Oh, and knowing how they were cut might (or might not) be instructive--that is, underarm gussets, made in one piece from front to back, sleeves were straight pieces gathered in, neck gussets? Ann Wass In a message dated 9/22/2011 2:28:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
I agree that these look like men's shirts, with the exception perhaps of the one with the neck ruffle. That one looks like a "habit shirt" as described briefly by the Cunningtons in the History of Underclothes. That would put it in the early 1820s, IIRC, at any rate the high fashionable waist could account for the shortness of the garments. They still look like men's underclothes to me, though now I'm curious to see what other garments you're looking at for comparison. -Laura On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:00 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:18:41 -0700 (PDT) > From: "WorkroomButtons.com" <[email protected]> > To: Historical Costume <[email protected]> > Subject: [h-cost] Link to Reed Homestead sacque photos > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > www.flickr.com/photos/workroombuttons/sets/72157627724105088/detail > > Posted with permission. :-) > > -Dede > _______________________________________________ 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
