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.

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

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!

Aah Mother's Day

Like most otherwise good daughters, I find it almost impossible to remember when the hell Mother's Day is. So when I realized that the spontaneous weekend I was planning to spend with my folks just happened to fall on Mother's Day, I found myself casting around my house looking for some sort of gift.

Thank goodness my mother loves Victorian-era chemises as much as I do. She says they make great night gowns. Never mind that I've already given her two (one gorgeous one which I drafted myself and, like a fool, never got pictures of): I found one of those handy-dandy, Simplicity-pattern chemises all made up in her size and sitting in my studio. With some clever, late-night embroidery I gave it that "I made this!" touch that always reminds me of the marigolds and macaroni necklaces I gave her when I was a five-year-old.

But at least this time I took pictures. Voila! It's adorable:

(I just love using a closed cretan stitch for leaves. I honestly don't know if it's period or not, but it is super cute and easy)