​I am currently offering this pattern as part of my indiegogo campaign- Patterns for the Everyday Victorian to be able to afford a new printer/scanner as an upgrade from my blueprint copier. 

When I began drafting this pattern my goal was a good basic pattern that was useful for ladies doing impressions of middle and working class ladies. Something that they could do their housekeeping chores in or be at ease on a summer day. 
​
​The first dress I looked at in my collection was one that matches patterns from the 1880's in both Butterick and Demorest fairly closely. It was well made, but definitely created by the home seamstress- using scraps from another dress to create the half lining in the bodice, and the hem at the skirt. One of the key things about this dress is its extensive use of machine sewing. There is very minimal hand sewing on it. Another point making it a good dress for household chores is the fact all trim is "sturdy." The trim on the dress is a printed fabric rather than a braid or lace that has been applied flat by machine to the dress. This is an easy replication done by choosing a historic reprint with a striped pattern and cutting it up into strips for the same look.

Collar attachment on the extant dress from my collection.

Machine stitched hem from extant dress. One side of the sleeve is sewn together, the separate hem piece is sewn on and sewn down by machine, as is the trim and ruffle.  ONLY then is the second of the sleeve seams sewn.

Back view of extant dress in my collection.
There are 3 sets of box pleats in this particular dress,
at center back seam and the side back seams.
Dresses from this timeframe usually had at least one center back pleat, but the side back ones were somewhat optional. It allowed the skirt to fall over a small bustle and give you movement room.

)Back of Sateen dress
The seamlines and skirt width on the dresses were actually quite similar and it was easy to be able to turn one master pattern into several options using primary sources in my possession. My final pattern ended up with an early 1880's style sleeve, a late 1880's style sleeve, and a practically full 1890's sleeve (full enough to be fashionable, not so full to be in the way). Cutting guides are included to shorten the shoulders to a more appropriate 1890's length, and for a gathered back, a pleated back and a gored back skirt.
We gave the pattern a test run with a class of 13 people at the Texas living history conference the end of January 2019 and it was a rousing success.  I came home and made minor pattern notes (mostly labeling cutting lines or stitch lines more clearly and started the final editing of pattern directions and the compiling of good historical notes. 

​ As you enter the exhibit this image is featured.
This is 1890's and seems to be ladies canning peaches. The aprons here are pretty typical of late Victorian everyday wear aprons.  A simple long rectangle gathered to a waistband that covered most of the skirt.
I could imagine this happening on the porches at Nash Farm when I acquired this image for my collection.

​
Many of the original aprons like this I have seen make use of selvage edges as the sides of the apron, leaving two less hems required when making an apron.

By the needlework panel you will find a knitting apron. This was modeled after an original in my collection. It is meant to be a portable "pocket" that holds your needlework or knitting. If you have to put it aside to tend to another chore, simply remove the apron and it is all neat and tidy for the next spare minutes. The original apron is a white barred cotton. The strings are not made long enough to tie, but instead would pin together. I chose slightly wider ribbon on my reproduction and a sheer ivory barred fabric.

I hope you get a chance to visit Grapevine and see the exhibit and stop by Nash Farm and say Hello!
below are a few images of me and my visit to the finished exhibit.

Trying to replicate a Late Victorian Bodice can seem daunting. Patterns are available, but some are more correct than others, and some companies take modern shortcuts that can make fitting harder later on. They seem complicated in construction, and endlessly varied. In reality if we follow the sewing techniques that the ladies of the time used, we are more likely to get a better end result, that is closer to how the originals would look. One of the main differences you will immediately see between modern pattern instructions and extant garments is that bag lining was not used. The most common method was flat lining with bias hems applied to bodice bottoms.
​
How did they get the lining and outer layers to match? What kind of linings did they use?  Do you have to use linings? How was the interior finished?  How do you finish the bottom edge? Today's post is some views of bodices from my personal collection that are good representations of general guidelines for construction of a reproduction bodice or waist. 

Click on images to see larger views.

