|
Post by lauren on Apr 21, 2008 11:29:54 GMT -5
I'm doing a little research and I would love some imput from you ladies. I have a pair of long stays, but I'm contemplating making a pair of short stays from the S & S Regency Underthings pattern. My long stays are great, unless I'm sitting in the car. Then they just about kill me. So I'm thinking about having one of each. How do short stays compare with long stay? Thanks! :-)
|
|
|
Post by Val on Apr 21, 2008 11:50:28 GMT -5
Dawn can probably give you a give overview of them but I believe she's out of town right now. She's been very happy with them. I haven't finished my long stays yet, (but should) and tried making the S&S short stays. I ended up making it too big so I gave up, but here are some good points in making it. You'll need to be able to tie it around the top of the neckline and around the bottom. And be sure to put some good boning it it. The problem I had was it would slide up. When I lifted my arms, the girls would go south. Now, granted, mine was too big, and probably a smaller one would work better, but I got frustrated and gave up. Now I'm thinking would be a good time to finish my long stays since they're halfway done.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Parker on Apr 21, 2008 12:01:16 GMT -5
The short stays I made from the PP pattern work just fine. Saundra Altman offers optional horizontal steel stays to use with the pattern that will keep the girls from wandering off on their own. Elizabethan stays often use a horizontal narrow sausage pad to keep everything at the proper level. That might be an option here.
|
|
|
Post by The Major on Apr 21, 2008 12:01:20 GMT -5
This brings up a question that may be a sidebar, but perhaps someone can satisfy my curiosity. I've heard several ladies, here and elsewhere, talk about how long stays are very uncomfortable while in automobiles, so they have at least inquired with others about short stays. Does anyone know why they had long and short stays in the original period? What brought one about as opposed to the other or what was the purpose? Also, ladies rode in carriages during the Regency, did they too suffer as ladies of today do in automobiles with long stays? Or was the seating that much different in carriages than automobiles?
My apology if this is a distraction, but my curiosity is getting the better of me.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Parker on Apr 21, 2008 12:05:54 GMT -5
Hmm. As a matron, I suppose I need not show a becoming modesty when it comes to discussing ladies undergarments with a gentleman.
Carriages had bench seating whereas autos usually have bucket seats that raise the legs into a position that causes them to hit the bottom of long stays in a rather annoying manner. This can be avoided, for the most part, by customizing the stay pattern, taking the measurements whilst seated in the conveyance of choice.
|
|
|
Post by lauren on Apr 21, 2008 12:07:19 GMT -5
No apologies necessary, Major :-) I'm not sure about the evolution from long to short and then back to long stays. I do know that carriage seats were much different then car seats. First of all, at least from what I've seen, the seats in carraiges were perfect straight with no contures. In our car, at least, the seats are shaped with lumbar support and head support. For me, at least, and this probably has to do with my 5'2" frame, the lumbar support pushes my lower torso out with pushes the upper busk into my sternum. It makes for a very unpleasant ride, complete with minor brusing.
|
|
|
Post by cosmoblue on Apr 21, 2008 12:23:32 GMT -5
I'm doing a little research and I would love some imput from you ladies. I have a pair of long stays, but I'm contemplating making a pair of short stays from the S & S Regency Underthings pattern. My long stays are great, unless I'm sitting in the car. Then they just about kill me. So I'm thinking about having one of each. How do short stays compare with long stay? Thanks! :-) I haven't made short stays yet so I cannot compare them, but I don't have tons of discomfort while riding in the car in mine. It is annoying that I cannot slouch as I normally do, but it is not painful. It may make a difference in how much boning that you have in your long stays and what the fabric is that you have chosen. You could also consider the riding version of long stays which I would guess would be more accommodating of car trips. Your stays may also be too long for you. I am thinking about making short stays as well though.
|
|
|
Post by The Major on Apr 21, 2008 12:30:49 GMT -5
Ladies,
Please believe me, I do not mean to be fresh. It is probably my ignorance because I do not wear such garments. While I have heard/read that some gentlemen did wear a male corset, I do not. Also, I do not really know how long a long stay is, but from what you describe it is fairly long, such that your legs contact the bottom of it.
