Lets make Authentic Hand Sewn 18th C Shirts

[kass]

You're not wrong, Greg. 22" was a very common linen width since the earliest times. But by the early 18th century, wider widths were definitely in use.

I'm quoting from Linda Baumgarten's "Costume Close Up -- Clothing Construction and Pattern 1750-1790."

"About linen width. After shrinkage has been taken into account, the width of the linen in this shift corresponds roughly to the period designation of 7/8 linen, which means that the linen is 7/8 of a yard wide. Calculated another way, it is 7 times 4 1/2" (1/8 yard), for a total of 31 1/2". Other standard linen widths were yard wide (36"), 3/4 (3 times 1/4 yard or 27"), and 5/4 (5 times 1/4 or 45"). Manufacturers did not always conform to exact standards, however, and comsumers occasionally complained that textiles were not quite as wide as their designations." (Kinda like how modern 2x4s are 1.75" x 3.75" and not 2"x4"...)

Granted this is later than the GAoP, but since the construction of shirts did not change since the 1600s, it's reasonable to assume that the linen widths did not either.

Here's a quote from an article I wrote on shirts and shifts to muddy the width issue further:

"A man's shirt from 16th century Italy (shown in Dorothy Burnham's "Cut My Cote") is made from a 27" wide length of linen folded in the middle and slashed for the head... A shirt from the end of the 16th century and now housed in the Museum of Costume in Bath, England, is constructed similarly but the body is a whopping 38" wide and the stand collar is reinforced with triangular gussets at either side of the neck... A number of 18th century shirts from Pennsylvania are almost identical in design despite the time and distance that separates them from these European examples. The bodices of these shirts are roughly 30" wide by 80" long and they retain the same sleeves, collars, cuffs, and gussets of the 16th century shirts. Even women's shirts got in on the act. A few 17th century women's shirts in the Victorian and Albert Museum in London are identical to the men's shirts except for two elements. They are longer in the body than the men's and they have triangular gores set in each side seam below the underarm gussets which creates the width necessary to be able to walk unhindered in the longer version."

About piecing, I've examined a number of shirts and shifts myself and it's quite common to see the top of a shift made out of very fine linen and the rest of the shift (that doesn't show) made out of linen so coarse, you wouldn't want it next to your skin. You also see men's collars and cuffs made in finer linen than the rest of the shirt. And a line of stiching across the bottom of the shirt or shift is also seen. I actually made my early 17th century shift like this because I ran out of the good linen, and then I found out how period appropriate it was.

It's like photography -- if you don't see it, it's not there!

More later, guys. I have to work on a 1620s ensemble today.

Kass

[Fox]

Thanks Kass!

I have a couple of shirts copied from a late 17thC example which a friend kindly made me a pattern for, but I also have about 5 shirts "based" on the 16thC shirt in Bath. At long events where I need a good number of shirts (especially at really hot or really wet events, I HATE putting a damp shirt on!) I have been known to use my 16thC shirts for 18thC events - now you tell me I'm authentic! woohoo!

Actually, they're really not that different anyway, which is why I've nver been too worried about it, but it's good to know it's ok after all.

[kass]

Yeah, ain't it cool? As a multi-period reenactor, having shirts that can do double duty is really convenient.

From the earliest shirt I can think of (dated 1540), the basic shape of men's shirts doesn't change until the 19th century. Width and details, yes, but not the basic shape.

Women's shifts/smocks/shirts on the other hand vary wildly, but usually the changes are in the neckline, not the body of the shirt. But unfortunately fewer of these seem to have survived.

I received great info on a woman's shift dating to 1700 from the Gallery of Costume in Manchester. It's very clearly a transition garment between the manly styles of the 1600s and the low scooped neckline of the late 18th century. Can't wait to take a break and make myself one!

But first, I have slashed and paned satin doublets to work on...

[Patrick Hand]

Of all the shirts I've examined or read about, none were made with the seam sitting perfectly on the shoulder. The shoulder seam should sit about four inches or more down your arm.

I guess I should have been more specific.... that's about where my shirt fits (about 4" down) I wasn't sujesting that the shoulder seam should sit on the shoulder like a modern shirt. but in the picture, I thought it looked like it was maybe about 2" down.

I was messing aroung with the shirt that I wore to PiP (the one with the shoulder seam about 4" down, that kinda "binds")... by folding the body of the shirt so the shoulder seam didn't go 4" down, but about 2 " seemed to fit better, and figured that I will made my next shirt with the shoulder seam "shorter" . It will still drop over the shoulder, and by gathering fabric into the neck hole, the body wont be tight....

I'm making a Buccaneer shirt, using some of the period drawings , and the shirt from The Museam of costume, Bath (never mind the black work....) as reference. Unfortunately the picture of a Buccaneer in a shirt....you can't tell exactly where his shoulders are....... so there is a bit of guess work envolved.......

[kass]

Ah, I misunderstood you, Patrick.

Well, it sounds like you have a very good plan now. Get ready for the 22nd and we'll start then!

Kass