From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #113 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 Friday, May 10 1996 Volume 4, Number 113 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: Re: Drawers Re: Drawers Re: Drawers Re: help dying silk cleaning silk Re: Drawers Re: goofy garb Re: Drawers Delicate reply Drawers - Anecdote Re: Delicate reply Fox-tail bustles Aprons in the late Vickie Era... Re: Delicate reply Re: Delicate reply Altering Pattern Re: H-Costume Digest V4 #112 Re: Altering Pattern ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 22:07:32 -0700 From: savaskan@electriciti.com (Julie Adams) Subject: Re: Drawers >>One hates to belabor the point but, I think calling the garment in question >>"crotchless" is a bit misleading. "Crotch-opening" might be a better >>discription, as all the examples of drawers that I've ever seen, closed with >>2 or 3 buttons much like many contemporary "body-suits." As has been >>previously suggested this is for reasons of perfectly practical bathroom >>convinence. >> >>If anyone knows of truely crotchless [open & unfastened] bloomers I'd like to >>know what function [other than purely salacious] this feature might have >>preformed. >> >>Thanks > I have 4 - 5 pairs of late 19th and early 20th century original drawers and none of them button closed at the crotch. They all have an open split from about 3" below the waist from front to back and do not overlap, but there is extra fabric that bunches a bit in the middle so they do not gap open. Sort of like two leg pieces which join only at the waist. Most of mine button on one or both side fronts. There is a draw string in the back of the waist, but the front is fitted. I have made my replicas just like them. They work just fine. Since from the mid-1870's and onward the corsets were long, so it was difficult to bend at the waist, and the skirts were often layered and not necessarily held away from the body by hoops. This means when you are wearing these gowns it is not easy to bend and dealing with buttoning and unbuttoning under all those skirts would be difficult. I don't understand why this would be considered salacious. Open crotches in drawers, hose, or no underwear at all was the usual for women until this century. Julie Adams ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 03:57:04 -0400 From: DiderotDC@aol.com Subject: Re: Drawers Julie Adams wrote: >I have 4 - 5 pairs of late 19th and early 20th century original >drawers and >none of them button closed at the crotch. They all have an >open split from >about 3" below the waist from front to back and do not >overlap, but there >is extra fabric that bunches a bit in the middle so they do not >gap open. Thank you all for your responses - I was not aware that this version was so prevelent - evidently from the concensus expressed the dozen or so original pairs of drawers I've seen with a small button [or 2] in the gap are not in fact the norm. I apologise for my ignorance. My employment of the word "salacious" was purely facetious & intended to be silly. [I frankly was appalled by the number of serious seeming personal responses that I recived as the result of this innocent and fairly feeble witticism] - ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From owner-h-costume@lunch.engr.sgi.com Fri May 10 01:10:44 1996 Return-Path: owner-h-costume@lunch.engr.sgi.com Received: from sgigate.sgi.com (sgigate.SGI.COM [204.94.209.1]) by emin31.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29566; Fri, 10 May 1996 01:10:43 -0400 Received: from lunch.engr.sgi.com by sgigate.sgi.com via ESMTP (950911.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH825/940406a.SGI) id WAA05956; Thu, 9 May 1996 22:10:13 -0700 Received: by lunch.engr.sgi.com (951211.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH1042/951211.SGI.AUTO) id WAA06255; Thu, 9 May 1996 22:05:13 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 22:07:32 -0700 To: h-costume@lunch.engr.sgi.com From: savaskan@electriciti.com (Julie Adams) Subject: Re: Drawers Sender: owner-h-costume@lunch.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 08:55:18 -0400 (EDT) From: FALCON@SNYCORVA.CORTLAND.EDU Subject: Re: Drawers ok. Time for me to jump in and ask a question I have been wondering about for years now. I know that (as has been previously stated in this discussion) women didn't wear underwear for most of history. So what did they do to protect their clothing at...ahem..."that time of the month"? Blushing way too much to just be sitting at a computer... - --Bernadette ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 14:03:47 +0100 (BST) From: Dorothy Stein Subject: Re: help dying silk On Thu, 9 May 1996, Heather Meadows wrote: > > I just got the best deal and bought 20 yards of raw green silk > for $100... the only problem is it is a little too bright for what > I intend to use it for. > If