Inside look at the above bodice.  Things to note:

• Standard 4 piece construction for a bodice from the 1880's through the 1890's consisting of Back, Side back curving to armscye, Underarm and front with two darts. 
• Underarm to Side Back seam allowance is wider than the other seams. This allows for easier adjustment. A properly fitted bodice from this era has very little wearing ease (about 1/2 inch)  Allowing extra in this seam gives you a quick easy way to let it out if needed.
• Because of the bulk of the velvet, a matching color silk fabric is used for hems and facings
• A wide inner belt is used at the waistline to reduce stress on buttonholes. This is attached at the bust dart seams (it can be seen on inner or outer darts. It closes with hooks and eyes slightly snugger than the bodice.
• Brown cotton twill lining is used - this is a very fine thin twill with a smooth feel.
• Boning is used on main seams and darts.  (a mixture of casings and using the seam allowance to case the boning is found in this instance) In this instance it is baleen boning.
• Seams are hand overcast to finish

A bit closer look at the side back and underam seams. The wide seam that is pressed open is the side back to underarm piece seam. Notice that it is notched slightly at the waistline to allow for the flare of the hip. The casing for the boning is whip stitched on, you also will see it feather stitched on at times.

The seam to the right is the undearm to front seam, the edges are whipped together and boning is inserted into this channel. you can barely see it peaking out. 

On the bottom edge is a silk twill used for the bottom facing of the bodice. Most bodices do not have shaped facings (the exception being sometimes the back panel for pleats) Usually a simple bias  cut about 2-3 inches wide is used to finish the bottom edge. This makes it easier to adjust your bodice for good fit. If you cut a shaped facing, then to get a good fit you must cut your facing after the bodice has been fitted, which is much more complicated. Using bias lets you adjust for curves of the bottom and be flexible after final fitting.

Inner "belt" attached at darts, to take strain from waistline buttons.
​Notice that the excess dart fabric has been trimmed away.

Button facings. To reduce bulk in heavier fabric, the extension behind the buttonholes, and the facing for the overlap are both cut from a matching silk fabric. Thinner fabrics and cotton fabrics usually just have the edge extended and folded back. 

This is blouse or waist made to be easily washable. From the outside you would expect it to be unlined, but the bodice portion is actually lined. This helps reinforce seams, and gives you a longer wearing garment by absorbing body dirt and giving strength to the outer fabric.

 The waist is only lined to just below the waistline level, and is fitted. both the back yoke and the back bodice have linings that have been pieced to make them big enough to cut the lining pieces out. The piecing is sewn together selvedge to selvedge. The bottom of the lining is not hemmed, ad the seams are not overcast. This is fairly typical in wash dresses. Washing by hand and the fact the fabric is of a good tight weave keeps them from unraveling in the wash. Pinking would not be used to prevent raveling on inner seams until the 1890's. The hem of the waist is done by machine stitching. Lining is darted with standard two darts on each side. Front facing for buttonholes and buttons is simple an extension of the front line that is folded to the back. They are most often cut on the selvedge edge of fabric so that the edge does not require finishing that would add extra bulk.

Above I mentioned that bodices from the 1880's and 1890's generally had the same standard 4 pieces. In a less fitted washable waist like this pieces may be combined. IN this one the back and side back pieces are cut as one, and the underarm and front pieces are cut as one.  The outer gathering of fabric to yokes allows for the needed hip room instead of the extra seams flaring out at that point.
The sleeves are not lined in this garment. Also notice as this is not as tight a fit, it has no inner belt.

 This is a great example of an everyday type garment. The basque (a basque is a fitted bodice that extends below the hips) is lined with what seems to be the leftovers of another garment. Both bodice and sleeves are lined. The body of the garment wrong sides of fabric are placed together and then treated as one fabric piece. The sleeves the right sides of the lining is placed toward the wrong side of the outer fabric. I suspect this was done on purpose, as one sleeve has been mended several times with  patches but the other sleeve the worn through outer fabric was enough damage it has been cut away and the edges neatly folded under and stitched to the lining fabric as a mend. The bottom edge of the bodice is bound by machine with self fabric binding. The width on the inside is about 3/8" of an inch and turned to the outside of the bodice and stitched down at about a half inch width. Sleeve hems are 3/4 inch bias turned to the outside and stitched down by machine. 

This set in my collection came with both a bodice, and a jacket meant to be worn over a shirtwaist. The jacket has been worn for a longer period or in more sun as it has some distinct fading, but it is definitely from the same outfit.

