Projects. Yay!

[threadwalker]

I was going to warp the loom on Wednesday, but I left the warping pattern at work. (boo!) But realized I needed to "make hay while the sun was shining", so I cracked the whip on another project.


I headed out to the Corbie Cave for some pinning supplies.

Gasp!

1. It was freaking hot out. 2. The door latch to the CC was too hot to handle. I went and got oven mits. 3. The interior of the CC was a sweat box. 4. I couldn't lock it up - the door warped in thickness over the winter and now I have to leverage it closed with my shoulder and whole body pressing into it. Door was too hot to maintain contact for that.

gah! Full retreat to air-conditioned safety of home. Locking the CC happened after it cooled down.

I took the new drape and tweaked it a bit. The fat in and under my armpit really needed more room, so I added some room for that. I also put in the final neckline. Then I re-cut 2 symmetric sides and made sure everything still fit, which is always follwed by adjustment for my shoulders; the left shoulder is 1 full inch higher than the right, so fitted symmetric patterns always have to be altered somewhat. (Over the years, my various chiropractors seem to have been personally challenged to fix it. lol. Shoulder: 3// chiropractors: 0. It's my shield shoulder, so go figure.) The back was (and still is) awesome. yay! Suitably armed, I got a bodice with lining cut out and pinned up. Wootie woot woot

Now what? Warp Loom on Saturday for beanolc

Then, with new bodice pattern, make a fruit seller dress with side-back seams.

Then the ensembles for A&S.

Then I need to get back to the insane project I started on my way to Oregon in April. I came to a halt because my brain froze in indecision. I was reading (gasp - yes, actualy reading the words in the book, not just looking at the pictures) La Moda and frowning and reading and frowning. I was finally absorbing something, which was they were throwing the word "petticoat" around. I initially assumed it was a funky translation. But after enough late night reading at grandmas, I got bummed because my brain decided it meant that I really needed a bodice to hold the sleeves and skirt together. There's this great shot of a lady in a dove-gray dress they call a petticoat and my brain has decided that's what I need to finish before I finish the blue overdress. I've been in denial, hoping a 'new' idea that involves less work would pop up. poopies. I solicited feedback from d_salie and she nudged me towards the path of underdress.

What I'm not sure of is this: is the bodice boned/stiffened or is there a separate corset? The gray one is perfectly conical and smooth. And once I figure out what I think they did, what do I want to do? I've a corset that underwent some surgery on that trip. So do I want to fit the bodice over that OR do I want to stiffen the bodice. And there is surviving evidence that corsets existed in northern Europe. Gah! at least I have time to percolate and read more. I need to dig out my other period references on "life and times" and see if someone wrote about inventories or provided other insights. I've gotten mired down on this one.

poopies!

Then we discussed cleavage (we = d_salie and I while draping). I've noticed that most of these Italian ladies don't have a lot of boob-age. One of my fitness book points out that based on climate, certain ethnicities have evolved to store fat in certain places as a survival mechanism; could it be that the subjects in these pictures are pear-shaped based on evolution? They are also younger, which may mean their boobs are not fully developed and their metabolims are at a high. And who knows if they have a nutritional diet to support body fat in the chest regardless of physical tendencies. Food for thought. (snicker!)

Regardless of the "who, why, what?", I'm looking at pictures of ladies with A or B cups. I'm currently a D. Do I perform some combination of mash 'em down and/or pad out my ribs to achieve the period silhouette? or do I alter what I perceive the pattern to be so that I can accomodate my differences? These are the questions that cause my brain to freeze up in the middle of a project.

Comments

Still figuring this out...

[callistotoni.livejournal.com]

I'm at work, so I've gotta make this quick.

The Tudor Tailor people -- who are the first to admit that thier research on 16th C clothes focused on England, believe that "corsets" as we think of them don't exist until the 1590's. This conclusion, they say, comes from the descriptions they found in the inventories and wills and from the existing garments.

This assertion made me go back and look (kinda quickly, 'cause of lack of time) at the Moda book and the QEWD inventories and write up. I'm now thinking it is all a question of how one defines "bodies". It seems like you could have a "bodie" stiffened with something (although not necessarily with bones) and that very often, but not always, those 'bodies' had a skirt attached. Case in point: the Elenor burial outfit with the hook-up-the-front pair of bodies that was under the gown. This thing is not boned. And although there are thread holes indicating that a skirt had been attached at one point, it was not there at the burial.

Now, the Tudor Tailor 'petticote' that I just made could be used by me (a B-cup) as support for an overdress -- the fit would work on me. I'm thinking this will be the approach for some future 1550's Italian gowns I'm hoping to make for nice outdoor wear. if you look at some (not all) of the Italian gowns before the 1570's the bodice line is pretty soft.

Furthermore, the Tudor Tailor folks believe that the terms 'petticote' and kirtle refer not so much to cut as to layer. So that you can have two garments cut the same and that one could be a kirtle and one a petticote (petticote if it is right over the smock/chemise, and kirtle if it over that. In there example of a 1540's dress they had on the red petticote (unboned), a boned kirtle, an overgown, and then a pinned on frontpiece/stomacher. As I wrote in my journal a few days ago, this usage caused me to re-look at the Moda text.

