I think there is a picture of the Manchester stays in Corsets and
Crinolines, with a later date. I have a drawing from a student of
the same stays, also dated later. I think that date given was 1670 -
court dress of this time had the tops of the shoulders exposed.
I just got out Cut of
I was away when the original message was posted and, when I got back,
couldn't access the page. Now I have seen the corset, I agree with what
others have said. The long waist and dropped shoulders suggest to me the
1650s-60s.
Kate Bunting
Librarian and 17th century reenactor
Snip
Though I do have a question, hopefully someone where has studied the art
of
making stays; why is it that before the 19thC strips of baleen used for
the
bulk of stays were so incredibly narrow? I'm sure you get more flexibility
with it but still have a very supportive garment. But is the
At 03:25 20/06/2006, you wrote:
http://www.manchestergalleries.org/costume/object.php?irn=14962QueryPage=i
n
dex.phpthemeback=2CostumeTheme=costume%20sub-theme
It is dated 1620 to 1640, but to my eye it looks a bit later. Does
anyone
on the list know anything about this garment, and
There has been talk of a set of stays being found in Wales, which are
much earlier in date, and I believe Ian the Staymaker was invited to
look at them. However, to the best of my knowledge, nothing has yet
been published about them. Bjarne mentioned them in a post some time
ago, I think.
I
I think there is a picture of the Manchester stays in Corsets and
Crinolines, with a later date. I have a drawing from a student of the
same stays, also dated later. I think that date given was 1670 - court
dress of this time had the tops of the shoulders exposed.
Thank you, Suzi, this is
I think there is a picture of the Manchester stays in Corsets and
Crinolines, with a later date. I have a drawing from a student of the
same stays, also dated later. I think that date given was 1670 - court
dress of this time had the tops of the shoulders exposed.
Thank you, Suzi, this
In a message dated 6/20/2006 7:46:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But is the benefit so
great for so much more extra work? Was it down to the methods of cutting
perhaps?
When labor is cheaper than materials..who cares about extra
I add my vote to the looks 1650s-70s to me group, but it's also worth
mentioning that we have very, very little to go on. If this turned out to
be a 1630s corset, I'd be a bit surprised based on the fashionable
silhouette of the time and the extant boned bodices, but if it turned out to
be
It looks later to me, too, but the 17th century isn't my primary area.
Heck, it almost looks 18th century-ish to me
--Sue
- Original Message -
From: Carmen Beaudry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:32 PM
Subject: [h-cost] Corset
http://www.manchestergalleries.org/costume/object.php?irn=14962QueryPage=i
n
dex.phpthemeback=2CostumeTheme=costume%20sub-theme
It is dated 1620 to 1640, but to my eye it looks a bit later. Does
anyone
on the list know anything about this garment, and about how accurately
it's
dated?
Subject: Re: [h-cost] Corset at Manchester Galleries
It looks later to me, too, but the 17th century isn't my primary area.
Heck, it almost looks 18th century-ish to me
--Sue
They do look 17th cen., but later than the 1620-1640 date. They look very
similar to other examples
12 matches
Mail list logo
