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.
I'd recommend her to any civilian reenactor. She even has an article about the cost of authenticity (which she maintains, as others of us do, is not any more costly than the far*bee route!)
well ,i can't speak for every one but i like the dresses that i can take off and wash , and not by hand . Now i am not saying that i don't try very hard to dress period correct , but the dresses that i have that are hand sown can handle the washing machine. The dress i pick to have made for me ( my mom is the one who makes them for me ) are historical correct patterns and fabrics i have buttons and ties. I don't have elastic or eye hooks. As for the price i don't buy mine , as i said , only the fabric . so sorry .
Best of luck
It must be an age thing, because even on e-mails and message boards, I expect to find decent grammer and puncuation; also spelling, dispite the fact that mine is poor.
So, when I saw this post, I was surprised that anyone associated with "school marm" would communicate in such a manner.
Have I fallen behind? Have I turned into my mother, who was very percise and often critical of my writting skills?
Just curious - Miss Amy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by school marm maiden
well ,i can't speak for every one but i like the dresses that i can take off and wash , and not by hand . Now i am not saying that i don't try very hard to dress period correct , but the dresses that i have that are hand sown can handle the washing machine. The dress i pick to have made for me ( my mom is the one who makes them for me ) are historical correct patterns and fabrics i have buttons and ties. I don't have elastic or eye hooks. As for the price i don't buy mine , as i said , only the fabric . so sorry .
Best of luck
As for the authenticity question, I am improving both my sewing skills and my knowledge base to enable me to have practical and authenic clothing. That stated, I tend to dress on using the following criteria: "the outside looks ok, the inside was straight forward and simple for me to make"
and "if I am going to wear it doing tasks which are likely to ruin it, I don't want to be upset becasue I spent a lot of time and/or money". I prefer to spend my money on quality fabrics: they sew better, clean better, wear better, and mend better. If I were going to spend a significant amount of money for a dress, I would look at fabric 1st, then period correct apperance, durability, and period correct techniques in non-visible areas. And I would spend significantly more for a custom fit or altered dress then an off-the-rack it-does-not-quite-fit one. I have seen some dress at sutlers I would have purchased, if the fit was proper. But few sutlers are able to make alterations on site, or willing to do a fitting and send you the dress.
I'd recommend her to any civilian reenactor. She even has an article about the cost of authenticity (which she maintains, as others of us do, is not any more costly than the far*bee route!)
Best regards,
Zou
I should also like to recommend Elizabeth Clark. Her patterns are very easy to use, even for me, being such a bad seamstress and drafter. Those were the first books I had read concerning this matter and were very easy to follow.
__________________ "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
... I am a civil war seamstress by trade. I am also a stay at home Mom. My husband is the bread winner. The dresses I sell help out in extra ways. Here's my dilemma, and here's how you can help:
I love to study original dresses, fashion plates, and CdVs. I also have my own collection. (Yes, this is where some of the dress money goes! ). Because of my studying I love to make my dresses just as they would have back then. Which means a lot of hand sewing, hand pleating and gauging, and even handstitched button holes. I do however use the sewing machine for all the internal stitches. So basically my dresses look on the outside, just like the real thing. But, no one seems to want 100% authentic dresses. Most ladies seem happy with the sutler style dress that often times do not have the correct fabric. I know very well how to sew sutler style. I know all the short cuts. I can turn over a lot more dresses making the dresses this way verses the authentic way. Yet as I am working on a dress it is so hard for me to take the short cuts. I love the delicate way the original dresses were made. It was truly a work of art. But I know everyone does not feel the way I do.
My husband says that I miss out on a lot of work waiting for someone to buy my authentic dresses. And he thinks I could make more money if I just sewed the way the ladies want it. I honor my husbands opinion. So ladies, how do you like your dresses. And what do you consider a good and reasonable price. I'll be very eager to hear your response. Thanks.
I haven't been on this board in ages, although when I was writing my Master's Thesis, I spent considerable time in the General History Discussions. It is good to see that the "Causes of Slavery" debate rages on after all this time!
Having checked back in after all this while, I couldn't resist adding my two cents to this topic. I had a Civil War sutlery in the mid-90s, and some of my best and worst reenacting memories stem from it. The best from some of the most interesting, informed people you would hope to meet. The worst from the "we" do what "they" did stitch-nazis who, unfortunately, often were the least informed.
I have two degrees in History, plus training from the Fashion Institute of Technology. I now have almost 40 years of sewing experience. I spent 10 to 15 years doing theatre costuming which, despite what a lot of people think, actually does rely heavily on accuracy. I worked for a director once who said if you envision one expert in the audience who knows the difference and knows what is correct, you will never try to "put one over" on the audience and will try to make thinks as accurate as possible.
