Moving Along

[atherleisure]

Explain to me why I just made an ivory silk 18th century petticoat and cut a matching bodice when I have two 1780's dresses that have never been worn. I was excited about Victorian costuming opportunities upon moving to Texas, but here I am still stuck in the 18th century. I guess I've been making plans for that period for so long that I can't get it out of my system yet.

I think the next thing I want to do is 1610's, but I really need to do a lot more reading before I start that. I'm not even quite sure what layers I need. I see lots of Tudor information, but Stuart seems to be less prevalent. There's a painting of a girl in a shift and kirtle that's dated 1612/1620 that I like, and I'm hoping I can do something like that with a jacket over it. I really don't want to make stays for it. Any suggestions?

(ETA link to the picture I mentioned.)

Comments

[isabelladangelo.livejournal.com]

By the time you get to the late 16th/early 17th century, stays are like bras - people will look at you funny if you don't have them. That isn't to say you need a fully boned exact replica of the effigy stays but you do need something for support and to give the correct silhouette.

Kids were often still in kirtles because no one would risk their sanity trying to make a new pair of stays every three months for their growing child.

Layers: Shift, farthingale/bumroll, petticoats, pair of bodies (Stays), skirt, jacket, apron.

[atherleisure.livejournal.com]

I added a link to the picture I've been looking at. I really don't think she's wearing any stays, and a lot of what I've read c. 1570-80 has indicated that stays are not necessary at that point so I'm hoping I can manage without by c. 1610, considering I'm not going for upper classes.

[isabelladangelo.livejournal.com]

Ah! Okay! That's the Italian style which is very different from the English I was thinking of. Yes, in Italy, they were wearing dresses - they had actually gone back to the higher waistlines for a bit in Rome and Naples. Caravaggio shows several in that style. So are you planning on an Italian outfit?

EDIT: And if you want close up's of the painting you linked to, just ask. I know the exact location of where it is on display. I think I've already taken a few but I was planning on going downtown in the next few days anyway. :-)

[atherleisure.livejournal.com]

I'm not really trying to go Italian, though I know the picture I linked is Italian. The picture, though, looks a lot like the garments people use for 1570's and '80's for English reenactments and a lot like the garments in The Tudor Tailor, just with a much less full shift. I know the higher waistline will be in England by the end of the 1610's or early 1620's.

[isabelladangelo.livejournal.com]

As early as 1569, you see the peasant class/lower class wearing stays:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Joris_Hoefnagel_Fete_at_Bermondsey_c_1569.png

What I think you might be seeing at re-enactments is the Flemish style - which was popular in England in the late 16th century. I'm really not sure though. I've never bothered with The Tudor Tailor since it seemed to me to just be a re-write of Janet Arnold's books.

The higher waistline does come into play in the 1610's/1620's - which is normally my cut off point for research since the style has changed too dramatically to be considered for the SCA- but they were still wearing stays. Of course, if you aren't entering this in a competition or wearing it as a re-enactor, wearing a boned Italian kirtle with the jacket is fine. However, I'd suggest making stays - they do NOT have to be the super channeled crazy ones that will make you go blind. One of the best pair of bodies I ever had (until I utterly destroyed them) only had boning at the front opening. The rest had two layers of heavy canvas between the linen lining and linen outer fabric. You can see the full outfit here (http://www.ipernity.com/doc/jubileel/15685681/in/album/434755).

[isabelladangelo.livejournal.com]

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/jubileel/15685681/in/album/434755

I wrote a long post but it apparently got lost! Above is my late 16th Century English Peasant outfit. The pair of bodies I'm wearing only have boning at the front lacing part. The rest is inner lined with two layers of canvas. The outer fabric is linen and the inner fabric is linen as well. These lasted me years before I finally had to get rid of them because I sewed up the eyelets wrong. (The eyelets ripped).

You don't have to do a full channeled pair of bodies - ones like I've done work perfectly fine.

[hiraimi.livejournal.com]

Everyone needs an ivory silk petticoat. That's why you made it! If you want a bit of support without making stays you could always bone the kirtle bodice itself, or just interline it with something stiff.

