I’ve realised that while I make lots of undergarments, some of them very pretty, I don’t often show models in just their undergarments, so I don’t get good photographs of the undergarments on real people.
Last Saturday solved a bit of that.
One undergarments I was especially pleased to get images of in action was the 1866 crinoline.
Mme Denise Poiret wore it, and looked fabulously 1860s and not at all Poiret-y.
The one inaccuracy with this wearing is that I put the corset over the crinoline for aesthetic impact. Audiences like to to see corsets in the full.
I fixed some of the issues that I was having with this crinoline for this wearing by slipping an extra set of very strong wire boning into the extra channels that I had providentially included in the crinoline when I originally made it.
The extra wires keep the crinoline from warping under the weight of the back ruffles, and help create a back-heavy shape, but also make the whole petticoat quite a bit heavier, which is a pity.
Despite the improvements, the crinoline still has some problems, and I’m wondering if they are fixable, or if they are inherent to the pattern, or if I cut the pattern wrong. The thing that irks me most is the pull lines from the back of the petticoat around to the front.
I’m also not sure about the ruffles down the back. I used circular cut ruffles because it seemed like a good idea at the time (e.g. I was overthinking this crinoline), but in retrospect, I don’t think they are at all historically accurate, and I don’t think they hang right.
At least I’m still in love with the bottom box-pleated ruffle.
I’m not going to re-make it though. It isn’t that often that I need a late 1860s crinoline, this one looks and works pretty well, and there are so many other things to make!