My choice for me La Dama in Russo (sp?), therefore, has been to bone the underdress and throw out the corset. I don't think I'm willing to throw out my corset completely, however -- I'm still mentally processing all of this.

Oh, and another thing the TT people did: for the boned kirtle -- which you could only see the top neckline and front skirt panel -- they boned not over the bust but under it, a la the Phasgraphine (what the heck is that name?) corset (you know the one I'm talking about, it's in Arnold--reed boning, has tabs sewn on?). I would think that this would be the way to go for larger-busted people. Just a thought -- not something I, personally, have ever had to deal with. ;-)

Maybe we can get together at A&S and we can chat. I liked the TT peoplem, but I didn't necessarily agree with everything they had to say.

Re: Still figuring this out...

[thread-walker.livejournal.com]

hmm... more food for thought! thanks.

yes, let's talk more.

OMG! that's a ton of layers. I can see that being reasonable in England, but in Sacramento in June? eek. I'd pass out. Pinned on stomacher? fascinating. although English isn't something I've spent oodles of time looking at.

The Pfaltzgraph Dorethea corset (I have probably slaughtered that spelling, too).. I know the one you are talking about. Eireannach made one like that, but we didn't notice that any significant difference with the "demi" boning and full boning. But perhaps it's related to the weave or fiber content of the corset and "stretching"/"molding" over time. If you had to wear it everyday, ...

"pair of bodies".. I'll have to show you what I've been playing with for 15th century Italian, because I'm making "fitted" bodices (I think of them as bodies) that are not boned, but very supportive and then attaching an unlined skirt. This is supposed to go under the robe/overgown.

yes, let's kibitz at A&S

[thelbk.livejournal.com]

Okay – I’m half dead tired here, and I’ve been interrupted repeatedly in trying to write this out, but I’ve been chewing on this issue a lot lately too, so I’m going to give commenting a shot.
As a needle happy fiend, placing a priority on having a smooth base to showcase the embroidery is something I keyed into right away.
La Moda talks about some “petticoat” bodices meant to be worn as the seen layer (not always the case when you add the Zimarra) being stiffened so as to provide as flat a surface as possible, to better display the applied decoration. Some of the suggested stiffeners are “cardboard” (hmm, still thinking that one over for translation issues vs. practical materials), felt or starched fabric.
Also, on pg 131 she discusses “stays”, which is what she calls the red velvet “bodies” from the burial clothes. Per the Gaurdaroba, Eleonora ‘s wardrobe recorded 13 “bodies” as almost all being made of soft materials (velvet) and lined with linen with similar interlining and almost all of them being delivered between 1547 & 48. But the bodies were cut in such a way as to not leave much in the way of room for the bust – hence when worn they would flatten out and redistribute the breast tissue over a wider area. So now you have a gentle spread out swell, as apposed to an obvious protrusion. Combine this shaping with the probability that woman of that era generally did not carry the amount of fat tissue on them that we do now, and I think that accounts for the shape of the bodice with out a boned corset underneath it.
The gown she was buried in was cut along the same lines as the bodies when it came to the lack of accommodation for the bust, as was the red gown in figure 21. La Moda argues that the “stays” were probably used more for warmth than for shaping.
Look at pgs 99, figure 40. This woman is not wearing a corset such as we are familiar with but she’s not “a la natural” either. See how the bust curve is spread out evenly? There is concave under the bust line, which you don’t get with strong boning. The bust curve is a gentle “ ) “ not an obvious “ P “ like a modern outling. A corset that we are familiar with would be a “/”.
Look at figure 38 at the bust line at the front buttons and moving her left to the under arm. Again you are seeing a gentle curve, not a straight line up from the waist with a shelf at the top, nor a naturally placed bust, but an over all spreading out of the compressed breast tissue. Figure 42 is another demonstration of the curve (granted a bit later style).
I don’t think that figure 26 is a very good demonstration of shape, as this portrait already displays obvious proportional issues. The head is too small, and I think the hands are over sized. The bodice does look like it is laid over a solid flat surface, almost concave where the bust should be? I don’t think that is one of the better “closer to life like” examples.
Now, who want’s to geek out about the padded hemlines that added volume to the skirts with out a farthingale?
(time to go to bed now….)

[thread-walker.livejournal.com]

I'm hip with the gentle curve. I have that down pat with my current corsetry. It's the smooth cylindrical look that stumps me. humph.

I am going to mini-rant for a second: I think Eleonora was a flat chested Spanish princess who refused to bend her pride to adapt or adopt to anything Florentine when she married Lorenzo. She refused to learn the language, among other things. I think it became the fashionable rage to be flat chested like her since she was married to the equivalent "power behind the thrones" in Florence.

There's my anti-d'Medici sentiment for the day. LOL.

(I highly recommend "Bloody April", which is about her hubby and his rise to power in Florence.)

TGIF