Real Women’s Clothing Guide

So I’ve got good news and bad news.  The good?  There are SO MANY museums that are putting their costume collections online — since my last update to the Real Women’s Clothing guide, there’s been the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Colonial Williamsburg, and Centre de Documentació i Museu Tèxtil de Terrassa, among I’m sure many others.  The bad?  There’s just no way I can keep up with adding and maintaining that many individual links.  Seriously — run some searches in some of these new databases, there are hundreds if not thousands of individual items that I would need to add/maintain.  Given that the last real update to the Real Women’s Clothing guide was in November 2008, I think it’s time to give up the ghost.

Instead, I have created a directory of Digital Collections of Extant Costumes, which includes both collection databases and static webpages with images of historic costume.  This will be much more easily updated, and I can now include museums/collections that don’t include women, or go outside of the date range, of the previous Real Women’s Clothing guide.  I tried to include searching instructions where I thought they would be needed, especially with non-English language sites.  If you know of any museums that I’ve missed, please let me know!

I will leave the old version of the Real Women’s Clothing guide up, as I know many people find it useful… but I won’t be updating it anymore. (I’ll add redirects off that site to the new directory very soon).

And a fair offer, as I always said I would do this:  if there is someone who is CRAZY enough to want to take over updating/adding to the Real Women’s Clothing guide in its previous incarnation on your own website, I will happily pass that on to you — but we should talk so you get an idea of how much work you’re signing up for!

Doublet Nearing Completion…But I Need Advice!

Doublet!  I made one, and shockingly quickly too!  After procrastinating all Spring Break (ie working on something for myself), I forced myself to pick up this project.  Luckily I’d already done one mockup & fitting, so I was able to get most of this done in about two days.  I shock myself!  And I actually kind of enjoyed it, because I felt like I knew what I was doing.  The handwork took a bit longer — adding trim that I couldn’t machine sew on, putting in the lining.  But that’s stuff I can do on the couch on a weeknight.

But there’s an issue… I put this on Michael, and he said (very nicely), “It’s too tight!  It feels like a suit jacket that’s 1-2 sizes too small.”  Now, I have NO idea what it should feel like to wear a doublet, so I don’t know if I screwed something up or whether this is just an issue of a man who has never worn costume before (okay, he’s worn 1920s but that’s totally different).  Any guesses?  There are some wrinkles going from the front of his armscye to his underarm, so I was thinking I could open up the armhole more (UGH THE WORK!), but won’t that just make things tighter by having a bigger armscye?  I had him lift his arms up as high as he could go, so you can see his arm movement range… the back looks good – no real wrinkles – altho I’m guessing that’s where the “too small” comes in.  I could piece a strip in to make the doublet itself wider by piecing something next to the arm (UGH THE WORK), but is that even going to help?  And, is this a problem that needs fixing?

Ham Pants!

One random thing I do is make up dorky songs.  Mostly these get sung to the critters, but sometimes they are sewing-related.  This is relevant because I came up with a song about “ham pants,” and thus Michael’s trunkhose got their name.  (Okay, they were Ood Pants for a while, because the panes were very tentacle-y, but now they’re Ham Pants).

So, uh, yeah, I’ve worked on these.  A LOT!  Boy clothes are boring, I have decided.  Although I am having crazy thoughts of making some super over the top 18th century man’s outfit for myself and cross-dressing, just because 18th c. men’s clothing is fab and when will I ever have a chance to make it?  But now I am off topic.

So I made Michael’s shirt a loong while ago, working from the Tudor Tailor book.  All very easy, rectangular construction, except for the fact that the collar was about .5″ too small, so I cut a new one and somehow brilliantly cut it even SMALLER, so ended up making/attaching the collar 3 times.  Someday it will get ties at the neck and cuffs.  It will probably never get a hem (hey, I often leave my shifts unhemmed, so it’s standard practice!).

But the trunkhose were made using the Tudor Tailor sized patterns, which are EXPENSIVE given the exchange rate.  They really need a US supplier!

And let me tell you about this pattern.  It was drafted very nicely — all the pattern pieces matched up and went together.  Fitting the pants was relatively easy, as it was just a matter of fitting the fitted lining, then extending the length on the various pattern pieces to match (my husband is 6’5″).

BUT:

1. The pattern sheets are HA-UGE.  I mean seriously, ridiculously, crazy huge.  I took a picture to show you how it basically covered 1/2 of the square footage of my sewing room, but I seem to have lost it.  It made tracing off the various pieces a serious pain.  Luckily the doublet is on one sheet, and the trunkhose on two, so it’s not that crazy Simplicity hunt for a tiny piece on a random sheet.  But DUDE, that’s a seriously big piece of paper.

2. Even more importantly, THE INSTRUCTIONS SUCK.  The pattern instructions included with the (scaled, not the book) pattern are exactly the same ones as in the book.  I first looked at them and though, “Eh, no problem.  I’m a pretty decent seamstress, and I don’t usually bother to follow pattern instructions anymore (when I bother to use patterns).”  But this was my first time sewing this garment, and I admit I needed a bit of guidance.  Now, yes I could have gone and read every bit of Janet Arnold and scoured the web, but I don’t think I should NEED to do this in order to make up your pattern.

