Housekeeping, and a Question

-
I just wanted to note that I'm going back and cleaning up some of my older entries, which tend to get a lot of hits through Google.  Some have too many hotlinked images, some have incomplete image citations ... I'm also trying to link to images of dressed mannequins rather than use the picture, because of the copyright issue. My entry on the polonaise was full of fashion plates, which I replaced with just a couple and a link to Pinterest - why clutter up the page when I have a very thorough selection of images there?  Now it just states that the polonaise was not the standard fitted gown with the skirts tied up, it has no waist seam, rounded skirts, &c.  Hmm, perhaps I should add to it to explicitly state that there's no evidence the term "skirts à la polonaise" or "polonaised skirts" existed.

ETA: Here's what I've added, what do you think?

What the fitted gowns with skirts tied up with rings and tapes were called is somewhat mysterious.  A French fashion plate depicting this can be seen here; the artist or caption-writer used the adjective "rétroussée" ("tied up", "tucked up", ) to describe what they specifically identify as an anglaise.  Thus far, I've been unable to find the phrases "skirts à la polonaise" or "polonaised skirts" at all during the period.  However, in the poem "The Ladies Head-Dress", quoted in The Cut of Women's Clothes and The Quaker, "Chloe" is described as having "her gown be tuck'd up to the hip on each side".  It seems most likely that the French and the English both described the style with ordinary language, rather than adapting the term "polonaise" - which makes sense, as their polonaise gown was identified more by the cut than by the draping.

ETA2: And a question.  I have been sewing 5/16" channels in my stays, to fit one 1/4" reed in each.  However, I realized recently that 3/16" reed exists.  Do you think two 3/16" reeds would fit snugly in a 5/16" channel?  It seems like one reed takes 1/16" ease out of the channel, so logically, two ought to take 1/8" ... but I wanted to see if anyone had experience with that before I ordered reed.

Comments

  1. SusanFebruary 25, 2012 at 12:32 PM

    I wouldn't substitute two reeds for the one. It would give entirely different "action" (for lack of a better word, or for I can't think of the right word) in your stay channels. And instead of nicely staying (HA) next to one another, they'd probably end up on top of one another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CassidyFebruary 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM

      They're meant to be on top of each other, though, to be less flexible.

      Delete
  2. JessFebruary 25, 2012 at 9:44 PM

    Hi,
    I am actually having the same issue. I'll be able to tell you the answer in a few hours. I have the 3/16 reed and sewed 1/4 inch channels intending to put 2 pieces in each (flat sides together). I'm about to go put the boning in now. I'll let you know how it fits...if it's good, or if it could use the extra 16th as in yours.
    Oh, I'm Jess from Ohio by the way. =)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CassidyFebruary 25, 2012 at 10:06 PM

      What fortunate timing! I would definitely be grateful to hear about your results.

      Delete
  3. JessFebruary 26, 2012 at 12:12 AM

    Fortunate timing- Ha ha! Yes, I thought so. That's why I just had to comment =)

    Well, the results are in. Your 5/16 boning channels will be PERFECT for using 2 pieces of 3/16 reed back to back. My 1/4 inch channels felt a little too loose for 1 piece, but I really had to work to get the 2nd piece in (but blistered thumbs & all they're in there!) So that extra 16th should be just right. It also made a world of difference in the strength of them when I added the 2nd piece..(incase you were wondering) =)

    Lucky for me I only sewed the channels on 1 pannel and boned it to test the size first. I'll be making the rest of mine 5/16 too now! Crisis Averted!

    Hope this helps! Looking forward to hearing how they turn out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CassidyFebruary 26, 2012 at 9:04 AM

      Thank you SO MUCH! I've just ordered my reed now, as I'm going to finish sewing the channels today. I'm sorry for your blistered thumbs, but it's such a good thing you only did one piece.

      Delete
  4. Thread-HeadFebruary 27, 2012 at 12:43 AM

    I'm (as usual) late to the party, but I used 5/16 channels for my stays and doubled the reed successfully as well. A few of my channels were on the narrow side, and the second piece of reed didn't make it in. Double is better, for sure.
    And kudos on the housekeeping!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CassidyFebruary 27, 2012 at 9:09 AM

      There definitely are a few channels that ended up 1/4" on mine. D: Thanks for your input, though - even if it's later than Jess, it's still good to have double confirmation!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pride and Prejudice 1995: The Little Things

-
Image
I did threaten to write about the Ehle/Firth Pride and Prejudice , and since I'm in a writing mood without a topic I decided to make good. Regency adaptations tend to go for an overall accurate look, interpreting age and income within the confines of realistic silhouettes and colors, and so they avoid the scrutiny and reputation that a more obviously artistic and unrealistic production garners. But just as this version of P&P  is not entirely faithful in every respect (e.g. the added Darcy-perspective scenes, the actors nearly all being significantly older than their characters - perhaps the most egregious example being Julia Sawalha in her late twenties playing teenage Lydia), Dinah Hill's costuming is not entirely accurate - mainly in ways that make the period more appealing to modern tastes. The exact date when the story is set is never given; generally, the movie's taken to be set in 1813, when the book was published. I'm not going to go into the full story of
Read more

Pattern Time: 1860s Chemise

-
Image
For my 150th post ( \o/ ), a quick little pattern someone might find useful. When I was working my way through a box a few weeks ago, I came across a chemise that didn't quite want to lay flat.  I took a closer look at it to figure out why, and noticed that it had a unique construction with the sleeves cut in one with the body and gussets inserted in the neckline.  I did a really quick sketch of the cutting layout and measured the important bits, so that when I got home I could draw it up in proportion on graph paper. (nb. I messed up. I've been noticing it for a while, but didn't want to point it out from shame, but I accidentally gave the neckline length as it is when gathered - the horizontal cut should be much longer, to within about four inches of the side seam. Please correct for this when making your own version.)
Read more

A Difficult History: Corsetry and Feminism, Part One

-
Image
Recently, I began following a couple of Tumblr blogs focusing on waist training and daily corset wear. Daily wear is not for me, waist training even less so, but I find it an interesting practice. It is also a controversial one. For example, a recent Huffington Post article, " Corset Queen Penny Brown Loves Getting 'Waisted' ," drew comments which were nearly all extremely negative, as do most articles that bring the practice to mainstream attention. Usually, the mental states of the women who waist-train are called into question, and there are numerous references to feminism as incompatible with corsets. The general idea is that the first wave feminists of the late 19th and early 20th century would be horrified by women today wearing them, and that their assumed reaction is an objective statement on the practice. My feeling is that the subject is complex, and cannot be simply declared feminist or unfeminist. There are far more factors than the average internet comm
Read more