![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chocolatepotYes, once again I spent the night at Dad's and once again I ate lunch there before going off to pattern and once again I had a nasty stomachache and a bit of a temperature. (Of course it's hard to estimate your own temperature, but I looked in the bathroom mirror before I left and noticed that my cheeks were prettily pink instead of flat pale. And I felt fairly hot.) I'm not sure what to do about this. It's so handy to be able to stay near Albany so I can knock off a chunk of driving. Nothing that I'm eating is spoiled, or the same two visits in a row, or even meat.
Patterning went well. (You get preview pictures if you follow on Twitter!) Two white cotton dresses yesterday, wonderful examples of how different those can be - one with a very gathered bodice and short puffed sleeves, the other a little later, with long sleeves, and with a bodice shaped very slightly like this, hard to describe but I can tell it would slant off and give the "divorce" look. Then today was all about the Pingat, which was in great shape as it's faille. IRL it's more salmony than that picture; also, not shown is a weird organdy/bobbinet/tulle chemisette with satin rouleaux on it in vertical stripes to be worn under the bodice for non-ball wear, which was a surprise. I'm still not solid on the date, because the trouble with the transition from elliptical hoop to bustle is that the skirt was cut the same while the underpinnings changed. So there's no clue there. But looking at fashion plates, it'd be highly unlikely for a couturier to make a gown after 1868 without an overskirt, so 1865-1868 at a loose estimate. I'm going to compare the construction details with ones in books tomorrow. Interesting fact: much of the bodice is machine-sewn.
In other news, my wrist and knee still hurt, but you knew that.
Patterning went well. (You get preview pictures if you follow on Twitter!) Two white cotton dresses yesterday, wonderful examples of how different those can be - one with a very gathered bodice and short puffed sleeves, the other a little later, with long sleeves, and with a bodice shaped very slightly like this, hard to describe but I can tell it would slant off and give the "divorce" look. Then today was all about the Pingat, which was in great shape as it's faille. IRL it's more salmony than that picture; also, not shown is a weird organdy/bobbinet/tulle chemisette with satin rouleaux on it in vertical stripes to be worn under the bodice for non-ball wear, which was a surprise. I'm still not solid on the date, because the trouble with the transition from elliptical hoop to bustle is that the skirt was cut the same while the underpinnings changed. So there's no clue there. But looking at fashion plates, it'd be highly unlikely for a couturier to make a gown after 1868 without an overskirt, so 1865-1868 at a loose estimate. I'm going to compare the construction details with ones in books tomorrow. Interesting fact: much of the bodice is machine-sewn.
In other news, my wrist and knee still hurt, but you knew that.
