Stays - 95% Done!

-
My reed came yesterday from Wm Booth, Draper!  (The reed I bought weeks earlier from Benfranklin.com has still not arrived - never order from them, I'm going to get the bank to take my money back somehow.)  This morning I spent about an hour and a half cutting it and boning the stays with two pieces back to back in each channel.

 
I'm especially happy with the curved channels on the side back pieces - you can see that they do pull the fabric into a three-dimensional shape.




Really, I could have made them longer in the front.  They're a little bit low on top and could also probably flatten my stomach a bit more if they went further down.  (Part of why they look extra short is that I'm short-waisted, though.)  Next time!  These aren't issues that should drastically affect the fit of a gown I make for these. 


Best thing: those tabby bits close to my arms really do make all the difference.   In my blue stays, I got a more pronounced curve up the front but my bust was completely flattened because nothing held it in from the sides.


The top of the back kind of stands away from my body.  I'm not sure what I can do about that besides try steaming it into shape, as I saw suggested in Cherry Dawson's workshop notes.


The back lacing kind of shifted to be wider at the bottom while I was putting it on.   Hm.


And the other side.  All in all, I'm very happy with these!  Tabs where the bones run straight down from the body are infinitely more comfortable than tabs that are boned separately, in my opinion.  Hopefully I'll get these bound by the end of the week and then I can start on the gown!  My lining linen is out on the line, drying, as I type. 


Comments

  1. SusanMarch 15, 2012 at 4:12 PM

    Looks great! Can't wait to see the gown you make to go over this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CassidyMarch 19, 2012 at 9:46 PM

      Think you'll help me drape the lining, or should I just scale it up this time?

      Delete
  2. Thread-HeadMarch 15, 2012 at 8:14 PM

    Fantastic! They look great.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnnaMarch 16, 2012 at 10:36 AM

    Wow! quite an undertaking and they turned out looking very nice!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CassidyMarch 19, 2012 at 9:36 PM

      Thank you! They're even better now that I'm almost done binding them.

      Delete
  4. TaylorMarch 20, 2012 at 2:32 PM

    The back of the stays jutting out like that is because they are too tall. If you haven't bound them yet, it may be worth cutting the tops down. Start slow- only do about a half an inch at at a time and try them on after each cut. I know it is tedious, but it will be worth it in the end. Other than those minor fitting issues, these looks great! Stays are definitely one of those work in progress things. It wasn't until my fourth pair that I had a set that I was 100% happy with, so don't feel bad that you have a few "next time I'll do it this way..." bits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TaylorMarch 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

      Doh...put in the wrong web address! ladiesinfashion.blogspot.com...

      Delete
    2. CassidyMarch 20, 2012 at 7:48 PM

      Hm. I did bind one side, but I could definitely unbind just the top of the back to trim it. Now that I look at the pictures again, it does look more than it should be. Do you know of a rule of thumb about where the top of the stays should hit on your back?

      Thanks for the advice!

      Delete
  5. RowennaMarch 26, 2012 at 8:38 AM

    Looks great! Agreed with Taylor--if they're standing away from the body, they might be a touch too tall (had the same problem with my last pair--and not only does it make them look a little funny, but it makes fitting a gown fussy, too). As an aside, I highly recommend Wm Booth, Draper for pretty much anything (but full disclosure--the family are friends of ours).

    ReplyDelete
  6. AylwenAugust 11, 2012 at 7:42 AM

    Hi there, I read that you used Cherry Dawson's 1780s stays workshop notes - do you have copies of the pictures? All I can find is the text.
    Many thanks,
    Aylwen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CassidyAugust 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM

      Sadly, no. I could probably take some of the stays I made with them, though, if that would be helpful? (I never got around to lining them.)

      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

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

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