The matching jacket is constructed without boning. Has a flat lining similar to the bodice, but then is lined like a normal man's coat.  The red lining is cotton sateen or farmer's satin. I have seen coats for women both treated in this manner AND I have seen them flat lined- usually with bound seam edges.
This photo shows near the collar where the hand stitching has come loose and you can see the flat lining.

So there you have a peek at the "innards" of a few of the pieces in my collection. 
There are some great online resources for Victorian/Edwardian Dress construction
some I recommend are:
Instruction book for the French and English Systems of Cutting Fitting and Basting- 1881 J. McCall

Keystone - a Textbook of Cutting and Designing Ladies Garments

The Dressmaker

Have you ever seen a dress you wanted to reproduce, but did not have access to it in person? This post is going to help you try to read the lines of a draped overskirt to bring a bit of understanding to how draping works, and how to read a photograph to give you some starter guidelines while you are draping. 
1. You HAVE to have a mannequin to do this- Or a good friend who is willing to stand while you drape. Draping involves fussing and adjusting to make sure the lines are reading like you want them.

This is an early 1870's extant dress from the Met.

The front overskirt is cut shaped narrower at the top, without gathers and is a flat "apron" shape.

The back shape is soft and rounded and draped.

​Notice that it curves down and back up from side seam to side seam.

It appears to be gathered along the side seam. 

​We are going to focus on re-creating this back drape.

The heavy black lines on the two final photos show where the fabric is trimmed away after it is draped.

Many people think of the Victorian dress as dull and drab, and to be sure there were many browns and blacks chosen as best dresses, because they were appropriate for nearly any occasion one might require.  Demorest Magazine reported in 1883, "In this country prettiness in prints has had to give way: to utility, to such samples as could be depended upon to stand the brutal kind of washing to which they were subject to; having no confidence in the permanence of pretty colors, the housekeeper took refuge in dingy neutrality, giving an impression, based on experience, that the uglier the pattern the more certainly it could be relied upon to 'wash'. " The more neutral the color the more confident the average woman felt it would last well throughout its wearing. All of this however did not mean there were not some VERY vivid colors available.

In 1856 William Perkins, home on break from chemist school, was experimenting with a way to make a synthetic quinine, accidently discovered the first of the aniline dyestuffs- a bright pinky-purple that would become known as magenta or "aniline red". Initial experiments with this color showed that it would dye silk in a manner that would make it colorfast even in light- a severe problem with most natural purple dyestuffs.  Other brilliant colors such as Fuchsine, Perkin's green, Britannia Violet and many more (Check out the Dreamstress's article on his dyes!) 

A few more of my brightly colored favorites in the nicer dress category! 

    So does this mean there are NO brightly colored cottons? Purple dye on cotton was notoriously fugitive until after the turn of the century. So while there are "some" brighter colors to be found in cotton fabrics you are going to see pinks and reds as your most common options for bright colors.

The KEY is to do your research!  English Women's Clothing in the 19th Century is a good place to start- each decade and year is listed with some popular colors during that time frame (note these are likely referring to silks and wools). Read the articles in the fashion magazines rather than just looking at the dress plates.  Books like Manners Culture and Dress have chapters on dress colors and harmony of colors in dress.  Check out original dresses on the Met  and Whitaker's Auction SmugMug pages.  Swatch books from the 19th century are another great resource like these  from The Met. Don't rely on "but everyone knows" get out there and do your research and be prepared to name your sources- but be proud you can color your world beautiful!

I’ll admit it- the discussion that ensues during most late 19th century historic films in our home would drive most people to madness. Never mind the hero of the movie has been shot, is lost, out of ammo and the girl still hasn’t been rescued. NO we are exclaiming things like “WHY did they put a 1940’s saddle and gear on that horse, isn’t it supposed to be 1870’s?”  And did you SEE the neckline on that dress for day? And in PUBLIC?  That girl would have been shamed into propriety by the town ladies AGES ago.”  OH we realize it’s just a movie, BUT THEN we go to the museum or reenactment events and see those folks who have done their research “via film” and are mis-representing the past, and the domino effect goes on… We HEAR the mom whisper to the child, “Look, this is just like they did it in the olden days!” It makes us sad.

