Aug. 1st, 2016 12:15 pm
elsewhence: (Default)
these stays are lovely and i want some

my next sewing-related project is to pad a dress form, though...

Apr. 20th, 2016 10:15 pm
elsewhence: (r2-d2 fail)
i am not especially impressed with this book. some of the example garments aren't even fitted properly, others use fabrics that i doubt are correct for the period in question. all patterns have modern armscye and sleeve cap shaping, and what's up with that regency bodice that has a shoulder seam in the usual modern position in addition to the historical backwards one? and with the so-called 1740s dress that has a zone front and engageantes? and the regency dresses that have modern bust shaping, resulting in the waistlines being too low? it's pointless to include a pattern for short stays if the fit is all wrong and doesn't push the bust nearly as high as it should be! claim whatever you want, someone who does that kind of thing isn't a professional in my eyes. if i'd bought my copy directly from amazon and not from a marketplace seller, i'd probably return it straight away.

Mar. 3rd, 2014 06:00 am
elsewhence: (arkanoid and vaus)


how to pull a 1780s stays pattern out of a modern bodice block. magic is how. i insist that it's magic. and okay, it's not technically a complete pattern, but dropping the waistline a little and adding tabs would be easy, if i wanted to do that. or i can just use it as a base for later, shorter styles the way it is.

on the pattern outlined in green the bust measurement - more specifically the back bust measurement - is too small by 2.5 mm, to the right of that sheet is a pattern piece that i've traced out, slashed and spread to correct this. that's why i have two of the same piece.

(and i'd like to personally give hell to anyone who thinks that a difference that small doesn't really matter and you can just ignore it and it'll work out fine. there's already enough unavoidable sources of error in the whole process of garmentmaking, there's absolutely no excuse for stacking entirely avoidable ones on top of that.)

Mar. 1st, 2014 03:35 am
elsewhence: (invent the universe)
you know, i'm not even sure 18th century stays are actually meant to force your shoulders back. or more specifically, i'm not sure that's the primary reason behind the way they're cut. i think that's actually pretty much just what happens when you try to make a shoulder strap from a single long straight piece of material (which would have been a very good and sensible decision in a time when fabric was more expensive than labour, it could potentially make for much more efficient fabric usage). if you attach it in the anatomically correct position in the front, then wrap it over the shoulder, it moves slightly inside the shoulder point on top of the shoulder, then veers off towards centre back in the back. and if you kept going, it'd eventually end up at the waist on the opposite side of the body hm where have i seen that before. an armscye that's larger in the back is just the shape that naturally emerges from this.

also hey look, paper dolls from the year 1810, showing typical women's underwear of the year 1810. clearly the stereotypical long gusseted form of regency stays was not the norm even then. i'm beginning to suspect it didn't really arrive until the late 1810s, and wearing it under my preferred late 1790s styles would be like pretending that it's alright to put a 1950s bullet bra under 1970s clothes because hey they're only 20 years apart after all. ???

(i feel pretty weird about the way i can show so much involved research, but almost never actually sew anything. :()

Feb. 25th, 2014 12:53 am
elsewhence: (r2-d2 surprised)


there we go. it's a bit difficult to install, but it does fit and does work. i'm not really sure why anyone would just blindly accept the implied "fact" that singer buttonholers would only fit on singer machines? i mean, think about it from this point of view, if you're a company that manufactures both sewing machines and sewing machine accessories, of course you're going to try and push people to use these accessories on your machines. and then think about it from this point of view, if you're a different company that manufactures sewing machines, of course it's in your best interest to make sure that all the neat attachments made by the first company also fit on your machines, so people will consider them a viable alternative. singer invented low shank feet, they accidently became an industry standard through the above mechanism, then at some point they invented the slant shank in an attempt to become unique again, but it didn't work because attempts like that never do (see also: IBM PCjr, new coke), and low shank remained the norm. and so this singer buttonholer works with the noname machine i got from lidl. it's like magic, except not. well, okay, the cover plate that comes with the buttonholer doesn't fit, but i just used the one that goes with the machine, that works fine.




buttonhole! thank you, singer corporation of the year 1973. i should probably use different thread for this though. it looks a bit... skinny. (like maybe... buttonhole silk? omg shocking twist)


    

only somewhat related, also scaled up the 1790s linen corset and 1790s jumps from jill salen's corsets. the corset is similarly small as the 1780s corsets and crinolines stays, the jumps are closer to my measurements. i'm really intrigued by the corset now though, the way it's not cut anything like later regency styles but already includes gussets...

