|
Hez
|
 |
« on: August 01, 2012, 08:50:38 am » |
|
Take a look at the construction, or lack of, in the shirt in this trailer for a documentary. It would definitely stop the sleeves bunching under the jacket.
Oh, so that's how you get a video to play on here. I thought I was just including an url to click on. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Crescat Scientia
Gunner
 United States
Fabricator and temporally confused.
|
|
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2012, 01:27:59 pm » |
|
Due to an unfortunate accident involving a temporal anomaly and an overzealous lab assistant, I am unable to view videos on my primary computing device. What, pray, is the gist of this video?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact to its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.
-- Rudyard Kipling
Have you heard? It's in the stars, next July we collide with Mars.
-- Cole Porter
|
|
|
akumabito
Immortal
 Netherlands
Mundus Patria Nostra!
|
|
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2012, 10:56:32 pm » |
|
Due to an unfortunate accident involving a temporal anomaly and an overzealous lab assistant, I am unable to view videos on my primary computing device. What, pray, is the gist of this video?
A rather pleasant-looking lady getting dressed.. that's all..  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
frances
|
|
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2012, 12:04:54 am » |
|
Shame she could not get hold of some hand-crocheted fingerless gloves. After going through all that trouble get the corset correct, (even though the crinoline is a bit theatrical), why put her in nylon lacy gloves?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TVC15
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2012, 12:56:16 am » |
|
What gloves?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time...
|
|
|
|
Hez
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2012, 02:27:21 am » |
|
My apologies CS.
The outfit is based on the southern US ladies wear. Rather than a blouse the lady dons a shirt front (what my mother used to call a dickie) with a collar and a front and back bib but no side seams. There are also big puffy sleeves which start just above the elbow. Together they give the impression of a blouse worn under the 3/4 sleeve, collarless jacket without either the bulk or warmth of an extra layer anywhere that won't show. A clever idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ktara
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2012, 08:54:53 am » |
|
That's one deep curtsey she's got going on...but that is an intriguing idea. I wonder how well the sleeves stay up though. I can just see them riding down with wear the more she moves around.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
frances
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2012, 11:19:31 pm » |
|
That sort of sleeve usually has a tape run through the hem, sometimes there is a second cuff at the elbow end. I have a few originals of these and they seem to be elbow-length, often with broiderie anglaise embroidery up the arm where it can be seen and cotton lace decorating the cuffs. As the years pass different styles are shown in the women's magazines, which also have patterns. In England some people use the embroidery on the bottom of torn and worn-out drawers to make these under-sleeves. Here are a few examples: http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/undersleeves |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ktara
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2012, 12:34:31 am » |
|
Fascinating stuff  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
frances
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2012, 11:03:57 pm » |
|
Even more extraordinary is the fact that the crinoline was only worn for about 10 years, from late 1850's to late 1860's. And its shape changed every year.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anastacia
|
|
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2012, 01:26:13 pm » |
|
Terribly sorry, I was suddenly reminded of an article regarding the crinoline's fall from popularity: http://www.cracked.com/article_16997_6-popular-fashion-trends-that-killed-people.html(and a warning--crude language and cynical attitudes are enclosed in that link.) But regarding the original topic, yes, that's a clever way of skirting the bunching issue, but what would happen if a woman--in the hot and humid American south--needed to shed some layers? I assume that yellow frock would reveal entirely too much if removed, given there seems to be nothing on her sides underneath, save the corset. Is that why fainting ladies is such a common visual for the time period? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
frances
|
|
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2012, 09:29:04 pm » |
|
Hi Anastacia,
But why would a woman want to shed a layer? If the weather is hot they wore light cotton or silk dresses with large airy sleeves. A crinoline is very cool - there is nothing around the legs except air after all. And with cotton or silk drawers that were basically divided legs, one is kept cool and airy there too.
With evening dresses it is even better - nothing around the neck or shoulders as well. The only constriction is around the ribcage and waist. And since a rich person would have corsets that were made to fit comfortably, that is no problem either.
The myth about fainting is in relation to corsets in the 1880'sand 90's. With the invention of metal eyelets the corset could now be pulled too tightly so that the lady panted rather than being able to breath deeply. Therefore with exercise like walking and getting on an omnibus she was more likely to suddenly get a dizzy spell. Hence the need to give a lady a seat on the omnibus. But not everyone overtightened their corset.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