​Film I can forgive as artistic license. However, when I walk into a museum that has not done a good job of research and representation of a time period, it makes serious shudders run up my spine and my stomach go all wobbly. As the keepers of our history, museums should be held to a higher standard of correctness. Simply by being in a museum display the item now carries “weight” as history. This is where the importance of being earnest comes in.  Earnest is defined as a noun as “full seriousness, as of intention or purpose” and as an adjective as “serious in intention, purpose, or effort; sincerely zealous” or “seriously important; demanding or receiving serious attention.” 

History in a small museum can be HARD! Many of them were begun around the time of our nation’s bicentennial by enthusiastic citizens who only had their stories, and their parent and grandparent’s stories to guide them. While oral family histories are a good place to start, any competent detective will tell you memories are easily contaminated  through discussion and re-telling. Good research needs to be a part of verifying artifacts, especially those used in displays. The world is becoming a more visual place all the time, and so the visual aspect of an exhibit bears serious consideration.

Grandma’s wool quilt she made in the 1940’s becomes the one that Great-Great Grandpa carried during the civil war.  To a practiced eye this unintentional misinformation can be easily ferreted out, but convincing the family of it may be another thing altogether! Another issue in many small museums is that the accession records really have very little useful information to the historian. “Beaded moccasins donated by Mrs. B in honor of her son” might be 1880’s brain tanned Sioux, OR they might be 1940’s made for trade. Other than showing the donor, no other info is given.

​Until recently it has been hard to even start to properly label items, but with the internet, access to good research has become so much more available. Amazon can be used to not only look up identification books, but see other’s reviews of those books. As a professional, my personal library is massive and there are always new books on my “want to buy” list. Facebook offers many groups with specific areas of study that can often provide a good lead on where to research (ALWAYS ask for sources to read when dealing with facebook!). Networking of historians with specific interests can ease the burden of having one person having to “know it all”. Personally, I have a group of friends that I know to be well versed in areas that I am weak in. These are the people I can rely on to ask, “What is this item and where do I go to learn more about it?” I hope they feel they can do the same with me in my own specific concentration area of study. 

Many large museums with funding and better access to experts in specific study areas have put collections online and can be a great help for the local museum in doing beginning research for their collections. This does not mean they are necessarily infallible. I have seen mis-dated clothing items in online galleries as big as the Met, although those are few.

​So EVEN realizing the challenges presented to smaller museums for identification, I still expect earnestness.  When putting together an exhibit centered in the 1870’s using a 1930’s candy store jar with its bowled base and aluminum lid is nothing less than lying to the public.  Simply putting something in an exhibition because it looks “old fashioned” and “We already have it” is not good enough. By doing so we are, in fact with our own full knowledge, re-writing history.

​Our viewing public is generally innocent as to knowledge of artifacts. We must in “FULL SERIOUSNESS” attempt to present as accurate a picture of the past as we possibly can. This sometimes means admitting we do not know everything and asking for help, and it sometimes means removing an item from an exhibit that skews history.  Sometimes it means relying on well done reproductions to fill in gaps in the museum’s collection to give the public a visual that they can relate to more concretely. This may mean weeding out the 1920’s graniteware from the 1880’s graniteware and putting each in the exhibit where the time frame makes more sense. Sometimes it is making a tough call knowing someone will be sad, hurt or angry because an artifact has been moved or removed from an exhibit, but our responsibility to our ancestors and our history remains above all lesser concerns. 

​A museum’s job is to PRESERVE history, even with its flaws, not to re-imagine it to our own whims. Many treasures with important stories can be discovered in small/local museums, and the public needs to be able to trust in the museum for accurate information. Museums should be a place to invoke a curiosity of the past, but one should not come away from them having learned incorrect information. In my personal collection at home I have the advantage of being able to talk to every viewer of my artifacts from spinning wheel to arrowhead, and day dress to shoemaker’s tool.

A museum’s displays have to speak for themselves.
​Are yours representing your history earnestly? Or are they whispering falsehoods to the public? 

