More Underpinnings

[atherleisure]

I'm continuing to work on my 1880's underpinnings. The corset cover and bustled petticoat are finished. Now I just have a couple more petticoats to make, and I'll be finished. That's the worst part about a new era - miles and miles of whites.

I chose to make a petticoat with steels instead of an independent bustle since I knew I needed about three petticoats anyway. This killed two birds with one stone.





The patterns for both are from Bustle Era Fashions. Both ended up too big. I took inches out of each because they weren't even close. Now I'm wondering how the bodice pattern I drafted will do since I used the same rule as I did for the corset cover.

Comments

[atherleisure.livejournal.com]

I don't know how common a petticoat with steels was as opposed to a separate bustle, but "The Delineator" was giving instructions for them, and "Patterns of Fashion" gives a pattern for a skirt that includes steels. Anyway, I don't do steampunk so a bustle by itself would never be worn so why not?

I drafted the combinations with the 35" rule - perfect. I drafted the corset cover with the 35" rule - huge. I drafted the skirt with the 27" rule - quite large. I drafted a bodice with the 35" rule - fit TBD. At this point I think I'm going to paper fit the bodice to the dummy, even if she's not really my size. It should tell me if I'm even in the right ballpark. And I made up the 25", 26", 33", and 34" rulers today, just in case.

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

Wow! That is some crazy variation.

Petticoats with steels seem pretty common in the 1870s (looking at things like De Gracieuse) so it makes sense that they'd still be around in the 1880s.

[atherleisure.livejournal.com]

I haven't run into any extant petticoats with steels in museums, but I'll also admit I haven't been searching desperately. The idea was definitely out there, though, since it was published in magazines.