you do find something large enough to dunk it in, or have enough room to spread it out in the sun, you will find your silk will fade to a more pleasing color without beaching or dyeing. Better for the environment, too, though it may take some time. Dorothy Stein ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 13:08:38 GMT From: loutre@nyc.pipeline.com (Denny Stone) Subject: cleaning silk Does anyone on the list have helpful, handy, historic household hints on the cleaning of silk? Dont ask how but I manged to put a big spot of Coke on an 1860's silk dress. General cleaning tips would be greatly appreciated. Stone ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 14:21:43 +0100 (BST) From: Dorothy Stein Subject: Re: Drawers On Fri, 10 May 1996 FALCON@SNYCORVA.CORTLAND.EDU wrote: > ok. Time for me to jump in and ask a question I have been wondering about for > years now. I know that (as has been previously stated in this discussion) > women didn't wear underwear for most of history. So what did they do to > protect their clothing at...ahem..."that time of the month"? > Blushing way too much to just be sitting at a computer... > --Bernadette > Rags, fastened to a cord around the waist or, in some places, stuffed up the vagina. They were also washed out and reused. Very economical and environmentally friendly. Why blush? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 07:59:47 -0800 From: "R.L. Shep" Subject: Re: goofy garb If you are interested in "goofy garb" you might enjoy FREAKS OF FASHION by William Berry Lord written in 1868 (as part of the Dress Reform Movement) and replublished in 1993. The illustrations (54 drawings) are Victorian versions of historical garments (a hoot in itself) and the book covers the ground from corsets (including steel cages) to weird hairdo's and imposssible shoes to completely ugly fashions. On the serious side it contains letters and newspaper discussions of the day (just post-Civil War) regarding the suitability of cosets and crinolines and other fashions. R.L. Shep ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 10:07:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Deb Subject: Re: Drawers > I know that (as has been previously stated in this discussion) > women didn't wear underwear for most of history. Apparently, we *DON'T* really know that. The last time we discussed this topic (it's still in the archives- check JUNE 94 and also JULY 95) there were several writers who supplied evidence that SOME women in just about all the cultures DID wear drawers. Perhaps some or many did not, but also perhaps NOBODY WRITES about under-drawers. *We* keep saying we are blushing as we write; perhaps previous centuries just didn't write about drawers at all?? And one certainly wouldn't sit for a portrait in under drawers! To save the previous posters from reposting the arguments again, here are some of the previous posts with evidence in favor of drawers: ==================== 1). On page 209 of _Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd_, Janet Arnold shows photos of two pairs of late 16th-century drawers. One of which she thinks may have been for a woman. From the photo, it looks rather long to have fit under a man's hose. She speculates that the "linen hose" in Elizabeth's inventories may have been drawers (or stockings--no way to tell). 2). Ruth Anderson, in _Hispanic Costume 1480-1530_, pages 215-216, cites mention of drawers in the inventories of Queen Juana, the Duchess of Albuquerque, and other Spanish noble ladies. Even if this was a distinctly Spanish fashion I suspect it may have spread with other Spanish fashions and culture, and with exported brides such as Catherine of Aragon (Juana's sister). 3). I would argue that even if many women wore drawers, an artist would choose to represent a courtesan in a state of undress rather than a "respectable" woman. I certainly doubt a respectable woman would have her portrait painted in her underwear. Anderson says, "Unmentionables in our period were mentioned but not illustrated for noble ladies of Spain." Fran Grimble 15-NOV-1994 or so ======================== Also, I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit this, but my current reading material is Pietro Aretino's _Dialogues_, published in 1536 and 1556. Embarrassed, because although the book does contain social commentary and insights into Italian life of the period, it is largely pornograhy. In the dialogues, an older (retired?) whore tells her daughter how to practice this profession in light of the mother's experiece, told in the form of anecdotes. There is also a dialogue between an experienced bawd and a woman who wants to set up as one. Naturally, a work of this type contains references to underclothes. Just today I was reading, in an anecdote of how the bawd made a man attracted to a whore (who he thinks is a lady): . . . "just as she let a glove fall, and bending to pick it up, acted out a lovely little mishap. . .while picking up her glove, she also grasped the hem of her skirt and displayed so much of her dainty leg that the unhooded falcon could see her blue stockings and her black velvet drawers. . ." Fran Grimble 12-JUL-1995 ================ There were other posts of the same info, but Fran has summarized it best, so I've quoted her twice. