----- Original Message -----
From: "Saragrace Knauf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "h-costume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:03 AM
Subject: [h-cost] Question about early 19th century underclothing.
Hi, I have been asked to create an under dress for this gown for the
Phoenix Art Museum.
http://www.coraginsburg.com/catalogues/2004/cat2004pg10&11.htm
As you can see, it is pictured with a white under dress. My questions are
the following.
Would there be a difference between an under dress (it doesn't look as
though it was ever lined) and an actual chemise?
I was thinking perhaps someone would wear a simple chemise, then perhaps a
corset, and then the under dress, and finally a dress?
I am creating the under dress on a Kyoto dress form, which is solid. The
dress fits it, but the breasts are rather large compared to the rest of the
dummy and the only way I can get it to fit properly is to either create
darts or gather it under the breasts. Would the under dress be tailored
like the dress? (I have Arnold's patterns of fashion of this period and
have ordered Hunisett's book for the same time frame to see if it has any
further clues.)
If there were an under dress, would it necessarily have been white and not
a similar color to the gown?
Thanks for pointers you can give me.
Saragrace Knauf
I would suggest a bodiced petticoat over the chemise and corset, you can see
one costumer's version here
http://www.koshka-the-cat.com/regency_underthings.html and instructions to
make a bust supporting variety here
http://www.sensibility.com/pattern/petticoat.htm and a photo of a real
original petticoat in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, collection
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2quokm
Elizabeth
--------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Walpole
Canberra Australia
ewalpole[at]tpg.com.au
http://au.geocities.com/amiperiodornot/
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
