A Most Beguiling Accomplishment

What it says on the tin. Also see me on BlueSky as @mimicofmodes.com, and at my off-Tumblr blog, also mimicofmodes.com, which has a lot more original content. All of the captions in my posts are my own work, unless otherwise noted. So please reblog, don't repost.

[mimicofmodes]

Did lots of photography today! I'm taking inventory as I go and then when I add the photos to the database I'll be rewriting the description etc. (so, cataloguing), which makes it all technically efficient even though it's slow. Though, actually, it wasn't slow once I got past the first handful of dresses that alternated large/small - I had to keep taking out padding and then re-adding the padding and it was a mess.

This photography setup is cheaper and more doable than I think a lot of small museums realize. Backdrop stand + paper roll + lights = a couple hundred dollars all together, and you only need to have one small dress form to put all your clothing on. Of course, equipment and space are only half the battle: knowing how to make a garment look right on a dress form, when to use a bustle or hoop, etc. is also a skill. But it's one you can learn.

Once I have the photos up on the database, I'll of course be sharing many of them here!

[mimicofmodes]

And lastly, our new 1830s day cap. I think it's floppier than it would have been in its original lifetime: probably it would have been starched at least lightly so as to keep from drooping and drooping.

I think there's a decent chance they do ask me for a pattern of this, but even if they don't I might turn it into a pattern for the GCVM gift shop.

[mimicofmodes]

I am hoping that Costuming asks me for a pattern of this bonnet ... I just think it's neat!

[mimicofmodes]

This one has been mucked with, as one of my professors would say. The skirt has been fully removed, regathered, and reattached. Not lovely! This also probably happened around the 1860s or so because when it was reattached, they gave it a dogleg closure: the skirt is sewn to the left side of the bodice but has to be pinned across the right side and is open down the seam. (You can see my entomology pins glinting in the light.) I would assume that it originally had an apron-front to the skirt, coming up as a flap across both sides of the bodice.

The donor bought it because she thought it would be a good background for displaying or photographing white muslin accessories, and I agree. However, I'm also now wondering: Quaker plain dress??

There's very little detail on the dress, so the flared cuffs stood out to me.

The silk also has a subtle and irregular stripe that you can only see in certain lights.

[mimicofmodes]

G2026.22.003 was billed as a morning coat/wrapper sort of deal, which I agreed with, but as I dressed it I just started to feel that it's actually a kind of lightweight pelisse for late spring wear. I think it's because a deshabille garment would probably be less fitted and less detailed, like the morning jacket in Regency Women's Dress. This is an outer layer you would wear in front of other people, not just your family.

The original wearer was also probably a few inches taller than the dress form/stand, so that these delicate ruffles didn't drag on the ground. The shoulders/sides also wanted more padding, implying that she was broader, too. (Not hard, this form is very willowy.)

[mimicofmodes]

Number two! I do wish that I'd had an undergown ready to take these photos, both for reasons of accuracy and because it would have let me hide some more padding under it. I do think Augusta Auction overpadded in the bust and sleeves, but this girl has no hips or ass and I'm pretty sure the original wearer would have.

The waistline drawstring is very interesting. There are two pretty big channels on either side, each with two cords in them. All four cords run across the entire back, with one from each channel tied at one side and sewn down to the other, all on the inside. With me so far? Where they're tied together, one extends out. The wearer would have been able to tighten them by pulling them out to the sides and then tie them off in front under her skirt. A new development for making it easier to dress yourself in Regency costume!

I don't have a closeup of that because I didn't actually draw the strings much in order to not put stress on the fragile mull. Instead I kind of pleated the back in to approximate where it would be if drawn.

The embroidery around the train seems to depict American sweetgum leaves and seedpods, which implies that the dress is from the southeast coast. However, this looks like chikan embroidery, from India! So the design may have been sent overseas for execution.

[mimicofmodes]

I spent all of yesterday afternoon photographing the new acquisitions, editing and renaming the photos, and adding them to the database, so now you can see them! It all takes a while because I do a full 360-degree set (including side fronts and side backs) plus detail shots I think might be useful to researchers and costumers.

G2026.22.001 is the gown we were discussing a few weeks ago. I'm now fairly sure that it dates to ca. 1800 due to the construction: the drawstring front and box-pleated skirt are classic signs of pre-1805 dress, and long, full sleeves that curve out to cover the hand go all the way back to the turn of the century.

I hope the photo of the bottom of the opening in the front makes it clear how the hem/vertical tuck thing works.

[mimicofmodes]

Hi! I just found your blog & wanted to say that you work at the museum that was my favorite as a child! I was especially fond of sitting at the desks in the little schoolhouse and thinking of how kids like me had done exactly that in that exact schoolhouse in the past! (I was an odd child, to be sure)

Aww, that's cute!

