atherleisure (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
atherleisure) wrote2016-08-15 01:26 pm
atherleisure) wrote2016-08-15 01:26 pm
Entry tags:
Unbound
I've been looking at my inspiration stays, and I don't see any binding.
I really do think this is a set of stays rather than a boned bodice due to the straps. The picture doesn't zoom all that far, but I don't see any signs of binding. It looks like the silk is wrapped around to the back and the lining turned under and whipped down along the edges. It sounds like that's the way they did the reproduction described here. There's no mention of binding, but everything else is mentioned.
Binding was used on the stays in 17th Century Women's Dress Patterns, but I guess it wasn't used on the Plymouth ones or these in the Met. I know it would make them sturdier and longer-lasting, but honestly, how much am I going to wear a pair of late 17th century or early 18th century stays?
Suddenly, my stays are much closer to completion than I had expected!
I really do think this is a set of stays rather than a boned bodice due to the straps. The picture doesn't zoom all that far, but I don't see any signs of binding. It looks like the silk is wrapped around to the back and the lining turned under and whipped down along the edges. It sounds like that's the way they did the reproduction described here. There's no mention of binding, but everything else is mentioned.
Binding was used on the stays in 17th Century Women's Dress Patterns, but I guess it wasn't used on the Plymouth ones or these in the Met. I know it would make them sturdier and longer-lasting, but honestly, how much am I going to wear a pair of late 17th century or early 18th century stays?
Suddenly, my stays are much closer to completion than I had expected!