Lynn: I thought the waist position on the pattern illustrated by the yellow ballgown was odd, too. But I would check photographs and fashion plates of the era both. I couldn't say either way, since the Civil War isn't my era of expertise. I would trust photographic evidence more than fashion plates. Few women could look as good in the fashions as shown in the fashion plates. See photographs of Mary Todd Lincoln during her years as First Lady as an example and also Queen Victoria before Prince Albert's death Older women would cling to the styles of their youth or adapt newer styles to what was comfortable for them. A waistline set at least lower in front would appear more slimming to all figure types and the smaller the waist, the more attractive the figure, even today. In my very limited knowledge the round waist, often with sash, seems to have been more prevalent in the late 1820's to mid 1830's than the early-mid 1860's. Even for women who could afford the latest styles as shown in Godey's Ladies Magazine could be not as up-to-date as their European counterparts as Godey's and other American publications published plates of the latest fashions months or as much as a year later than European magazines because of the perceived view of American women as being more conservative, or less concerned with changes in fashion. A "good" American or English woman was not supposed to be as fascinated with fashion as their more frivolous European(read French)counterpart. And in reality, the average Frenchwoman considered nouveau riche English and Americans far more concerned with Dame Fashion than she was. Bottom line was that few women could actually afford couture from the top designers in France, probably even less than today.
After 1860, however, the waistline was preparing to drop into the eventual princess-cut of the 1870's. Cutting waistlines lower in front than back, apron-like overskirts and drapes, and tabbed extensions below the fitted and/or belted waistline were more common as the crinolined skirt started to change from the all-around bell shape to more fullness in back after 1860. Cindy Abel -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lynn Downward Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:17 AM To: Historical Costume Subject: Re: [h-cost] Simplicity new Civil War patterns Vicky Simpson asked if they have the correct period look. It's really hard to say, Vicky, when you're looking at a tiny picture on a computer screen. However, the waist seam on the day dress is lower than the natural waist and I made a mental note to check position on all the other seams too. I haven't seen any photographs of Victorian/Civil Way era dresses with a waist lower than a natural waist, although earlier in the period the waist was shorter. I say all that, but I don't believe that I'm the be-all to end-all in the research world. I'm sure someone else will be able to give more information. LynnD On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Sharon Henderson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh yummy... 2887 done in grey silk taffeta with gold silk cuffs and > trims would be scrumptious for a Confederate cavalry officer's lady, > now wouldn't it?? :) > > Yes, I'll be shopping come sale time tomorrow.... :) > > Thanks for posting the simplicity link! > > Sharon/Meli > Virginia girl by inclination and carpetbag > :) > _______________________________________________ > h-costume mailing list > h-costume@mail.indra.com > http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume > _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
