Historic Costume

One of my favourite subjects in the world! (And silk came along after Marco Polo went east.....)

Okay, this might sound like a stupid question, so be forewarned.

In the late 19th century, I've heard that it was immodest to wear skirts above your ankles, however looking back through my family's anthology (a very strict, religious family), plenty of them are wearing skirts that are mid calf. Am I not understanding something?

What was considered modest and what wasn't? I can't find that info anywhere on the internet. Thanks!

Okay, I went back and checked the picture again. It was 1898, Jack County, Texas. The "woman" who is wearing her skirt that high might actually be youth. She looks a tad shorter then the other women in the picture. One of the other women is wearing black and touches the ground. The other is wearing a cute plaid dress, fitted belt, flaired skirt and comes 3 inches off the ground.

In the Victorian Era, after the fad of dressing girls in Regency costume faded, girls wore "short" skirts (i.e., above the ankle but well below the knee, about mid-calf) until they reached marriageable age at 16. They also wore their hair down until then, and it was considered a very big deal when a girl put her hair up and her skirts down to ankle-length! That was one thing that bugged me about Dr Quinn,Medicine Woman. They had the daughter wearing long skirts WAY too soon. And all the girls similarly had long skirts. Costumer must not have done his or her homework. Little girls (and a girl was considered a little girl until she was 16) had shorter skirts because they were still allowed to run and play, skip rope, play with a hoop and stick (a very popular running game), and in general behave like a child. Her legs would be decently covered either with stockings, pantalettes, or both. Anyway, that explains the short skirt.

Somewhere, I have a photo of ladies wading in a creek, holding up their skirts. By the sleeves on their shirtwaists, it must have been in the 1890s. 

The fashion magazines are great to get a sense of what people are wearing.  Ebay always has lots for sale from 1860s right through the 1920s.  You don't even have to buy them - a lot of the sellers let you browse the pages online.   You can save them for inspiration, when you need your heroine to wear just the right "look".

http://antiques.shop.ebay.ca/Patterns-/156329/i.html?_armrs=1&_dmd=1&_mdo=Antiques&_mspp=&_pcats=156323%2C20081&_trksid=m194&ssPageName=STRK:MEFSRCHX:SRCH 

My biggest two peeves:  pantaloons WERE NOT WORN BY WOMEN UNTIL AT LEAST THE 1830S when women began wearing corded and later wired crinolines where 'flip ups' were a risk!!!  I can't tell you how many regencies I've read where the heroine is divested of her pantaloons during the deed and it drives me batty.  Women didn't wear underwear of any sort as we know it in the Georgian and Regency periods.  They wore a shift, an (under) petticoat, stays (not a corset!), often with a busk after the transitional period, and their stockings and garters.  That's it.  During their time of the month, they pinned or stitched their rags to their shifts.  Nobody thought it was immodest, it was just the way it was.

My other peeve: men's shirts in the 18th through the mid 19th century only had one button.  They don't  button down the front (sorry, no sliding the shirt from those broad, rugged shoulders - It goes over the head).  That's a later 1860s+ style.  They were simply a series of rectangles, with gussets under the sleeves for movement, with a 6-8" bound slit down the front, which was closed by one button at the neck.   And that button wasn't seen because it was covered by a stock or a neck linen.

I will now step down from my sartorial hobby horse and all everyone to resume our regularly scheduled programming

Claire 

That fits in with mine, too! There was something called an "invisible slip" worn by naughty ladies in the Regency, too, which they would dampen (or "damp") to make the dress cling to them, leaving nothing to the imagination. And garters were tied, stockings were clocked with designs, etc. etc. etc.

I managed to get a copy of Peterson's Illustrated Fashion Magazine, but it's put away somewhere. I think it was either 1875 or 1878...can't recall at the moment, as I haven't seen it since we moved. 

I found another site just recently...can't remember the link, but when I find it, I'll put it here. It has lots of late 1800s magazines' fashion layouts by year. 

I think it's considered all right as long as it directs us to a research site. Other than that, to send a link to a personal site for shameless self-promotion is a no-no.

I'm looking for a good reference book on medieval Scottish costume.  I need 14th and 13th century styles (my proposal is set in 1301).  Most of the plaids and kilts came much later, and since this is the Highland region, I'm not sure how much English influence there would have been (if any).

 Anyone have any books they could recommend?

Yup even revered Latin teachers can make mistakes.

One of the things that interests me is textiles so I tend to research them. I always head for the costumes exhibits. I was recently given the V&A book on their collection 400 years of fashion.

And yes, I agree it would be odd if a minor impoverish Scottish noble had silk without a good explanation -- including why it wasn't sold to put bread on the table...

Michelle S

Some of the books are quite expensive, and some are out of print, but I hope you can find what you need!

Okay, I have a question about 19th century clothing. My heroine lives in New York, 1870s (mid), but she comes from London. Would there be any difference in what she would wear then other women around her? Specifically, anything that might seem a little improper/immodest for the day?

Actually, I'd disagree just a little with Michelle.  Fashion and all its parts - fabric, patterns, designers, magazines - crossed the Atlantic almost immediately by the age of the steam ship.   La Mode Illustrée for instance was often reprinted (or its plates) picture for picture in American magazines like Harpers Bazaar.   If she's fashion forward in London, then she'll be fashion forward in New York.  But New York is a major centre, with lots of wealthy families, who followed fashion very closely.  She may be shocking to people who aren't following fashion quite as closely as the First Families, if she were in say the Dakota territories, but you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a woman dressed in London and one in New York and she wouldn't stand out in New York.  She'd just be another well dressed woman.

Consider reading anything by Edith Wharton (Age of Innocence, House of Mirth etc).  She lived in the period, she was a society bride in a miserable marriage, and her books are all set in the early gilded age of New York that you're writing about.  You'll get lots and lots of ideas and notions about how the society worked from reading her books.  Her behaviour could be shocking but even if she's dressed fashionably, it is unlikely that her clothes would be overly shocking. (Oh!  And the film, Age of Innocence, with Michelle Pfeiffer, is a dreamboat for great costumes - won the best Oscar when it came out for its costuming.  Watch it.  You'll get lots of ideas.  Guarantee you'll never look at a glove the same way )

Claire