Whats wrong with this picture?

Show off your creations, projects or other ideas
Heather
Site Admin
Posts: 5897
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Riverside, CA
Contact:

Whats wrong with this picture?

Postby Heather » Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:03 am

Hi all,

I was perusing ebay and ran across this dress, and just had to laugh.

By the way, I am say all this for education's sake, so please do not be offended anyone.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48864&item=8120020968&rd=1


It amazing how people can get things so wrong! And the fact that people are willing to pay $500 for this stuff makes it almost scary.

First thing I noticed was the bodice is put on backwards, the t-back seem is shown to the front, and the darts to the back. The fact that it actually seems is to fit the mainquine this way make me think is was made backwards. The "back" sections are very wide to fit across the front of a body, and the "Front" sections are very narrow to fit across the back of the body. It is fully lined, which is not common for historical gowns, and if it was used, was usually on a labeled gown from a tailor or high end designer. Which this obviously isn't.

Next, look at the skirt. It is pulling towards the front which means it does not fit over a hoop, and is most likley an 1890's shaped trained skirt. The front seams are straight and go wery wide at the waist, which is unusual.

The fabric is definatly not something you will see in the 1860's. It could be from the 1890's, I could see that if it is silk. But it looks more like a modern poly satin brocade in the pictures. In short, I think this is a not-very-good reproduction. I might be an 1890's gown with a pagoda sleeve added, but I just don't think so.

What does anyone else think?
DANIELLE MAJORS

RE WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE

Postby DANIELLE MAJORS » Wed Jul 28, 2004 10:38 am

Wow,

Good eyes Heather! I thought the entire dress looked funny and especially the fabric; it doesn't seem even remotely authentic to the time period. It makes me frustrated that people have the nerve to sell reproductions as authentic and on top of it a very poorly made reproduction! :evil:

This was very helpful to me as I am still new to Victorian clothing and this helped me to better understand authentic dresses. Thank you!

Danielle
Miss Elisabeth
Information Junkie
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Snowy, Blowy Upsate NY! :\
Contact:

dress

Postby Miss Elisabeth » Wed Jul 28, 2004 12:49 pm

Wow! That dress does need some work!! I think it's amazing how people just don't make costume correctly. :cry: For instance- I was looking for a pettern for a victorian-civil war era dress, in your typical Buttercik McCalls etc. catalog, and all a found were these unrealistic shiny fantasy type things! :cry: :cry: :!: (they were better than some) I love your site for the REALISTIC patterns. In fact, the picture on the right of (linnk at bottom) looks EXACTLY like the one my great great great grandmother wore!! (i'm not sure if it was blue though!) :D :wink: :!:

http://trulyvictorian.netfirms.com/photo2.html



Image
Beth
Information Junkie
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 3:42 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Postby Beth » Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:13 pm

I must agree.. the fabric screams wrong .. goes tothe adage, buyer beware, and educate yourself before buying :wink:
Beth
kate
Inquiring Mind
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:34 pm
Location: San Diego

What's wrong...?

Postby kate » Wed Jul 28, 2004 7:50 pm

Thanks, Heather, for the great lesson! It is a good object lesson in how ignorant (dishonest??) some sellers can be, and how the buyer should know what she's looking at!
Greeneyed Gypsy
Master Gabber
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:19 pm
Contact:

Postby Greeneyed Gypsy » Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:29 pm

I just checked the link and .... you have got to be kidding me!!! It ended at $1,334.99 !!!
Yes Heather I agree if thats an origional I'll eat my shoe! The lace on the sleeve cap looks VERY fishy to me... looks like the lace from my Aunts 1970's wedding gown and the coloring almost looks like someone took a white gown and dyed it... I noticed this because I have actually dyed a modern wedding gown and the dress grabs dark abut the lace goes a tone lighter and has an "old" looking coloration to it. It looks like someone made a reproduction possibly starting with a weding gown and modifying it? Either way .... my heart goes out to the winner ... she could have had two really AMAZING custom gowns made to her personal measurments for that kind of money....really amazing gowns!! Its so sad to see Ebay used that way... I love Ebay but I always try to really watch what Im buying.
Josie
Greeneyed Gypsy
SASS# 60086
Greeneyed Gypsy
Master Gabber
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:19 pm
Contact:

Postby Greeneyed Gypsy » Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:38 pm

I just looked at sellers other items... they do have other dresses that look real... much lower prices... wierd... the sleeve of this one is attached with piping... and they say there is ruching above the ruffle but you cant see it in the picture. The fabric is just too " not right" looking. I hope my other post was not too harsh ... but I stick with my oppinion I dont think that dress is original 1860's.

:? Josie

You sure found an odd one Heather good lesson!!!
Josie

Greeneyed Gypsy

SASS# 60086
Heather
Site Admin
Posts: 5897
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Riverside, CA
Contact:

Postby Heather » Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:47 am

$1300?!

:shock: :!: :?: :shock:

I have seen Worth Gowns go for less.

I don't know if to be horrified or laugh histerically.

oh dear, oh dear, oh dear,.........
Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Jul 30, 2004 2:47 pm

:oops:

Yep can you imagine???? You could have something soooooo spectacular for that kind of money. Imagine how many dresses you could sew for that?

Josie
Asenath
Inquiring Mind
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:42 am
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Postby Asenath » Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:52 am

*fallls off chair laughing hysterically*

God. I bought by original 1880s silk bodice (I hope it is one) for 14 US$.

