1889 Chemise
Since I needed a new chemise for the bustle outfit, I made one today. I was planning on using my 1860s chemise, but I hate it*, so I ripped it apart to make this one. It took me about four hours, from drafting the pattern to hemming. I used the 1889 chemise pattern from The Ladies Treasury, a online collection of patterns/articles from 19th century fashion magazines.
And I know I promised pictures of myself in my underwear sometime on this journal, but today is not that day. It's just laid out on my bed.
Stats
The pattern. I traced it out on a cut-open grocery bag. It fit perfectly, as in the exact same width as the pattern at its widest and the exact same length as the pattern at its longest. I LOVE GROCERY BAGS.
The first picture is of the chemise laid out on my bed, with me hovering over it on my tiptoes. The second is from the foot of the bed, and it's distorted because of the angle. It's 69 inches at the hem and 48 at the bust. Much less full than an 1860s chemise. The front is identical to the back, except it's gathered less, because my back measurment is a littler big bigger than my front upper chest measurment.
I took absolutely no pictures of the process of sewing it together. So text!
I flat-felled the side seams. Since I recently read the manual for my sewing machine for the first time ever (I lost it like a week after I got the machine and Mom recently unearthed it), I was playing with the blind-hem foot before I started working on this. I discovered that the blind-hem foot is great for making neat flat-felled seams (and cheater's pintucks, but I'll talk about that later.) The I sewed the straps/shoulders together, and half-inch from the point, and trimmed the seam allowance down to a quarter-inch. No other finishing there.
At that point, I tried it on. I discovered that the armholes weren't nearly big enough. (Grrr, farm girl muscles.) I ended up making them deeper by about an inch and a half. Then I gathered the neckline very slightly. The picture of the finished product at The Ladies Treasury doesn't show much gathering at all, so that seems right. To gather it, I stitched two lines an eighth of an inch apart on a very long stitch setting, and then I stitched a line to hold it over that. The same for the back.
After that, I had to decide how to finish the armholes and the neckline. The pattern includes a piece called the band, but I could make neither head nor tails of it. The picture doesn't appear to have a band at the neckline or the sleeve, so I didn't use that. "Screw the band!" I said. Here's what I did:
At first, I thought I'd be really lazy and just do a scalloped zig-zig all around and trim to the stitching. But then I remembered I had a lot of lace in my stash, and since this project is pretty much about destroying my stash, I decided to go with that.
To apply the lace, first I basted a line using contrasting thread a quarter-inch from the edge. Then I pinned the lace in place, with the "stitching ditch" for it just below the basting line. I stitched it in place, then removed the contrasting thread. Then I ironed the edge of the fabric under, and used a very short and narrow plain zig-zag to stitch over the lace again. Since the lace is polyester/cotton, the polyester thread doesn't show up at all. On the neckline, I then used a scalloped zig-zag to hold down the ironed under edge.
I did the same thing for the armholes, except I had already used the scalloped zig-zag to finish the armholes, so I pinned the lace just behind that so it would be folded under.
I used a straight stitch to hem the chemise.
I am pleased with it. It took very little time, and it has a little bit of lace on it. It makes me feel girly. There's nothing especially to be proud about with the construction, but I know I can toss it in the washing machine and not worry. It balances out.
Of course, now I have the urge to make myself a pair of drawers with tons of embroidery and lace and tucks. But I'm out of white muslin, so it's going to have to wait.
*The 1860s chemise was the Simplicity pattern, the sleeves were too full to fit under anything. I can't figure out what the pattern designer was thinking with that.
And I know I promised pictures of myself in my underwear sometime on this journal, but today is not that day. It's just laid out on my bed.
Stats
- Fabric: about 2.5 yards of 36" wide cotton muslin
- Thread: White Guterman polyester
- Notions: White polyester/cotton eyelet lace, app. 1.5 yards
The pattern. I traced it out on a cut-open grocery bag. It fit perfectly, as in the exact same width as the pattern at its widest and the exact same length as the pattern at its longest. I LOVE GROCERY BAGS.
The first picture is of the chemise laid out on my bed, with me hovering over it on my tiptoes. The second is from the foot of the bed, and it's distorted because of the angle. It's 69 inches at the hem and 48 at the bust. Much less full than an 1860s chemise. The front is identical to the back, except it's gathered less, because my back measurment is a littler big bigger than my front upper chest measurment.
I took absolutely no pictures of the process of sewing it together. So text!
I flat-felled the side seams. Since I recently read the manual for my sewing machine for the first time ever (I lost it like a week after I got the machine and Mom recently unearthed it), I was playing with the blind-hem foot before I started working on this. I discovered that the blind-hem foot is great for making neat flat-felled seams (and cheater's pintucks, but I'll talk about that later.) The I sewed the straps/shoulders together, and half-inch from the point, and trimmed the seam allowance down to a quarter-inch. No other finishing there.
At that point, I tried it on. I discovered that the armholes weren't nearly big enough. (Grrr, farm girl muscles.) I ended up making them deeper by about an inch and a half. Then I gathered the neckline very slightly. The picture of the finished product at The Ladies Treasury doesn't show much gathering at all, so that seems right. To gather it, I stitched two lines an eighth of an inch apart on a very long stitch setting, and then I stitched a line to hold it over that. The same for the back.
After that, I had to decide how to finish the armholes and the neckline. The pattern includes a piece called the band, but I could make neither head nor tails of it. The picture doesn't appear to have a band at the neckline or the sleeve, so I didn't use that. "Screw the band!" I said. Here's what I did:
At first, I thought I'd be really lazy and just do a scalloped zig-zig all around and trim to the stitching. But then I remembered I had a lot of lace in my stash, and since this project is pretty much about destroying my stash, I decided to go with that.
To apply the lace, first I basted a line using contrasting thread a quarter-inch from the edge. Then I pinned the lace in place, with the "stitching ditch" for it just below the basting line. I stitched it in place, then removed the contrasting thread. Then I ironed the edge of the fabric under, and used a very short and narrow plain zig-zag to stitch over the lace again. Since the lace is polyester/cotton, the polyester thread doesn't show up at all. On the neckline, I then used a scalloped zig-zag to hold down the ironed under edge.
I did the same thing for the armholes, except I had already used the scalloped zig-zag to finish the armholes, so I pinned the lace just behind that so it would be folded under.
I used a straight stitch to hem the chemise.
I am pleased with it. It took very little time, and it has a little bit of lace on it. It makes me feel girly. There's nothing especially to be proud about with the construction, but I know I can toss it in the washing machine and not worry. It balances out.
Of course, now I have the urge to make myself a pair of drawers with tons of embroidery and lace and tucks. But I'm out of white muslin, so it's going to have to wait.
*The 1860s chemise was the Simplicity pattern, the sleeves were too full to fit under anything. I can't figure out what the pattern designer was thinking with that.