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 12:15:59 -0400 From: mhamilto@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Marsha Hamilton) Subject: Delicate reply I know that (as has been previously stated in this discussion) >women didn't wear underwear for most of history. So what did they do to >protect their clothing at...ahem..."that time of the month"? If you are of delicate sensibilities, delete these messages. But I think it is a very legitimate question for half the population. I don't know about earlier eras but my grandmother told me (she was born in 1899 when women did wear undergarments) that they used to save old pieces of cotton (cut down old dresses?) and would baste these rags into bunches into their underthings. Then you pulled out the basting threads and laundered them. Yuck. She thought the invention of the modern disposable products were GREAT! She also said that you cut back on activities outside the home if possible during "that time". I believe this is the origin of the phrase "on the rag." :-) Marsha ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 12:23:32 -0400 From: HMHousman@aol.com Subject: Drawers - Anecdote All this talk of drawers reminded me of a time when I was about 16 and going through some original late 19th and early 20th century cloths with my grandmother. She was talking on the phone when I got to this adorable lacy eylet thing. I couldn't quite figure out what it was and I couldn't ask her, so I held it up, turned it around, and in general just tried to figure out what it was. I finally decided it must be some kind of little jacket - maybe for an alter boy over his robe - after all it had arm holes. So I put it on and went and preened in front of the mirror. My grandmother looked over from her conversation, saw me, and broke into laughter. When she got off the phone she explained what I was wearing as a jacket was in fact a pair of crotchless pantlets. When I tried them on that way they were much more comfortable! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 13:01:31 -0400 (EDT) From: betsyp@vnet.net Subject: Re: Delicate reply Again, don't read any further if you have delicate sensibilities. Marsha pointed out, > > I don't know about earlier eras but my grandmother told me (she was born in > 1899 when women did wear undergarments) that they used to save old pieces > of cotton (cut down old dresses?) and would baste these rags into bunches > into their underthings. Then you pulled out the basting threads and > laundered them. It has been pointed out that both Lizzie Borden and her sister were menstruating at the time of the Borden murders, and had "slop pails" in their rooms. It would have been very easy for a woman to conceal any bloodstained clothes or towels by tossing them into into the slop pail and placing ordinary rags on top. This seems to me to be a very plausible explanation of why Lizzie (or Emma, if you prefer) wasn't spattered with blood. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 13:13:30 -0400 From: Damion001@aol.com Subject: Fox-tail bustles The authors of the 1951 book quote a "Douglas, monk of Glastonbury," who wrote that in the middle of the fourteenth century women "'weredde such strete (tight) clothes that they had long fox-tails swede within ther garments to hold them forthe for to hede ther arses, the whiche disguising and pride afterwards broughte forthe and causedde many mischiefs and mishappes that hapned in the (realm) of Englond." The author speculates that this was a primitive type of bustle meant to exaggerate, not hide, the form of the buttocks. I am no specialist in medieval clothing, so can anyone tell me if the wearing of the fox-tail bustle has been confirmed by anyone else? Is their any other visual or textual evidence showing that these things were worn? Also, if anyone knows of an even earlier version of the bustle, or some other way of drawing attention to the buttocks, please tell me about it. Thank you, Damion ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 10:30:08 -0700 (MST) From: cwood@primenet.com (Ysabeau) Subject: Aprons in the late Vickie Era... I need an apron to wear at the next 1870ish event that I am going to--I need to protect the dress I will be wearing as it is the only one I have at the moment, but I have no idea what kind of aprons ladies back then wore. Could someone please give me an idea, possibly with instructions on either where to find a picture or pattern? Thanks so very much.... Ysabeau ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 96 12:47 CDT From: vbetts@gower.net (Vicki Betts) Subject: Re: Delicate reply >I know that (as has been previously stated in this discussion) >>women didn't wear underwear for most of history. So what did they do to >>protect their clothing at...ahem..."that time of the month"? Has anyone seen the dissertation by Laura Klosterman Kidd, "Menstrual Technology in the United States: 1854 to 1821," Iowa State University, 1994? It might have some very interesting information on the subject. Vicki Betts vbetts@gower.