Somewhere on this community (I think you'll be going back to the 2012 time zone...) there was an excellent post about this - I think the OP was Cathy Hay, but she used a different name...)
Anyway, the long and short is (if I can recall correctly) to add more room/ease (if you can speak of ease in a corset) in the upper part of the panels at the side of the body.
Do you remember the name, or the name of the article? I'm not entirely sure what to look for.. haha So you're saying to add ease to the top of the corset to fix the back fat? Wouldn't there be even less bust support?
Greetings! I'm very, very late to this conversation, so please forgive me my tardiness.
I'm pretty sure it was Cathy Hay, and the entry helenatroy is referring to was in her journal, at one point under the name "harmonhay and more recently under peacockdress. The thrust of what helenatroy is and Cathy was saying is this, that when you cinch in the waist of a corset with an hourglass figure---more or less an hourglass, anyway---that displaced flesh, even on a very slender person, has to go somewhere, and where it goes is up around the shoulder blades, resulting in "back fat," or down over the abdomen, hips and buttocks, depending on its original distribution in the case of the lower body
( ... )
I see! I've always wondered about the amount of ease in the corset. In drafting patterns, do you know how much ease is added around the ribs to create certain silhouettes? Assuming it begins as just an absolutely straight line from the waist to the underbust, at what point does the additional ease cause the corset to go from being a conical, to a hourglass, or cupped rib? I was thinking of doing test corsets of increasing ease to figure it out, but perhaps asking might me more efficient.
It's not additional ease which changes a conical "paire of bodyes" [payre of bodies and other various spellings but we're talking here about 16thC/1500's "corsets".) Those conical corsets were meant in the 1500s and early 1600s to create a look very much like a man's torso: flattened breasts and, in cross-section, an oblong waist which was not much compressed, the entire paire of bodyes being only snug enough to keep everything in place and not intended to compress anything either abnormally or painfully tightly. I know you're not talking about creating a conical set of stays, here, but just so you know, as a general rule the "stayed" part of that undergarment comes only to the waistline (the natural waistline) except in the very front if the stays have that pointed dropped waistline in front. The tabs you see do no functional shaping: they're there to keep the stays in place (you put the waistband of your petticoat or verdugarde/farthingale) under them at the natural waistline if there's that front point/dip or at the sides and
( ... )
Start with a 2" (5cm) reduction at the waist, the fullest part of the hips, and the bust on your hourglass corset. Then, if you cinch the waist tighter by reducing the waist measurement of the corset, open the bust line by enough that you can breathe, at least, and the hip line on the corset that you don't feel your legs are being cut off or that any bone (on your fitting or trial corset) is about to puncture your lower body. You'll know how much ease you need by the "spread" of the lacing gap down the back. Once the corset fits correctly, that gap should lace evenly (at least that's an ideal in the minds of many, many wearers and makers of corsets) so if you have a 1" (2.5cm) gap at the waistline, (expect a gap; these corsets usually laced up with space between the lacing edges down the back) and a 4" gap at the bust line and a 5" gap at the hips, that will tell you how much ease you need, but remember that a corset does have to hold your figure securely.
The amount of extra space needed above and/or below the waist (of the corset) will be determined by how much extra space you need to feel comfortable while not allowing the corset's upper or lower half, or both halves, to shift around on your body, yet without producing rolls or bulges above the topline or below the bottom edge.
What I was trying to explain regarding the original conical silhouette (which is what I thought you were talking about) and the later, hourglass silhouette was that it wasn't a question of adding ease but rather of an [almost] entirely different cut.
At the link you've provided, it appears as if the difference between conical and not conical is achieved not by adding ease so much as cinching in the corset below the ribs, and possibly above the pelvic girdle. Below the ribs is achieved by pulling in the corset, cutting it smaller and tighter at the waist and up to the floating rib (which may or may not be drastically compressed---I advocate against squishing ribs abnormally tightly.)
Anyway, the long and short is (if I can recall correctly) to add more room/ease (if you can speak of ease in a corset) in the upper part of the panels at the side of the body.
Reply
So you're saying to add ease to the top of the corset to fix the back fat? Wouldn't there be even less bust support?
Reply
I'm pretty sure it was Cathy Hay, and the entry helenatroy is referring to was in her journal, at one point under the name "harmonhay and more recently under peacockdress.
The thrust of what helenatroy is and Cathy was saying is this, that when you cinch in the waist of a corset with an hourglass figure---more or less an hourglass, anyway---that displaced flesh, even on a very slender person, has to go somewhere, and where it goes is up around the shoulder blades, resulting in "back fat," or down over the abdomen, hips and buttocks, depending on its original distribution in the case of the lower body ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I know you're not talking about creating a conical set of stays, here, but just so you know, as a general rule the "stayed" part of that undergarment comes only to the waistline (the natural waistline) except in the very front if the stays have that pointed dropped waistline in front. The tabs you see do no functional shaping: they're there to keep the stays in place (you put the waistband of your petticoat or verdugarde/farthingale) under them at the natural waistline if there's that front point/dip or at the sides and ( ... )
Reply
Start with a 2" (5cm) reduction at the waist, the fullest part of the hips, and the bust on your hourglass corset.
Then, if you cinch the waist tighter by reducing the waist measurement of the corset, open the bust line by enough that you can breathe, at least, and the hip line on the corset that you don't feel your legs are being cut off or that any bone (on your fitting or trial corset) is about to puncture your lower body.
You'll know how much ease you need by the "spread" of the lacing gap down the back. Once the corset fits correctly, that gap should lace evenly (at least that's an ideal in the minds of many, many wearers and makers of corsets) so if you have a 1" (2.5cm) gap at the waistline, (expect a gap; these corsets usually laced up with space between the lacing edges down the back) and a 4" gap at the bust line and a 5" gap at the hips, that will tell you how much ease you need, but remember that a corset does have to hold your figure securely.
Hoping this, too, is of some help.
Reply
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpp-AfTH_sC88eApiwmfceTUU_4OTBC-EqVgR8TbQ2ADFNsYFK
I'm more wondering how much extra space is needed to achieve the different silhouettes.
Reply
What I was trying to explain regarding the original conical silhouette (which is what I thought you were talking about) and the later, hourglass silhouette was that it wasn't a question of adding ease but rather of an [almost] entirely different cut.
At the link you've provided, it appears as if the difference between conical and not conical is achieved not by adding ease so much as cinching in the corset below the ribs, and possibly above the pelvic girdle. Below the ribs is achieved by pulling in the corset, cutting it smaller and tighter at the waist and up to the floating rib (which may or may not be drastically compressed---I advocate against squishing ribs abnormally tightly.)
You don't actually need ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment