The Dreamstress

Latest Posts

Glamour puss

Felicity has been a rather recalcitrant model lately, and has disappeared whenever the light was good and the camera came out.

Yesterday though, I was sorting some gorgeous vintage lace that I recently acquired, and Miss Fiss decided she wasn’t going to be out-admired by some lace. So she occupied it, and set out to prove that she was more gorgeous and glamorous than the lace.

This is my best side

Now get a full face shot while I do my ‘pensive’ pose.

And a tail shot. I have a great tail.

I’m ready for my close up Miss Mommes

Once I’d taken a couple dozen photos, I tried to tempt her from her bed of lace with that most forbidden of pleasures: pattern tissue. She wasn’t having any of it. Pattern tissue is no fun if it is allowed!

Rate the Dress: 18th century revivalism in the 1900s (and it’s pink)

Published by The Dreamstress

Your reaction to last week’s blue & grey 1920s ensemble depended hugely on whether you like the 1920s or not. There were a lot of 10s, and a lot of 2s and not a lot in between. They balanced out at 7.4 out of 10 (because there were slightly more 10s), but in some ways I think the outfit was far more successful than that, just for being such a simple collection of pieces which provoked such a strong response. (and thanks Carol for giving the ensemble a face to go with it!)

I do apologies for the slight lateness of this post. I was exhausted last night and decided that if something had to go, it was blogging. So slightly delayed, here is this week’s dress, chosen because it is the complete opposite to last weeks practical, restrained, Ã¼ber-modern sporting ensemble.

Dress, House of Worth, ca. 1900, French, silk, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1994.462a, b

This Worth frock is frivolous, decadent, utterly feminine, and unabashedly historical: liberally borrowing from 1780s and 90s fashions for it’s inspiration. The late Georgian influence is so literal (the open skirt, the straight front with double-breasted buttons, the black sash, fichu, and bum-rump) that I sometimes wonder if the gown wasn’t designed as fancy dress. And yet, so many of those elements of the 18th century were also the height of fashion at the turn of the 20th century. The open skirt, faux or real, is a common feature of gowns from the 1880s onwards. The straight front was just coming into vogue with the S-bend corset. The fichu echoes the high puffed sleeves so popular in the late 1890s. For all that, the gown is far more of a look backwards than a snapshot of the height of 1900s mode.

What do you think? Do you like the simplicity of line paired with the slightly over the top colour? The nod (well, more a full on bow) to the 18th century? Or is the whole thing too obvious in its aesthetic, and too obviously in its inspiration?

Rate the Dress on a Scale of 1 to 10

A weddings and wear-anywhere wiggle dress

Published by The Dreamstress

Last weekend Mr D and I had a wedding to attend, and I realised that all of my fancy frocks were either too fancy for this wedding (you can’t wear a frock with a tiny train to a wedding if you know in advance the bride is wearing a short dress!), too light for an autumn wedding, or in non-wedding appropriate black or white. Obviously a new dress was needed!

So I rummaged around in my fabric stash and dug up a length of jewel green stretch cotton sateen that I bought at the last Fabric Warehouse sale because I needed a tiny bit of it to trim a hat to match a pair of shoes to wear with another dress, and in order to get the discount I had to buy at least a metre, and as long as I was buying a metre I might as well buy a dress length…(you can see where this is going).

Then I dug around in my patterns and unearthed Advance 8321, which I bought from a friend recently when she had a big clear out.

A few hours of cutting and fitting and sewing later, I had the perfect wear-it-to-a-wedding wiggle dress:

For the original wedding, I wore it with black heels and a black satin sash:

Other than pointy heels on a squishy lawn, it was perfect for the wedding (And no less than three random guests came up to me and told me that my dress was gorgeous! And I overheard the groom’s aunt describe me as ‘the girl in the stunning green dress.’ Sewing happiness right there!)

I had planned to wear it with a jewelled gold and silver ribbon belt (Fabric Warehouse sells the most amazing jewelled ribbons), but couldn’t find the belt when we were packing for the wedding:

The wonderful thing about wiggle dresses is how versatile they are. Pair it with boots, a cardigan or fitted jacket and a belt, and it works great as winter office wear:

For elegant dressed-down summer wear, it goes beautifully with the shoes I originally bought the fabric to match, and a braided leather belt.

They are pretty awesome shoes aren’t they?

I made a few adjustments when sewing up the pattern. I added a waist seam, just to give me a bit more waist definition, and because it’s so much easier to fit a dress with a waist seam (especially if you have a sway back and prominent bottom, as I do). I narrowed the skirt considerably, because while ’50s patterns may show a slim pencil skirt on the envelope, they always sew-up as A-lines. I also added a pleat detail to the back seam, rather than just having an open slit. Finally, I dropped the back hem slightly, for a little hem interest. And there was a lot of general adjusting and taking in everywhere but at the waist, because I don’t have the 11″ bust/waist and 13″ waist/hip differential that ’50s patterns think is normal!

Just the facts, Ma’am:

Fabric: 1.2 metres of jewel green stretch cotton sateen, $12pm

Pattern: Advance 8321.

Year: 1956-58

Notions: thread (stash), invisible zip ($5), black lace for hemming (inherited from Nana), stay tape (stash).

Hours: 6

Make again? I think I need to make the version with awesome sleeves in wool crepe…

Wear again? Definitely! It works for everything!

And the insides? Oooh..so pretty! I need to take detail photos so I can show you the lace hem. It’s a thing of beauty and a joy forever!

Total cost: $20 (more or less).