I'm so honored to work here - it's a very special place that's brought joy to so many people, and I hope I can continue to bring that joy with the gallery.

[mimicofmodes]

Working on digitizing and then grading this blouse pattern:

I've been reluctant to wade into the arena of digitized vintage patterns for a couple of reasons. One is the copyright concern. At this point, I've seen enough patternmakers doing this on a huge scale that I've concluded that either pattern copyrights expire in a shorter timespan than books and music, pattern copyrights do not work like I thought (maybe you have to scan the pieces and directions to be a violation), or the pattern companies simply do not give a damn.

Another is that it seems much more necessary to provide graded patterns of a reasonable level of quality for all of the interesting real pre-1930s garments out there. So many historic patternmakers concentrate on having a broad range of basics, which makes perfect sense from a business perspective, but I feel like I'm always seeing people ask "is there a pattern for [complex extant garment]?" and being told "you can use this or this or this basic bustle gown pattern and then alter it ten different ways." So I like offering odd old things.

But I've amassed this collection of vintage patterns for me to theoretically make to wear in everyday life, which I don't because they're all for 32-36" busts and I don't want to do the pattern alterations just for me because I always end up estimating too small. HOWEVER, if I grade up 2", then another 2", etc. I will end up with something that fits me once it's big enough (judging by the responses to my existing patterns).

[bethanydelleman]

The thing that pisses me off about bad period movie adaptations is when they go for a realist tone but don't care about what real people wore or thought. Like the tone is realist, the acting is realist, the colour palette is realist, and the clothes are things that real people at some point in time have worn. But they aren't accurate to the period, and it's just like. That's not a realistic depiction of the period or the people in it. So what's the point in being realist???

Incidentally, this is why I don't care that the recent Wuthering heights wasn't realistic period dress or society etc. It was blatantly symbolic (and Symbolic!) and wasn't trying for realism or period accuracy, so I don't criticise it for period inaccuracy. Like, who walks across the moors in a massive tulle gown in real life? No one ever, and that's the point. It's obviously performance, and that's what its going for. My criticisms are based on other criteria.

But this new adaptation of S&S seems realist - the colour palette and grading, the costumes and hair that aren't accurate but look like something real people at some point in time have worn, the characters that read like real(ish) modern women... It's trying to read as realist without being realistic and just. What's the point in setting it in the past then?? Why adapt Sense and Sensibility, a realistic realist novel, into an unrealistic realist movie?

I'm just so tired of earth tones being "realist." People wore bright clothes! The past wasn't drab, honestly it might have been brighter than now given our whole obsession with beige minimalism.

But no, it's not realistic unless it's BROWN and BORING

This is just modern minimalism imposed on the past. Just make a modern.

This is all just P&P 2005 recycled over and over

[mimicofmodes]

The thing I find particularly irritating is that they will then justify it with stuff like "and people didn't sit still for hours and hours to have their hair and makeup done everyday! stuff wasn't pristine because they lived in it! and those fashion plates only reflect the absolute top of society!" (as the writer for this adaptation did). Because it's like,

a) If you are doing Jane Austen, you are doing the top of society, percentage-wise. Stop lying to yourself. (Even the Dashwoods. They're poor in comparison to their previous situation but they still have incomes and more to the point, their old clothes.) They have servants. There is someone waiting to help them change clothes.

b) Oh my god it does not take hours to twist someone's hair up and stick a comb in it, and cosmetics were minimal. The alternative to pristine is not "full blown mess".

c) Have you ever heard of this marvelous technology, "cotton printing"? It had been around in Europe for about a century by the Regency and recent technological advances had made printed cotton even more affordable by 1800, such that basic prints were quickly becoming the cheapest and most common fabrics among the poor and middle class. The more you know!

[marmota-b]

Re: a) & c): And even without cotton printing, when you look at images that actually depict even lower class, not-up-to-date-fashionable people of the era in landlocked areas of Europe where cotton may have been a bit more of a hassle to acquire still, guess what, they LOVED their colour. Some colours might have been more affordable than others, but if a peasant girl in Bohemian-Moravian Highlands* in 1814 who's literally depicted barefooted and with a sickle in her hand can afford red and blue in her outfit, your Dashwoods can definitely afford colour. It doesn't take that much to put different colours of yarn in your warp to create some stripes in your fabric, as this girl (and the entirety of traditional women's garb from this area) demonstrates neatly.

*) For further context: One of the top areas in Czechia from which people emigrated into the US for better prospects later in the century.

