Monday, July 22, 2013

1790's Undergarments: Take Two

Hey, remember this?  My first go at a set of underthings for the 1790's morning outfit.  I decided that it just wasn't working.  The boning in the center was poking out too much at the top, and the lacing wasn't very adjustable, which became a problem when I lost some weight.  I probably should have taken the hint when I had to more than double the size of the cups: these stays were not meant for my body.

So, I was all ready to mock-up the "late 1790's" stays from Corsets & Crinolines, when I had a think.  This is a morning outfit, I don't need to be fully laced up - let's experiment with bodiced petticoats...

It actually worked quite well.  I shorted the lining from the half-robe pattern in Janet Arnold, attached and skirt and bustle pad, and inserted 4 pieces of cable ties (which had rather pointy end when I cut them, so I filed the edges down with a nail file.)

The Challenge: #15: White
Fabric: Bodice: 100% cotton, Skirt: 50/50 cotton/linen blend
Pattern: Bodice: Adapted from Janet Arnold's 1790's half-robe, Skirt: Rectangles!
Year: 1796-1801
Notions: Kitchen twine for lacing, cable ties for boning, polyester padding in the bustle pad
How historically accurate is it? Well, you just saw the word "polyester," right?  Bad me!  It also has criss-cross lacing, instead of spiral lacing, which is a bit innovative, but not unheard of for this era.  And the seams are in completely the wrong place because I had to Frankenstein the panels to get the most out of my fabric.
Hours to complete: Far too many.  I started the petticoat over 18 months ago, and it has gone through quite a transformation since then
First worn: Well, the photoshoot, but in front of other humans on Sunday at Costume College!
Total cost: All stash!  Well, the polyester was filched from an old pillow, so, nothing.

No comments:

Post a Comment