On the outside, that is. Inside, where no one could see, there are lots of tricks and shortcuts you could take, and "shorter" than for sutlery style dresses (ever hot-glue a seam?). Once I learned the tricks and shortcuts, I looked for something more challenging. Reenacting attracted me because reenactors don't see themselves as wearing costumes, but clothing. It also gave me the opportunity to sew in a different time period.
So, I hauled out the considerable documention I'd collected on 1860s and went to work. And, like the original poster here, found that most people didn't give a hoot in holler if the dress was constructed 100% accurately, as long as the outside looked accurate, and the fabric was accurate. If someone was going to Remembrance Day, or had a parade, or other specific special occasion, they would come to me for "made to order," but the rank and file reenactor wanted something that looked accurate, would hold up to the punishment of weekends in the field, and could be washed repeatedly. Which, right there, probably isn't very accurate unless you were washing on a washboard.
In contrast, and most amusing and frustrating, were the people who saw themselves as most authentic. They would come and argue every point of every outfit, no matter how much documentation I had to support an outfit. One lady told me in whispered, fade-away tones that my dresses would never sell because some had no piping around the armholes and the ladies insisted on piping. No matter that the dresses in question were copied exactly, sans piping, from ones in the collection at Monmouth Historical Society in Freehold, NJ. One lady was shocked that I had detached pockets, although they were copied from ones in the Manassas Museum. And so on and so on. I copied CDVs down to the last detail and, even with CDV in hand, had people say "they" wouldn't have worn that.
Part of the problem arose with the original publication of "Who Wore What," which everyone immediately seemed to latch onto as a bible but which is, sadly, flawed in its research. Most critically, unless later editions were updated, the author never once tells how many total CDV images she used. So, statements supported by percentages don't mean anything; you can't support your argument by saying 10% or 60% if the reader doesn't know 10% of what. There is a big difference between 10% of a total of ten images, or 10% of a total of 6,000 images. And also what the collection is focused on; if you used my CDV collection, you'd say our of 500 images, 75% to 80% of women wore the much-maligned white waist, jacket, and skirt combination. Which, by the way, I had a respected individual in the reenactment community agree that that outfit was widely used, "...but "we" are focused on trying to get every lady in a corset first before we let them wear a white blouse." Well, it isn't a blouse, it was a waist, and get over it, "they" wore them and alot more frequently than anyone seems willing to admit.
And, yes, I've made white waists, and Zouave jackets, and garibaldis, and skirts, and ladies loved them and looked great in them and when I had a CDV to match, I gave them a copy. But the "authenticity police" lambasted them just the same.
I gave up the Civil War sutlerly for several personal reasons that dictated I stay close to home, but used the time to become a professional weaver and handspinner. I laugh because I can never find a Civil War reenactor willing to wear handspun, handknitted wool socks ("I can't wear wool, it itches!" "I wear Ragg socks; they look just as good," etc., etc., so much for accuracy). I can be found at odd weekends during the year dressed in either Colonial garb (yes, even panniers) or SCA events, both of which encourage and appreciate accuracy, but with a kinder, gentler tone that what the Civil War community was falling into.
I spent the past year researching plantation, or slave, cloth, the rough handwoven fabric made on plantations before, during, and often after the war. Mine is a mix of white wool, natural color wool, and cotton, and will be woven over a cotton warp. As soon as I finish the 15 yards of natural color wool linsey-wool that is on the loom. I also spent two months this fall experimenting with butternut and walnut dyes and have about 10 pounds of dyed wool to be carded and a ream of documentation waiting to be written up. I suspect I would still get guff that "they" didn't use cloth like that. But the Rev War people love it, and encourage me, so I will take that, not the abuse.
To CW Seamstress, I would say hang in there but be prepared for every argument. And let the comments roll off your back. The people who buy the accurate-on-the-outside, modern-technique-on-the-inside dresses were the nicest, most grateful people at finding something affordable yet correct looking. Not everyone wants to take a mortgage on their house to pay for their hobby. If someone says "Oh, what a great dress!" and then says "Oh, but "they" wouldn't have 12 stitches to the inch, only eight," ask them what is the evidence to support their argument. Chances is, it will be that a sutler told them that, or their girlfriend told them, or someone read it somewhere but can't quite recall where.
Anyone who would like to argue must be wearing 100% handknitted wool socks to do so! :-) I will make an allowance on the handspun, unless your impression is from certain areas of the South!
