Since Mother Eve in the Garden long ago

Yesterday afternoon/evening I sat down and used a basic form letter to request permission from every non-Fenimore museum for permission to use the patterns I took there. Oh, not the SLCHA either, though I should. Oh, and I ought to write to Clermont - I took a pattern of a gown there that was supposed to be for someone else to turn into a costume for an interpreter, which never happened, but now I have the pattern. Chapman already got back to me to say yes! So that's all of the patterns I did for their PastPerfect website (remember that? mostly wedding dresses, the Delphos dress, a slipper ...) as well as a couple I did randomly: two chemises, an 1845 fan-front mourning gown, an 1850s tarlatan ball dress, and a pretty basic 1860s day dress that I don't even remember why I bothered. Albany Institute has also said yes.

Drew out the diagram for the overskirt that goes with the Peacock Bodice. That went very nicely in Affinity, but the next step - making up the table to say what width the pieces should be at top and bottom for the different sizes, because I am not going to make enormous skirt pieces print-at-home - is very boring, so I may shelve it for a little bit and work on a fresh pattern ... now that I have a million new options!

I am thinking of doing one of the garments I patterned before we switched to a 1920s costume theme for the section with dressed mannequins in Great, Strange, and Rarely Seen at AIHA; I wanted to publish a little booklet with the patterns of all the dresses in it but this was denied, and then we ended up doing other things anyway, so. The first one was a late 1830s-early 1840s day dress and you know I love that style!! (I should do the crazy no-fastenings Regency dress but it's so complicaaaaaaaated.)

---

Somehow I have ended up down a rabbithole reading about what some people have dubbed "squeecore" - imprecisely defined by the dubbers as quippy and with too much identity-politics (they're coming from the left but a more, um, "class first" left tradition) and dominant either in numbers or SFF awards. The general consensus seems to be that they're describing only a couple of works at best, and mainly drawing together a thing they dislike in this work, a thing they dislike in another, etc. and calling it a movement. Then beyond that I'm reading about the Puppies and all that, blog posts from 2012-2015 because why not.

(One of the dubbers is Raquel S Benedict, who was briefly fandom/writing Twitter's main character some time ago for some condescending tweet thread on writers who got started in fanfiction; she definitely seems a bit cool girl/pick-me girlish and RTs others. Can't help but notice that she calls herself a "dangerous woman" in her Twitter bio just like this person who applied for flair at AskHistorians and turned out to be a TERF, so now I'm mulling over how self-identifying that way seems cool to the doer but looks really pompous and pathetic to others, and how perhaps it signals a kind of "not like the other girls" attitude.)

Some links, which themselves have links to other posts in them:

Is there a dominant mode of current science fiction?
The follow-up to that, Yeah, but
Science Fiction Is Never Evenly Distributed
“Squeecore” and the Cartoon Mode in SF/F

This evening I figured out how to turn an Adobe Illustrator file into a both a plain and a tiled PDF, so I'm basically unstoppable now. The final stone in the Infinity Gauntlet. (This is especially good as the thing I thought I had to do where I imported the AI file into Photoshop was not effective.) (I should probably upgrade to proper AI instead of continuing to use the free CS2 version.)

I've been poking around drawing up the patterns for a fancy Swiss waist kind of thing (it has straps and a peplum ... I don't quite know what to call it) and a very simple ca. 1911 dress (the entire bodice is one piece, with a narrow gore under each arm). The former has lots of pieces but the latter takes a lot of paper. Not sure which is better.

Because the wedding dress I patterned today has a BIG TRAIN. (Yes, singular - I did the stereotypical 1890s one because it's more to the point.) It's in terrible shape, mainly, I suspect, because in the 20th century (proooooobably after the Diana/Charles wedding) somebody decided they needed to wear it, so it's shattering and shredding. At least the alterations they made weren't too invasive. It was made with a 36" bust and a 26" waist, and they opened the side seams and inserted big triangles to make the waist 34". Which seems odd, who has a 34" waist and 36" bust? But it's a good thing, as I'm sure that adding more to the bust would have meant taking out the sleeves and rearranging the gathers.

It's a very impressive gown. The front and back are deeply pleated vertically, and the sleeves are enormous - bigger than the ones in PoF. They're cut on the bias and splay out as they go down, plus the lower edge is curved, which makes it more than five feet before gathering. Detachable lower sleeves on hooks and eyes. A highish square neckline filled in with net, and a high collar covered with lace. A two-and-a-half foot train, and the lower edge is trimmed with two satin rouleaux that wind around and around each other.

It took four hours, which occasionally made me what "omg whaaaaaat are you dooooing," but then it was incredibly humid today and in the high 80s (I know to some of you that's very reasonable but here it's a killer), and the museum is air-conditioned, so it actually worked out pretty well.

The mention of a museum in mandie_rw's latest post reminded me that someone suggested I try Sturbridge for more 19th century clothing (I am going to have so many extra patterns ... but you know, wereleopard, my contract only says I can't publish specifically another Regency book ...).

(I still haven't sent you the Pingat yet, have I. DDDD:)

So for future reference, the gowns I'm asking about are 26.33.48, 26.33.37, 26.33.16, 26.33.76, 26.33.63, 26.33.195, 26.33.190a-b, 26.33.166a-b (A DIFFERENT BIB-FRONT), 26.33.134, 26.33.132, and 26.33.55a-b. (The ones I looked at but rejected were 26.33.114, 26.33.61, 26.33.183, 26.33.58, 26.33.35.) I also asked about spencers, because they had some in pictures but I couldn't find the individual records. Let's hope they don't say they charge $50/hr like the Rensselaer HS, or that they can't allow researchers to touch their garments.

