|
Post by MyLadyDedlock on Jan 8, 2009 16:58:56 GMT -5
Does anyone know of a pattern for chemisette that looks like Catherine's in this picture? Or if not, how I could make a simple one to attach inside a gown?? what is the best material you have used to make a light weight, sheerish, chemisette? Also - how does one wear a chemise with a low cut regency evening gown? They seem to be relatively modest. . . would you just push the neckline down into the stays??
|
|
|
Post by elizabethw on Jan 8, 2009 18:18:25 GMT -5
I doubt that is a chemisette that's almost certainly a fichu, just a triangular scarf (or a square folded in half to make a triangle) draped round the neck fashion plates show them sometimes tucked inside and sometimes worn outside the neckline of the gown.
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Jan 8, 2009 22:54:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MyLadyDedlock on Jan 9, 2009 17:53:57 GMT -5
A fichu - Never heard of them - thanks, ladies!
|
|
|
Post by Mme de Beaufort on Jan 10, 2009 1:20:42 GMT -5
I just made one out of patterned voile.... I cut a large triangle and tucked it into my dress. They also call it a 'tucker'. You can see it on my green dress: I'll make the next one a bit bigger.... this one kept pulling out because it *just* fit the neckline.
|
|
|
Post by MyLadyDedlock on Jan 11, 2009 1:42:45 GMT -5
Ooh, very nice - you could attach buttons and button it inside the dress couldn't you? Buttons solve everything! Hah! Thanks for the picture. . .is that a bib front? If so, which pattern did you use?? How very creative of those regency folks to make a day dress out of an afternoon/evening dress by adding attachments (chemisettes, fichus, etc).
|
|
|
Post by elizabethw on Jan 11, 2009 6:29:54 GMT -5
How very creative of those regency folks to make a day dress out of an afternoon/evening dress by adding attachments (chemisettes, fichus, etc). Actually I think that trying to make one dress both casual and formal is a bit of a reenactorism. Whilst there may be a certain amount of dressing an outfit up or down with accessories depending on the level of formality of the event you're attending (e.g. an opera dress with simpler accessories could be worn to a less formal concert or maybe a dinner party) but I think most women of the period had fairly defined idea of what situations each dress in their wardrobe would be suitable for and only someone who had nothing else would try to pass an afternoon dress off as an evening dress. To our modern eyes dresses of the period can look a bit uniform and it's hard to see the nuances that made this a morning dress and that an afternoon dress but to somebody for whom this was normal clothes instead of a costume it would have been much more obvious that 'Miss Jones wore an afternoon dress to Mrs Smith's ball '
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Jan 11, 2009 11:07:29 GMT -5
I think I have to respectfully disagree. Admittedly, I’m “coming to a conclusion” but I’m accepting that I haven’t seen everything yet and that there may be gaps in my knowledge base. There are enough extent plain white petticoats that are obviously not undergarments that show up in collections. And there are enough surviving “bodices”. I’ve seen and had the wonderful opportunity to study both…Combining that information with what can be learned by studying fashion plates and I’m not comfortable with your conclusion. It’s true that I haven’t seen a “Full Set” presented with two bodices, but this one from Vintage Textile certainly has the potential to have another bodice to combine with the petticoat.
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Jan 11, 2009 11:13:04 GMT -5
Just a little additional thought: Elizabeth, you may be perfectly right at a certain social class, but of course not everyone was financially in the same boat. Using your own scenario, if Miss Jones was known to be somewhat "poor" then everyone would consider her quite clever if she was able to successfully convert her gown from afternoon to evening with minimal fabric and expense. Think of some of the Jane Austen novels where they talk about certain characters being “poor”. To my mind, the community would understand.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethw on Jan 12, 2009 6:15:51 GMT -5
I accept that a dress might be re-made or re-trimmed to suit a different occasion, what I was referring to was the concept that accessories alone could turn something which is good enough to receive visitors during the day into something good enough for a formal ball. To take Pride and Prejudice as an example there are two major dances in the novel the Merryton Assembly where anyone from the local community with pretensions to any sort of gentility could turn up and the other is Mr Bingley's private ball at Netherfield. You might get away with something less formal at the Assembly where you might well be dancing with somebody 'in trade' but a true ball in the style of the Netherfield ball would require an extra effort. Most women living in genteel poverty (e.g. the Dashwoods in Sense and Sensibility) may have been money poor but they had a lot of time on their hands to get creative with a needle and thread and add some trim or modify the skirt so it's a better length for dancing (in fashion plates ballgowns are usually ankle length but other dresses are floor length or longer). I'm just suggesting that if you're trying to make one dress that is suitable for both situations without any extra sewing you're likely to end up with some sort of compromise that is not going to successfully imitate either. I'm absolutely certain that people were frugal with their fabrics and often re-made or recycled gowns into other things I just don't believe that the sort of practices often suggested to newbies such as substituting a necklace for a fichu/chemisette and re-arranging your hair would be enough for people to accept your afternoon dress as a ballgown.