Feb. 24th, 2014 01:58 am
elsewhence: (silly ikea person)


i scaled up the 1780s stays from corsets and crinolines, but can only really conclude that their owner was pretty tiny compared to me. i mean, you have to account for the fact that they're meant to close with a lacing gap, say 2 inches or so, but that's still not that big...

(yes, that's a tape measure with inches on it. there's centimeters on the other side, but i figured most people likely to see this will have a better understanding of what inches mean. silly imperial system.)

Feb. 23rd, 2014 08:04 am
elsewhence: (common eye spider)
:o i've totally considered repurposing sari fabric for a regency shawl or stole before. there we go, it appears to be period. i am awesome.

Feb. 15th, 2014 05:53 pm
elsewhence: (common eye spider)
i am literally going to make a pre-regency dress from high-grade cheesecloth. i mean, look at how incredibly sheer these things are. there's a reason you need the proper underthings to go with these fashions...

Feb. 15th, 2014 06:09 am
elsewhence: (arkanoid and vaus)


halfassed 1790s stays mockup. i went with a sort of demi-cup cut after all and actually really, really like the shape it gives! it shapes breasts with a fairly definite top and bottom and yet there's still a little bit of a conical 18th century look to them, rather than the very round shape and sharply defined underbust of the regency proper. and it's really comfortable too! it's so much like period paintings, i love it.

i still need to work on it a bit - as you can see, it's a bit wrinkly, and i can't decide whether the shape is fine and it just needs more boning/heavier fabric or whether the top edge needs to be wider than it is right now. and in purely aesthetic terms i may want to reshape the back a bit, it currently has the really pointy back armscye that i like in dresses, and i might want a round one after all (though this shape did also exist in stays, keeping it wouldn't be wrong). off to a good start, though. much better than later gusseted styles.

Feb. 14th, 2014 06:38 pm
elsewhence: (common eye spider)
the other possibility is that the stays i'm looking at aren't true underbust, but rather something like this, a sort of demi-cup approach. you'd get a pretty rounded bustline in profile because most of the breasts isn't enclosed at all and because the centre front has that outward curve from the waist to the bust, but the breasts wouldn't be seperated as distinctly. hm.

really i just want to avoid the style of stays that comes all the way down over the hips and uses gussets to fit the breasts, because that decidedly isn't period for mid-late 1790s.

Feb. 14th, 2014 05:15 am
elsewhence: (invent the universe)


there, that should probably work. or let's put it like this, if the general concept of underbust proto-regency stays is a sound one, this should be a good way of putting it into practice. i copied the seam runs from 1780s stays even though they don't serve much of a purpose here because i only need to reduce the width from 89 cm underbust to 85 cm waist, which is taken care of by the back darts (hidden between the centre back and side back pieces). why not, it makes sense that the first attempts at stays for a new silhoutte would build on the ones in use before that point. i call it experimental fashion history.

this pattern is actually 5 cm smaller than my own measurements (or 2.5 cm on the half pattern) because it's going to lace at centre front, meaning a lacing gap isn't an option.

if all else fails, i can also set gathered cups into the cutouts. that's definitely a period option.




and on a completely unrelated subject, butter LONDON old blighty. we are all totally surprised by this development. i promise it doesn't actually have a different shade on each finger in real life, that's just the lighting. the ring finger is the closest to what it really looks like.

(also this is the first post with pictures hosted by imgur, because fuck you imageshack.)

Feb. 3rd, 2014 05:17 pm
elsewhence: (r2-d2 surprised)
you know, i really like the way these regency stays look! my main plan is still to construct an underbust set, because i'm so convinced that's how that one set in the kyoto costume institute works (the left one) and it'd be a nice difference from all the same-old hip-length ones that i'm pretty sure aren't even period for the late 1790s and i just really want to know how well they'd work and hey, if it's documented for 1810 and talked about as though it weren't anything particularly special, meaning it can't have been a new or unusual thing then... but i just might have to consider one like this as well. and since these styles aren't corded or boned except for the bit next to the lacing, they probably don't take long to make up either.

