Capt. Sterling

great, keep us posted with your findings

Laracorsets reply: "No, no idea. There are natural starches and protein based glues which would have been available at the time. Good old Elmers watered down always works. They sell liquid starch for shirts which works well too. I just do not know how period the chemistry of each are. They act the same as the period products would though."

Due to the Fort De Chartres Rendezvous at Prairie du Rocher, Illinois possibly being on or near the same weekend, this looks as if it will be a split event for us... Looks like the snotties and I will be attending the school...although I cannot guarantee we will be able to get work off on Friday... but we shall see...along with getting a head count from the east coast members of the crewe.

Hmmmm what do ye think? http://www.cmhg-phmc.gc.ca/cmh/en/image_176.asp?page_id=215

keep em coming... at least someone actually reads some of the stuff we post here...

Quoting Lara from laracorsets, a leader in the historic field regarding corsets and the making of them..."A Stay and a corset are the same thing in different time periods. Before the mid 19th century you rarely hear the word corset used since all "corsets" were stays. After the mid 19th century a "stay" was often used in place of the word corset bone. As in what sort of stays are in your corset or bodice?"

Hmmmm didn't say he should have one... just thought he might like to look at it...

http://www.bmagic.org.uk/objects/1965T5099 Was looking up pc wig stands and ran across this, thought you might like a gander at it

I suppose it all depends then on who actually recorded the images... for example many of the Town Crier illustrations from GAoP... still show heads covered as well as most of the body for many different stations in life... from children on up... I am seeing shorter petticotes both in England and parts of Europe, but I am only seeing uncovered, unkempt hair on illustrations of gypsies... I am not saying they aren't out there, I just have not run across them as of yet...I guess I am, once again, slipping into the old habit of discussing what is common as opposed to what doesn't seem to be coming across regularly in artwork of the period.

As always WONDERFUL!

I do agree with Lady Brower... shorter above the ankle to mid calf is very acceptable for our time frame...ankle length for circa Am. Rev. War is also acceptable... I can post some examples when I get home... and as to strapless stays... granted I have not seen them for GAoP..(yet) but they were acceptable for Rev. War. I will ask some questions regarding glue for stays, as, at the moment, I am only aware of Hide glue that was used in leather work during the 18th century...

Bodice * Place of origin: England (made) * Date: 1700-1729 (made) * Artist/Maker: Unknown * Materials and Techniques: Linen, corded and embroidered with silk thread * Museum number: 494-1902 * Gallery location: In store This is the front of a woman’s informal bodice of the early 18th century, intended for wearing under a loose robe open at the front. The back of the bodice, which has not survived, would probably have been made of plain linen. An embroidered pattern of exotic birds with large blossoms and leaves covers the front. It combines stylistic elements of chinoiserie design in the birds and aspects of late 17th century English embroidery in the flowers and leaves. The background is cord quilted, a quilting technique where instead of padding, thin cords are inserted between parallel lines of stitching.

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...

OH DAMN!!!

Oh and since I completely missed the main gist of this thread.. Linen canvas for interlining...approximately 7.0 oz weight or higher... I have not seen, at least not in my local fabric stores a suitable weight interfacing that will "hang" the same way and give the proper support... and remember this was often stiffened with paste or glue...

Just a simple line drawing from Arnold to show the shifting of the waistline

Kind of reminds a body of Victorian Combing Robes

Scale numbers starting from the Top left at zero...next is 10, then 50 then 100"

