The Empire Strikes Back

There it is. With practically no measurements, except "I bought a size -- bridesmaid dress, and they altered it a lot for me," and only 14 hours to finish it in, I managed to pull it together, petticoat and all. Empire--I love you!

The extremely thin, gauzy material was ideal for this dress, and it floated around my pal all night whenever she moved, making her look vaguely like a goddess. The bodiced-petticoat was a necessity to keep that fine fabric from being completely indecent in the skirt. And, the heavy linen lining in the bodice also provided a perfect sturdy base to keep the dress from feeling too fragile.

Sadly, this picture makes the sizing look terrible, but once we realized what was going on and pulled the drawstrings in tighter, everything worked out (note: bib front is a little tougher for multi-sizing than leaving the opening in the back as the pattern calls for). The sleeves will also need to be pulled in a bit, as you can see. They are decidedly shapeless right now.

Construction photos to come; it appears that my husband took the camera they were on when he left for the weekend. But at least I got a few new pictures of the red 18th century Polonaise gown while we were there. Sadly, the pictures lacked the super-perfect hairdo I wore to my own party--that was a pro job. But Kate did a nice job with what knowledge she had, and she loaned me her exquisite repro jewelry from Amey's Adornments to me so I could feel extra pretty.

Gown in a Hurry?--Go Empire!

I got this Facebook message from a dear friend asking me if I could make her anything for a party this weekend. Apparently she's tired of the 18th century.

Really? Are you kidding? I sew on my days off from my regular job and then the two weeknights every week when I am not getting off my keister and getting some exercise (the gym and Flamenco--weeee!). That is a total of about 20 hours per week to make a gown and appropriate underwear...

But wait! There is a possibility!

As usual, I am falling back on the basic simplicity of the Empire period. I can whip out a gown in about eight to ten hours, and a petticoat in a about five or six more. And you can totally get away with a sports bra instead of a corset in this period if you need to.

I have six yards of Heritage Trading cotton hanging around that will work perfectly. Yes, I know I always say I've got fabric just "hanging around" but that's because I have a shopping problem that results in vast quantities of fabric sitting on my shelves like little fantasies of what I will make next. I shop on eBay, at fabric stores, and reenactments, building up this cache.

The fabric I am using looks something like this, but mine is pink with green. It's very gauzy--perfect for the Empire period.

And I'll use my old standard Folkwear pattern, which I have now made so many times, that I can't do it without making little alterations and changing the bodice on. I have to say, that the Empire has got to be the easiest period to re-design bodice for. If you ever get the urge to try, I encourage you to start there.

Marathon sewing today--here I come!

Petticoat Princess

The issue of Empire-era petticoats has never been dealt with to my satisfaction. Nobody seems to be positive what all gets worn down there.

I mean, yes. We know that pantalets were coming into use (split crotch of course), and everybody points to the existing bodiced petticoats out there. But like I said, I'm still not satisfied.

From Kosha the Kat showing a bodiced petticoat. God how I love her work.

Because you can't wear that many bodiced petticoats at once. And they're not uncommon, but they're not that common. And I don't think I've seen a single historic sketch, print, or painting that shows them in use (please tell me if you've got one, because I'd kill to have one for my presentation next week).

Gowns of 1795, when extra pouf was still in fashion
From the English fashion magazine Gallery of Fashion

And yet, I know that I once read a brief historic quote where someone was complaining about the "young things of today going around in as few as one or two petticoats" (it's a paraphrase. Lord knows I also didn't memorize it). Adequate petticoats were required for decency, sufficient pouf in your silhouette, and warmth. This one person, at least, thought that three was a bare minimum.

Satirical "Three Graces in a High Wind" image lampooning inadequate undies

So if the ladies of the Regency/Empire/Federal era (say around 1795-1820) needed to add up more petticoats, what was the answer?

1807 image from La Beau Monde showing petticoat under lifted hem of gown

I've spent extra time looking at this over the past week because I am giving my "UnderWhere? in 1800" presentation at work at the end of the month, and I need to have something to say about the issue. I have come to some hesitant conclusions.

I am going to go with the assumption that my memory of this quote is correct and say that three is a good set of petticoats. Say I wear one bodiced petticoat, because we know they aren't excessively common, and any more than that is going to result in some bulking around the shoulders.

What of the other two petticoats?

1813 Fashion plate from La Belle Assemblee

Wearing a standard petticoat around the waist, outside your corset seems like it might create a funny-looking line in your costume, but I have seen people get away with it successfully, provided you don't wear too many.

But I've decided that it must be acceptable to where petticoats underneath your corset in order to get enough of them. This practice went back through the 18th century and would have been considered standard up until at least 1795 when waistlines and bustlines became one-in-the-same.

In the well-known print "Fashion Before Ease," from the last quarter of the 18th century, you can see that this woman is clearly wearing several petticoats, her false rump, and her pockets underneath her stays (corset). From personal experience, I can only guess that her waist was feeling quite squished with all of those under a tight pair of stays.