[atherleisure.livejournal.com]

Now I feel better. I just needed it!

I'm hoping that I can go the way of boned or - more generally, stiffened - kirtle bodice and not need stays this early. The question is - is that what they did?

[hiraimi.livejournal.com]

I know they did it in the 16th century, before the advent of boned stays, but I don't know for a fact if they continued the practice afterward. Then again, who's to say they didn't keep on doing it? ;)

[kaesha-nikovana.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's possible to have too many items in your 18th century wardrobe. An ivory petticoat is so versatile!

[reine-de-coudre.livejournal.com]

you can absolutely do a kirtle/petticoat with upperbodies for early 17th century, as opposed to a fully boned separate pair of bodies. the extant pairs of bodies we have all belong to very upperclass women. common women are definitely still wearing kirtles/petticoats with upperbodies into the 17th century. you don't *need* a bum roll, depending on what class you're going for.

i do have undergarments for an upperclass woman that i've already made (http://reine-de-coudre.livejournal.com/209981.html). you'll notice that the petticoat is worn UNDER the bodies and are tied together. this is the newer alternative to a petticoat with upperbodies stitched to the skirt. unfortunately, period terminology is a bit sketchy on what differentiates a kirtle from a petticoat, since petticoats often had upperbodies stitched to them. but both garments generally have a bodice and skirt stitched together which may or may not be made of the same fabric. it /seems/ that petticoats are a lesser garment than kirtles, if that makes sense. but "kirtle" falls out of fashion by the 17th century. it's near the end of the 16th c and early 17th c that we start seeing completely separate skirt "petticoats" like we think of today. this is all pretty new research from the last few years (sort of like the "polonaise" discovery).

i would highly suggest getting "the tudor tailor" if you haven't!!! a wealth of info there. also think about joining the "elizabethan costuming" page on FB. a truly excellent group. i work at jamestown settlement making historical clothing, so early 17th c consumes my life! i definitely do not claim to know everything, but i've learned a lot in the year and a half i have worked there.

for what it's worth, i'm working on my lower class/common woman's 17th c outfit right now and will be doing a write up on it soon! i just finished my petticoat with upperbodies. next will be a partlet and waistcoat (jacket)!

[reine-de-coudre.livejournal.com]

this is an excellent write-up on petticoats for the 16th and early 17th centuries:
http://www.elizabethancostume.net/petticoat.html

[atherleisure.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the article very much. If you have any more, I'd love anything you're willing to share.

[atherleisure.livejournal.com]

I remembered about your early 17th century posts after I wrote yesterday morning and was hoping you would chime in. Thank you so much for doing so. I felt like what I had read so far indicated that I probably needed smock, bodied petticoat, possibly a kirtle (though I wasn't that clear on the difference between the two), maybe a bumroll, and a jacket.

I don't have The Tudor Tailor, but I read it recently. I'll probably get it back out of the library unless I find a good price on a copy shortly.

I hope you finish yours soon because I can't wait to see what you've done!

Thanks for the suggestions.

[reine-de-coudre.livejournal.com]

i'm glad that was helpful! i was worried about coming off as a pushy know-it-all, but i get excited when other people do this underrepresented era! i've learned so much in the past year and a half and i'm happy to share it!

i don't know if you'll be able to see this, but it was a thread i started about kirtles and petticoats. let me know if you can't see it and i'll see what i can do... i asked specifically about 1560s-70s but i think it applies to early 17th c as well.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/29374273995/permalink/10152914107523996/

[atherleisure.livejournal.com]

NOT a pushy know-it-all at all. I fully admit that I know practically nothing about the era - probably just enough to be dangerous. I know it's not a common costuming era; maybe that's part of why I like it. There are a few uncommon eras that I want to do things in, but it makes research a lot harder. Please feel free to lecture me as much as you like, and I will be a good pupil. (That's not to indicate that your previous comments sounded like a lecture, rather that I'm willing to be lectured in your area of expertise.)

Unfortunately, I can't see the link without logging into Facebook, and I don't do Facebook.