Layer Cake

I am the underwear nazi. I mean, I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone, since I spent a full year of graduate school obsessing about teenagers and corsets for my thesis. But really, when you are going to dress up--historically or otherwise--it's your underwear I'm checking out most aggressively.

Okay, I promise, I am not going to go around peeking under anyone's skirts. That's not the kind of underwear I'm worried about. It's just that I like to see that if you put the time and effort into procuring a lovely outfit, don't spoil it by stopping at the surface. This goes for anyone: brides, reenactors, fancy costume lovers of all kinds.

Underwear shapes your body and the clothes over it. Cloth is soft and it needs the right support to make you look utterly fabulous. The human body is soft too (unless your a super model--and even they get their arm flab air brushed out) so you need something to give it the right silhouette.

Lesson 1--Brides: Wedding dresses can cost a small fortune. It's one day when we ladies have some extra drive (and a nice excuse) to really look fabulous.

But even a nice simple $100 dress can look stellar with good alterations to fit you properly and the right undergarments.

Torso: Ladies, very few of us have a perfectly smooth figure. That's normal. The "lunch meat" on the sides flops over. The boobs slip down and flatten out, and then there's that irritating lump that I have right above my belly button.
But it really does look better in a dress (for anyone size 6-26) to smooth yourself out with a good foundation garment. You don't need a steel-boned corset if you don't want one (I didn't). Even just a good $50-$100 modern shaper will do the trick. Tuck your waist in a little bit and keep your boobs up where they look their best.

Even if your gown is boned, taking this step will take the stress off the dress, leaving the underwear to do the work.

Want to go whole-hog for a steel-boned corset? Awesome! They look gorgeous, and can make your posture look stellar (which is worth more than you would think). Think carefully about what kind will serve you best. Try my blog entries here about how to pick it out.

Just be sure that no matter what underwear you get, you wear it to each and every fitting!

Skirt: Please, please, please do not buy a gown with a big puffy skirt and then try to save money by cutting out the petticoat. If you want a sleek silhouette, go for it, but big skirts fall flat without some help from below. Check out the difference it can make in the 1950s dress:

Same dress, but on the right I added the petticoat. See how much better that is? Making your hips and skirt look bigger also has the added bonus of making your waist look smaller. Nice.

Until you get used to it, you may feel a little funny. But please put something under there!



Lesson 2--Historical Dressing: This is the one that always gets my goat. You cannot slap on a pretty dress and call yourself done. Historical silhouettes are based on enhancing the natural body. See the lady in the blue dress? This Copely portrait was done in the mid 18th century. I can tell you for a fact, that when this lady got undressed for bed, her boobs were not that flat against her chest. She is wearing a pair of stays (also called a corset by modern Americans). Like this pair. They're not just important to make you look skinny. They're important to make you look right. That sexy shelf bra look that we like now was so uncool in 1775.

Also, don't you dare skimp on the petticoats. It takes a lot more than you think to get this kind of pouf. One or two is a start. But try getting bold and pile on three or four. You will notice the difference right away!

The same goes for the Victorian era. The corset seems obvious. You need a smallish waist, and you need to get your boobs up to make this look right. But, you think this gal's butt is naturally this big? For all 60-ish years of Queen Victoria's reign, volume was in. And there were so many ways to get it. Piling on the petticoats is the first step. And Victorian petticoats have extra layers sewn onto them to make the bottom fuller. They're called flounces.

If you really want to get involved, you can start adding bustles, hoopskirts, etc. Just make sure you pick the right one for your decade. In the Victorian era, fashion started to move almost as fast as it does today. Every decade had it's own look. You wouldn't want to be caught with a '80s bustle under your '50s dress! This would be just as odd (fashion speaking) as wearing your 1980s big feathered hairdo withr your 1950s poodle skirt.

Just remember, not wearing enough undergarments in your historic costume (from an historic point of view) would make you look poor, sloppy, and half-dressed. If you are trying for authenticity, pile on the layers. Even just adding a few can really improve your look.


I am in favor of this for Halloween costumes as well. Even when I sell my pinup dresses (at left) I add not just one, but two petticoats to get the right pouf.

Once I was super disapointed when, in a pinch, I ordered a costume from a major producer of sexy Halloween get-ups, and the cheap fabric clung to every lump and bulge and then fell flat over my pudgey butt. However, by throwing on two fluffy short petticoats (oh God I love petticoats) and just a basic plastic-boned corset, I had a super-sexy look that gave me pinup curves.

So don't be shy! Layer it up. Get your best look by building a frame for your dress to hang off of. Rely on a good foundation garment (corset, waist cincher, or bustier) and be sure to add enough petticoats to get the volume you want.

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!

My Masquerade: Part 3

It certainly took all the energy I (and my husband. and several friends) had to get ready for my 30th birthday masquerade, but it was well worth it in the end. Of the costumes there, I was proud to say I made four, and one young bride was wearing her SkyeLine wedding corset under 1993 prom dress (it made her bust look awesome).

Just a few photos of the action so you can see how it all came out.

1770s taffeta polonaise gown and Captain Morgan Pirate costume

both by me!

me with Ashley in the 1860s ball gown

The one on the right is a SkyeLine costume

Oh the dancing!

You know if Marie Antoinette had had beer pong, she totally would have played it!

I'm busting out!

Captain Morgan entertains the crowd with a few banjo rolls

With a neckline this open, your chest gets a little cold

What's a masquerade without the masks?

All in all, it was a perfect party, and I have decided to turn 30 again next year...

Under Where?

I try to be careful about separating my sewing from the museum I work in to avoid any possible conflicts of interest. But when my director started asking me to look for some sort of winter programming, I realized that it was much easier to do a lecture myself than it was to research other lecturers. And darn it all, if I'm going to give a lecture, it's going to have to be about what I know best--historic underwear.

So I gave the first of my UnderWhere? lectures at work today. They go chronologically, so today's was underwear in 1770, and I got to wear the big red gown again (3 times in one month--awesome!).

I have to admit to being a little anxious, despite studying historic Underwear for the past 10-12 years, it's only sensible that I got a little anxious when the people who make the museum repros for my museum came down to see my talk.

Perhaps it is a little odd that taking my clothes off in front of people doesn't make me worried. But the fact is, that an 18th century chemise is large enough to conceal a complete compliment of 21st century gym clothes, which is precisely what I wear underneath--that and I have no shame. :)

Once I was crammed into my gown (I have to tight lace because I made it too small--dummy) and people started filling up out lecture room, I felt pretty at ease though. There's something about wearing a really impressive costume that makes me just feel good.

So away I went, confidently declaring myself an expert and doing my best to stick to what I know (instead of giving into the temptation to meander off in conjecture) as I peeled off 11 costume items and explained each one. Just like the last time I did this program, my only problem turned out to be keeping it to just one hour.

Two more to go this winter: 1800 and 1880. The 1880 will be tough, but only because the gown is so F-ing tiny (I didn't make that one, I bought it second hand, which is why it is too small). At the 1880 session, I fully plan to get into corsets full-on though, because that is the era I kick ass at. If there's any way for me to weave in my graduate thesis on adolescent corsetry, you know I'll be all over that one too.

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.

My Masquerade: Part 2

All of the major machine work is done on the dress now. I would like to add some furbellows (the ruffles along the neckline and gown opening), but will have to wait until some more crucial stuff is done on other costumes first. Plus, there is plenty of hand-work left.

My Masquerade

Turning 30 this month hasn't phased me a bit. Maybe that's because I've taken it as an excuse to throw an over-the-top, totally self-indulgent Masquerade Birthday Party in early January: I mean, masks and glitter and champagne and all. And let's not forget the magnificent costumes.

I had planned to make something extravagant for myself, but the truth is,most of my friends can't afford to go buying giant gowns on their own. Now I am not only making my own 18th century gown, but I am trying to assist a few other people in finding something to wear.

First came a good friend of mine from work. Using the old blue "Cornelia" skirt to start with, I whipped to together an 1860s gown.

Okay, so it's not quite finished yet. I still have to do all the finishing touches (boning channels and lacing holes), but here it is in its current state:

Funny story: I had a piece of fabric left over from making the original skirt, but when the bodice was all together and I put them both on my dummy, I realized that I had the wrong fabric! I had a similar, but not quite matching dark blue taffeta. Duh! The effect is not quite what I was going for, but it will be alright for the party. Maybe one of these days I will make a skirt actually matches.


My next challenge is my husband. This is always a challenge because I don't make a lot of men's clothes--nor do I have a man-dummy to use for photos. Since this costume still has a ways to go, I will leave it to your imagination until I am closer to done (yes, I know I only have two and half working weeks to finish it. Stop reminding me!)


My dress however has come together smoothly so far. I returned to my old favorite, the Mill Farm pattern. This s my third use of this pattern, and it works pretty well (although I always forget how much smaller than expected it is so this will be another tight-lacing event for me).



I want to make a voluminous impression so I started with a bustle pad from the Butterick pattern (don't try it; the instructions are lousy) so I could get this silhouette:

gown by Sharon Ann Burnston

I picked an iridescent taffeta, primarily because I would need a lot of it, it was historically appropriate, and I could get it for cheap. Let's just be honest about that. I found a good deal on eBay.

The fabric really does look stellar when the light glints off all of the gathers and pleats though, so once I get that Polonaise looped up, I should look awesome.

My favorite part thus far is the sleeves. I followed Mrs. Burnston's instructions for cutting around the pattern in the lace for the under ruffle to create a border patter. So easy, and so pretty, I feel like a smarty-pants! After studying my V&A 18th century book for sleeve ornamentation suggestions, it came out like this:

I still have a ways to go, but here is the current state of this gown.

Wish me luck on getting on everything done by the 9th. As usual, there is a strong chance that I have bitten off more than I can chew!

Mold 'N" Hold

If you have a collection or strange interest that people know about, it is amazing what gifts will come your way.

A good friend of mine recently lost several older relatives and her family cleaned out their house. When we were having dinner with she and her mother last week, they presented me with a great-aunt's 1950s "Mold and Hold" Playtex zipper girdle in its original packaging. I was squealing with giddy delight.

Shiny and blue, the packaging promised that its new "soft cotton lining" wouldn't irritate, was more absorbent, and that the whole thing would keep its shape "month after month"--apparently these things were not expected have a long life span.

I've read a bit about the rubber girdles of the 50s and 60s, but in general I knew very little about them. What a thrill to get my hands on it! Filled with anticipation, I popped the top off the cardboard tube and poked my nose right down close to get a look at it.

My first impression came from the powerful rubber odor that wafted out into my unsuspecting face. Not sweat. No, it smelled clean. But if you've ever had a rubber mat for your bathtub, you know the smell I mean. Whew! There's a sensory experience that's been lost to time!

So I pulled it out and unrolled it.

I was not disappointed. In excellent condition, the thing actually felt rather like a bathmat, and was perforated all over to allow for ventilation (and probably an exit for the copious sweat that would result from wearing this).

The best part was the decorative V-shape in the perforations that seemed to be attempting to make the thing attractive. I'm sorry, but if I took somebody's clothes off and found this underneath, no amount of decorative perforation could make this sexy (unless I had a rubber fetish, in which case "hot mama!")

What a fabulous toy! I now have a glimpse into the lost sensory experiences of the 1950s. Although I will not wear it (for conservation reasons, as well as the fact that I am distinctly unnerved by the very idea), it is fascinating on so many levels that I am tickled pink.