Jenny La Fleur
confusing the Victorians - Jenny La Fleur
adventures in costuming
jennylafleur
jennylafleur
confusing the Victorians


As per the TV board, apparently I confused a 1870s fashion plate with an 1880s wedding gown. How embarrassing! My response:

Umm... oops! I wasn't looking at the dates when searching my files, I didn't realize the extent gown was so late. So perhaps it's not the best example of what I was looking for. I don't intend to copy the decoration per-say (or the bodice, I'm using TV405). What I liked was the line and proportions of the skirt/pouf/overskirt.

I'm not into the aprons and swags in front so I like the idea of that decorated flat front, pouf behind as shown in these 1875 fashion plates:
http://www.festiveattyre.com/victorian/p75/may1.html (left green)
http://www.festiveattyre.com/victorian/p75/sep1.html (middle blue)
http://www.festiveattyre.com/victorian/p75/jul9.html

I'm really bad at translating the plates into reality though and couldn't tell if it was separate (full underskirt) or sewn together (false like TV216). I'm guessing now that either is acceptable for the 1870s? Thanks for you help and advice!


Clear as mud? Yep, thought so. :P

Tags:

8 comments | comment?
Comments
sbuchler From: sbuchler Date: November 20th, 2007 07:00 pm (UTC) (link)
This one I know is all one skirt, made to look like a forepart and overskirt: http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/90388.html

Off the top of my head I can't come up with any that are seperate skirts without front-parts, but that doesn't mean there aren't any :-)
jennylafleur From: jennylafleur Date: November 21st, 2007 01:17 am (UTC) (link)
Sweet! Just the sort of thing I've been wanting to see. Thanks so much!
gilded_garb From: gilded_garb Date: November 20th, 2007 07:34 pm (UTC) (link)
I would say that it's probably all one skirt. I have no historical information to back that up, just common sense. With that much going on, one skirt will be way lighter than two. Plus, it saves on fabric AND trimming to do it in one.

Just my two cents :o)
jennylafleur From: jennylafleur Date: November 21st, 2007 01:28 am (UTC) (link)
True... and less to pack for CC! :> Thanks!
From: misslemmon Date: November 20th, 2007 10:44 pm (UTC) (link)
Yeah, I was going to ask, is the middle blue dress/skirt a separate piece or a faux-joined together one piece skirt? Weird what I said but think you get what I'm trying to say.
jennylafleur From: jennylafleur Date: November 21st, 2007 01:29 am (UTC) (link)
I don't know, that was my question too. It's hard to put in words though - I think I confused the TV ladies as well! :>
newmoonstar From: newmoonstar Date: November 20th, 2007 11:08 pm (UTC) (link)
I'm guessing that all those skirts are one piece skirts, i.e. false fronts. In most of the patterns/extant gowns I've seen from the 1870's, especially the early 70's, they do that instead of full over & under skirts on the flat fronted dresses. The upside of course, is you save a lot of fabric that way, plus it's not so heavy.

Good luck on your dress! The world needs more bustle dresses! :)
jennylafleur From: jennylafleur Date: November 21st, 2007 01:30 am (UTC) (link)
Oh good info! Thanks!
8 comments | comment?