Search found 18 matches

by cathyo
Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:11 pm
Forum: Victorian Dress in Detail
Topic: Dress 20, week of December 18, 2004
Replies: 11
Views: 13770

My, this one is tougher than usual. I've never seen sleeves like that before--particularly the sleeves on the paler dress. All right, here goes: 1. The date of the dress, to a specific year: 1855. I agree, based on the dome-like shape of the skirts, that these are pre-hoop fashions. But the skirts a...
by cathyo
Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:15 pm
Forum: Victorian Dress in Detail
Topic: dress 19, week of December 1, 2004
Replies: 10
Views: 13972

1. The date of the dress, to a specific year: I was originally inclined to say 1875, because the "bustle" seemed too small to be Early Bustle style but was definitely still present (so this is not a "Natural form" style. However, now I'm sure it's 1875, because the TV "History of Victorian Costume"...
by cathyo
Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:01 pm
Forum: Show and Tell
Topic: How many Victorian outfits do you have?
Replies: 16
Views: 9884

I still have fabric for a 1840s ballgown I meant to make, and an 1885 ball bodice I need to make before the end of January (the skirt and overskirt are already done, thank goodness).

:-)
by cathyo
Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:19 pm
Forum: Victorian Dress in Detail
Topic: Dress 15, week of October 23, 2004
Replies: 7
Views: 11294

1. The date of the dress, to a specific year. I agree with the folk who said 1886 for several reasons: * The shape of skirt and size of bustle. The skirt isn't ellliptical enough fo be an Early Bustle Period dress, it's not natural form because it clearly *has* a bustle. So it's in the late bustle ...
by cathyo
Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:15 pm
Forum: Petticoats, drawers, and other underwear
Topic: Crinoline Help!
Replies: 6
Views: 5710

Thoughts on your question

Heather is right that it's certainly possible to buy a hoopskirt on ebay or elsewhere on the Internet, though it's caveat emptor as to how well it will be made. Having used multiple petticoats for an 1840s dress, my impression is that you don't really get the same skirt shape with petticoats as you ...
by cathyo
Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:59 pm
Forum: Victorian Dress in Detail
Topic: dress 11, week of Sept 25, 2004
Replies: 6
Views: 10620

1. The date of the dress, to a specific year. No bustle yet, and the skirt on both dresses is wide but elliptical, with the fullness to the back. To me, it looks as though both are being worn over an elliptical hoop. That makes it after 1865 but before 1870. Based on the striking length of the skir...
by cathyo
Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:54 pm
Forum: Victorian Dress in Detail
Topic: dress 9, week of Sept. 11, 2004
Replies: 8
Views: 11714

My Guess

1. The date of the dress, to a specific year. I'm going to say 1885. Why? Because the skirt has a pronounced bustle (making it too late for "early bustle period") but the overskirt is symmetrical, and Heather said with regard to a prior "date that dress" that 1886 was The Year of the asymmetrical d...
by cathyo
Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:05 pm
Forum: Victorian Dress in Detail
Topic: dress 8, week of Sept 3. 2004
Replies: 4
Views: 9159

1. The date of the dress, to a specific year. I'm going to say 1895. Why? Because it still has the huge, huge sleeve tops. By the following year sleeves had begun to go down in size. By 1897 women's sleeves only had a moderate puff at the top, which was gone by the end of the decade. Also, the skir...
by cathyo
Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:29 pm
Forum: Show and Tell
Topic: How many Victorian outfits do you have?
Replies: 16
Views: 9884

It depends on how you count; most of the items I've made are separate pieces. I count it as five: One beige 1840;s dress; One pink 1890s ballgown; One green 1860s gown, with day and ball bodices; Blouse and skirt for 1890s day wear Blouse and bustls skirt for 1870s day wear (working on the ball bodi...
by cathyo
Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:01 am
Forum: Show and Tell
Topic: How many do you have?
Replies: 14
Views: 9240

Five at this count.
by cathyo
Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:55 pm
Forum: Look what I just found.....
Topic: Bustle Site! take a look!
Replies: 3
Views: 3605

They've had just about the same reproductions since I first found them months ago, and as vintage clothing sellers (even Victorian ones) go, their selection is small.

On the other hand, I'm still lusting after the Civil War period copper and cobalt brocade....
:-)
by cathyo
Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:57 pm
Forum: Victorian Dress in Detail
Topic: Dress 6, week of August 21, 2004
Replies: 24
Views: 54216

1. The date of the dress, to a specific year. I agree with Vienna that it's very early natural form, probably 1876. Why? Because the shape of the skirt is stilll elliptical and trained, but the bustle is quite gone. 2. Type of dress, for example: day, evening, ballbown, reception, etc. I also agree...
by cathyo
Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:41 pm
Forum: Victorian Dress in Detail
Topic: Dress 5, week of August 14th, 2004
Replies: 6
Views: 10891

1. The date of the dress, to a specific year. I think 1870 or 1871. Why? The skirt *is* huge, but it's shaped in a way that recalls the late elliptical hoop skirts. Also, the bustle rides very high--it gets lower as the decade wears on. Also, one of the bodices seems to have the kind of V neck that...
by cathyo
Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:48 pm
Forum: Victorian Dress in Detail
Topic: Dress 4, week of August 6, 2004
Replies: 7
Views: 15116

Marching to a different drummer. :-)

1. The date of the dress, to a specific year. This is a tough one. I see why several people have said 1890-91 (they definitely have a point about the sleeve shape and the train), but I think it's actually1882 because: --The shape of the skirt isn't conical enough for even the early 1890's. On the o...
by cathyo
Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:08 am
Forum: Show and Tell
Topic: Whats wrong with this picture?
Replies: 25
Views: 16286

How could they?

I agree that the style of this dress is much closer to 1890s than anything Civil War era--the skirt is wrong for Civil War, and the bodice looks (to me) as though somebody took a 1890s style torso and put vaguely pagoda-like sleeves on it. I also agree that it's not an original and is at best a repr...
by cathyo
Sat Jul 31, 2004 10:27 pm
Forum: Victorian Dress in Detail
Topic: Dress 3, week of July 31, 2004
Replies: 8
Views: 11721

1. The date of the dress, to a specific year. I agree with Eliizabeth on 1860, because: --The skirts are too full not to have a crinoline underneath; -- The shape of the skirt is even and dome-like all the way around, which rules out the elliptical hoop period (around 1863 to about the end of the d...
by cathyo
Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:51 pm
Forum: Victorian Dress in Detail
Topic: Dress 2, week of July 24, 2004
Replies: 8
Views: 12735

My guess on the July 24, 2004 dress

This one's clearly a walking dress, based on the length. The hat is also a clue that it was for wearing out of doors. I agree with an 1886 date. The shape of the skirt is totally wrong for early bustle or natural form, and the dresses in the earlier part of the late bustle period have an odd cylindr...
by cathyo
Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:42 pm
Forum: Victorian Dress in Detail
Topic: Dress 1, week of July 17, 2004
Replies: 8
Views: 12631

1. The date of the dress, to a specific year. There is no bustle, but the skirt's fullness is confined to the back, and is narrow and flatter in front. I'd say 1878, based on the shape--early in the "natural form" period. 2. Type of dress, for example: day, evening, ballbown, reception, etc. I thin...

Go to advanced search