|
|
|
Post by Val on Jan 12, 2009 10:54:25 GMT -5
You can see it on my green dress: Ah, Steph, your cap is cute!
|
|
|
Post by Val on Jan 12, 2009 11:43:50 GMT -5
Dawn, that petticoat and bodice are really interesting. Am I correct in assuming it was worn like that, as a dress? I've never seen a petticoat with the straps and I'd wondered how they wore them. I just wore my petticoat sitting at the waist. Thank you for posting these!
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Jan 12, 2009 21:12:09 GMT -5
Hi Val. Petticoats of the Regency era were all raised to the high-waist/underbust. They could have the little bodice like this: tinyurl.com/8br8kuOr they have suspenders like this: If you leave your petticoat sitting at natural waist level with some of the sheer muslin gowns, it shows at your natural waist and sometimes leaves an unwanted bulge. Having your petticoat (either under or outer petticoat) at the fashionable “waist” makes a smooth middle.
|
|
|
Post by MyLadyDedlock on Jan 13, 2009 2:47:50 GMT -5
I accept that a dress might be re-made or re-trimmed to suit a different occasion, what I was referring to was the concept that accessories alone could turn something which is good enough to receive visitors during the day into something good enough for a formal ball. I apologize, Ishould have been more clear in my assumptions - and you know what assumptions make us, don't you? (Im referring to myself of course)? I think that there was definitely a distinction between a ball gown and a more casual one, and I don't think a fichu is going to enhance the casual enough to be ball material - because obviously the materials for the two separate occasions would "ideally" be different, along with style, etc. I like how you phrased it - "genteel poverty." These folks in the Austen books were my favorite, and I do think they were very creative in their use of resources, and I think that it would take a bit more than a chemisette to make the world a better place, if you will. . . . Thanks for the information!
|
|
|
Post by MyLadyDedlock on Jan 13, 2009 2:49:00 GMT -5
What in the world?!! - I Cant say "my" and "assumptions" together - how funny! He He!
|
|
|
Post by Val on Jan 13, 2009 11:02:22 GMT -5
Hi Val Petticoats of the Regency era were all raised to the high-waist/underbust. They could have the little bodice like this: tinyurl.com/8br8kuYep, I'd seen that one, similar to the bodiced petticoat I made. But the suspenders one, no. Interesting. Thank you Dawn.
|
|
|
Post by Val on Jan 13, 2009 11:06:25 GMT -5
I like how you phrased it - "genteel poverty." These folks in the Austen books were my favorite, and I do think they were very creative in their use of resources, and I think that it would take a bit more than a chemisette to make the world a better place, if you will. . . . Thanks for the information! I noticed in some of the movies (of course not the last word in history) where they changed out short pelisses on different dresses to make them appear different. They normally were very subtle fabrics so you really had to look for them.
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Jan 13, 2009 13:46:11 GMT -5
;D Absolutely! - and little vest-like bodices to wear overtop of another bodice to change the look.
There's an adorable little white one with pom-poms on it that I had an opportunity to see at the Society of Colonial Dames of Mass. (An amazing costume collection, by the way, if you ever visit Boston.)
|
|
|
Post by Anna on Jan 14, 2009 8:33:01 GMT -5
Regarding multiple bodices - some forty years later it was regularly done to have one skirt and two matching bodices: one for evening and one for day. I see no reason the idea couldn't have occurred to their grandmothers.
I, too, had never seen the suspender'd petticoat. Very cool! I'm going to make one!
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Jan 14, 2009 11:55:44 GMT -5
|
|