Now you've got me all curious. What are the dimensions of this freakishly huge pocket? I did go a-Googling, and although what I found isn't, I'm sure, a comprehensive representation of pockets, some of them seem quite large to me and I'm in the habit of making pockets in clothing deeper and, in the case of in-seam skirt or trouser pockets, also broader than the pattern indicates. (Always deeper, though!)
I wonder why this one you're duplicating (Erm... Yes? No?) was made so large? Any idea whose it was, or into what socio-economic stratum it falls? I'm thinking that if this was a pocket used by someone who needed an especially capacious pocket.... Well, maybe not. I'm not sure what I was thinking of.
The pocket from Costume Close Up, costume in detail I don't actually have, so I mis-attributed the source in the first place, probably not helping anyone figure out what the hell I"m working on
( ... )
"So it's the pocket on pg 65. It works out to be 17 inches in length, with a slash about 8 inches deep. I scaled it up to be the same size originally, but thought this was large."Ah; I see
( ... )
That link was very helpful! The 13 inch pocket looked about right to my eye.
I'm used to having a handbag. If you were to replace a handbag with a pocket, a largish size wouldn't be too bad, just not the size "Im working on now. 14 as the embroidered area would make a pocket I could conceivably reach. Maybe my way of deciding should be how many wine bottles can be readily stuffed into the pocket. I have a pic a friend took of me with one bottle, but it never quite covered the whole thing. LOL
It was at this site I noticed how many of these pockets do seem to have been embroidered, and how few "plain" pockets are represented. So, I'm wondering if that was because no one wanted plain, undecorated, unembellished pockets, or if hard-used, workaday pockets of plain linen or plain cotton simply got used enough that they wore out.
I'm used to having a handbag, too, but I'll tell you that when belt-bags or belt-pouches or travelers' "franny packs" came into popular use a while back, I thought there never was anything more practical! Rather like these pockets, though, there's a limit to how much weight they can carry without adversely affecting the wearer!
Mmm. I love me some larsdatter. Not that I was voracious about combing the web. I was looking for drop front trousers the other day and just after a couple searches just petered out in my enthusiasm. But thank you for that reminder that they've broadened their time frame for link houses.
Fanny packs problem was how bulky they were at the location. I've seen in the sewing pattern books two or so years ago a sort of flat fanny pack, that's a merge of the two. They were intended as a swank accessory, but looked like an 18th C pocket to me. I looked, but can't find a link for those strange little dears.
Me too neither: I wasn't voracious in combing the 'Web. I just asked Google for "Eighteenth Century Women's Pockets," and the larsdatter site was one which came up
( ... )
Ooh, yes! I've seen this one, linked to from the larsdatter page. I found it charming.
I apologize if my writing was (or is) ambiguous: in speaking of a 21st century pouch or pocket, I meant a belt pouch or fanny pack which met and served your needs without the bulk of 'ordinary' pouches or packs would easily fall within the scope of the many skills and talents you possess. *nod, nod* :^)
I did go a-Googling, and although what I found isn't, I'm sure, a comprehensive representation of pockets, some of them seem quite large to me and I'm in the habit of making pockets in clothing deeper and, in the case of in-seam skirt or trouser pockets, also broader than the pattern indicates. (Always deeper, though!)
I wonder why this one you're duplicating (Erm... Yes? No?) was made so large? Any idea whose it was, or into what socio-economic stratum it falls? I'm thinking that if this was a pocket used by someone who needed an especially capacious pocket.... Well, maybe not. I'm not sure what I was thinking of.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm used to having a handbag. If you were to replace a handbag with a pocket, a largish size wouldn't be too bad, just not the size "Im working on now. 14 as the embroidered area would make a pocket I could conceivably reach. Maybe my way of deciding should be how many wine bottles can be readily stuffed into the pocket. I have a pic a friend took of me with one bottle, but it never quite covered the whole thing. LOL
Reply
I found that page from a link on this one:
http://larsdatter.com/18c/pockets.html
It was at this site I noticed how many of these pockets do seem to have been embroidered, and how few "plain" pockets are represented. So, I'm wondering if that was because no one wanted plain, undecorated, unembellished pockets, or if hard-used, workaday pockets of plain linen or plain cotton simply got used enough that they wore out.
I'm used to having a handbag, too, but I'll tell you that when belt-bags or belt-pouches or travelers' "franny packs" came into popular use a while back, I thought there never was anything more practical!
Rather like these pockets, though, there's a limit to how much weight they can carry without adversely affecting the wearer!
Reply
Fanny packs problem was how bulky they were at the location. I've seen in the sewing pattern books two or so years ago a sort of flat fanny pack, that's a merge of the two. They were intended as a swank accessory, but looked like an 18th C pocket to me. I looked, but can't find a link for those strange little dears.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I apologize if my writing was (or is) ambiguous: in speaking of a 21st century pouch or pocket, I meant a belt pouch or fanny pack which met and served your needs without the bulk of 'ordinary' pouches or packs would easily fall within the scope of the many skills and talents you possess. *nod, nod* :^)
Reply
Leave a comment