearly cylindrical #708 corset, the #703 is not nearly as "curvey" as the late-century styled #213. We suspect that there is some variation in ideal "silhouette' and would be loathe to conclude that an actual dated foundation garment leads to a silhouette outside the range of this variation. The reference above to this being gussetted, confuses us as we have always used that term for the #708 corset. The #708 corset is nearly cylindrical but has triangular gussets to accomodate bust and hips (in fact, the pattern presumes a rather large bust -- If you are of modest build consider making the gussets less wide). >The mid century? 6 piece symmetrical corset (sorry, can't remember the >number) runs extremely large. This is a very good pattern and the shape is >correct for 1860-78, and 1890s. It is better suited for medium to short >waisted people, and medium to large bust. The construction instructions do >not correspond with any period corsets I have examined. The casings for the >boning creates horrible ridges on the outside of the corset. A smooth line >should be achieved in any corset, this instruction is counterproductive. >Basically a good pattern with not so great construction techniques. If this is the Past Patterns #213 corset, we have generally regarded this as too "hourglassed" to be ideal for the 1860's, though perhaps appropriate for women who are naturally so shaped. We confess that we have probably seen only a dozen or so original corsets of this style and don't have a sound basis for concluding whether the external application of bones was common or exceptional. Erin's argument of a smooth line sounds plausible, but often, plausible conclusions turn out to be contrary to historical practice. We're not saying that Erin is wrong, just that plausibility is a weak supporting argument. Her statements about looking at corresponding corsets seems to us to be a much stronger argument. >All their corset patterns leave out the very important bone that goes >underneath the front busk. This bone appears on almost all Victorian corsets >I have examined and is not included in any Past Patterns instructions. Erin, please help us here. We don't understand what bone is being referred to here. Is it something additional to the steel busk? Does it go behind the length of the busk, or next to it, or does it continue below where the busk ends? Barbara and Patri Pugliese P.S. I think this response sounds too argumentative, especially because we both felt very grateful to Erin for posting something so practical. But then I wrote the above with my husband who is like that at times. - B ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #81 ****************************** 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!