Showing posts with label 1790s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1790s. Show all posts

Monday, July 10, 2017

Elasticated Garters - Part 2 - Springs (and it's finished!)


They're finished! Not a quick and dirty project by any means. But I love them! One of my goals is to invest more in the accessory side of my historical wardrobe; I designed fashion accessories for a living, so why not invest in historical accessories? 

I haven't found a lot of info on how to put together these spring-loaded elasticated items (Sabine's post on her spring-elasticated Corset de Soie is the closest thing - she pointed me in the direction of the springs!) The construction is fairly straightforward, but I learned a few important things along the way. 



Aren't they beauts? The plan is to get a jewelers saw and try to make some custom hooks eventually. But that is $40 down the road, and I have other things to make in the next three days. Because I am thoroughly unprepared for the Jane Austen Festival and it starts on Friday. 




CONSTRUCTION

This is a semi-tutorial in a million pictures. It's a long post. Just warning you. 

First, to give the garters a little softness (all the garters I looked at seemed somewhat "soft", so I estimate there was some kind of wadding in there) I layered a thick strip of wool coating that I had laying around, onto the center of the garter. 



The raw edges of the embroidered outer fabric were then folded over the edge of the wool, and whipstitched down.




This part was really satisfying - it was like padstitching through super thick wool so you don't have to worry about your stitches being fine and delicate. Big ol' sloppy stitches that just fly across the length of fabric. 

After whipping the wooly insides to the embroidered outsides, I stitched the flat silk extension onto one end. This is when you stitch on the springs (because otherwise it is a beast to stitch them on after you've gotten half the lining stitched down. I wouldn't know this by experience or anything, obviously, because I do everything right the first time. *ahem*) 


The springs are like noodles and are a big pain, but it doesn't matter if they stick out every which way. The channels that will be stitched later will help straighten them out. Make sure these securing stitches go through all layers of fabric - they will hold a lot of tension when the garters are finished. 

WHAT I SHOULD HAVE DONE AT THIS POINT: tied colored threads to the loose end of each spring, so that when the channels were finished I could just pull the threads to guide the springs through each channel. I deeply regret this! Do this if you make these garters or something similar! 



Next, the lining is added! I used muslin - would use linen next time for extra grippiness. This is just one long strip, no seam in the middle necessary. I whipped this onto the embroidered section (only went through a couple layers of fabric, not all the way to the outside layer.) 


Then I prick-stitched the remainder of the lining to the flat, non-fluffy extender piece. This did go through all layers, which helped stabilize it as this edge is part of a spring casing. 


About an inch or so before the end, I had to stop the prickstitching and fold the lining back, so that I could fold down the end of the extension piece and finish it off. The springs would be stitched to that fold-over seam. 


This is what it looked like on the outside at that point, with the springs sandwiched inside: 


Next, the channels were stitched with a simple running stitch. Same as for the lining edges, I left off stitching an inch or so before the end to leave wiggle room to secure the springs. 


Then, I started to shimmy the fabric down over the springs. This is when those theoretical threads attached to the springs I mention above would have been useful. REGRETS. It took me forever to gather all that fabric on those tiny springs. (In hindsight, I should have used way less fabric. I didn't realize that I would need to cut my springs so short, and I overestimated.) But, with the help of a couple extra fingers from Kenny, I eventually got the springs all through. It felt like a big win when they popped their little springy heads through the end of the channels. 



What I would do differently next time (I always have a list of these things, and I write them down so that I actually remember next time!):
  • Make the embroidered bits shorter and the springy bits longer. They just ended up feeling a bit disproportionate when compared to extant examples. 
  • Leave more space at one end of the embroidery for a larger hook (as I want to hand-cut more accurate metal hooks and bars for the next pair). 
  • Add those strings to my springs to pull them through the channels! That's a biggie. 


These were originally intended for the Historical Sew Monthly "Circles, Squares, and Rectangles" challenge, so here's the nitty gritty on these bad boys: 

What the item is: garters elasticated with metal springs

Challenge #4; Circles, Squares, and Rectangles: all the fabric components of this are rectangular. And the springs are circles, really! Lots and lots of circles.

