The Ladies TeaStop in and grab a quick cup of tea! All sorts of ladies issues are disscussed here. Both Ladies and Gentlemen are welcome to join in the conversations.
This is a fantastic ballgown from the Litchfield Historical Society. It is miss dated, I hate to say, but the museum, but it should be c.1858-1868.
Stunning little dress.
This one is from the Kyoto Costum Institute in Japan. They have a fantastically stunning collection of oringinal dresses from all ages. Just fantastic.
But I believe what this dress and the previous two help to show is that they had COLOR!!!! So, let it be known, the next time you hear someone say that they didn't wear that, you have some proof that they did!
What a gallant looking lady. And the trimming on the dress, though simple, is very much a millitary look. Soiunds strange, but it does have that look to it with the sholder decoration and roping.
That 1868 is just gorgeous. I could see me in that!
You know, the ball gown that you showed, jenna, is very pretty. But again, it amazes me that women back then were thought to be so prudish, or whatever, and that dress is so obviously low cut! I am always self-conscious about dresses like that. I have more than my share of certain "curves", and I'd be afraid to move in that thing! I don't see how they managed not to have horribly embarrassing incidents.
I do love the military look of that last dress. Very pretty.
__________________ 4th Alabama Infantry, Co. F., Law's Brigade and 79th New York "Highlanders"
It was very appropriate to show a bit more skin in the evening, and although I recently read an article that totally contridics what you read in Godey's or Peterson's descriptions of the off the sholder look.
As for the low cut, wear what is comfortable for you. But remember that it was appropriate to have a "v" neck or rounded neck line to show the skin then high up to the neck. That was primarily reserved for morning.
There is a huge misconception that they only wore dull drab colors, but I believe that is from people who have not gone the extra mile and done the studying and done the research of the acutal dresses of the time, looked at more then one book, or have looked at the dress descriptions from that time. Even the poorest woman had one dress that she wanted to be fashionable, and even if it was from 10yrs prior, she would take new items or old dresses that had been worn out, but that a good amount was still usable, they would piece that in and trim it out and come up with a whole new dress. It was not uncommon for women who grew up as young girls in the 1850's to modify their dresses to conform to the new styles of the 1860's. So sometimes it is hard to discern the late 1850's from the 1860's styles.
But I look at it this way, why, if in the 1700's they had the most fabulous colors and those were from veggie dyes, why then would you revert back to the dull drab colors when you now had the new invention of anilyn dyes?? Maybe they look at it from the fact that Queen Victoria was in mourning and thought that maybe everyone else had to be in drab clothes? Big mistake, cause the royal family followed the Queen more so. When her oldest daughter got married Victoria allowed everyone to go in color to the wedding, but by the time of the reception she wanted everyone back in mourning attire. But the rest of the world did continue with color. Empress Euganie of France was also highly affluential in the world of fashion. And then top it off with the work of Charles Worth, and you can't tell me at that point that they didn't have color.
It has been said that women only wore dull drab colors, but I believe this once again cancels that theory. It was said that women during the 1860's did not put away the "white" or light colors for fall, but the opposite was true. They wore the light bright colors during the winter months, when the lighting was poorer and there was less sun. The light colors would reflect the candel and lamp light and give the appearance of being lighter.
Love the dresses! The Citizen's Companion has an article in the recent edition on the amount of skin allowable and the reasons certain parts were shown or covered. I found the information interesting. I have just reminded myself how to sew (reaquainted with a new sewing machine) and have set down to make some new dresses. My dilemma is that I can't justify making a gown when I only do camp stuff. i just might break down soon though and make one anyway.
__________________ "I believe we can only live better, in seeking to become, still better than we are." - Socrates
Which issue? I have a subscription, and the latest issue is Feb/Mar. Is it part of the "Shawl" article?
Jenna
Oh, and even the ladies on the farm had one "fashionable" dress, that was worn to church or for special occassions. It may have been the dress she was married in.
Jenna, The article is "Secret Messages of Sin Hidden in Civil War Images".
I do have a 'walking dress' but I got a pattern and a finer cotton to make a 'better' dress. I'm hoping to get into living history, so I'll justify it then.
__________________ "I believe we can only live better, in seeking to become, still better than we are." - Socrates
Thanks. I hadn't gotten to that one yet. Am still trying to get thru the LONG one on shawls. Yikes! Didn't know there were that many kinds of shawls!!
Living history is all I do. It's allot of fun. You get to talk to people about anything or just one thing if you want, and you don't have to be in first person.
Feel free to drop me a pm with any questions if you'd like. I'm no expert, and I'll be the first to tell you that, but I do have allot of friends that can answer questions if I don't know the answer.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
- D
Linear Mode
