I knew it would happen
Jun. 28th, 2013 07:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chocolatepotNope, not the last visit. I got through two things and had to leave two others for a next time that I said would be in the next month, so here's hoping I go through with it. But what did I look at this time?
- A ca. 1800 maternity dress with crazy sleeves: the tops are plain, straight, old-fashioned sleeves, which stops above the elbow; then under that there's a wide trapezoid, making a kind of miter to cup the elbow, which was approximately A MILLION TIMES easier to pattern than the kind with darts behind the elbows and pleats above them, yet is probably more obnoxious to fit and sew. Then there's one of those big 1760s-70s ruffles, assembled on a linen tape but weirdly sewn to the sleeve by the top of the ruffle. The dating is hard. The bodice is very definitely 1790s, there's no indication of remodeling ... but it's small enough that the bodice could have been entirely recut from a petticoat, and there's a little piecing at the top of the skirt. The fabric is dark red striped with white, and with brocaded polychrome sprigs, so yeah, that sounds pretty 1770s, the ruffles are old-fashioned, and the cut of the sleeve says to me "I'm not used to making this shape, but I saw a picture and I'm going to figure out how it works through experimentation."
I think I answered my own question. Never mind. It's not hard.
- An off-white/ivory/greyish satin sacque and petticoat, which turned out to have been donated by the Fenimore Coopers and may have belonged to James FC's mother, Eliza Fenimore (1751-1817), who married in 1774, which means it may very well be her wedding dress. Which comes from the utter fanciness, not the color. First off, satin. The number of satin gowns I've come across is very, very low. It lasts like iron, so when I have seen it it's in brilliant shape, but it is and was very expensive because it's basically six times as much silk as the yardage due to all the warps. Second, française, formal. Third, SERPENTINE TRIM. Some of it's double-layered, some single, a little bit fallen off, but it is fancy. And the petticoat has three rows of flounces across the front. Unfortunately, the gown's been a bit mucked with - a pair of flaps has been added in the front to close it under a stomacher, probably Victorian for a costume party. The petticoat ... I don't know. It all looks original to me, but the front and sides are pleated and the very back gathers on a tape, which is obviously not standard.
There are two fairly standard 1750s/60s and early 1780s gowns left, which I might not even technically need, but I do want, so. We also got out something marked "ca. 1780, remade ca. 1845", which I'm leaving for 1800-1849, but I did tell Erin that it's probably originally 1740s/50s as it's got pretty wide back pleats and is a white damask with a large-scale floral/vegetal pattern. Good deed for the day.
Driving there was crap - my brakes are AWFUL and getting worse, that grinding, it's painful and every time I had to slow down or stop my whole body tensed up, it's a good thing it's getting fixed tomorrow; a few roads and bridges were out because there's been flooding in Otsego/Fulton/Montgomery counties - but the landscape was absolutely beautiful, possibly even better than Washington county, and the Palatine area is Amish country, so I saw a girl in a dark burgundy bonnet and a cloak in a horse-drawn buggy (whiskey? shay? Wikipedia is overwhelming) as well as a kid in suspenders at a farmstand. Which really made my day and brought back my recurring "I could totally be Amish apart from the religion stuff" feelings.
- A ca. 1800 maternity dress with crazy sleeves: the tops are plain, straight, old-fashioned sleeves, which stops above the elbow; then under that there's a wide trapezoid, making a kind of miter to cup the elbow, which was approximately A MILLION TIMES easier to pattern than the kind with darts behind the elbows and pleats above them, yet is probably more obnoxious to fit and sew. Then there's one of those big 1760s-70s ruffles, assembled on a linen tape but weirdly sewn to the sleeve by the top of the ruffle. The dating is hard. The bodice is very definitely 1790s, there's no indication of remodeling ... but it's small enough that the bodice could have been entirely recut from a petticoat, and there's a little piecing at the top of the skirt. The fabric is dark red striped with white, and with brocaded polychrome sprigs, so yeah, that sounds pretty 1770s, the ruffles are old-fashioned, and the cut of the sleeve says to me "I'm not used to making this shape, but I saw a picture and I'm going to figure out how it works through experimentation."
I think I answered my own question. Never mind. It's not hard.
- An off-white/ivory/greyish satin sacque and petticoat, which turned out to have been donated by the Fenimore Coopers and may have belonged to James FC's mother, Eliza Fenimore (1751-1817), who married in 1774, which means it may very well be her wedding dress. Which comes from the utter fanciness, not the color. First off, satin. The number of satin gowns I've come across is very, very low. It lasts like iron, so when I have seen it it's in brilliant shape, but it is and was very expensive because it's basically six times as much silk as the yardage due to all the warps. Second, française, formal. Third, SERPENTINE TRIM. Some of it's double-layered, some single, a little bit fallen off, but it is fancy. And the petticoat has three rows of flounces across the front. Unfortunately, the gown's been a bit mucked with - a pair of flaps has been added in the front to close it under a stomacher, probably Victorian for a costume party. The petticoat ... I don't know. It all looks original to me, but the front and sides are pleated and the very back gathers on a tape, which is obviously not standard.
There are two fairly standard 1750s/60s and early 1780s gowns left, which I might not even technically need, but I do want, so. We also got out something marked "ca. 1780, remade ca. 1845", which I'm leaving for 1800-1849, but I did tell Erin that it's probably originally 1740s/50s as it's got pretty wide back pleats and is a white damask with a large-scale floral/vegetal pattern. Good deed for the day.
Driving there was crap - my brakes are AWFUL and getting worse, that grinding, it's painful and every time I had to slow down or stop my whole body tensed up, it's a good thing it's getting fixed tomorrow; a few roads and bridges were out because there's been flooding in Otsego/Fulton/Montgomery counties - but the landscape was absolutely beautiful, possibly even better than Washington county, and the Palatine area is Amish country, so I saw a girl in a dark burgundy bonnet and a cloak in a horse-drawn buggy (whiskey? shay? Wikipedia is overwhelming) as well as a kid in suspenders at a farmstand. Which really made my day and brought back my recurring "I could totally be Amish apart from the religion stuff" feelings.