Fabric: silk sateen, a layer of batiste stabilizing the silk, chunky wool herringbone for the interior, and muslin for the lining. And springs. Noodly, frustrating, magnificent springs.

Pattern: None. Just eyeballed extant examples and measured my legs to fit.

Year: 1795-1810 (which is when the extant examples I found were dated by their respective museums.)

Notions: trouser hook and eye, soon(ish) to be replaced with a handmade hook and bar, hopefully.

How historically accurate is it? the shape and techniques are accurate, although the wool is not necessarily period-correct and the hook is definitely modern. I'd give it a 90%.

Hours to complete: around 100hr. I can't believe I spent 100hr sitting and stitching on these. No wonder they took a while to finish! The embroidery was therapeutic, though, and if I made them again I would probably be faster at it, now that I've more practice.

First worn: for this photoshoot! Hoping to wear it to the Louisville, KY Jane Austen Festival in a couple weeks.

Total cost: all of the fabric was scrap (it only took approx. 48 square inches of fabric), and the hook I already had, so probably just $13 for the Wilesco springs!




Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Bernhardt Stays, Round #2, Finished!


The Bernhardt stays are finally done! The actual making did not take so long as the getting around to making, but I am glad they are finished - now I can move on to making a base pattern for a dress, This weekend I was lucky enough to have my wonderful photographer sister, Elizabeth Ann, in town! We braved the incredibly muggy Atlanta heat to snap some pictures of the finished stays.



These stays definitely provide excellent lift and separation. It is important that the straps be snug for this! Because there are no bones along the side-front of the corset, the tension of the strap is what provides any side-breast support. (My straps are actually a bit too long, so I am cheating in the above picture and tugging the strap tight with my opposite arm. You can see in the below-right picture that the straps are tied ALL the way tight against the top edge of the stays. There should be a gap there!) 


Despite taking a while to stitch, these were relatively easy to put together. The elements that took the longest time were the little hand-stitched elements, reenforcing stitches around the corners of the gussets and the eyelets.

My notes on this as a curvy gal... I have a bust-waist difference of 10", and a waist-hip difference of 12". This pattern still is awesome for this shape, but it means that the hip gussets need to be pretty wide, and need to be carefully sliced exactly to natural waist. Something to keep in mind is that as this pattern is expanded, the length from top CF to top CB expands at a much faster rate than the length around the waist (see illustration below). This suits small sizes and curvy (high bust-waist-hip differentials) shapes. It may not work as well for an apple or rectangle shaped body, because it creates such a distinctive cone shape from waist to top edge.


The busk is a paint-stirrer (classic DIY busk material) trimmed and sanded to remove all sharp edges. Hoping to get a fancy schmancy one for the next version of these stays.

They were a bit hastily made - the next pair I make will be handstitched and more carefully fitted, but I needed to just get them finished so that I could move on to a dress! All in all I still like them despite the flaws. I prefer perfectly smooth stays, without wrinkles - I'm not sure that is possible with this pattern (with so few bones) on my fluffy shape, although they may be smoother with a more sturdy fabric. Wrinkles and all, these stays are comfy! I'm looking forward to wearing it through an event to see how they hold up.


Things I would do differently next time:
  • Handstitch the whole thing. This provides better control over gusset insertion - I don't love the ripples caused by my machine stitching through 9 layers of fabric around each gusset. 
  • Select a lining that is as inflexible as the outer fabric. The lining for this sample ended up having a lot more "give" and slight stretchiness, which results in internal wrinkles that you can see through the outer layer. 
  • Add an extra inch of fabric at center back. The gap can actually be about an inch closer than it ended up being in photos, but I'd like just a little more coverage and a little less lacing gap. 

Since this was begun LONG ago as a Historical Sew Fortnightly (2014) challenge, "Under It All",  I'll wrap it up with the same deets!

What the item is: Stays modeled after direction by J. S. Bernhardt, c. 1810-11.

Challenge #4, Under It All: this fits the challenge because it is a foundation! It goes under any outer clothing of the era.

Fabric: three layers of plain woven cotton - the top two layers are fairly fine and tight, the inner layer is a slightly looser weave. I thought it was coutil, but was clearly wrong. Next time I will use the same fabric for the interior and exterior, or a tightly woven linen for the interior.