Contra dancing last night was unbelievable. I was kind of awkward as ever, but I was in very high demand as a partner, probably because of people being welcoming and my not having any artificial joints - I got swung hard and fast by quite a few spry old men. (One was, I swear, an older and thinner Creed Bratton.) To the point where they overswung me a lot of times and ended up off-beat and with me in the wrong place. My feet are killing me because I wore my character shoes and my left hip aches from the turnouts in the swing. But I had a really good time! I hope I keep up with it and then take the skills to the next Regency dance.

Got an email back from ATHM turning me down. It wouldn't sting so much if I got the better rejection ("your credentials are/many candidates were good, but we went with someone more qualified") - instead I got the "no thanks". It sucks, I thought I stood a good chance of at least getting an interview because of my enthusiasm.

Finished the camisole this morning, but then the next gown I'd requested turned out to be a costume - a very good costume, I thought initially that it was just a mucked-with original, but a lot of things didn't add up. I asked about a petticoat, but when she brought it out I was eh, it wasn't bodiced or anything and I wasn't secure on the dating. The last thing I asked for was a gown that only remained as a bodice and hem, which I thought would be a cool thing to show (since that's obviously never likely to be displayed) and which had some great puffing, but the location in the computer was not correct. So I went.

I've been trying to find my egg rings and cherry pitter in Dad's basement, but they just don't seem to be there. There must be another box - maybe in the shed or garage - with all sorts of kitchen stuff. I did find my shift, which I don't really want to wear as the neckline doesn't quite work with my gown ... I could very easily keep it to use on the costume table tomorrow and just use a tank top.

Yes, 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.

Installed at Mom's house. It's so small - my dresser is literally two drawers, and I could look out for a bigger one on CraigsList but it simply wouldn't fit in the room. I only have a twin bed, which is tricky to get used to, but it has a good mattress. And it's basically cold all the time. But it's nice here, and it's nice being back in Greenwich and being able to walk to the stores and library.

Which we did today, and I bought a box of antique/vintage books from the library basement which I am now putting on Etsy, since I've (mysteriously) sold all the rest I had up.

Still trying to decide how I feel about this Robin Hood fanfic I'm reading. It's clearly based on the BBC show with strategic details changed so it's public domain fic. See, on the one hand I have a juvenile "lol Mary Sue" reaction to the author's OFC, who loooves Guy of Gisbourne when that horrible Marian couldn't. On the other, I'm kind of rooting for her because hell yeah, you publish your self-insert fic for real money like all the rest of us wished we could have at 15. On the third hand, I'm disapproving of how the heroine can't understand that Guy pressing Marian when she was in love with someone else was the issue, not Marian's inability to stop spurning Guy. On the fourth hand, I realized that there's a big difference between Rhapsody/Ayla Sues that are just soooo amazing, and the kind of Sues that are not that amazing in and of themselves (ability-wise, looks-wise) but are ~special~ because of something emotional, the way they connect with someone or fulfill someone's need. And that second type doesn't annoy me half as much as the first. And one of the reasons Twilight irritates me is that Bella is so much the second that she becomes the first.

I am probably going to get one of Kay Gnagey's hoops at some point - the pictures on her website are pretty sketchy, but looking at LR Stern's 2013 wrap-up it actually is a really good shape.

AAAAHHHH so nervous about first day tomorrow even though I'm going back to a place where I know everyone, I know some of what I need to know and am going to learn what I don't, and what I don't is something nobody there knows so it's not like I'm going to be held up to some standard. Plus I REALLY, REALLY want to do some patterns for the website, and what will I doooo if they say no. But I mean, that would be an excellent draw, wouldn't it? If I did a good enough job and did interesting enough garments, people could care about it and use them, right? And it would be like "oh, you want an 1880s walking dress with an asymmetrical closure? or an everyday cotton dress from the early 1900s? or a sexy Directoire evening dress? Here's this site, they have a few of these patterns, if you're okay with scaling up." (Is anyone else okay with scaling up? It used to seem to me like most people used Arnold and Waugh, but now it feels like everyone uses Reconstructing History/Past Patterns/Truly Victorian/etc. and the people who can drape patterns just look at the books for general shapes. But I can't tell if this is real or just paranoia/confirmation bias.) And maybe that would increase site traffic and even give them some more visitors and researchers. I don't know, would you use them if there were some new free patterns posted, within the range 1850-1950 and not generally super fashionable (don't think there's any Paris couture)?

Working on my descriptive text and going through my patterns, and I'm happy to note that my hypothesis about the lower edge of the bodice of closed-front gowns - that when the point is wider, it's earlier, and when it's ... pointier, it's later - seems to hold true. Which makes it even more likely that my closed-front mantua with a very flat lower edge (and the one in the MMA I linked to before) really was originally made like that in the early 1750s. But how. I mean ... dang.

I'm going through and putting photos in. The pictures I took are not publication-worthy and I'm planning to draw all of these at levels of detail somewhere between Arnold (simply not possible for me) and Waugh (too cartoony) to show the overall look, but at a certain point my descriptions of fabric pattern are not helpful and I think my pictures are good enough to show just a portion of skirt or bodice.

Nope, 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.

Just downloaded a free CAD program to try it out. Um ... I'm kind of considering just honing my handwriting because fuck there is no way I'm going to become proficient in this. I need a program that shows you a grid with clear axes where I can just put in simple coordinates and have it draw the lines and curves I need.