Truly Victorian Home Page Truly Victorian Photo Gallery

[Heather]

I'm sorry I missed last week. But here is the new dress.

Oh, 1857ish. I should get my godey book!!

I'm saying daydresses becuase of the "simplicity".

And 1857ish becuase of the bows and "tie" thing down the middle of the other lady's dress. The style of hoops also seems that year.

as for constuction... Help!

Elizabeth

ok no idea...but I love the way certain things repeat....the bows all down the front was popular in the late 1870's too!

My instinct said late 1850's to early 1860's and after finding this fashion plate I'll definately say a 1860 day dress.

http://www.costumes.org/history/victorian/women/fashionplates/1860plate.jpg

I would use the normal underwear for this period as large hoopskirt and corset and for the left dress I would use the TV441 Garibaldi Blouse and the TV440 Pagoda Bodice and a plain skirt to that. Although the left dress seem to the a complete dress, not skirt/bodice, but I haven't seen any patterns for that. For the right dress, maybe the TV443 Dress Bodice with modified collar and a plain skirt to that too.

I'm gonna go with 1860 daydress. It is very simple and high necked.

It's a hoop, but it is only starting to become elliptical and the pagoda sleeve is still in evidence.

And there's no flounces! The 1850's were all about flounces, as I recall. My guess would be 1858ish.

These look like dressing gowns to me. -- Karen Ann

1861. (Peterson's Magazine, April issue?)

The dress on the left has the characteristic full pagoda sleeves popular during the late 1850s-early 1860s. The bows down the front were also quite popular during these years. The dress could be worn for at-home wear, receiving friends and guests, etc.

Although the illustration does not show any seam lines at the waist, I don't believe this dress is constructed in the "Eugenie" or "princess" style. If it is, it is at the forefront of fashion as that style does not become widely seen until later in 1862 or 1863. I would make it from a lightweight wool or silk taffeta using a fitted (darted bodice), very full pagoda sleeves with a cuff, and plain gauged or pleated skirt. The undersleeves also need to be very full to have the proper appearance. I'd use a contrasting silk or wool for the contrasting band at the skirt and the cuffs. The bows could be made from the contrasting fabric (if it's silk) or from a coordinating ribbon.

The dress on the right is could also be worn at home, but it is less formal and would also be appropriate for recreational and leisure activities: walking, lawn games, picnics, at a watering place, etc.

From the illustration it appears this could be a 3-piece outfit: jacket with contrasting lapels and turned-back cuffs, full chemisette with a modest v-neck and lapels, and a plain skirt accented with a sash. This would be lovely in a lightweight wool or a fine cotton pique.

[Heather]

This is a fashion plate from the March 1862 of the Arthurs Home Magazine.

The dress on the left:
Evening Dress - Figured silk. Dress gored; body and skirt in one piece; the skirt bound with Magenta silk. Magenta bows up the front.

On the right:
Dinner Dress - Grey Poplin; skirt plain; body ald lappels trimmed with blue silk - a linen collar turns over the lappel. Sleeve with blue gauntlet cuff.

What makes this an 1862 dress?

These two dresses are rather unusual by most standards. The evening dress is high necked, rather than open at the throat. And the dinner dress with lapels looks like a daytime suit. Arthurs Home Magazine was printed more for the middle and lower classes, so these styles may be closer to what the more average people wore in the eveings.

The wide pagoda sleeves are more in line with an 1858-1862 dress, but the narrow sleeves of the other dress are more in the later dates of 1862-65. So when combined, you get 1862. The skirts are just beginning to show a shift towards the back, and a slight eliptical shape. The princess dress cut allows a flat front with fuller back, while the other dress has a flat space at the front, with the pleats starting at the side fronts. This shift starts at around 1862 and gradually becomes more pronounced throughout the 1860's.

Heather,

That IS interesting, and a good example of why you can't always rely on the date of the magazine as a firm date for the dress. I just checked my bookshelf and the dress on the left is definitely in the April 1861 edition of Peterson's Magazine also, although it is by itself in Peterson's. I don't have a complete copy of that issue of Peterson's but a friend does, and I've sent her a message asking her to send me the description they used.

I've run into this on many other occasions, and my friend did a presentation on just this topic at last year's conference, illustrating how the various magazines plagerized drawings from each other. I have one example of an illustration of an apron; the exact same drawing appears in Harper's, Godey's Lady's Book and Leslie's. There is a span of 26 months between its first appearance and the last, and each magazine describes it with different fabrics and color combinations.

We had an original dinner with lapels on display at the Conference several years ago. It was similar to this one, but with wider pagoda sleeves and no sash. It was made of changeable rust silk taffeta with navy velvet motifs woven into the fabric (the motifs were on the bottom of the skirt). Velvet in the same shade of navy was used for the lapels, as trim on the sleeves, and for decorative front buttons. It was really spectacular.

[Heather]

The different magazines did use the same picutres quite often, I have seen that, too. But usually, the time difference is only a few months between La Mode Illustre, Harpers, Godeys and Petersons. I don't have enough of the Arthurs and Leslies to really compare. But is sounds like the lower level magazines, like Arthurs and Leslies are just a little bit farther behind than the others. Very cool.

The longest time difference I've seen between plates is 4 years. I have a Godey's 1874 plate that's taken from an 1870 Le Monde Elegant plate. The 1870 plate is in The Cut of Women's Clothes. I was rather surprised to see a familiar dress when I was looking through it

Anyway, here's the picture:



I also have a January 1829 La Belle Assemblee and Ladies' Monthly Museum that has a copied dress. I have a page for it here.

I have the full magazine for the Ladies' Monthly Museum, and just the plate for La Belle Assemblee. They arrived in the mail on the same day. I was rather excited to find the copied plate!

That dress is also sketched in Costume in Detail...

I also have a January 1863 Godey's with a winter hood that also appeared in the Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine in 1863. Unfortunately, I lost the EDM auction

I just found the same illustration in the June 1861 edition of Godey's Lady's Book. The description is:

Fig. 1.- Dress of Mozambique, gray ground, with Magenta flowers. The dress is gored; body and skirt in one piece; the skirt with Magenta silk, and Magenta ribbon bows up the front of the dress.

Fig. 2.- Dress of gray summer poplin. Skirt plain; the body has lapels trimmed with blue silk, and a linen collar turns over on the lapel. The sleeves have a blue gauntlet cuff. Sash of gray poplin, bound with blue silk. Blue chenille net, trimmed with ribbon.

I love how the descriptions vary from one magazine to another.