Fashion Before Ease

The same arrangement is seen on madame below in a 1791 satirical image.

And this 1823 image (now into the Empire era) seems to suggest that this woman could be wearing one underneath hers as well. If you look at her hem, you can decorative tucks. At this point in time, chemises were generally unadorned at the hem, though some decoration was appearing at the neckline.

Book of English Trades, 1823-4

This 1809 French Engraving is less clear. The woman on the right appears to be wearing just her chemise under her stays. But the woman on the left could be seen as wearing a petticoat as well since again there seems to be some ornamentation along her hemline.

However, the woman in the 1810 image "Progress of the Toilet" is planning to depend on petticoats outside her corset, rather than underneath.

"Progress of the toilet," 1810

So where does all this leave me?

Petticoats, like all clothing, would have been heavily influenced by the status, living/working conditions, geographic location, and familial tradition of the wearer, making a standardized practice for garment wear unlikely. This holds especially true in the absence of a popular form of media or other distribution source (such as fashion magazines, which were not commonly circulated and did not show underwear during this period) that would teach women the "right" way to wear their petticoats.

The best any of us can do in recreating this era of costuming is stick to what we know of preceeding practices, written accounts, and the few existing images.

I am standing by my theory that some petticoats continued to be worn under the stays, and I am making myself a new, leightweight white petticoat for the purpose. The best I can do is point to the images I've got and hope that something more conclusive falls in my lap one day.


My thanks to www.pemberly.com, who supplied me with most of my images.

The Steamboat Ball Gowns

The purple faille Empire gown debuted this weekend at Clermont State Historic Site's Steamboat Bicentennial Ball. My thanks go out to Suzie and Sarah who submitted good-naturedly to be ornaments at the event as I and most of the other 300 guests snapped almost constant pictures of them--and also for making my costumes look so pretty! Tah-dah:

Empire Gown in a Hurry

At the last minute (as usual) I decided I needed an 1807-era servant dress for the Steamboat Bicentennial festival at work. I was lucky enough to have some gray check fabric laying around my studio (it belonged to a friend so I now owe her--oops!) so I set to work on a bib-front gown.

By combining the oft-used Folkwear pattern, scaled pattern in Janet Arnold's book, and images of the same dress in the Victoria & Albert's Nineteenth Century Fashion in Detail, I managed to whip up an acceptable bib-front dress in two nights. Yay me!

Yes, the bib is tied on the outside. I hemmed and hawed about this since the Janet Arnold gown shows it tied on the inside, but another gown from the V&A book shows it tied on the outside. Crap!

Well, this dress decided to drape better if I tied it on the outside. So the choice was made for me.

Sorry also about the lack of stays. I made the executive decision that as a servant, she could get away without stays--especially since I didn't have time to make another pair.

Historic Patterns for Beginners

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, young Kjirsten began trying to sew historic costumes. Mostly, I wanted to wear big pouffy dresses. I looked like this:

That's me on the right. Yep, I was in theater.

My mother bought me my very first book of historical patterns (the Holkeboer one in my earlier blog), and I slowly, painstakingly enlarged the pattern to full size. It was this one:

With a lot of help, it eventually became this dress:

Since then, I have converted to this pattern for my Empire dresses, which is way easier, and already human size:



from www.folkwear.com

This Folkwear pattern is a good one--in fact, I like Folkwear in general. The directions are great as well. And Empire period is great for beginners because it is pretty basic and does not require a huge investment of fabirc (it takes about 3 yds to make a dres. Yay!). I recommend it to beginning seamstresses for this reason. Plus, if you're looking for accuracy, the underwear is not that extensive, which is a real relief.


When it comes to accuracy though, I stand firm that you have to draw your own line. Some costumers that I really respect make my head swim when I hear them talk about really specific details like thread-count in your fabric and hand-sewing the whole thing and not wearing panties. If you want to go that far, I bow to your commitment.

It all comes down to what you, personally want out of that dress. If you want to know in your heart that you hand-sewed every stitch in that dress, go for it, but most people looking at you will never know the difference.

For myself, my accuracy depends on the project. I stick to natural fibers and historic colors whenever feasible. I am careful to get accurately-cut patterns or draft them that way myself. I have an obsession with getting the right number of layers. I am careful about construction techniques. I always use accurate closures.

But for the most part, I machine sew everything I can because I work a full-time job and would never get a single project done if I didn't. For some projects at museums, I will hand-stitch visible details. I buy synthetic ribbon, because silk is pain in the butt. I use synthetic fabrics in some cases. I refuse to be accurate for my Halloween costumes.

Accuracy is a tricky thing and takes a lot of research to get it right.

So if you are looking to start some historic sewing, buy a good pattern, take the time to do some good research, and decide just how far you want to go with your accuracy.


Other patterns I like for beginners:

Simplicity 4551 (most of the Martha McCain stuff is pretty good)


Almost anything from PastPatterns.com


Laughing Moon (great patterns, with good history and directions)