So it sounds like it is a combination of the length of the stay and the difference in the seat of a carriage vis automobile. It has been a few months since I was last in a carriage, and while a modern manufactured carriage but remembering those seats vis the seats in my LeSabre I think I can imagine the problem and the discomfort that can be caused.
Thank you ladies, I believe I have a better understanding of the toils of which you speak.
|
|
|
Post by Mme de Beaufort on Apr 21, 2008 12:33:23 GMT -5
Body type has a lot to do with what sort of stays work best.
Yes, long stays are not compatible wtih bucket seats. However sitting poised on a chair, there usually isn't a problem. And yes, they are easily customizable to keep it from pushing up when you are forced into a bucket-seat situation.
But I think both types have their redeeming qualities:
Long stays: The Good: Controls tummy, keeps back straighter, posture all around better. The Bad: Sometimes when you sit, everything tends to get pushed upwards. Creative boning and length adjustments can usually cure that.
Medium stays: The Good: Freer movement, same support as the long ones, they stay in the same place when you stand or sit. I find my mid-length one more comfortable, I can drive with it. The Bad: Not exactly the same posture assistance, for more rubenesque creatures like myself, it tends to "bellify" you (they make your belly more pronounced)
Short stays (per the S&S Pattern) The Good: Most unrestricting. Probably great for skinny girls with reasonably sized busts. The Bad: For larger busts, it is not good. It 'buckets' everything, and the boning will just angle out from you, which was sort of painful.
|
|
|
Post by cosmoblue on Apr 21, 2008 12:36:33 GMT -5
This brings up a question that may be a sidebar, but perhaps someone can satisfy my curiosity. I've heard several ladies, here and elsewhere, talk about how long stays are very uncomfortable while in automobiles, so they have at least inquired with others about short stays. Does anyone know why they had long and short stays in the original period? What brought one about as opposed to the other or what was the purpose? Also, ladies rode in carriages during the Regency, did they too suffer as ladies of today do in automobiles with long stays? Or was the seating that much different in carriages than automobiles? My apology if this is a distraction, but my curiosity is getting the better of me. Major, long stays give a very different silhouette than short stays do. Long stays really alter one's posture. Also long stays alter more womanly support than do short stays. In the beginning of the period the look was very much about looking natural and letting a woman's form be admired. The short stays were worn by women who could not in good taste go uncontrolled. Some women could just use their bibs to hold things in place. The longer stays were worn by women who felt comfortable in the stays of the 1700's and those who had more voluptuous bodies. Longer stays became really helpful in holding the bust as high as the fashions later in the period required. Then as the waistline dropped the long stays were required to keep the figure smooth. Seating in a carriage were much different than in a car. Cars are ergonomically designed to fit a human body. Carriage seats were benches. Long stays make a woman's body not like a normal human body so therefore does not match the design of the seat.
|
|
|
Post by cosmoblue on Apr 21, 2008 12:39:27 GMT -5
Long stays: The Good: Controls tummy, keeps back straighter, posture all around better. The Bad: Sometimes when you sit, everything tends to get pushed upwards. Creative boning and length adjustments can usually cure that. The bad that Steph mentioned is all caused by improper fit.
|
|
|
Post by lauren on Apr 21, 2008 12:49:21 GMT -5
Very interesting :-) I'm wondering about the length of my stays. I used a civil war era pattern altered it to be Regency. I'm so short waisted I thought it would fit better than a Regency era corset. It does, except the whole driving thing Oh well, I'm planning on giving short stays a try!
