Hi Laurie,
I'm looking at making do with Butterick 3640, view A. I do realize
that this is one of the Big 4 companies' silly attempts at
historical accuracy, and therefore, not period correct. Some of it
I can live with, and some I can fix. I'm trying to decide what
really needs fixing.
Actually, some of the patterns are being made by better
designers and more period correct. That one looks like it's meant to
go over stays, which is a great start. Fabric and trimming choice is
what will really make a difference in the look of the gown.
> If the Butterick were worn over period skirt supports, how far
would it still be from anything that actually existed in period?
Would the changes to make it more period be reasonable or not worth
the effort? I've been browsing through paintings of the period, but
have not found anything that resembles the Butterick.
Depends on the decade and the supports you are considering. The
photos look good to me. There are two styles, the casual jacket and
the gown that can be more formal. A long gown, plain, can also be
middle or lower class.
Also, as pictured on the pattern envelope, is the high contrast of
the yellow ground of the upper dress/caracao to the blue petticoat
correct for period? My fabric has a deep red ground and I'm trying
to decide if the skirt/petticoat should be something in the same
shade of red, maybe solid, or if I should go for a contrast.
The blue looks a bit loud. A gown with a matching (same fabric)
petticoat is more formal. Not matching (contrast or coordinating) is
an undress look. The better fabric would be the upper garment — print
vs. solid, for example.
What year in the 18thC are you aiming for? That would help
determine how you can use the pattern. You said late, and in the 90s
fashion changed quite a bit, heading toward the Federal/Regency/
Directorie lines.
-Carol
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