For my Christmas ballgown this year I decided I wanted a version of Queen Kapiolani's Peacock dress that was created for her attendance at Queen Victoria's jubalee celebration in 1887. My goal was to make the construction as close as I could to historic methods, taking clues from the description of her dress in the New York times as well as the photographs in the gown. The fact that she was a larger woman appealed to me, as did the chance to make this dress more than a "costume copy"  and more of a historical endeavor.   My first challenge was finding fabric in the colors I desired. I had my heart set on the azure blue velvet and sky blue moire as described in the 1887 newspaper article. Knowing that I would be spending a hefty sum on feathers, keeping the price reasonable was also a concern.  I finally settled on Kaufman's Lush cotton velvet, which has a nice sheen in person and was very lightweight. (another concern is the weight of the removable train). I found matching cotton/silk satin, and a light blue bengaline moire in  rayon/cotton blend and I was ready to start!. I decided to build a foundation skirt typical of the late 1880's and the feathers would be sewn to the top layer of fashion fabric only.  You can see some of the progress in the slideshow below. The advantage of building a ballgown like this in a period manner is that it really helps to support itself. The photo on the mannequin above only has a small bustle pad underneath the skirt of the dress and no petticoat (although I did drape the skirt over the petticoat I would be wearing, this was after the first wearing and my petti was still rumpled in the bathroom floor.)

While my train is not quite as long as a true court train (only about two and a half yards long) I think it had a graceful effect. Being removable makes it a more functional dress for myself to wear to more events.

Me after an evening of dancing. I didn't quite get the removable train completed for the event.
(I had an excuse- I had to make a Father Christmas and a St. Nicholas outfit for the museum,
​AND two other ballgowns for my girls for this event!)

​To help you see the sleeve patterning, I have carefully pinned ribbon using fine silk pins along where the seamlines would lie. The orange follows the under piece of the two piece sleeve, while the yellow ribbon shows where the upper pattern would look like if it were unpicked from the armscye and the under sleeve piece.
​

Did you guess the same?
Some of the things that might have thrown you off are: 
1. No collar. Most people think of 1880's dresses as having high collars. IN reality 1880's has more styles of collars, heights of collars and collar attachments than any other time frame I study regularly.  You may see wash dresses with no collar, fold over collars, shaped stand up collars, or curved patterned stand up collars.
2. Skirt attachment. In the 1880's there is a wide variety of ways skirts are attached, everything from stroked gathers, to gauging, to pleating. 
3. No overskirt. Fashion plates of the 1880's tend to show longer waistlines and overskirts. Remember wash dresses and work dresses aren't going to look like fashion plates except for bare bones of the seamlines.
4. Dog-leg waistline opening. Sometimes people automatically think civil war era when they see a dog leg opening (where the bodice opens down the front but the skirt opens to the side front at a seamline) This style of closure can be found into the 1900's and really depends on the seamstress.

The bodice has a back with a center seam, and the front bodice piece extends to the back of the dress forming a curved seam at side back. (note the spliced in fabric on the lining to get enough width.
Center front opening in the skirt that has been slashed and turned back under to form about a half inch placket. (no separate placket pieces sewn on) A topstitched pleat at the bottom of this placket reinforces it.

Another clue on this dress is the chainstitch machine stitching. Chainstitch machines are one of the early styles of sewing machines- as a general rule I see chain stitching on early bustle dresses and before- BUT this is not a hard and fast rule, there will be exceptions.
The use of heavier piping at the waistline. Where fine piping for strength was the rule in the 1860's the 1870's sometimes made it heavier and used it for its decorative function. The Sylvia Koester dresses from 1875-78 in Manhattan Kansas have some great examples of this.
The facings on the fashion fabric turn back separately from the lining fabric. (there is a gap between the lining and the fashion fabric at front between buttons/buttonholes) I have another dress from the early bustle time frame that has this feature as well.

Did you guess the same?
Some of the things that might have thrown you off are: 
1. Stand up collar. Refer to my collar comments on the first dress. A stand up collar is a perfectly
accepted style for the early 1870's, it will likely be an inch tall or less- 2-3 inch collars are usually late 1880's into the 1890's
2. Skirt attachment. Most people think civil war or earlier on the cartridge pleated, folded over top that this dress shows. I have dresses as late as the mid 1880's with this style of skirt finish/attachment a the top.
3. Sleeve piping. You might guess it is earlier(1860's) from the fine piping at the sleeveline, however the cut of the bodice lining and the heavier waistline piping push it to a later period.
4. Gathered front and back fashion fabric. Without seeing the fitted lining this dress might fool you into thinking it was from an earlier era. The lining pattern tells the true period of the dress.

The skirt is neatly gathered by hand and attached to the bodice with a machine stitch.

The upper and under sleeves are fairly slim and are much the same shape with the exception of the slight taper of the undersleeve at the top front. 

The collar is a straight of grain folded over band about an inch wide finished that is machine sewn over the raw edge of the neckline.

Did you guess the same?
Some of the things that might have thrown you off are: 
1. Mostly Machine stitched. By the mid 1870's MANY of the everyday dresses you see have very very little handwork in them. Buttonholes are still made by hand, as is much of the gathering for skirts, but a hand stitched dress has become the rarity rather than the rule. Because of the amount of machine stitching you might guess later.
2. Short front waistline. When I drafted this dress out for Domestic Lady's dressmaker I was very surprised to realize that it actually scooped up at center front bodice. By all appearances this was likely a maternity dress. The small upward sweep in the front would allow the fullness of the skirts to hide a rounding belly that might otherwise be starting to be obvious in this fashion time frame.

Bodice pattern piece include
Back with center back seam,
side back curving to armscye, and
​Front with dart from armscye to waist forming underarm piece.

The Sleeve is much fuller than it first appears to be when it is pinned out on the board. The high sleeve cap line was measured and extended by ruler while placing the pattern line because fuller sleeves are harder to pin flat at the upper edge.

I date this dress between 1893-1898
My reasoning:
There are a couple of things going on here- first and foremost are the sleeves. Sleeve patterns didn't really reach the shape shown on the dress until about 1893. The sleeve patterning system on the left below is from 1892- you can see the sleeves are becoming fuller, but were not "quite" there yet. On the right below is the Square Inch Tailor system published in 1900, just before the sleeves would collapse again. The shape is very similar to our sleeve on the dress, and would first be seen about 1893. Also notice that the shoulder seam length is very short- this is an 1882-1902 trait.

The number of pieces in the bodice are another clue. The extra "dart" that forms an underarm bodice piece, gives you the standard bodice shape from about 1882-1902. The fact that it extends past the waistline point makes it more likely to be 1890's than early 1900's as bodices were more likely to end at natural waistline from about 1899 onward. Something that is harder to tell from the photos is the fabric itself is also not as high a quality as fabric from earlier eras. The weave is not quite as tight and the fibers are not as durable. Cheapness of fabric allowed for interlining the bodice with self fabric, but it also showed as the bodice has split along one of the front bust darts from strain. 

Did you guess the same?
Some of the things that might have thrown you off are: 
1. It's hard to see the sleeve fullness on the mannequin. Honestly, I didn't mount these pieces "properly" before photographing them for this blog post on purpose. Most of the time when I see people asking "What time frame is this dress?" it is draped on a bed, put on a ill fitting mannequin and without any inner bodice photos.  As you may have noticed I rely heavily on prevailing patterning trends to help date tricky dresses, and sleeves are one of the points that can make or break support for a certain date.  Some fine silk pins and a cardboard cutting board can really help your dress identification process.
2. Collar height. We expect collars from the 1890's to be very high from most fashion plate images. The image from the 1897 butterick catalog for a work dress shows, both a stand up collar and a fold over "shirt collar".  Some dresses from this time frame have nothing but a bias binding at the neckline. Trying to date a dress only by the collar style can easily lead you off track.

So, how did you do? I hope you enjoyed my little game.
I have been studying Victorian and Edwardian dress for many years, and when my interest turned early on to everyday clothing I knew fashion plates were going to be of little help to me and started my two favorite collections. Butterick pattern catalogs and dressmaking systems. Using these two collections my third collection- extant Work/At home/Wash dresses started to make more sense to me. The more original pieces that came to be in that third collection, the more I realized what things covered larger time spans than I originally realized, and what would help place a dress in a specific time frame.  For example, my current opinion is there is no wrong way to attach a wash dress collar from 1870-1900. I have seen nearly every way possible in nearly every fashion period in that timespan to the point there are very few collars I would call out as specific to a time frame. (There ARE some- but that is another lecture.) With the advent of reasonably priced paper patterns in the 1860's, and fashion magazines publishing patterns within their pages, most women had access to current basic pattern shapes for bodice and sleeves.
ALL images in this blog post are from my personal collection.
Please do not copy and use as your own- but feel free to share the blog post as much as you like.

