At Her Leisure

Eight yards of 60" wide rose-colored wool twill has carried me a long way.

First I made stays:


Then I made a pelisse:


Now I've made a skirt:






I still have a piece left that is full width for about 7/8 of a yard and half-width for about another yard so I can probably get a jacket to match the skirt out of it if I have conservative sleeves.

I used the same 1897 Harper's Bazar pattern mala_14 used for her recent 1895 ensemble, and, like her, I thought it also would work for the years just after the turn of the century. I had had every intention of interlining the hem with crinoline, but in checking, I found that it didn't seem likely that they were still doing that by c. 1905 so I skipped it. The hem is faced rather than turned up because I was planning to interline it with crinoline. Somehow my cutting got a bit wonky around the side so I wound up with only about an inch to turn up and had to hem it for flat shoes rather than the boots I intended to hem it for. (Note to self: check how much I length I actually need for my white wool 1897 dress so that I can be assured of having enough length to accommodate my boot heels.)

There are tennis fashion plates of c. 1905 that show women with skirts that drag the ground in back. It sounds ridiculously impractical to me, but fashion plates aren't about practicality, and it may well be that women wore their skirts shorter in real life. I found an article that talked about women's golf wear that said that they didn't cut their skirts shorter until more like the early 1910's. I presume that was compared to the length of an ordinary walking skirt, but I don't know that. Anyway, the point is that I probably should have cut the skirt shorter, but it was so pretty as it was that I couldn't bear to. As I said, I'll probably make a jacket to go with it anyway, which would make it useful outside the sports arena.

Incidentally, the only way I've found to keep the belt of the sweater down to a point like the pattern picture shows is to pin it in place. Otherwise, it just rides up to be an ordinary round waist.

In the pictures I'm wearing a chemise, ribbon corset, princess petticoat, waist petticoat trimmed with hand-knit lace, and a tucked waist petticoat. The sweater was knit from a pattern published in 1907 (Ravelry page).

I’ve never been quite thrilled with my Simplicity 18th century stays and have wanted a new pair for some time now. Since I want a 1780’s dress for the George Washington Ball in Williamsburg in March, 1780’s stays seemed appropriate.







( And here's what I did... )

It's definitely looking like a sweater:

I've finished knitting the body of the 1907 sweater and am currently blocking it.

Now I'm trading back and forth between working on binding my stays - awfully hard on the fingers - and knitting the sleeves.

Being sick is lousy, but there is a silver lining. Hand-sewing projects can make a lot of progress. I've now got my 1780's stays in two pieces - main body and lining - plus boning and binding. Now it's time to give my hands a bit of a break and read or knit. Reading first, then knitting, I think.

If I measured right, the bust on the c. 1780 stays in Corsets and Crinolines is 31", and the waist is 25", not counting spring. That's only a tiny bit bigger than I need. I expected to spend the evening yesterday working on the pattern, but instead I cut out a mock-up. What luck!

Maybe I'll get it sewn together tonight.