Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
michaelsbagley

Bodiced Gown

54 posts in this topic

i defer to you cap'n..........as to where and whys of the tabs being placed under the stays' tabs

what i dont know is what size woman this pattern was made for...

does it seem correct that the top measurement of the skirt was approximately 2oo -220 inches? {base of triangle shape}

and the longest point of the triangle approximately 180-200 inches at length? {point of the triangle}

yah know , enough questions for you!!

my next post will be pics of what i have done.. hopefully that wont take days.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 6.5 yards of material. Sounds and looks about right based off of what I've read on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see... made one for Cheeky using about 6-7 yards (this does not include the petticote) she is small and slender. Made one for Aurore who is closer to my height but not as tall, I would hazard to guess about 5'7"- 5'9", again slender and used nine yards for her gown(again this does not include the petticote)... she has a much lovelier train due to having a much better length. Granted for Cheeky's height, her train is quite suitable... but for both gowns I used the entire width measurement of the pattern posted.

remember whilst using that over skirt pattern, that it gathers at the waist and so one needs to take into consideration how much of it is used for the waist to floor measurement and how much you want left over for a train...

Edited by Capt. Sterling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course if you did a shorter train or, in my case, no train, it would take less. I am hoping we can get mine out of 6-7 yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the hedgehog look! That's fantastic, isn't it? I was bouncing off the walls when I spotted that. Laughed as that became retro in the late 18th c. LOL, ironic, hmm?

~Lady B

Nothing new under the sun, Lady B. Everything repeats itself with just a bit of tweaking.. I had a phenomenal hedgehog wig whilst doing the later end of the Rev. War... worked great for balls unfortunately never rode well under a dragoon helmet... :o

LOL... That darn Afro- hedgehoge look. :) At least would make for a heck of a prank - bad helmet hair. :o

Anyway... back to the bodice gown....

I would imagine one would have to factor in how long one wants the train to be, right? Since your using the length of the fabric rather than the wideth like on mose 18th c petticoats and overskirting. Aye? Maybe 6-7 yards sounds about right. :)

~Lady B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mid 17th century: 17thwomanatspinet.jpg

This is a much more informal example...

Edited by LadyBrower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello:

Here is my two pence worth.

I have been doing corsets, and period clothing since 1974.

I have studied tailoring for the time periods from 1600 through to 1830.

I have a better collection of research books and reference books than the Indianapolis Library.

I have five formal sack gowns and have made many corsets.

I was Queen Mary at one festival and Queen Elizabeth at another. So, I have the Clothes!!!!

First of all the terminology being used in this thread is driving me crazy.

I know terms changed along with fashions, but ...

The only picture that comes through on this thread is showing a MANTUA, with the skirts pulled back.

The mantua can be attached or free flowing at the back.

A GOWN falls from the shoulders with no incutting for the waist. Think night gown.

Dresses with the top attached to the skirt were not normal until the Napoleon era and later.

A sack gown is also a good example. The front attaches to the yoke up and over the shoulder, and it

falls from the back neck yoke fitted to the person.

I have made a formal, full length sack gown in two hours. They are very simple if you have a dress form and

the yoke cut to mirror the shoulder slope of the person.

The late 1600/early 1700 corset is off the shoulder and pulls the shoulder blades back,

when wearing on a lady could not raise her arms to shoulder level. Which was considered a vulgar movement.

The formal corset for that time period that would have been required wearing for the King's court was a very long

one. The front point came down as low as the "lady's honor". (If you know where that is)

Hence the picture showing the woman slouched in the chair, as you could not sit straight up with one on!

My first corset was made thus, and bending was one of the things I could not do in it!

As for using period patterns, some are good but a lot of them do not have the neck-back shoulder seam at the proper angle or at the

right height. It must be cut for each person individually.

None of the clothing for women or men should have a shoulder seam on top of the shoulder.

Especially if it is a military coat. No seams to rub with all the gear they carried on their shoulders..Makes sense.

The front continued up and over the shoulders and joined a hand width down. This fitting made that seam

to fall almost on a bias and helped it to give when the arms are raised to fire a weapon.

My Captain husband is a carpenter and the back muscles near his neck means that the back piece ends up almost 5 inches longer

than the patterns to allow for his build.

I see so many coats cut wrong. I can fit a pattern to a person, But I can not fix them all.

