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.

[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.

[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)!