Author: kendra

Posted on

COMMENTARY

dress conversions

I recently picked up a 1971 issue of the Bulletin of the Costume Institute (Met Museum) on ebay, and there’s a fascinating article on dress conversions.

Apparently a number of dresses in the Met’s collection, including the 1690-95 mantua that’s in In Style: Celebrating 50 Years of the Costume Institute and this 1780s robe a l’anglaise were remade at various points in their life, and the museum decided to reconvert them back to as “original” a state as they could.

The 1780s robe a l’anglaise, for example, was actually originally a 1760 robe a la francaise, later remade around 1785ish, and then again around 1900. They found some really interesting things when they unpicked the dress — for example, when they took apart the c. 1900 bodice, they found a pleat at the bodice side front seams that covered the original (1760s) armhole.

Fascinating reading!

Posted on

COMMENTARY

subtle

Further thoughts on my last post… I’m wondering if maybe those things like fit and color schemes are precisely the things that are hardest to learn because they are so ingrained. Our ideas of what is attractive is so subconscious — perhaps it’s easier to notice things like “oh, so in the 18th century they often wore two skirts, one of which was open in the front to show the skirt underneath” than something more subtle like “hey, Victorians seem to like color combinations which to my eye clash!”

I think it’s interesting that not only have our ideas of what is an attractive figure, facial and facial features shape(s), and hair color changed, but so have our associations — in the 19th century, brown hair was considered more attractive than blond because it was more demure, and freckles were bad because only poor people went out in the sun (guess I would have been screwed!). My theory on the modern trend of fake nails is that it is a holdover from similar associations — “I have long nails, which means I don’t do manual labor.” Hmmmmm!

Posted on

COMMENTARY

obvious?

because of my current project, which has included lots of trolling through web sites. And I have to say that I’m amazed by the number of costumers who just Get It Wrong.

This is not to say that there aren’t people out there who make/wear costumes and who A) don’t care about being period, B) are new to this whole costume/sewing thing, C) just want to look pretty, and D) can’t afford to buy/make/have made everything correctly. Not everyone has the same goals in mind, and I’m fine with that. I often use synthetic fabrics as a means of saving money, and my preference for tailored clothing in daily life often translates into my costuming. I think I made just about the most toned-down version of an 1830s dress possible!

However, in spite of this caveat, there are just so many people out there who make what seem to me to be really cringe-inducing mistakes! I can live with those who are using Simplicity patterns or who aren’t ready to deal with period undergarments, but pre-20th century bodices should be fitted. There’s so such thing as “ease” in 18th century bodices! Another big one is the desire to use coordinating colors — one color for the robe, another for the petticoat and trimmings. Most 18th century dresses were made of all one fabric/color! This is obvious from a perusal of any book with color images. (Yes, there were exceptions, but not THAT many!)

Not a rant, just a musing.