(and also you know what? if that buttonholer works with either of my lockstitch machines, i could do the eyelets that way! fuck if i'm bothering with handsewn eyelets in a case where they won't even have to bear much strain...)

Jan. 30th, 2014 08:00 pm
elsewhence: (silly ikea person)
i don't actually understand how you're supposed to get a regency dress out of a single sari. seems like the skirt alone would eat up more fabric than one sari even contains...

Jan. 13th, 2014 06:55 pm
elsewhence: (silly ikea person)
this is the weirdest pre-regency dress i've ever seen, it's like it can't decide whether it wants to be an open robe or a round gown...

Jan. 8th, 2014 05:06 pm
elsewhence: (silly ikea person)
ugh why can't i find a front view of these 1790s stays anywhere. i could've sworn there was one in fashion, but guess what, i don't own a copy of that. i just got to borrow it for a couple of days once. :/

Dec. 7th, 2013 06:52 am
elsewhence: (r2-d2 surprised)
holy shit there are period regency patterns in here. a crude early form of multisize patterns, even, though i don't need that since i'd just use the basic shapes to adjust modern blocks anyway. there are stays that aren't anything like the ones people tend to reproduce! there's different ways to cut skirts, with and without trains! there's long sleeves, two-piece or one-piece with elbow dart! and look at the last set of stays this person has reproduced, it's an underbust model and it's cut on the bias. so many possibilities. i'm pretty excited by this.

(apparently i'm a patternmaking geek. this is so nonsensical. historical clothing geek still makes some degree of sense at least...)

Dec. 31st, 2012 05:37 pm
elsewhence: (beauty)
LOOK IT'S A COWL NECKLINE SEE I WAS RIGHT THEY'RE PERIOD. even if i was planning on putting one on a dress, not a weird overtunic thing like this, and i am surprised to find it in this late a year - seemed more like the sort of antique-y thing they would've liked during the directoire to me. the draped/gathered sleeves, too.

(sadly, the fact that it's a loose overtunic averts the one problem i would've liked an answer to - what kind of closure do you put on a dress like that! i'd really like one without a back closure, but a drop front won't work because the cowl goes all the way up to the shoulders and the shoulder seams are displaced towards the back on dresses from this era. so a back closure after all? i'd definitely need a drawstring in the waist, but none in the neckline. hooks and thread bars?

damn, i'm so determined to make this work now.)

Dec. 30th, 2012 02:24 am
elsewhence: (r2-d2 surprised)
aah i suddenly get how the 1795 kyoto stays work, i was so confused by the question of how something that ended at the underbust was supposed to provide any kind of support to the breasts, turns out it's an extreme example of the way you can't expect period corset styles to work properly without a chemise, for most of them the chemise only shapes the top of the breasts meaning they will still work somewhat well without it but with this one it actually forms a pocket for the entire breast, it makes so much sense now

i kind of want to make one now! i like transitional directoire styles a lot better than the regency proper, anyway. and i doubt anyone's made stays like this before. because they were probably just as confused by them, haha.

(i also realised that the yoke shape you get on a lot of mid-late 19th century chemises isn't arbitrary or purely decorative, it actually forms the upper half of a cup, with the corset providing the lower. it would control the shape of the breast better than a plain gathered or drawstring neckline could. there had to be a reason they switched to it after centuries of reactangular construction, after all.

it turns out the technical aspects of garment construction have always been a lot more interesting than their actual design.)

Mar. 11th, 2012 11:28 pm
elsewhence: (silly ikea person)
i totally give up on ever finding these (specifically the large paisley motifs on the last pages) again, only to do so when looking for something completely different?

saved to LJ in case i go and turn into an idiot again.

(tagged as historic clothing because that's what i would use them on.)

Jul. 6th, 2011 10:03 pm
elsewhence: (arkanoid and vaus)
see, look at that top with the little sailboat on it. and the overgarment thing also with little sailboats on it. clearly 1930s fashion was awesome. ;)

there really is no escaping from the puff sleeves though, is there. as early in the decade as 1932, there they are. i was so hoping to find some designs i liked, and things i like do not include puff sleeves. i don't like dresses from the regency proper for that very reason, they're so hopelessly ridiculous on anyone who has left grade school. perhaps on some other page?