At 13:11 25/04/2006, you wrote:
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:19:35 +0100
From: Suzi Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [h-cost] about shaping bones in stays
To: Historical Costume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 10:04 25/04/2006, you wrote:
Hi Suzi,
Is this your examin of old stays, that you say they are thin?
When you look at Hogarts prints, and you sometimes see a pair of
stays lying alone on the floor, they are shaped like the body, and
i would say, its the horzontal bones that keep them in shape.
Would this not provide heavier boning?
Not entirely - I have some real whalebone, which dates from the
1940's probably, and which is very flexible. I think the shape is
due to the construction - maybe the lining is a tiny bit smaller
than the outside, which would cause the "bowed" effect, and the
bones are there to reinforce rather than to actually shape? I have
seen corsets that sit in that shape, but I was not able to handle
them at that time.
You could also make the tape that holds the horizontal bones
slightly too short, which would also help to hold the corset in
that curved shape. (Similar to making panniers or bustle, only
nowhere near so exaggerated!)
I'll go and look at my photos again, and see if I have any of
insides - I am pretty sure there are some, but they may not be the
same style of corset.
I'm sure I've read somewhere (Corsets and Crinolines perhaps?) about
some 18th century stays being steamed into shape.
Claire
Victorian stays were definitely steamed into shape over a body form.
"The Symington Collection" catalogue, from the Museum in Leicester,
shows this quite clearly. However, I don't remember that 18th century
stays were steamed, but I could be wrong.
Suzi
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