Spitfire Stevens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you ....much of what is displayed in museums of extant clothing has been sewn together at later dates as to allow for display and were not the construction of the period (at least from what I was told at the Edinburgh Museum). But, since this is not my main area of expertise and my hard documentation is not extensive and I was dealing with recollection of 40+ years ago. I'm so glad of the contribution of someone who has more extensive expertise than myself(doesn't always take much in tailoring). I was also told at the time that common womens' stays were often cut differently because they didn't have the luxury of not raising their arms; much the way that few women today wear haute couture in their daily lives but they wear practical clothing that fits their lifestyles and budgets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well lady stevens, i appreciate your input.....

posted below are the front and back of a current gown { from our time}...

see where the shoulder is ...

{now i know thegown is a bit loose on me} but i am going to incorporate the sleeve placement on a set of stays pattern and make a bodiced gown ( top and bottom coodinate but are not one} (drafting the pattern from the stays superimposed with sleeve as they are attached to the dress pictured...

do you think that would work,and be close enough????

DSCN5191.jpg

DSCN5189.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mid 17th century: 17thwomanatspinet.jpg

This is a much more informal example...

'

I believe Waugh has a pattern for a jacket similar to this and a photo of an original as well... will check when home from work and post if possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51HGf6UJDgL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

Connie:

This book has the corset you need on the front page! The straps are off the shoulder, and it is just gorgeous!

If I remember right there were separate lace-on sleeves.

I have the book and can copy the pages on the corset, if you send me an address to mail it.

The lovely modern princess style wedding dress you have on does have similar back lines. But not on the front.

The front is shaped for a modern bust, not one flattened up from the stomach like a period corset would do.

But, if you took in in on the center back side seams, following the line and just take it in about an inch on both sides.

Have you found the site: www.costume.org

More information!!!!

Spitfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the terminology... we refer to the boned, separate bodice top as a bodice gown to clarify it from the actual mantuas of the time which were loose gowns, with pleated backs, sewn down or often just belted, which were not boned but worn over stays. I believe Kass MaGann coined the term

Edited by Capt. Sterling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I am not quite sure what you mean by the statement "The only picture that comes through on this thread is showing a MANTUA, with the skirts pulled back."

The term mantua, as we use it for GAoP, in origin seems not to be used until 1670s when referring to the loose gown, which did not lace up the back, which a few of the illustrations, when viewing the originals, certainly show lacing up the back..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lady Spitfire--

check your PM's-- you shall have my address instantly...

i have long drooooooled over purchasing that book 87 bucks cheapest copy on alibris.com...

somedeay i shall purchase it....

and i shall await the copies of pages you can send me.

getting right good at drafting patterns...

giddy happy laghter!!!! :) :) :)

lady constance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pinkstays.jpg

here save you a stamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will type out the info and give you enlargements when I get home from work...will also post it in the stays thread instead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mid 17th century: 17thwomanatspinet.jpg

This is a much more informal example...

'

I believe Waugh has a pattern for a jacket similar to this and a photo of an original as well... will check when home from work and post if possible

Cool, thank you. So this is more of a Jacket, than a "bodice"? Looking at the lines, it seems similar to the other bodice gown tops. Is it the sleeves that make a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah need to correct myself and offer apologies for getting the term wrong on this one...this is indeed referred to as a boned bodice by Waugh...I was recalling the wrong garment, which is an earlier jacket on the proceeding page...

Waughsilkbodice.jpg

Waughjacket.jpg

Caption for the photo states: c. 1650-60. Boned bodice of blue moire silk. The construction of the foundation of this bodice is shown in Fig. 12. (If anyone wishes to see this please let me know and I will scan it in as well).

Again my apologies for the wrong information.

Edited by Capt. Sterling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

capt. sterling, is waugh's cut of women's clothing back in print ?? last time i checked it was not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm since I have had my copy since the dawn of time...ahem... I was unaware that it was unavailable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha. It's "available".... but the lowest price on Amazon is $70.17

But I may as for it for my birfday anyway. =P

Thanks for the "revised" information. It is much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

about a year and a half ago, amazon had it listed as "out of print"... apparently, something has changed :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me that the difficulty in making the the pieces of the bodice was very time consuming and sewing them together. In today's world we at least can make patterns that are more comprehensive and can be altered to our needs and having a sewing machine is the best! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it this a boned garment? If so, is it fully boned like our stays for GAOP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmm....

i would wait on captain sterling or spit fire stevens to answer that question....{they seem to have all the good books!!!}

i KNOW they are boned..... just dont know if fully boned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0