Late 18th century Fashion

I've had a few obsessions in the last few months, and they mostly surround the latter quarter of the 18th century. For someone who didn't particular like it less than 6 months ago, I've become one of its biggest fangirls.

Yes, the 18th century, darling.

It's become so bad that I'm even coming around to liking the sacque-back gowns, which I loathed before. However, my changing emotions aren't what this post is about.

From recent trolling of blogs, I notice a lot of people do progression posts, starting from inspiration. I have always loved the gowns of the 1780s and early 1790s, and have a grudging admiration for the floofiness of the late 1790s, but as soon as the skirts start narrowing I'm gone.

The Anglaise is nice, in any incarnation, but I haven't attempted anything like that. By this I mean the back of the bodice cut with the skirt as one piece, then pleated. I could attempt an Italian gown, where the skirt is cut completely separately, but then that involves having to deal with the deep V at the back. If you are interested in the different types of gown of the 18th century, then I recommend this post by American Duchess.
As much as I love these gowns, especially the "zone-front" versions, this isn't what I was immediately drawn to.

Gorgeous, but no.

These are all lovely, but I'm a simplistic seamstress, and a minimalistic person, which is no doubt why I began chasing after the frilly tails of the Pierrot jacket.

Now, I'll openly admit, I'm a little confused by what the difference between a Caraco jacket and a Pierrot jacket is, save perhaps the length. They're both hanging about at the same time, although the Caraco is a little earlier than the Pierrot, by my estimation.

Everyone's favourite Caraco

A lot of people's favourite Pierrot

I'm not saying they're the same, but...well, they are very similar. Kind of like one is a progression of the other. There is probably some expert out there that will tell me there's a construction difference, or some such minutae detail, but this is why I'm no longer part of the HA crowd. Regardless, both are nice, but the reason I'm leaning towards the Pierrot is the frickin' amazing wee tail!

Love them. I could say that these images were my original inspiration, but it's actually a painting that's dated a bit earlier, and one that many costumers will be familiar with. It's a bit like Eilean Donan castle in Scotland, it's been overused, and is now synonymous with Scotland.

It is obviously "The Chocolate Girl" by Jeanne-Etienne Liotard, painted around 1743, so almost 40 years before the time period I'm specifically looking at. I absolutely love the pleats and tail at the back of that whatever-the-hell-you-call-it jacket. Obviously I think the big bums of the 1780s will give the tail the necessary oomph out the back.

One niggle is skirt length. From what I understand these jackets, whether Caraco, Pierrot, or something in between, were considered "casual wear", and would have been worn with just a petticoat. As seen in the painting above, her petticoat is about ankle length, slightly lower, however if we look at many full length pictures of surviving Pierrot jackets, we can see that petticoats are at or above ankle length.

I read somewhere, don't ask me where (it's been a long road), that petticoats were usually short because they would be worn underneath the gowns I mentioned before, which are all floor length or longer. Interestingly, because of the skirt supports underneath, it was also a hassle to get an even hem all the way around, and therefore if it were above floor length, uneven hems wouldn't be so obvious, with the further benefit that they would be covered by a gown.

I like the length of the one in the 1743 painting, and on a few petticoats made by other costumers to go with their jackets. There's just something about the shorter length that doesn't sit well. I'm still unsure as to what was standard, but I know that the fashion plates of the early 1790s featuring jackets, the petticoats are floor length.

Circa. 1793

The next fashion I'm focusing on is the Chemise a la reine, or robe en chemise, or the gaulle, no one really knows. This is an infamous fashion, made so by Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, who was painted in one of these. At the time it was deemed to be "undress" because it looked like a shift or an undergarment, and was very far away of the strict, regimented, and stiff fashions of the French court. Regardless of its scandal, it quickly became very popular.

Despite the masses of paintings of the gown, mostly in white, it was made out of different colours, but white seems to have been the most popular (Ugh). I like these gowns, and I don't know why. It's become an obsession, and I think I can safely say I've devoured every single blog post ever published on the internet about them. My 18th century Pinterest board should be renamed "chemse a la reine".
Like many fashions, the robe en chemise transformed over time, starting in the early 1780s, and then eventually becoming the high-waisted empire gowns (it's easy to alter). In the beginning, everything was poufy. The gown was essentially just a large rectangle of fabric gathered at the waist.

Ruffle at the neckline, and gathered 3/4 sleeves makes a robe en chemise at the beginning of the 1780s. By the latter half of the decade and into the 1790s, sleeves are becoming tighter fitting, and end at the wrist. Some are even starting to have panelled backs, like the Italian and round gowns, with only the front gathered. I prefer the later incarnations. Fitted clothes are actually more flattering on me than gathered. Mine is also not going to be white, but I'll get to that in a later blog post.

The final thing I want to focus on in this era of fashion is hair. These are the years of the Hedgehog haircut, made famous by Marie Antoinette, and Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. Looks simple, but as many other costumers have found it, it's not.

You have no idea how long this took my hair-dresser, the table's here to keep me upright

Of course, ladies in those days had no reason to cut their hair short like some of us in the 21st century, and they had access to hair pieces, extensions, wigs, etc. Lauren over at American Duchess has a few posts about the Hedgehog hairstyle, which proves how tricky it actually is to recreate. The one I think works best is the 3/4 wig, which she's styled, and then added her own hair too, which is what I'm going to try and experiment with.

Since I'm making 2 18th century outfits for summer events, one Pierrot ensemble, and a late robe on chemise, the hedgehog will be paired with the Pierrot, but what about the chemise? Yes, I could re-use it, but with the design I'm going for with the robe en chemise lands it roughly in the early 1790s. And to be honest, I prefer the later hairstyles, the ones just before the "natural, classical" hairstyles that dominate the latter half of the 1790s.

I also don't have enough natural hair to do these either, but they look a lot easier to style. I should mention some of these are apparently from the 1780s as well, although unsure where they fall, so could possibly get away with that and the Pierrot, but what kind of costumer would I be if I didn't try the ridiculous floofy Hedgehog?
Or we could just go full blown natural, like this lovely lady below. Side note, can I just have her hair, please?

Her husband wants her hair too

The above painting is also from the 1780s, but I'll admit I've not seen another instance where the female sitter has her hair just flowing so freely, so definitely the exception.

That's what I've been wading through in the last few months, whilst trying to sew a correctly fitting pair of stays, and a suspicious false rump.