So, I love Halloween and I collect skulls- it only makes sense that I eventually put together a mourning exhibit right? So do I look sad? 
My goal was to put together a mourning dress that would be appropriate for opening of the Beyond the Veil exhibit I recently completed. As life is wont to do, after I had got the exhibit together and tended to the family- I had mananged to give myself 24 hours to complete the new dress. Not an ideal situation. But as my friend says, "Sleep is for the weak!" and I dove in. My advantages are: 
1. I already have a personal master sloper with several sleeve and collar styles
2. I had the fabric already ordered and waiting on my table.
3. I have a 7 gore skirt pattern in production  that was already altered to my size/height. 

so SURE I can make a dress in that amount of time. ;)

I chose a high twist tropical weight wool crepe, and a silk crinkle crepe as my main fabrics. My goal was to create a dress that would give me a bit of leeway of the "when" of when I would wear it.
Since I'm in my late 40's I can get away with being slightly out of fashion on smaller things.
​I had images of mourning fashion from Delineators in 1898 and 1901  - my goal was 1900 as Isabella Seay Collins had passed away that year, but I wanted to be able to "get away" with wearing it for the 1890's and early 1900's should I so desire it for another event. While I ADORED the 1898 trim that came to a point in the front- to me that read definately late 1890's, likewise, more fullness at sleeve heads or the adorable little tabs that decorate the shoulder.  Because my waistline has grown in the past few years, I prefer to not choose a bodice that ends directly at the waist if I can possibly avoid it. I decided that the tabbed front, higher on the sides and slightly longer in the back would work for the time frame range I desired.  

One of the things I wanted to point out when I was talking to people was that not all black dresses meant the lady was in mourning.  Having a best black dress has long been a lady's go to choice as appropriate for nearly any "best dress" situation. That meant I wanted to feature my crinkle crepe prominently on my dress to emphasize the mourning aspect.  I decided upon a band 12 inches deep around the bottom of the skirt, and as the front inset and collar of my bodice.  I liked the small turn back lapels and they were present in both of my Delineators, so I could feasibly use that design in my 1900ish dress. 
I proceeded to cut out my dress and jump into the sewing when I ran into my first problem- the lights above my ironing board decided to burn out. And these aren't just any light bulbs that you can run to the local store and purchase. I usually keep extra bulbs on hand, but evidently I had forgotten to purchase more after the last of my stockpile had been used.  As I had already mentioned, I am getting older, and my eyes no longer see black as well as they once did. To compound the problem, the black wool seems to absorb light into its inkiness. This lead to some problems with the look of the front lapels (which were false lapels not actually cut onto the fronts) They will be redone as soon as my lighting issue is solved.  As it was I managed to baste them in a bit unlevel and had to rebaste when I got to the museum. Thank goodness my personal exhibit building box always has needles and thread in black, beige and white!

My next big challenge was on the skirt. The crinkle crepe crawls, it stretches and pressing it can be somewhat problematic without crushing its depth.  I ended up hand stitching the crepe panel to each completed skirt panel starting with center front. Pressing was done by hovering the steam iron just above the surface of the crepe on the front, or pressing from the back side of the garment. 
 My construction was like this cut kona cotton lining, cut wool outer fabric, cut stiff cotton twill hem facing 12 inches deep. Stitch the hem facing to the inside of the kona cotton panel so that it will be sandwiched between the wool and the lining. Lay all pieces together on flat surface, pin in place. Next pin the crepe panel in place turning it down at the top and handstitch along top edge.  Next each side front panel is completed in the same way making sure to measure the height of the crepe panel to make sure that it will match and be continuous along the top edge. The panels are then placed on the front skirt panel, matching first at the top line of the crepe (a bit off at top or bottom of the skirt panels can be trimmed- but you must have the the crepe trim presenting a level line). When all the panels were completed the bottom was hemmed with cotton velveteen (as that was what I had on hand) Skirts from this time frame often have a velveteen, or corduroy hem that shows a quarter inch below the bottom of the skirt edge. It can be anywhere from 1-2 inches finished. The antique mourning gown (Circa 1903-08) in my collection actually has what appears to be a ready made velvet hem facing that has a cord edge at the bottom.
​ I didn't get any construction photos of this dress being made because I was racing against the clock to complete it in order to wear it!

