In my post about my sewing plans for 2019 I said I wanted to make an 1890s gown similar to the one Dakota Fanning wears in The (awful) Alienist TV series. Obviously it is quite 1890s, but I'm still undecided as to how accurate it is. The sleeveless-ness is definitely more late 90s than any other time, edging towards Edwardian and early 1900s with the S-bend corsets.
I'm not ready to try and tackle an S-bend corset, so I tried to keep mine firmly in the 1890s (with limited success). First was, obviously, an 1890s corset, which has to be my best corset so far. I already had a suitable petticoat, the one I used for my natural form era ensemble. Then it was onto outer wear. I know, that was fast!
I'm obviously just wearing one petticoat (because I'm lazy and another probably wouldn't fit under it due to the snugness of the skirt). My hair didn't cooperate with me, hence the flat looking attempt at a gibson girl hairstyle.
 |
| Massive fart, anyone? If you came here for serious, you came to the wrong place.... |
 |
| For the hawk-eyed out there you can see the white petticoat peeking out from underneath the opening because the skirt is a wee bit snug (and doesn't have a placket). |
I'm even starting to make videos now (that I've figured out how to use my camera properly....).
The making of....
I scoured my books, and I was incredibly picky. I ended up settling on the 1890s gown in Waugh's Cut of Women's clothes. I can't find a picture of it online so you'll have to use your imagination. I only used the skirt pattern from this as I re-used my natural form era evening bodice pattern, with some design tweaks. That pattern is proving very versatile, this is the 2nd time I've altered it for a different era/project.Let's talk about fabric. I originally wanted to make this out of silk satin (I know, don't know what I was thinking), but I didn't want to spend a lot of money, so I did the unthinkable....I bought polyester!! Not my first foray into poly fabrics for historical garments, but at least this time it wasn't because I thought I'd cock up. I got a really nice polyester Italian Duchess Satin, and honestly, I think it looks great. Very similar to my £50p/m real duchess silk satin, and it cost me about £11p/m. So it is higher end than the awful £5p/m you get in most fabric stores. My colour of choice was berry/plum/wine, don't really know what you call it. I just really wanted a purple gown.
I began with the skirt, and I had quite a bit of trouble scaling it up. The original pattern has 6 panels, CF (cut on the fold), side, side back, and centre back (which is very thin and gathered to a mere 3/4"). The original waistband is 22", if I remember correctly. Let's just say my waist is no where near that, and is very much bigger, so I did the usual of adding a few inches to each panel.
I actually made a full mock-up of this in horrible satinised polyester (I didn't realise what it was when I ordered it online, but I've learned my lesson). It has all way stretch. It fit, with a few tweaks here and there, so I began to cut out the panels in the satin and cotton interlining.
Skirts in the 19th century, particularly the Victorian era, were flatlined with another fabric to stabilise them and give them a particular shape. This was especially important in the latter half of the century. In the 1890s the panels are flatlined, and the hem is also stabilised with stiff braid, or something similar.
I hand basted the cotton to the satin, and it took ages. I usually use the machine, but I always get wrinkles. I decided to try the hand basting, and ended up with smooth skirt panels....crap/yay. Then i quickly constructed it and tried it on. The original pattern has 4 darts on the side panels, 2 on each side. They are angled more towards the back, but the way I'd scaled mine up they landed smack on the sides, and it made everything look weird. The shape of the skirt was all wrong.
Granted, the hem wasn't stabilised, and I didn't have my petticoat on underneath (I know, my brain decided it was going to leave for an afternoon), but that does not look 1890s to me. So I left it for a day or two, and in that time I realised that a) I hadn't worn my petticoat underneath, and b.) the shape needed changed. The only thing I loved about it was the train at the back (because I love trains on everything!).
The easiest way to do that was to remove the darts in the side panels. In reality I possibly could have just used the original pattern and it would've fit, but I had a completely cut out skirt sewn together, so the smaller the alteration the better. The other bad thing was that rather than a CB closure like in the original I'd decided to opt for side back opening, on the panel I needed to alter.
I would've just pleated down the excess if it wasn't for the opening being there. Instead I had to get the seam-ripper out (a rare occurrence because I'm that lazy) in what turned out to be a ripper-happy week (see post on my 1890s corset) and unpick the seam between the side panels and the side back panels. I think I removed 2" from it (the darts were about 1" each), and then re-stitched it. It was still a bit big, but this time I just took in the SF seams about 1/2" and it was all fixed.
Much better with the addition of a petticoat underneath and the excess at the waist taken away. Now happy with the shape I set to making a waistband.
The last thing was to stabilise the hem. I had bought horsehair braid/crin tape in a sale and learned how to insert that, then I pondered over the hem facing. This is just a strip of fabric that is attached to the hem and then folded in to the wrong side, and is exactly like the crin tape. Was it overkill to use both? And if it wasn't then what should the facing be of?
I didn't fancy cutting bias strips (because it's a circular hem it should be bias strips you use as facing) of the remnants of the cotton I'd used to flatline because I was saving that for the bodice, which left me with cutting into the remnants of the cotton organdy I had left over from another project, or the weird glazed/waxed cotton I used to interline my 1660s skirt with surprising success.
I opted for none of the above because why waste that fabric when the crin tape should serve the same purpose? I suppose we'll never know what would've happened if I'd used both.
Then onto the bodice. As I said before I used my natural form era evening bodice pattern because I knew it fitted and it was very similar to the 1890s bodice in Hunnisett. Obviously, by the 1890s off the shoulder evening bodices aren't really in fashion anymore, so I had to altar where the straps were.
Instead of a CF or CB opening, I decided to to a SF opening. This was because I wanted a weird gathered bodice front. It was inevitable I was going to get wrinkles in the satin on the bodice, so I just decided to steer into the skid. By the late 1890s and into the Edwardian era, bodice closures began to get quite complicated in that they didn't have to be hooks and eyes or ties up the CB or CF.
I kind of wish I hadn't chosen this design because I did not execute it properly. You can see the tiny prick stitches I used to secure all of the pleats on the gathered bodice front. My sash of black organza was also a last minute addition, but I actually really like it, and it hid a lot of the awful pleats.
The neckline was meant to be square, but you can see that didn't quite work out...I'd already finished the neckline by the time I realised it was wonky and was losing steam quite quickly with the whole project so just decided to leave it.
The skirt is also a bit too snug and just closes. It is in desperate need of a placket. If I ever intend to wear this to an event then I'll add one (and actual fastenings to the bodice, it had to be pinned closed shut for the photos). I think the arm scyes are also too high up, I think I forgot to trim it down before finishing the edge. Oh well.
Overall I like it, and I don't. I feel this is happening a lot with things I make recently. I like them, but then my laziness just stops them from being exactly what I pictured in my head. At least this one is a lot more structurally sound than my 1660s gown...
