As with every ensemble we have to start at the foundations, and because I made a few chemises it's straight onto the stays. Honestly, you'd think I loved making corsets and stays considering I feel like I'm making them all the time. If we're comparing I definitely prefer stays, they're just easier to fit.
The making of....
I own 2 books on corsetry, Jill Salen's Corsets, and Waugh's Corsets and crinolines. I don't think I even looked at Salen's book since I already had Waugh's book out for my 1780s stays. This will be the third time I've used this for stays (the first being my as yet incomplete 1776 stays). In the book there are 2 different styles for the 1790s, one from earlier that definitely differs from the typical look of 18th century stays, and then one from the latter that fits the mould. |
| Circa 1793 |
 |
| Circa late 1790s |
The 1793 pair above is fully boned, but I was going to use the stiff-as-hell linen canvas so fully boning it seemed like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. A reason I didn't go for the typical "transitional" kind of stays (minimal to no boning, with bust gussets) is because I need some more structure for my tum-tum, not so much for the ladies, as regular readers will know.
The strange thing about the entire 1790s ensemble was that I already knew exactly what fabrics I was going to use. Both my other stays are made out of purple linen, and I still had a lot of it left, but it's proven to be annoying to work with (wrinkles!!!@#!*) and since I was making a gown out of printed white cotton voile knew there was a risk of my stays being seen. Thankfully I had some white poplin left over from my robe en chemise petticoat. I also managed to find a way to minimise wrinkles!
Since I was in a hurry with this project the first stages were haphazard. I did about 2 mockups, but since the pieces were similar in shape to my 1780s it was a lot quicker scaling it up and getting one that fit. I omitted the back lacing, as I did with the 1780s, because I CBA with the eyelets.
I actually found these stays a lot more flattering than the 1780s ones. In my opinion the 1793 stays don't sit on your waist but slightly above, with the front dipping down to take care of the tum-tum. That was my interpretation. One day I actually need to read what Waugh says about the garments in her book......
Linen canvas, if you've never used it, is stiff as hell, and also rough as hell. I made the mistake with my 1780s stays to make it the bottom most layer, and when I was stitching down the seam allowances it hurt my hand like a bitch because it was difficult to get the needle through. With the 1793 ones I decided to put it in the middle, with the cotton canvas on the bottom.
This, like the other two, has three layers: cotton canvas (a special kind for stay making), linen canvas, and cotton poplin. I bought a 50m roll of synthetic whalebone because I just love the stuff so friggin much, and all of the boning in every pair of stays and corsets I make from now until the end of time will be boned using this stuff. I used flat steel boning on the front edges because I used the plastic whalebone on the closure of my 1780s and it's just not as sturdy.
The boning pattern I based loosely from the 1793 stays, with some inspiration from the later pair. It has metal eyelets, because CBA sewing my third pair of eyelets in 6 months.
The shape didn't come out right. I put the curve on the SF seam in the wrong place and ended up having to just make it a straight edge, which means no thrust out. They're more similar in shape to pre-1770s than any later, which is unfortunate and means that they're getting added onto the never ending "do again" list.
The petticoat was from the American Duchess guide and was so easy to whip up. I did have some issues with how to finish the neckline and armholes, but I went for the modern cotton bias binding, which you can see. I won't go into details here because I did this in a day and the instructions are in the AD guide to 18th century fashion, which I highly recommend as an addition to any costumer's library.
