Hi,
Suddently i remember a bodice from Bavaria, from the book: "Textile Schätze
aus Renaissance und Barock" from Bayerisches Nationalmuseum. Its a very
early childs bodice from the Cavalier Style Period. Only the sleave slashes
has whalebone stiffening. No boning in the body.
But you are right that it could be used. Mens doublets had whalebone
stiffening in the front. But i still think they wore a corset. The later
1660-70 bodices were whaleboned, but they were also laced in the center
back, wich makes a difference.
Its such a shame we have these gashes of mystery..........
Bjarne
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] women costumes from "The three musketeers"
In a message dated 2/15/2006 2:45:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Evolution says its the bodice with the tabs which is the actually corset,
but
i dont believe they wore such short stays. I think they used the
evolution
shapes of the old renaissance stays. We dont know this, as no stays
excist
from this period. Their posture kind of tells me that they did wear
corsets,
also the way the breasts are lifted up.
***************
But when you get to the 1660s you have bodices mounted onto a boned lining
[something that really helps with the horizontal neckline]. This suggests
to me
that there is some kind of transitional thing probably going on in the
1630s, It's like they start out with the corset with bodice over it but
perhaps as
the waistline rises, the bodices start getting tacked to the corset and
then
eventually, because of the high waist perhaps, the corset becomes the
lining
of the bodice. They are made up separately.
Tabs and tassets seem to be present when some kind of lacing or tying up
is
necessary.....like in a man's doublet where the hosen are laced to the
doublet. With this logic, and also the attaching of rolls and pads and
even
farthingals to the corset under its tassets being common, I can see how
this was
transferred to the actual bodice, especially if it keeps a separate skirt
up at
the high waistline...either under or over the tassets. Also, sometimes
you
see an unstructured open gown over the quite complete in its own right
rigid
gown...that undergown acting like underpinnings of sorts.
I could find pics in books pretty easily, but I don't know where to go on
the web. If someone thinks they know what I'm talking about [hahahahahaha!
Gotcha!] they might be so kind as to point me to some picture sources.
This is not a period I have ever even made a gown for....or studied too
closely. But I like it, and always scrutinize images from it. I love Van
Dyke!
Maybe I'm thinking of some of his portraits.
Y'know, we mostly think of underwear as underwear....you don't show it
off
and it's not outerwear to be seen. But in many periods, that distinction
is
definitely a blurry one...at least in informal affairs. The fashion
designer,
Versace, who loved to comb the Met Museum in NYC, and others, understood
this
and used these notions for effect; designing couture evening gowns that,
from
afar, look like bras and slips. You can see the residue of this too even
in
guys clothes when they show the top of their boxers.
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