Pattern: Enlarged from J. S. Bernhardt's sewing manual, which I got from Sabine of Kleidung um 1800.

Year: 1810-11

Notions: a length of cord for lacing, and a paint-stirrer for the busk.

How historically accurate is it? the shapes are quite accurate. The actual stitching and fabric, not so much. I'd give it an 80%.

Hours to complete: of actual sewing? Probably 50 or so, most of which was occupied with the eyelets and gusset reinforcement.

First worn: for this photoshoot! Hoping to wear it to the Louisville, KY Jane Austen Festival in a couple weeks.


Sunday, August 9, 2015

Napoleanic Batman + chemisette ruffles that defy gravity.

Kenny's work has an annual, themed Christmas party each year, and this year he is on the party planning committee. One of the themes they are tossing around is Masquerade... really hoping they decide to go with this one! 

Our favourite masked icon, by a mile, is Batman. Kenny came home with the idea to translate Batman into my favourite era - late 18th/early 19th century! 

I started here...




And then had to translate into a female Batman (because a girl can be Batman too, right?) 



This may or may not become a reality, depending on whether the masquerade happens this upcoming January. Either way, I want to figure out how to execute that chemisette ruffle - I have seen standing ruffles/collars like this in paintings of the era, but have not been able to catch a glimpse of how they stayed up! 

Instinctively I assume an supportasse or underpropper of some kind would have to be used, just to support the tall ruffles at the back. This look reminds me of the wisks and rebatos of the Elizabethan era (the Very Merry Seamstress explains more about those HERE.) Below is a beautiful example of an Elizabethan style supportasse (if you know the origin of this one, do advise and I will credit! I found this image secondhand via the linked blog, but that is not the original source.) 


Suportasse, developed by ??, found via The Sewing Corner

The easiest way to make this shape stay up would be to not ruffle it - a flat shape can be formed to stand on its own, more or less (if the fabric is stiffened enough). This is illustrated in the painting below (there is a shadow around the edge, just inside the outer frill, that indicates to me that it may also be wired). 


Portret van Nieskia Reiniera Wentholt (1789-1862), c. 1812,
by Willem Bartel van der Kooi

I am almost certain that the below example is wired along the edge (that corner on the left side is rippling exactly the way a wired corner would). This is most feasible in a flat collar - however, the delicacy of mushroom-pleated ruffles might be ruined by a wire along the very edge. 


Marcia Burnes Van Ness, c. 1809-1814, by Gilbert Stuart.
The below example seems to completely defy gravity - there is no evidence of wire or support that I can see, and yet the delicate (and thin) frill floats airily about the wearers chin. This has me baffled. A case of artistic license? 


"Portrait of Mrs. Spencer Perceval"
by Elisabeth-Louise Vigee Lebrun, 1804
Rosalba Peale's ruff (below) also seems incredibly upstanding for the delicacy of the fabric represented - although hers at least has the bulk of a few layers to assist it. 


Rembrandt Peale - Portrait of Rosalba Peale [c.1820]
Clearly this concept requires a bit more investigation. I plan to check out more of these in the next few posts, as I try to figure out the engineering behind these feats of delicate architecture! 

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Construction Study - 1790s Silk Gown

As I was perusing Pinterest the other day, I ran across a dress that I had pinned a while ago, but hadn't really examined up close. The dress caught my eye again and I popped over to the MET website for a closer look (it is the best museum website - many pieces in the collections have HUGE pictures that you can zoom to get a closer look at garment details).



This dress is put together with a billion pieces of fabric. Well, maybe not a billion, but way more pieces than I would consider using. I would have given up on squeezing a dress out of what appears to be an insufficient length of fabric (I suspect this was an older style dress which was re-made in the 1790s). However, this is  great example of the thriftiness that was implemented in a lot of historical garments. I pulled pictures of the dress into Illustrator and made flats of all views, in order to decipher just exactly how this dress was constructed. I left off the little webbing tie in my drawings, because it seemed purely decorative and does not contribute to the construction of the dress at all.