|
|
|
Post by The Major on Apr 21, 2008 12:51:39 GMT -5
Thank you, ladies. Stays have long been a mystery to me and I have not before felt comfortable asking. I appreciate you being candid, I am learning. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Mme de Beaufort on Apr 21, 2008 13:29:55 GMT -5
Long stays: The Good: Controls tummy, keeps back straighter, posture all around better. The Bad: Sometimes when you sit, everything tends to get pushed upwards. Creative boning and length adjustments can usually cure that. The bad that Steph mentioned is all caused by improper fit. In my case, it was mostly by the boning that my thighs would push upwards when I sat.
|
|
|
Post by cosmoblue on Apr 21, 2008 14:07:33 GMT -5
Very interesting :-) I'm wondering about the length of my stays. I used a civil war era pattern altered it to be Regency. I'm so short waisted I thought it would fit better than a Regency era corset. It does, except the whole driving thing Oh well, I'm planning on giving short stays a try! Civil War stays and regency stays have such different construction that that would absolutely not be the best way to judge the function and fit of regency long stays. The seams and boning placement are very different.
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Apr 21, 2008 14:28:09 GMT -5
What a neat thread to come home to! Okay, Steph covered things pretty well here with the basics between the long, medium and short stays. You need to go backward a bit to understand the whole thing. Stays similar to this picture were popular (with basic modifications) almost since Elizabethan times. (That’s a really broad generalization, I know. But what I really mean is that they were completely boned and they modified the natural shape of a woman’s body.) During the late 18th century all kinds of influences caused a dramatic change in the way people had dressed. In France the Age of Reason brought with it revolutionary thoughts and an absolute obsession with the ancient world. Women’s dress began to look like Grecian statues and Roman togas. The waist rose. 1796 fashion plate: With the rising waist the earlier type of stays no longer gave the desired shape. A new fascination with the natural beauty of a woman’s shape is ushered in. We enter a period of experimentation with women’s support garments!!! This period of experimentation lasts, roughly speaking, from about 1790 to 1825. By 1825, the longer, hip length stays with the busk down the front and gussets to support the breasts becomes the norm. From here, the evolution turns more toward what we consider a Victorian corset. – Mind it takes another two decades to get there. The separating busk appears first in the 1830’s by the 1840’s an interest in a small waist takes hold and there is all kinds of ‘medical advice’ about terrible tight-lacing. By 1850 we have a pretty standard Victorian corset. So, the first experiments with modifying the heavily boned flat front stays from the 18th century begin – first some tried to lift and round the bust. The Past Patterns Transitional Stay pattern is a perfect example. This is an EARLY modification. www.pastpatterns.com/030.htmlSome tried cutting a half circle out of the stays for the bust to be lifted but free of confines. If you look closely at these stays you can see that the front is under the bust: Some tried to completely reshape the support system but retained the rows and rows of boning ideas. One result is the Kyoto ‘Brassiere’. The gown ‘waist’ was short, so boning didn’t need to cover under the bust: Another example is half circle cutouts of the traditional stays but a gathered cup is created, as in these stays owned by the Connecticut Historical Society. Note that even though the tabs at the bottom of the stays are not needed, they remain: The idea of adding gussets to create a smoother “cup” for the breast evolves. (I’m unsure about the date on these, but they do show the gusset well.) Between 1800 and 1810 the fullness of the skirt changed dramatically with a much more figure revealing gown emerging. Well, as we all know, not everyone can have the perfect “fashionable” figure! The long stays were developed to help smooth the figure from under bust to hip. There was no intent on remolding the figure shape with these long stays. It was totally intended to smooth and create the “columnar” silhouette and to support the bust. The busk helped support the fashionable posture of the time (upright and graceful with shoulders back – like a dancer). The busk also SEPERATES the breasts and was sometimes referred to as a “divorce corset” (as in divorcing the breasts from each other). Others have already mentioned the problem with bucket seats in the car. If your busk is the right length, you should have no difficulties sitting on other seats or chairs, but the design of car bucket seats can be challenging. I find I can ‘make it work’ by simply sitting UP in the car seat and not using the back support. It depends how far you need to go in the car, I suppose. I’ve said this in another thread, but I’ll say it again here: There is NO reason your long stays should not be comfortable and they should not push your bust uncomfortably toward your chin when you sit down. If they do, you need to shorten the busk. Everyone’s busk length will be a little different so what works for your friend will not necessarily work for you. Everyone’s torso is a different length. And finally, for the Major: Here is a picture of the Prince Regent’s (George IV) stays as drawn by Robert Doyle in his book “Waisted Efforts”. “Prinny” was plump and wore stays possibly evolved from a military garment (think weight lifter’s belt). These are boned but have no busk.