(Original source is Miroslava Ludvíková: Kvaše z roku 1814)

With cotton printing... seeing her kerchief... My initial gut instinct at point c) was I wanted to say "I live for the day someone puts a Regency era character in indigo resist print", and then I realised I don't have to because F. L. Věk already did back in 1971. (Well, a 1790s character.) Sadly in black & white. That series is far from authentic in its costuming, but I get the sense at least it did not commit this mistake of "realism".

Epizoda 11/13 - F. L. Věk | Česká televize

Dávný sen českých vlastenců se splnil. Rakouský císař se vydal na Hradčany, aby přijal korunu českých králů.

Re: b): Can confirm, I live my life in an everyday braid and zero make-up or jewellery and the constant ADHD state of "oops, I kind of forgot I'm leaving in ten minutes", and even I am capable of putting my hair up for the occasional Regency event! In my version it goeth thusly: 1) Take your braid; 2) Fold it up the back of your head; 3) Stick about six or eight U-hairpins in it along its length. Ta-da, you have an updo! (I have not got a comb. Haven't found one that looked authentic enough with long enough teeth to feel like it could actually hold my hair.)

[bethanydelleman]

The thing that pisses me off about bad period movie adaptations is when they go for a realist tone but don't care about what real people wore or thought. Like the tone is realist, the acting is realist, the colour palette is realist, and the clothes are things that real people at some point in time have worn. But they aren't accurate to the period, and it's just like. That's not a realistic depiction of the period or the people in it. So what's the point in being realist???

Incidentally, this is why I don't care that the recent Wuthering heights wasn't realistic period dress or society etc. It was blatantly symbolic (and Symbolic!) and wasn't trying for realism or period accuracy, so I don't criticise it for period inaccuracy. Like, who walks across the moors in a massive tulle gown in real life? No one ever, and that's the point. It's obviously performance, and that's what its going for. My criticisms are based on other criteria.

But this new adaptation of S&S seems realist - the colour palette and grading, the costumes and hair that aren't accurate but look like something real people at some point in time have worn, the characters that read like real(ish) modern women... It's trying to read as realist without being realistic and just. What's the point in setting it in the past then?? Why adapt Sense and Sensibility, a realistic realist novel, into an unrealistic realist movie?

I'm just so tired of earth tones being "realist." People wore bright clothes! The past wasn't drab, honestly it might have been brighter than now given our whole obsession with beige minimalism.

But no, it's not realistic unless it's BROWN and BORING

This is just modern minimalism imposed on the past. Just make a modern.

This is all just P&P 2005 recycled over and over

[mimicofmodes]

The thing I find particularly irritating is that they will then justify it with stuff like "and people didn't sit still for hours and hours to have their hair and makeup done everyday! stuff wasn't pristine because they lived in it! and those fashion plates only reflect the absolute top of society!" (as the writer for this adaptation did). Because it's like,

a) If you are doing Jane Austen, you are doing the top of society, percentage-wise. Stop lying to yourself. (Even the Dashwoods. They're poor in comparison to their previous situation but they still have incomes and more to the point, their old clothes.) They have servants. There is someone waiting to help them change clothes.

b) Oh my god it does not take hours to twist someone's hair up and stick a comb in it, and cosmetics were minimal. The alternative to pristine is not "full blown mess".

c) Have you ever heard of this marvelous technology, "cotton printing"? It had been around in Europe for about a century by the Regency and recent technological advances had made printed cotton even more affordable by 1800, such that basic prints were quickly becoming the cheapest and most common fabrics among the poor and middle class. The more you know!

[mimicofmodes]

Did stuff today!

Fashion Plates - Genesee Country Village & Museum

Browse the Fashion Plates folder from Genesee Country Village & Museum

The above link is to all of the fashion plates in the collection attributed to the Journal des Dames et des Modes, which are attributed as such because of meeeeee. And they are also transcribed and translated, because of meeeeee. (Except, on both counts, for a handful from the 1840s that I'm just seeing now were already there, which I'll have to look at tomorrow as the magazine closed in 1839.)

[clove-pinks]

1830s gentlemen in your area want to go for a constitutional walk NOW!

[mimicofmodes]

In honor of a few lines in the trailer for the new Sense and Sensibility adaptation that made me roll my eyes fiercely, I want to reshare a post I wrote on Medium several years ago.

What’s in an Entail?

