Chemises and Shifts

[LadyBarbossa]

Having the slit or not having it does not mean it right or wrong. Some did have the slit, some did not. Depending upon the providence and style of that time period. But mostly the providence ye be from. Don't be kickin' yo'rself for doing it wrong if it's a period pattern style.

I haven't seen piccies of it (unless I had one and it's disappeared) of chemises without a drawstring neckline. But seeing Elizabeth Swann in the first film and some other period films where some characters had chemises that did not have the drawstring neckline, I've been searching for something. Tougher finding the undergarments than it is the outer garments.

Unless someone has found a pic of a piece from the 18th c that does not have a drawstring neckline.

Yes, I am working on a chemise like this (albeit slowly, still finding something a little more concrete). I have an old nightgown though that is low cut, no drawstring and looks mighty like a period chemise. I've worn it a couple times as a chemise under my period attire and have fancied the neckline cause it dipped down low enough it was not seen when I wear my outer garments. Sorry, but I find that utterly embarassing to show th' chemise or shift when wearing something a little more nicer than a milkmaids outfitting of a bodice, shift and skirt.

Oh and that other part that drove me nuts was the sleeve being so utterly long (beyond the elbow) when most outer garments went to the elbow.

Ok... went in search. Again, too difficult to find a surviving piece from the era. But here is the interesting chemise that was made for Keira Knightley for her role as Miss Swann, the chemise worn under the gold ceremony gown.

A camisole was worn over it since it was a bit see through, the chemise made of dotted swiss. And yes, that's mighty thin. :)

~Lady B

[Capt. Sterling]

Well in the shifts I've made I put a silt in the neck line. Crap was that wrong?

What kind of slit?? Center front neckline about 3" or so down? like in the sketch I posted?

Edited January 8, 2009 by Capt. Sterling

[Capt. Sterling]

A camisole was worn over it since it was a bit see through, the chemise made of dotted swiss. And yes, that's mighty thin. :)

~Lady B

This looks rather like the chemise dress circa 1785...

[Jack Roberts]

Well I think i cut down to about 4 or 5 inches. I'm not at home to check.

[Capt. Sterling]

Not a problem... there's the slit in the first sketch... its from an original, so the slit is fine.

[callenish gunner]

Since these chemises were hand made from various locations and by different makers without a standard quality control or the presence of the chemise police I'm sure there are variations a chemise from London's Cheapside might be different from one from Sussex and different from one from Southhampton and different from Port Royal. They weren't all model CHM7651 an exclusive design

[Silkie McDonough]

Crud ...I used model CHM7615 ...I hope what shows is acceptable.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Silkie McDonough

[LadyBarbossa]

I've just not seen any period piece like the one I posted above. But have seen in a couple period films both the drawstring and the gathered (but no drawstring) chemise. Yeah, it kinda looks like one of those late 18th c chemise dresses, doesn't it? Almost, but not quite. Looks like that PotC chemise is open down the front to the navel and drawn together by ties.

PotC did range widely throughout the 18th c give or take a decade or two under or over that century. So it was difficult to pinpoint the exact date.

And true, Callenish. Very true there. Shoot, I've read that women in the Colonies often would decorate with their own lace they made, the macaroni, and tatting, etc. Even embroider their own petticoats and other clothing pieces. There are those pieces out there.

But the chemise, most often others won't see that (too few will).

~Lady B