Day Dress, early 1860s

-
1983.31.1a-b; pattern available at link
The tag on the hanger and the electronic records tell of this dress's difficult road to dating: the wide sleeves, the fringe, and the little peplum play havoc with some of the traditional standards.
  • Fringe, as well as the simple construction of the skirt, points to 1860 or earlier.
  • Wide, long coat sleeves point to the early 1860s.
  • A peplum points toward 1870
Earlier cataloguers argued that it could have been remade late in the 1860s, but then pointed out that it made no sense for the sleeves not to be reduced to be fashionable if so. Personally, I feel that the conclusion of remodeling is often jumped to too quickly in order to reconcile dress elements that seem not to match, and unless there's a clear row of pinholes where a seam was changed, a very different type of thread, or unmatching fabrics, I tend to avoid it. In this case, I didn't see these things - and the peplum, the supposed late addition, was clearly cut in one with the side-back pieces.

Well, I still haven't come upon an image of narrow peplums (pepla?) in the early 1860s to support my diagnosis - if you have some, please do share - but what clinches it for me is that the bodice actually ends in two points and has triple darts. The double-pointed bodice is a fairly limited style, date-wise, and would have been altered even more quickly than the sleeves. And as the rest of the dress appears to be as it was originally made, I allowed that to steer my instinct.

The actual construction techniques are completely normal, nothing much to discuss. The buttons, though, I found interesting. I was under the impression that the kind of fabric-covered buttons we use today - cloth wrapped around a solid form, with a backing and shank fixed on the bottom via some sort of machine - were a much more modern invention, but that's what these are. With metal, obviously, rather than the plastic such buttons are made of today. I'll have to do some research into the button industry.

Comments

  1. JessamynApril 23, 2015 at 7:39 PM

    Thanks for the patterning work! I'd definitely say '61-'64. That broad coat sleeve was, as you say, at its height '60-'63. I'm not worried about the fringe; it hung on in a modest way in the '60s, always that short, low-profile version rather than the elaborate version of the '50s. The skirt is innocent of gores, but I've seen other dresses that were obviously post-'61 that still had straight skirts. The peplum isn't a huge problem. They came in and out of fashion repeatedly, and I know for sure they had a resurgence in '64 including a narrow variety.

    http://www.lapl.org/sites/default/files/visual-collections/casey-fashion-plates/rbc5158.jpg

    The buttons - there were indeed metal-backed buttons in this era. John Zaharias and his wife, who sell under the name The Button Baron, have a 19th-century machine that they use to make custom covered buttons and love to proselytize about them!

    http://www.thebuttonbaron.com/

    That said, people were still making buttons the old-fashioned way, by simply wrapping fabric around a core.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CassidyApril 28, 2015 at 7:30 AM

      Thanks for the confirmation, and the fashion plate! (When I can't find at least one visual source I just get antsy.)

      I've got another 1860s pattern (http://mimic-of-modes.blogspot.com/2015/01/day-dress-1865-1868.html) that I never posted to the CCWC because it's technically after the period, if you want to take a look at it. (And there's one more to come that I haven't written up yet, also a bit after the period.)

      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