Thanks to Jane Austen, the idea of an entail that forces an estate to go to the next male heir, no matter how distantly related or unliked…

The most relevant bit excerpted here:

Another illustrative situation is in Sense and Sensibility. At the very beginning, it’s laid out:

Old Mr. Dashwood invited Henry Dashwood, his wife, and their three daughters (Elinor, Marianne, and Margaret) to live with him

The first Mrs. Henry Dashwood brought a large portion, and in their settlement it was agreed that their son John would have half of it when he was twenty-one; the other half would go to him when his father died (presumably there were jointure provisions, but as she predeceased her husband they didn’t kick in)

The second Mrs. Henry Dashwood brought no portion, which apparently resulted in no jointure in their settlement

Old Mr. Dashwood left his estate to John’s son, with successive life interests for Henry and John, as well as £1,000 for each of the daughters

Henry Dashwood had £7,000 of his own, either inherited or saved from the income he’d had a life interest in, all of which he gave to his wife and daughters in his will

This is much more complicated than the way it’s presented in both the 1995 movie adaptation and the 2008 miniseries, which make it seem like Henry Dashwood had been forced to leave his estate to his son because of male-preference primogeniture. But for the wealthy, inheritance was as much about what had been agreed upon by one’s father and father-in-law as it was about the law or customs. Most of Henry Dashwood’s estate wasn’t really his — it was his son’s or his grandson’s, and he was holding it in trust. What was his, he gave entirely to his wife and daughters.

[chic-a-gigot]

La Mode illustrée, no. 15, 12 avril 1908, Paris. Robe de deuil pour jeune femme. Modèle de la Maison Poilane, boul. Bonne-Nouvelle, 21. Dos de la robe de deuil pour jeune femme. Ville de Paris / Bibliothèque Forney

La jupe de cette robe, faite en toile de laine noire, est bordée dans le bas d'une large bande de crêpe, et masquée presque entièrement par une tunique disposée devant en deux plis creux, et bordée également de crêpe.

Le corsage, fait avec un pli creux au milieu du devant, est monté sur un empiècement en crêpe brodé; on l'encadre par des bretelles composées d'une bande d'étoffe, d'un biais de crêpe et d'une large dentelle de crêpe brodé. Les manches sont agrémentées de rouleautés de crêpe.

Le chapeau rond, relevé sur le côté gauche, est tendu en dessous de la passe avec du crêpe blanc, le bord est en crêpe noir. On entoure la calotte d'une draperie en crêpe, terminée de côté sous des ailes en crêpe noir et en crêpe blanc, et on complète le chapeau par un voile en crêpe.

—

The skirt of this dress, crafted from black wool fabric, is hemmed at the bottom with a wide band of crepe and is almost entirely concealed by a tunic—arranged at the front in two inverted pleats—which is likewise trimmed with crepe.

The bodice, featuring an inverted pleat at the center front, is mounted upon an embroidered crepe yoke; it is framed by shoulder straps composed of a fabric band, a bias strip of crepe, and wide embroidered crepe lace. The sleeves are embellished with rolled crepe trim.

The round hat, upturned on the left side, is lined beneath the brim with white crepe, while the brim itself is edged in black crepe. The crown is encircled by a draped crepe band—fastened at the side beneath a pair of wings fashioned from black and white crepe—and the hat is completed with a crepe veil.

[mimicofmodes]

Mourning! Note those bands with diagonal striations - that's the required crape.

[mimicofmodes]

In 1842, South Avon bride Julia Bassman wore an extraordinary corset for her wedding: one decorated with padded quilting around the bust and hip gores and in discrete foliate motifs around the waist. Her name, location, and the year are written directly onto the fabric.

It's also very interesting because of its flimsiness. Most corsets of the era are made of cotton sateen, a fairly sturdy fabric, and have a significant amount of cording or strength quilting (rows of parallel lines, or a grid). This one has an outer layer of thin linen and an inner layer of thin cotton, and the quilting here is almost entirely decorative. Apart from the busk, there's essentially no stiffening here. I would suppose that this comes down to a couple of things:

As I'm always saying, the cut of a corset does all of the work to shape a figure. It's not the boning. People think it's the boning but it's not.

A young woman might need minimal support to achieve the fashionable figure. I should measure the corset and see its exact dimensions, but it looks to be on the smaller side.

She may have decided that this was going to be a special garment that would only be worn once, so it didn't need to hold up to many or even multiple uses.

Genesee Country Village & Museum - Corset

Embroidered wedding corset made of cotton.

[mimicofmodes]

Footwear Friday for real this week! This pair of high-heeled shoes dates to the 1730s, based on the methods of construction used, as well as the design of the silk brocade. One can imagine these being worn by a woman (with very small feet) and fastened with a pair of gleaming silver buckles.

This week, I photographed two shelves of shoes at GCVM, but currently I'm still editing and renaming the files, so they aren't in the online database yet. Soon! Probably next week.

[mimicofmodes]

I'm fascinated by this 1819 wedding dress made of a muslin figured with supplementary thicker warps, which has frilled flounces around most of the armscyes rather than actual sleeves. My feeling is that it would have likely been worn over an undergown (maybe white silk, maybe more opaque cotton percale) that had actual puffed sleeves, which would have held them out for slightly added width at the shoulder.