FRONT:
- The sleeves are clearly two-piece sleeves that are patterned into a slight "L" shape, with a bend at the elbow. As we'll see in the SIDE picture, they open at the wrist for about 6"-7" in a button placket which closes with a single button.
- The front neckline has a small (1/4"-3/8") drawstring casing, probably formed by an internal binding or lining. I did not see any prickstitching along the top edge, which makes me curious about where the lining attaches. However, that may be because the front view photo doesn't zoom in quite closely enough for me to see the stitches.
- There are two extra seams in the front-bodice: one on each "princess" line (vertical, mid-breast).
- There is definitely a waist seam (I have wondered that about some of these dresses!) There are tiny stitches delineating a drawstring casing below the waistband (3/8"-1/2" wide).
 - There is a slit from center-front of the neckline, down to about 7"-8" below the waistline. This little slit ends at the first block of pieced skirt. The edge of the slit is finished with tiny running stitches or prickstitches.
- The skirt is pieced together in three rows. There does not appear to be any order or symmetry in the piecing of the skirt, although it appears that the largest unbroken block of fabric was placed in the vertical and horizontal center.
- The hem is stitched very close to the edge (1/8"), with tiny stitches. I can't tell if the hem is faced, and the stitches are little prickstitches that are holding the facing to the fabric, or if it is just a teeny, tiny hem.

Dress, 1790s, French via the Metropolitan Museum of Art - FRONT`

SIDE:
- The shape of the sleeves is most obvious in this view. There is a little puckering at the elbow, indicating that the "L" shape of the pattern was more pronounced than the shape of the wearers arm at rest.
- The button placket at the wrist is finished around the edge with tiny prickstitches. There is a single button (approx 1/2"-5/8" diameter), and the lone buttonhole is placed at a 45 degree angle.
- It is clear from from this angle that the front of the skirt is a rectangle, and the fullness at the side-front is created with two deep pleats, layered directly on top of each other.
- The next set of pleats is placed at side-back, and is made up of another two deep pleats (but possibly less deep than the side-front pleats).
- The front skirt peice ends at side-back, farther back than the side-back pleats. There is an odd triangular shape piece of fabric added, presumably in a spot where the dressmaker was desperate and needed to patch for a perfect corner.
- The height of the lowest row of fabric appears to be consistent, despite being made up of random widths.

Dress, 1790s, French via the Metropolitan Museum of Art - SIDE

BACK:
- As was standard for backs around this era, the center-back panel is very small. Because of this, the sleeves extend quite a ways into the back. I noticed, however, that there appears to be no correlation between the placement of the back sleeve seam, and the CB panel.
- There are two small triangular wedges at the shoulders, adding just enough fabric to make up a nice wide shoulder strap that meets at CB.
- The actual CB panel is pieced down the center, but I didn't call that out with a red line because that was a common construction, in order to achieve symmetry in the fabric pattern. This seam could probably be left out, though. The embroidery around the panel consists of a backstitch lining the outer and inner edges, and a wiggly chainstitch weaving between the two lines of backstitch.
- Both sides of the front bodice extend all the way around to meet the curved seams of the CB panel. These also appear to have been pieced. Note that, unlike the skirt, the bodice is carefully pieced with symmetrical seams (which makes the dress look less like it emerged from a rag-bag).
- At the base of the bodice, where the CB panel joins the side-front panels, there are two little medallions. These medallions are made up of self-fabric covered buttons (same size as the sleeve buttons, 1/2"-5/8" dia), mounted on a gathered cockade of self-fabric. I like this little detail - it makes the dress just a little sweeter!
- This skirt back has a LOT of fabric! In addition to the double pleats on each side-back, there appears to be a triple inverted box pleat directly at center-back. That is to say: three deep pleats folding one way, and three deep pleats folding the other way, all meeting in the center. Each of those pleats has got to be between 3"-4" deep. (The museum appears to have displayed this dress with a little bum pad in the back, which would have been accurate for a few years in the late 1700s. All that pouf is not caused by the skirt, but it would probably also be pretty full without the pad!)
- There is no train - the hem of this skirt is even with the floor (more or less) all the way round, from front to back.

Dress, 1790s, French via the  Metropolitan Museum of Art - BACK
Dress, 1790s, French via the Metropolitan Museum of Art - BACK close-up

Staring at this dress and drawing it for the past few hours makes me want to try my hand at patterning it! I love the simple, full shapes of the 1790s. Maybe for next summer... Or the summer after that...