And also what the collection is focused on; if you used my CDV collection, you'd say our of 500 images, 75% to 80% of women wore the much-maligned white waist, jacket, and skirt combination. Which, by the way, I had a respected individual in the reenactment community agree that that outfit was widely used, "...but "we" are focused on trying to get every lady in a corset first before we let them wear a white blouse." Well, it isn't a blouse, it was a waist, and get over it, "they" wore them and alot more frequently than anyone seems willing to admit.
And, yes, I've made white waists, and Zouave jackets, and garibaldis, and skirts, and ladies loved them and looked great in them and when I had a CDV to match, I gave them a copy. But the "authenticity police" lambasted them just the same.
hehe I'm not a stich counter but the woman to whom you are refering to also said it would cost about $600 dollars, because of the silks and other fine fabrics and thats doing the sewing at home, to make an authentic white blouse, jacket and skirt. The same goes for the Zouave jackets and Garibadis.
The ones you see now are made out of plain cotton calico skirts and white blouses are not the same.
__________________ "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
hehe I'm not a stich counter but the woman to whom you are refering to also said it would cost about $600 dollars, because of the silks and other fine fabrics and thats doing the sewing at home, to make an authentic white blouse, jacket and skirt. The same goes for the Zouave jackets and Garibadis.
The ones you see now are made out of plain cotton calico skirts and white blouses are not the same.
Not the same as what? The 1860 originals? I would have to largely disagree, given an understanding there is a difference in fabrics from then to now.
Most references to "white waists" that I have encountered call them muslin or cotton. (Yes, we all know modern-day muslin is useless). This includes many diary and journal entries of ladies mentioning "...sewed more on my white muslin waist today" type of entries. Rarely are they being made of silk, and even more rarely would they be made of silk in the South, where such fabric was a luxury. I've seen them referenced as cambria (cambric), or just plain cotton. The few existing ones I've come in contact with seem to approximate the weight of modern-day lawn or batiste, although it is difficult with aging and not knowing how much washing a garment has been through.
There are also journal entries of ladies matching old skirts to a newly made waist, or using some household fabric to make the skirt and/or jacket. And there are extant CDVs of white waists over print or striped skirts, although it seems you were getting pretty down on your luck if this was all you had to wear. The ones that seem a little more fashionable generally have a solid color skirt, but not always a white waist.
There seems to be a continuing misnomer that the skirt/jacket/blouse outfit was some sort of high fashion item. On the contrary, it would seem without overly much indepth research, it was often more the "t-shirt and jeans" ensemble of the day. And I do own CDVs of ladies well out of their teens wearing it, so there goes the "it was a high fashion teen statement" arguement.
And as to one reason it was not often photographed, the photographers of the day would give strict orders as to what NOT to wear to a sitting. This included anything white because then, as now, white does not photograph well.
I suspect the $600 price tag is floated by the same faction that wants to see all ladies in corsets before they admit the skirt/jacket/blouse outfit actually existed. It is ridiculous to let this be the guiding dictum of any historic fact, to keep it hidden until a select few feel the time is right to introduce it. The truth is out there -- it is a matter of having the time to do your due diligence, research it, and then have everyone scream like stuck pigs when your research doesn't agree with what they've always been told.
If you have any pictures of women wearing cotton blouses with plain calico skirt and cotton jacket, please send them to me via PM or PM me for my email address.
__________________ "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
If you have any pictures of women wearing cotton blouses with plain calico skirt and cotton jacket, please send them to me via PM or PM me for my email address.
As I am in the process of preparing a book that will use these images, I'm afraid that I cannot share them around as I did in the not-to-distant past. Besides, the last time I shared a large amount of CDVs, I received back a nasty e-mail telling me what a chump I was for giving up my documentation so easily. So, that cured me of the habit! (it wasn't from this board, by the way -- this was always my favorite posting place as there was no "class consciousness" -- everyone was always treated equally, as life should be.)
Out of curiousity, how can you be sure what the fiber content is just from looking at the CDV? I know textile historians and curators who wouldn't go out on a limb from just looking at a photo. Personally, I would be extremely careful about making a statement as to fiber content. Having been involved to some degree with textile conservation, I am always amazed at what something looks like and what it actually turns out to be.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
). Because of my studying I love to make my dresses just as they would have back then. Which means a lot of hand sewing, hand pleating and gauging, and even handstitched button holes. I do however use the sewing machine for all the internal stitches. So basically my dresses look on the outside, just like the real thing. But, no one seems to want 100% authentic dresses. Most ladies seem happy with the sutler style dress that often times do not have the correct fabric. I know very well how to sew sutler style. I know all the short cuts. I can turn over a lot more dresses making the dresses this way verses the authentic way. Yet as I am working on a dress it is so hard for me to take the short cuts. I love the delicate way the original dresses were made. It was truly a work of art. But I know everyone does not feel the way I do. 
Linear Mode
