All posts filed under: 19th Century

Rate the Wedding Dress: 1860s cotton ruffles

Last week you LOVED the 1950’s festive party frock. I’ve never seen so many 10/10 in one post! Alas, just enough of you were party poopers to make our frock miss out on a perfect belle of the ball rating, but it still managed a very popular 9.3 out of 10. Since I’m focusing on wedding dresses this week on the blog, what better way to celebrate it than by rating a wedding dress? Not one from 1911 though – we’ve done quite a few frocks from that era lately, and the focus on 1911 dresses might taint your vote. So instead I’ve picked an 1860s froock. This dress from the Met is the epitome of wedding dresses. It’s WHITE, it’s BIG, it’s RUFFLY. It’s even got a faux-pannier effect (do you remember being little and drawing wedding dresses and they always had split fronts with panniered poofs?) If ever a 1940s costume designer wanted inspiration for an 1860s wedding dress, it would have been their holy grail. It’s not all typical bridal froth though. …

1850s? Or 18th century? Or…?

Published by The Dreamstress

I found these images of a fascinating pair of stays ex. Brooklyn Museum that were sold through Augusta Auctions. The catalogue describes them as: Bavarian Silk Stays, 1840-1860. Pink satin, white leather waist tabs, attached metallic lace stomacher, multiple layers stiffened w/ baleen stays, homespun linen lining, B 30″, CFL 13″, (satin & metallic lace worn, linen lining replaced, leather dirty) fair. Brooklyn Museum Now, I know that the regional peasant attire in many places stayed decades behind the current trends, but these look very 18th century to me. There is some obvious mistakes in the dressing: they are clearly meant to be spiral laced, and have been cross-laced instead, which just isn’t working, indicating that at least some of the people involved with documenting the stays didn’t know what they were doing. Does that include the person who dated them and wrote the description? So what do you think, oh gurus of 18th century and European peasant wear? Are these a localised throwback to earlier styles and construction techniques, or mislabeled?

Rate the Dress: An uber-romantic print for the romance era

Published by The Dreamstress

Last week there were mixed responses to the 1912 dress with its daring mix of colours and drape and details. Personally, I thought it was lovely, but not quite perfect – the bodice seemed quite awkward and clunky compared to the divinely sophisticated skirt. I would give it an 8 out of 10, and apparently you collectively agreed with me, because that’s exactly what you gave it! This week I’m returning to a classic, uncomplicated silhouette, and a classic, uncomplicated colour scheme, to see if you prefer your fashions challenging and avante-gard or a little more sweet and simple. I’m mixing it up by throwing in a not-quite-as-popular timeperiod; the Romantic era late 1820s. Romantic fashions are characterised by their puffy sleeves, poofed hairdoes, and nipped waist, often combined with really boring fabrics in shades of dun and sand, but this dress from the MFA also has very romantic silk fabric strewn with carnations and roses in blue and pink on chocolate brown. How sweet! How simple! So what do you think? Is this so …