|
|
|
Post by The Major on Apr 21, 2008 15:14:19 GMT -5
Hi Dawn,
Glad you're back, and with some very good information to boot! Do you know if there are any patterns out there for a gentleman's stay? I couldn't even imagine being in the field and commanding troops with one, but for a ball I could see benefit in helping with posture and back.
|
|
|
Post by Mme de Beaufort on Apr 21, 2008 15:33:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Apr 21, 2008 16:09:38 GMT -5
Hello Major, thank you for the ‘welcome back’. This is the man’s corset from Laughing Moon. I haven’t played with this pattern yet but all of the Laughing Moon patterns I’ve seen are meticulously drafted. The instructions are second to none and they are really, really great patterns for ‘those who have never done it before.’ In a nutshell, they are excellent patterns. www.lafnmoon.com/113_underbust_corset.htmlAs you can see, this corset is dated 1894-1909. Much, much later that the Regency Era, I know! However, I could see this as a ‘starting point’. You may also wish to see if you can obtain “Waisted Efforts, an Illustrated Guide to Corset Making” by Robert Doyle from your library or interlibrary loan. There is a chapter in the back called “Miscellaneous Corsets” with a section devoted to Corsetry for Men. There are lots of good images and explanations on the evolution of corsetry for men. He touches on military use and torso wraps and the wasp-waist fashion of the 1830’s. Earlier in the book he describes his method of making a corset pattern from a “toile” which is simply a close fitting body sewn together out of inexpensive muslin and then using a magic marker, he draws the patterns directly on the person he’s making the corset for. Using his method and the images, you could certainly come up with a corset very close to Prince George’s stays. If you’ve never built a corset before, however, the pattern may be your best bet, as it will familiarize you with the necessary materials. You would want to eliminate the busk at the front making this a garment that you loosen the laces in the back and either step into and pull up to your torso or pull over your head and pull down to your torso. Corset building involves the use of eyelets, boning, coutil and cording. Just a little bit from ‘Waisted Efforts’: “This pattern (image at the bottom of page 215) at the bottom of the page was found at the London Museum’s Department of Paper Ephemera. It was reportedly given to the museum by Queen Mary, who found it amongst George IV’s papers. The belt pattern is 56” long, centre front is 9” and centre back is 11” wide, with an 8” width at the sides. Centre front has an indication of a 3-3/4” opening, eyeleted for flexibility, and two other 3” openings also eyeleted, placed at the top side seam area, 10” from the centre front opening. These laced sections would permit a contoured control of the final shape. As can be seen in the illustration of George IV her was certainly a rotund gentleman. The pattern is of gray card, with two stitched additions making the total of 56”. On the top front it is signed by George IV’s tailor…date Oct. 1824 is clearly marked. The belt pattern indicates it was closed by tape buttonholes, and buttons attached to a tape, much like gentlemen’s underdrawers at the time. Casings for the front bones are ¾” wide, which indicates a stout and solid support…There were bones at the side seams and the centre back edges.”
|
|
|
Post by lauren on Apr 21, 2008 16:47:04 GMT -5
Oooh, so much information :-) Thank you all for your input. From the sounds of things, the car seems to be the challenge. I have an idea, why don't we get rid of cars and go back to horses and carraiges ::hee, hee::
|
|