There are a few more photos vs. the book, but they are faded color copies and are hard to make out.  One photo completely puzzled me until Teresa figured it out, explained it to me, AND I looked at it upside down.  It still makes no sense when I look at it right side up.

Most importantly (and this goes for the book too):  they tell you to do some things out of order.  To wit, in case anyone else decides to make up this pattern from the scaled pattern or the book:  Go ahead and put the darts in the trunkhose lining bottom, but do NOT gather and/or attach the trunkhose lining top to the waistband UNTIL you have figured out the panes length.  Do what I did:  attach the panes at the bottom of the trunkhose lining, then figure out the pane lengths, then gather/attach the trunkhose lining top to the waistband, then cartridge pleat the panes.  Also, I have no idea if it’s because I was making a larger size, but I found that there really wasn’t much fabric to cartridge pleat in the panes.  I mean, I had to gather them, yes, but they basically made waves rather than tight cartridge pleats.  I doubt it’s period, but if I ever made these again, I would just do two rows of gathering stitches across all the tops of the panes, sew that to the waistband; then I would gather the trunkhose lining and hand sew it to the waistband/panes (I think it would be too thick to machine sew; you’ll have to handsew anyway if you cartridge pleat).

Some positives?  Again, all the pattern pieces went together well.  I would personally think about adding some balance marks, but hey, I didn’t need them.

One thing that could go either way:  the patterns are drafted without seam allowance.  This will be great if you work like me, where you make mockups and worry about the seamlines, perfect your pattern, and then add seam allowance — it saved me the step of removing the seam allowance before making a mockup.  But I know that freaks some people out, so I thought I’d note it.

So, they are done, minus lacing holes.  And the husband is super cute, because I put him into his shirt and Ham Pants to check that they were done, and then told him I was done, and he said, “Hey, don’t you have a blog where you post photos?”  So he gets a gold star for volunteering to have dorky photos of himself wearing Ham Pants on the interwebs.  Winston just walked right into the photo and sat very nicely for his portrait, so I had to include him too.

Yes, the Ham Pants(TM) are mostly black, so it’s hard to tell what’s going on here… but they’re done, and minus some loose cartridge pleating, I’d say they’re decently well made.  And I am now SO over boys clothes, and really just want to work on my own stuff (which, I admit, I did last weekend… but more on that in another post!).

18th Century Brunswicks and Jesuits

As previously mentioned, I’ll be taking the Burnley & Trowbridge brunswick workshop in May.  Of course, I had to immediately scour my sources to find information about this garment, which until about 2 days ago was a relative mystery to me!

Aileen Ribeiro, in Dress in Eighteenth-Century Europe, writes that a brunswick or “German Habit” was, “A long-sleeved version of the sack, usually three-quarter-length and with a high neck and a buttoned, unstiffened bodice…. widely worn in Germany in the middle of the century” (146).  Colonial Williamsburg’s glossary of colonial lady’s clothing says a brunswick is, “A three-quarter length jacket worn with a petticoat, the Brunswick was an informal gown or a traveling gown. It had a high neck, unstiffened bodice that buttoned, long sleeves, and frequently had a sack back (loose pleats) and a hood”; while a jesuit is, “Similar to the Brunswick, but the skirt of the gown was full length.”

The style appears to have been most popular in the 1760s. They were cut like a sacque gown, with the full box pleats in back.  The full length sleeves were made by connecting the usual elbow-length sleeves (complete with sleeve ruffles) to a separate lower sleeve.  According to posts on the 18cwoman list, this was because they were made by mantua makers, who did not use the technique of a shaped long sleeve (used by tailor’s on men’s garments); the separate lower sleeve allowed the sleeve to fit the elbow. Ribeiro writes that while early sleeves had a break at the elbow with a ruffle, by the end of the 1760s that was replaced with a small ruched cuff (although it is unclear whether she means that the elbow ruffle was replaced, or whether that was dropped and the ruffle is now at the cuff) (146). According to the information provided to those of us taking the workshop, brunswicks were not worn over any skirt supports (ie side hoops or bumrolls), although I have found one image (below) of what is probably a jesuit worn over side hoops.  It appears that most are high necked, although at least one of the confirmed brunswick images (Sophia Pelham) has a lower neckline; there are other possible brunswicks/jesuits with low necklines as well below.

Barbara Johnson’s Album includes two relevant fashion plates, one of each style. The brunswick has military-esque folded back revers with buttons.  The jesuit is very similar, except for a longer length overskirt.  Both have the usual petticoat ruffle and loopy-patterned ruches that you’d expect to see on a 1760s sack, as well as straight ruches along the overskirt openings.  There is one swatch for a brunswick:  “a Manchester Brunswick twelve yards” from 1772; the fabric is a small blue and white check, which reminds me of a modern gingham.

Here is a gallery of images of probable brunswicks or jesuits. Most of the fabrics appear to be silk taffeta or satin, although there is one cotton print.