White Muslin Gown, ca. 1780

-
Should have asked Mom to stand up to take the picture ...
This is the first 18th century gown I've made since taking those many patterns for my book, and I think it's a great improvement over the blue linen one I made a few years ago. (The stays underneath are much better as well.)

I based this gown on the one pictured below, an anglaise with back pleats, a closed front, rounded skirt edges, and loops inside to pull it up (which I haven't put in yet but plan to eventually). It's also based in part on all the quotes about muslin gowns and silk coats, although this coat is linen.
Albany Institute of History and Art 1961.26.1a-b
The original has a matching petticoat, but the one I wore to the Battle of Saratoga re-enactment is old, from the Old Stone Fort fiasco/ensemble. I really need to repleat it and replace the waistband, but somehow that never seems very important until I put it on and realize it's too big.

What I've Learned

- When scaling up an 18th century pattern, don't widen all the pieces in equal proportion. The back pieces barely need to be enlarged. Just because the dress form's shoulders are enormous doesn't mean that I need the straps to be out that far. (But once I fiddled a bit, I ended up with one strap in the exact right place and the other only out a bit too far, which is a huge improvement on my previous efforts - it's hard for me to get rid of preconceptions about where shoulder seams are supposed to go.)

Way too wide.
- Allotting enough fabric for the pleats is very important, otherwise you end up with these tiny, tiny little pleats.



- I always have this weird thing about setting in 18th century sleeves, where I want them to be really pleated at the top. This is silly and I know it's silly because I've taken enough patterns to know that you don't need that! After taking out the pleats, I put it back on and tugged the sleeves up to fit more snugly. I could have actually cut them a little bit smaller.

No! When laid flat on a table, the sleeves should want to be out at right angles.
Anyway, there are all sorts of little problems (the waist was WAY too low at first, and I raised it wherever I could, but there's only so much you can do with this style of back), but I'm very happy with how this turned out. Can't wait until next summer's 18th century events with the ladies to take it out again!

Comments

  1. SusanDecember 14, 2013 at 8:19 AM

    Are you certain that your dress form is a woman dress form? Those shoulders look like they belong to a member of a men's crew team!

    ReplyDelete
  2. ZipZipDecember 18, 2013 at 8:54 PM

    Dear Cassidy,

    What a refreshing post! Your fitting experiences are very real, and so very common among so many of us. What you have that we do not is first-hand knowledge of the original garments, so you know what might be at issue when the fit is not quite the way you want it. For example, knowing that laid flat, a sleeve set 18th century style would want to go straight out at right angles to the bodice. What a helpful piece of information.

    Further, you're willing to admit that some things just have to wait, either for a better moment, or until next time. Ah, that makes me feel so much better. Sometimes after futzing around for ages I just have to say "okay, enough", and move on. (Hair, for example. Hair is my downfall.)

    Anyhow, enjoyed the post, oh, and enjoyed seeing the rounded edges on your gown. What a pretty variation!

    Very best,

    Natalie

    ReplyDelete

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