Ten minutes before I wanted to leave, I completed sewing the hooks and eyes and enough boning in the bodice to keep it in place for the day (center back, sides, and one front bust dart each side). I hurriedly arranged my hair which was misbehaving wildly as it was a humid day bordering on rain, and went to grab my petticoats. It was at this point I remembered I had used my best petticoat to hold up the antique 1899 ish silk skirt I had on display. Ah well, the not quite as good petti would have to do for today!

I made it out the door and to the museum in time to play hostess to the new exhibit! 

Hopefully better photos will come after I have had a chance to rework the bodice lapels a bit, and get a good petticoat that will support the skirt weight a bit better. 

So despite the fact it is woefully late- I shall use this as my entry for July Historical Sew Monthly.
The Challenge: Monochrome
Material: 5 yds tropical weight wool crepe $9.95/yd, 2 yds silk crinkle crepe $15/yd, kona cotton- lining, cotton twill skirt interfacing
Pattern: My own patterns including my 7 gore skirt pattern
Year: 1900
Notions: thread, hooks and eyes
How historically accurate is it? Hmm, I think I'll give it about an 80% given my floating the time frame and the problem with finding really accurate black silk crepe for trimming. The cut is accurate, but I am going to do a bit of reworking on the silk front of the bodice to make it behave itself in a manner more pleasing to my eye.
Hours to complete: 20
First worn: September 24, 2016
Total cost: about $100

Research is a long drawn out process. I have been scanning fashion magazines and photos, drafting scale patterns and EVEN attempting reproduction of the fabrics on my extant gowns.  I was starting to go cross-eyed and decided a bit of sewing was in order to ground me.
 I chose a wrapper that I had recently drafted for "Domestic Lady's Dressmaker- Volume 1".  I suspect this wrapper is right around 1870-73. The shoulders are cut long so that the armscye drops off the shoulder but the shoulder seam itself runs mostly along the top of the shoulder.  This particular dress is cotton, and is completely unlined. 

Instead of trying to make the original pattern fit me, I used my master sloper patterns from the early bustle era, put them back together as they would have been just after drafting, and redrew the lines where they would match up better to the original dress. With my new sloper pattern that I already knew would fit me in hand I proceeded to draft out the dress in a reproduction print I felt would give the same "feel" to the gown.

I knew this dress would make up quickly because it had no front darts, and used many speed sewing techniques that appeared with the advent of the sewing machine.  No lining also helped keep the fussiness to a minimum.

​The hem is machine sewn, as is the bottom of the main dress. The flounce is then overlayed over the hemmed upper dress and stitched down.

The sleeves are a very simple cut and gathered into a cuff and the placket for the sleeves is simply hemmed on the seam line.

​ From cutting it out to putting it on I probably have a day's worth of work in it. I did overestimate how much longer I wanted to make it, as I have my standard dress length recorded as the heel height I usually wear for the 1880's (about 2.5 inches) and yesterday I didn't' bother to put on my shoes to try on my new gown. 

The dress is easy to move in, and I am modeling it with my corded corset, and not quite enough petticoats. (memo to self- I need new early bustle petticoats) Tara my daughter's dog decided to help me show how well I could bend over in this photo.

The front hangs straight down from bustpoint. Since my slopers already allowed for my full bustline, my finished dress is fairly smooth to the armscye.  I chose vegetable ivory buttons from my stash to finish it off. The original had buttons placed a whopping 5 1/2 inches from center to center, and while I put mine closer than that, if I make it again I will probably go for a 3-3 1/2 inch center. The the original dress showed no sign of fasteners for the cuffs, so I chose to use matching buttons only smaller in size.  Since Dear Daughter took photos for me yesterday, I have decided to also make a self fabric belt which will close with hook and eyes. I may even do one of the cute rosette sash belts with the little tabs that were so popular in that time frame.  I may also later do a nice black grograin belt as well.

At any rate I think it will be a comfortable dress for housework. Now off to do a bit more research for its place in my upcoming book "Domestic Lady's Dressmaker"!