what i also know is that to sew a heavily pleated linen if it is weighted medium to heavy weight would be downright heavy and cumbersome to move in......so it seams that all the fabric choices of gowns displayed is rather a light to meduim weight ..... this would also help in the pleating staying so nicely arranged while wearing the skirts....... i do find it odd that they would stick the back fingers of the stays under the skirt back---but whomever arranged the clothing on the model dummy, had to choose what he/ she thought abotu how they wore the gown-- this is a judgement call and has perhaps little to do with historically accurate wearing of the gowns.... this is precisely where paintings fail us.... did the artist paint EXACTLY what he saw, or did he paint to optimize the beauty of the wearer? or a bit of both? { kind of like photo shop today} Capt'n Sterling--- if you could take a look at the scale on that one skirt { seemingly a mantua piece}... so i can do the math....i have 20 yards of linen in a pink and a green that are dying to be cut! i am not so sure that it will work--it is donegal linen and medium weight.....almost seems to heavy for this application... and yet, maybe not....{ considering that i paid less than 2 bucks a yeard for it,i dont think i have much to lose} { and i do have nora waughs cut of womens clothing tome--- but it is for a way earlier period....} I politely disagree... having sewn the over gown directly to the bodice in previous bodiced gowns that I have made, since I had yet to see the early Tissue gown prior to their construction, I used the full amount as required in the pattern posted...once gathered the silk was not bulky and the only trouble sewing was having to figure out how to get around the boning on the bodice...if you use a cartridge pleat, a lot of fabric can be gathered into a small amount of space and it reduced the bulk yet again. I must confess that the correct weight linen would be heavier in the long run as compared to silk, but with a bodice gown being laced tightly like a corset, since it basically is a covered corset, the weight doesn't seem to be an issue... and then 9 yards of linen is nothing compared to a properly made man's coat from the period.. now those can be surprisingly heavy. As to hiding the tabs/fingers under the skirt..there are far too many paintings showing waistlines where there are no tabs seen, so odds are correct that they were hidden under the skirts...remember the tabs are not a decorative addition to the stays(like tabs on Doublets earlier on) but are meant to travel down over the tops of the hips in order to create a nicer look and allow room for the curve of the hips...as the length of the corset is now descending and no longer the short waisted look of the earlier 17th century...

As to wool versus linen in garments... it really depends on where your character "lives". Wool seems to be the most common fabric for petticotes, mantuas, etc in, what we now call the UK. But Williamsburg has evidence that linen was very acceptable for petticotes, mantuas, etc. here in the southern colonies and the Caribbean. As to safety, wool petticotes are still the best around a blazing camp fire.

Honestly it all just boils down to how accurate a person chooses to be..the more authentic the more it makes sense to go that extra mile and do things the way they did..

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...

Sorry Jack, I beg to disagree here.

From what I have seen stays for our time frame were considered underwear and you did not see them except perhaps for a bit in front where the mantua is open...often this is covered by a stomacher...but to see folks walking around in just petticotes, shift and corset, so far as the evidence I have seen, is NOT considered proper/respectable behavior...the same way you would not see the average woman outside with a gown but no stays under them. Aye there are some pictures of the poor where it seems very obvious that the woman is not wearing them but again she is classified as being poor. Same goes for caps through out most of our time frame... loose, unattended hair, would have been considered improper. Even riding habits were worn over stays. Again remember the mind set of the period...just because today a woman might be hot wearing a mantua over the stays to hide them, or walking about with just stays and petticoates might be considered sexy nowadays, does not make it so for our time frame..even plates depicting courtesans show them dressed properly and usually in very nice garments. Often one finds plates showing women in states of undress at home STILL wearing some sort of robe or circular mantelet over their stays. One actually wonders if stays had the same erotic attachment that definitely developed later in the 19th century as erotic paintings from the time usually show women without stays in some sort of loose gown like garment... As to front and back lacing, aye they had both according to Waugh right through our time frame, and also half boned stays as well. Now back to bodiced gowns...

The styles/fashions were different and hair uncovered was certainly acceptable whilst all done up for an important occasion. Some sort of cap or head covering still seems to be the norm for the common woman or common occasion. And yet, the hairstyles are very elaborate, no just let it hang in the breeze, like we unfortunately see at so many events still...but again..that is certainly acceptable for folks not doing Real pirates or something pc.. My pleasure Mickey, glad I got to share a few new ones..