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 10:48:48 -0700 (PDT) From: close (Diane Barlow Close) Subject: Re: Delicate reply Marsha Hamilton wrote: > If you are of delicate sensibilities, delete these messages. But I think > it is a very legitimate question for half the population. For those interested in the topic of historic handling of menstruation, there is some very good info in the archives. For copies of those discussions send: get h-costume hcos-95/n232 get h-costume hcos-95/n233 get h-costume hcos-95/n234 get h-costume hcos-95/n235 get h-costume hcos-95/n236 get h-costume hcos-95/n237 get h-costume hcos-95/n238 get h-costume hcos-95/n239 get h-costume hcos-95/n240 get h-costume hcos-95/n241 get h-costume hcos-95/n242 to majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com and the server will send you those old digests. - -- Diane Close I'm at lunch all day. :-) If a Canadian Had Said It First (The Globe & Mail): "Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of a peacekeeping mission!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 11:13:24 -0700 From: Joan Broneske Subject: Altering Pattern I am going to attempt to make a corset using a pattern from "Corsets and = Crinolines". Once I enlarge the patterns, what would be the best way to = convert my measurements to the pattern pieces? I realize that this is = rather tricky and that I will have to sew the thing together, try it on = and make adjustments, but I would like to try to get it as close as = possible. Seems to me that some of these companies on the Net that make custom = corsets ask for your measurements so that they can create a custom = corset. How do they then use these measurements with their corset = "pattern" to create the custom corset? I know a bit about pattern = drafting, etc. Oh, BTW, the corset is the long-line corset from early = 1880's. Thanks for any and all help. Joan Broneske unicorn@calweb.com http://www.calweb.com/~unicorn/index.html Stop by my Web page and check out my "Gallery of Garb". I added some = new garments yesterday. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 11:31:13 -0700 From: Heather Meadows Subject: Re: H-Costume Digest V4 #112 As for drawers, several of us at last year's Dickens faire out here gave thema shot - and they are SO convenient! They are crotchless, not thighless, so your thighs don't rub together, and I never used buttons along the crotch on mine - trying to balance your hoops and petticoats and silk ruffled skirts above the floor of a port-o-potty [not even BIG enough for all the hoops really] while balancing a purse and gloves and maybe hat/bonnet on your lap [there are no shelves or hooks in the port-o-potties] means you do NOT have a hand free for undoing buttons. but they aren't too drafty as long as you have a petticoat on- though I think I'll make my next pair out of flannel for more softness. - -heather meadows ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 15:44:10 -0400 (EDT) From: aleed Subject: Re: Altering Pattern > I am going to attempt to make a corset using a pattern from "Corsets >and Crinolines". Once I enlarge the patterns, what would be the best way >to convert my measurements to the pattern pieces? I realize that this is >rather tricky and that I will have to sew the thing together, try it on >and make adjustments, but I would like to try to get it as close as >possible. What I do when I alter a corset to fit my measurements is, once the pattern's enlarged, figure out the proportions of the pieces to eachother. For instance, if the waist measurement of your enlarged corset is 25", and one of the center back pieces is 2.5 inches wide, the center back piece is 1/10 or 10 percent of the whole. I'd then measure my own waist, figure what 10% of that was, and make the waist measurement of the back center piece that wide. Then I'd do the same for the bust and hips. Of course, this method is time consuming (I hate math and am deplorably bad at it), and requires lots of measuring and remeasuring and calculating, but in my experience it's the best way to keep the proportions of the original pieces. Of course, it's easier when you're making a corset with fewer sections. Drea ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #113 ******************************* 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!