Sewing help

Nov 13, 2007 15:04

Okay. This is going to be a long, ranty costuming post about how much I hate fashion from the 1820's through the 1870's, so I'm putting it behind a cut. But I do still need some help. . .

HELP ME! )

Leave a comment

ariyanakylstram November 14 2007, 01:12:07 UTC
One comment about riding habits of the era from a practical perspective..

Your skirts are long, and lopsided, for sitting sidesaddle.

Be prepared to either fake it with a short skirt, find some way to "bustle up" your spare skirt, or carry around your extra skirt all day while you're not mounted.

See: http://www.corsetsandcrinolines.com/tidbits.php?index=13 top picture

As for the era...
I don't honestly mind the look -- it's all about the waist and clean lines, m'dear, and you have a delightful waist and all the ability in the world to choose tailored over floofy.

For example, I point you at my last two costumes:
http://danceslut.net/photography/Dickens/DickensFair2003/EstellaHavisham.jpg
http://danceslut.net/photography/Dickens/DickensFair2006.2/KateNickleby.jpg

...and *this* is the inspiration for the current dress (in progress):
http://dept.kent.edu/museum/costume/bonc/3timesearch/tsnineteenth/1840-1859/1983.1.73D.jpg
http://dept.kent.edu/museum/costume/bonc/3timesearch/tsnineteenth/1840-1859/1983.1.73F.jpg

But seriously, like they all said, you can wear whatever the heck you want, if you don't have to pass costume approval.

Reply

akasha_zuul November 14 2007, 01:30:46 UTC
Well. . . it would be nice to have something that I can convince costume approval people is actually *period*. That way I'm not wasting my effort for next year! If I really didn't care at all, I'd be making another bustle gown. Having a drawing that actually says "1849" on it that I can make a dress from goes a long way towards costume approval. . . At least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

That whole lopsided concept makes sense when you think about the actual horse and sitting on said beastie. I'm hoping to fake it a bit with a bit of a train, like this:

http://pre1900prints.com/Fashion/EquestrianG49.htm

And nope, you still can't convince me that gowns with strange droopy shoulders and sleeves are attractive. Although I really do like your Nickleby gown, probably because it is similar to what I am envisioning for my riding gown! : )

Reply

demode November 14 2007, 02:07:47 UTC
Hmmm - if you're thinking of this as a future costume to wear when working Dickens, I'd be surprised if they approved a riding costume specifically. You could probably get away with something tailored, but I doubt a riding costume would pass approval.

Reply

ariyanakylstram November 14 2007, 19:56:39 UTC
The Nickleby gown has the low shoulders. It's Simplicity 4400, fitted to me, with my own skirt. The heavy linen I was working with didn't want to make the double-puff sleeves, so I made a single puff. Simplicity 3791 isn't bad either.

Like I said, it sounds like what you want is "tailored" rather than "fuffy". While "fuffy" is period, tailored is as well.

http://www.mccord-museum.qc.ca/largeimages/NBM/33697.JPG
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/barnard/theater/kirkland/3136/Early_19th_Century_Gallery/pages/1837.htm
(dress on the right: 1842)
http://www.museum.vienna.at/images/Ausstellungen/Mode/billetSA273a2.jpg

The trick is "big shoulders, big skirt, small waist"

Reply

akasha_zuul November 14 2007, 20:29:15 UTC
That's the big I've been missing. Big shoulders. I keep getting drawn back to photos with thinner shoulders (i.e. more tailored shoulders), but that is the difference between 1870 and 1840.

Ahhhh. Well, I can do that. : )

Reply

isara November 14 2007, 03:25:05 UTC
Your skirts are long, and lopsided, for sitting sidesaddle

according to my research, they weren't lopsided until the 1870's. Before then, they were just 9-16" longer than normal and still a big rectangle.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up