I don't know much about real Victorian clothing sicne I only own two bodices (one of them heavily modified) which I bought from US since these items are hard to find in Germany.

But even I see that IF this dress was antique it could certainly not be 1860s.

Asenath
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
cathyo
Costume Afflicted
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Malvern, PA

How could they?

Postby cathyo » Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:08 am

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 reproduction. Interestingly, the detail that convinced me of that most strongly was the photo of the inside of the bodice. Not only is the bodice pristine, but there are no bones visible, which would not be the case if the flatlining technique typical of the Victorian period was used.

I did look at some of the other items being sold on EBay by the same vendor, and those items look period. However, the collection of photos struck me as odd. Most people who sell vintage clothes on EBay include pictures of both the inside and outside of the bodice, close ups of various features, including any defects, so that potential bidders can make their own assessment of condition and worth. This vendor did not. In fact, of the 4 or 5 items the vendor was selling when Heather made her original post, only *one* even showed the inside of the bodice--namely, the fake we're discussing here.

What I deduce from this is that the seller may have been deceived here. It looks to me from the way she posted her "vintage" garments as though she doesn't sell a lot of vintage clothing, and doesn't really know much about fashion of the period. I would bet that she bought the fake "Civil War" dress from whoever made it, and that she showed off the inside of the bodice because she was impressed with its clean condition--unaware that she was missing tipoffs as to the real provenance of the garment.
--Cathy Raymond <cathy@thyrsus.com>
Heather
Site Admin
Posts: 5897
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Riverside, CA
Contact:

Postby Heather » Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:08 am

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 8122518568

I just found this dress on ebay with the same problem of being made backwards. While this one really does look like an 1860's or earlier gown, I just can't figure why the front dart are in the back.

It has to be reproduction, no one in the period would have made such a huge mistake. Is this the same seller as before? I don't remember.
Sara P
Information Junkie
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:58 am
Contact:

Postby Sara P » Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:08 am

It is indeed the same seller. Kinda makes you think, "Hmmm...." Again, I think the fabric seems a little odd, very heavy for a ball gown. It has nice details like the piping in the arm seams, though. Also look at where the shoulder seams are, on the front of the bodice. Very low on the FRONT side, rather than the back. Seems kind of odd also to have a pocket in a ball gown skirt :P. Not that it wouldn't be handy for tissue or whatever, but still! Anything more than that would make lumps between your petticoat and skirt, it would seem.
*hugs*
Sara
Beth
Information Junkie
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 3:42 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Postby Beth » Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:40 am

wow.. that just looks wrong.. and how the skirts do not sit under the pointed front smoothly, it does indeed look like the entire dress is backwards...and the skirt is sewn to the bodice. I have not found a lot of evidence that it was one piece like that, though I could be wrong.. another interesting one to watch.. truly a case of buyers beware... :roll:
Beth
Sara P
Information Junkie
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:58 am
Contact:

Postby Sara P » Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:29 am

I wonder what it would look like if it were reversed on the mannequin. The pleats in the skirt look a little odd too, facing front rather than back. It's a little hard to tell because there are no good pictures of the back of the gown to determine length on the skirt, though. If the dress were made for a small busted woman, it's possible that the front measurement and the back aren't that much different.
*hugs*

Sara
Miss Elisabeth
Information Junkie
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Snowy, Blowy Upsate NY! :\
Contact:

dress

Postby Miss Elisabeth » Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:52 am

Wow! :shock: It seems like it's a common mistake! How can people be so ignorant of this? :?: :!: :? Well, I guess it's just as strange as thinking that the pilgrims wore plain blakc out fits! Besides, who wants to have reproduction, when the REAl thing is for sale and you can make it just as ealily :?: :!: :roll: I guess some things we just don't know. (Or they don't know! :wink: )

Elizabeth
DABramwell
Inquiring Mind
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:25 pm

Postby DABramwell » Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:03 am

At first I was wondering if maybe these dresses were perhaps period gowns which have at some point been modified but I am beginning to have my doubts.

Look at at least three of her current auctions. All feature the same black cotton velvet. JET black cotton velvet. Black dyes fade very quickly, so the likelyhood of finding three different pieces in near perfect condtion at the same time seems somewhat odd. The velvets also seems to have the same crush pattern. But I'm not enough of an expert to tell if that would be significant.
Miss Elisabeth
Information Junkie
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Snowy, Blowy Upsate NY! :\
Contact:

Postby Miss Elisabeth » Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:37 pm

SOLD FOR 800$ :?: :?: :?: :!: :shock: :cry: :( :evil: :x :oops: :o

I really can't believe people get away with this! :!: :roll:

Elizabeth
isara
Inquiring Mind
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Alameda, CA
Contact:

Postby isara » Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:00 pm

I have seen Worth Gowns go for less.


Heh. Tell me about it. I bought an 1898 Worth court presentation gown for $370 a couple of years ago.

:P

Buyer beware, but maaaan, someone should do something about that seller!
Greeneyed Gypsy
Master Gabber
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:19 pm
Contact:

Postby Greeneyed Gypsy » Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:21 am

Is there netting over the fabric? In the close up it looks like there is netting over the fabric or the fabric has a netting printed on it... does anyone else think that fabric looks 1970's!?!?!? it looks like an old repo (70s ) thats been rumpled and allowed to "age"
I could be way off.... but its very odd...and yep thats the same seller
Josie

Greeneyed Gypsy

SASS# 60086

Return to “Show and Tell”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests