Help a Georgian Gal Out - Please Vote for Us!

Dear Ladies and Gents of Centuries Past,

It's the last few days of the Fedex Small Business Grant contest, and we need your help. The finalist are decided upon a popular vote, and we've unfortunately fallen quite behind. The companies ahead of us are truly amazing and we'd like to be counted among them when the vote is up on April 5th!

The Fedex Small Business Grant awards several cash-and-service prizes to help support and grow tiny companies like ours. With the $25,000 prize, we can hire employees, develop new historic shoe styles and accessories, make more patterns and write more books, and explore options for domestic footwear manufacturing. It's a big deal to us!

So please help us make it to the next round. Though we are small and nerdy, we are proud to be part of a wonderful, mighty community of historical costumers, and we thank you for your support. Voting is open until April 5th, and you can vote once every 24 hours.

Vote Here

With Much Love,

Lauren, Abby, Chris, and Jenny.

Read More

How to be a Boss at Research - Part 4

How to be a Boss at Research Part 4: Secondary Sources - Rules of Engagement.

Hey Y'all! Here we are at Part 4 of this series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) on how to be a Boss at Research. We've finished up with going over primary sources and now we are ready to move on to the most common type of source for the average individual - secondary sources...mostly this is going to consist of books, academic journal articles, well research newspaper articles (<--- this is tricky because of the internet today, and how much "click bait" there is - think New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian etc. Not US Weekly or Daily Mail. K?), and academic websites (.edu are more credible than .com).

1.      The Issue with Older Publications. History books from earlier in the 20^th century are problematic. Today we utilize books that were first published in the 1960s or even earlier, and they’re considered indispensable tomes of dress history knowledge. The problem is, is that for every well-done book there is at least one or two that are rubbish (this goes for new publications too, sadly.) Look at the writing style as well…sometimes you can tell when they’re just totally full of it. For example, I have a couple of books that were published in the early 20^th century (pre-1950s) and while I love them because they’re fun and pretty and lovely, I don’t reference them for actual research because they’re not always factually useful…unless I’m trying to find an origin to a myth that is driving me bananas. (*Shoots a death glare at Cunnington*) Even if the information may be correct, how are we to know when they do not always bother to tell us where they got their information from? This tendency is more a reflection on how scholarship standards have changed over the century, but it still doesn't mean that the books should be completely trusted.

      It's also like what I mentioned in my first post, with the change and evolution of information that is coming out all the time - this does mean that previous published works by "the greats" is going to change or be considered wrong. Does that mean you should ignore their work? Absolutely not! But it does mean that the part of the books where they have imposed their own interpretation of their research does need to be taken into consideration. For example: Janet Arnold and Norah Waugh were contemporaries, and even they did not use the same terminology. Norah Waugh uses the term "Polonaise" correctly in Cut of Women's Clothes but Arnold misidentifies the "Polonaise" in the labeling of her patterns to be associated only the skirts being tied up in the back. We now know that Waugh was correct through Brooke Welborn and Kendra Van Cleave's article "Very Much the Taste and Various are the Makes" published in the Costume Society of America's academic journal Dress (Volume 39, Number 1, 2013) which confirms the "Poloniase" gown as it's own creation and not solely associated with rucked up skirts. 

       Does this mean that we should now ignore everything Janet Arnold says? Um. NO. It just means that when you're reading older sources you need to take into consideration the evolution of this field of study. Because it's changing all the time. This is a good thing, and it will change how we view historic dress in the years to come.
   
2.   What about new publications? Today, even though books and articles are much better about using footnotes and citations to validate and back up arguments, you will still see perpetuation of mythology in books or just blatant mistakes. (Hell, there will probably be mistakes in our book, too. We aren’t perfect!) It's important to keep in mind 1. the purpose of the book, is it supposed to be scholarly/coffee table decor/how to? The purpose of the book changes how you should interact with it. 2. How they cite their sources. 3. Just because it's new doesn't mean they're not still perpetuating old ideas. If something rings "off" to you, see if you can find out where they got their information from, and compare it to the actual source. I've done this a couple of times, and every time I've been able to walk away learning something new. It doesn't always mean I agree with the author's viewpoint, but it does mean that I have grown and changed as a scholar. 

3.      Check out the bibliography and works cited in the back.  If anything this will help you in your own research. Remember people interpret things differently, and so sometimes it’s good for you to go direct to the primary source and read it for yourself. You might walk away with a different perspective than the author, or you might find that you now agree with the author once you understand the context from where that information came from.

4.   Your taste in books will and needs to evolve. When we first get into the hobby we are thirsty to get our hands on ALL THE BOOKS! This is great, and an excellent way to really start to learn about dress history. I mean, I think we can all agree that Kyoto Costume Institute's book, Fashion is pretty much one of the best books ever (cause pretty picture's ya'll.), but it's a book on a very broad subject, the information is pretty superficial, and doesn't really delve deep into the underbelly of dress history. However, take the book Textiles in America by Florence Montgomery, and here you have another large book that covers a larger time span, but it is incredibly detailed and focused on historic textiles.This specialization is something that you will need to better understand dress history, and will make you a better researcher, too. So while books that cover dress history as a broad subject matter are great to get started with, you will want and need a library of focused dress history subject matter to assist in your research.

5.      Think about the type of book and its intention. For example, our book is project based, and is meant to be more of a sewing guide than a research tome that has appeal for beginners and experienced sewers. While all of our construction techniques are based off an amalgamation of primary and secondary sources (and a lot of original garments over the years…), we also want it to be accessible and enjoyable. So, we tried to keep the essays light and easy to read while keeping the information as accurate as possible, to the best of our ability. Should you use our book in your master’s thesis? Eh…maybe…maybe not, if you’re doing research on how a gown is constructed and our book has the same technique that you see in the original and we just do a better job explaining it, then yeah, it’s going to be useful for you, but this book isn’t coming from an academic publisher, like Yale, and so the book’s purpose is different. Does that make sense?

6.      If the author makes a statement that sounds so ridiculous you want to laugh out loud, it’s probably not true. Beware of the Perpetuation of Mythology.  “People had mice and rats in their hair!” ….seriously. I’ve read this, and I’ve had people try to tell me this. Just stop and think about that statement. Really think about it. Now, think about Queen Charlotte, refined, elegant, well mannered, well-respected Queen of ENGLAND with a RAT in her hair. It’s ridiculous. Would YOU want a RODENT in your hair? No…well…maybe some of you would, but that’s your personal business. People were not stupid in the past. When you read statements like this, or that women would catch on fire cause of their petticoats (um….no...because of wool and hem lengths) please practice common sense and extreme caution.

7.      Is your or the author’s viewpoint affected by modern society’s social mores or other past cultural quirks? Ankles, Elbows, and Boobs: three parts of a Georgian woman that are hotly debated. Authors, Reenactors, and Costumers will perpetuate myths surrounding these body parts without ‘seeing’ or acknowledging the visual reality. Women wouldn’t show their ankles in the 18^th century? 1^st Then why were shoes and stockings such a big damn fashion deal? 2^nd Why do I see so much damn ankle in fashion plates, prints, and portraiture? 3^rd Fabric is expensive why would they want to risk stepping on it? 4^th It’s unsafe to have too long of skirts when you’re working. You need the hem to be short enough so you do not hurt yourself. It’s common sense and it is disproved when you just start looking at images! Ankles are EVERYWHERE and it’s OK! But where did this myth come from? Was it a bias that started in the late Victorian era? Was it a reflection of the social conservative mindset of the 1950s? Frankly, Who knows? I’ve been able to find some references that seem to make it appear to be a bias well after the mid 1800s, but it’s a myth, that’s for sure, and it’s a myth that started in the author’s personal social bias and is not an accurate reflection of the time period they’re writing about. Be extremely wary of this. The Georgian Era is not the Victorian Era is not the Mid-Century Modern Era is not Today. Make sense? Think about how different we are, as an overarching culture today than we were 20 years ago. This ebb and flow is a constant throughout history.

Think about it....

Well, that was hopefully pretty straightforward when it comes to secondary sources, next week is tertiary sources! :D

Read More

Royal Vintage - Deco Darling Collection Now on Pre-Order!

Hello Darlings!

We are super excited to announce that our sister company Royal Vintage has released the newest collection line for Pre-Order (Delivery in early June)! It's named Deco Darling and it is a jazzy collection of shoes from the 1920s and 30s.

Evelyn, Roxy, and Lillian

As with American Duchess and Royal Vintage Pre-Orders, if you place your order by the end of May you will receive $20 off (Reg. $150) and Free Shipping in the USA! The shoes are already in production, and so we only have a limited number of sizes available.

This line was created on the same last and heel as 23Skidoo, Harlow (Former Exclusive), and Claremont. We've made the adjustments to fix the oxford sizing issue that we had in Claremont, so the new oxford, Evelyn will run true to size. Also, with that 2 3/8" (6cm) heel, you'll be able to walk, work, or dance the whole day or night in comfort!

Above: Evelyn Tan/Brown Below: Evelyn Blue/Brown

Evelyn is a canvas and leather multi-season oxford. We love that the canvas upper with leather details will be cool enough to wear in the summer but the full foot coverage will protect your feet in the spring and fall. The tan and brown color-way will be that perfect neutral for business attire to crisp summer dresses while blue and brown gives a bit more 'KaPow! to your look, and will be especially fun for any menswear inspired outfits in your wardrobe.

Welly Sisters Outfit, Deauville, August 9, 1928, From the book Elegance pg 50 

More Oxfords! Renee Dress, Deauville, August 12, 1923, Elegance pg 156

Above: Lillian Navy/Ivory Below: Sage/Ivory

 Our Lillian shoes are our new colorful mary-jane spectators. Inspired by originals held in museums, our new Lillian is going to be the fun and flirty shoe for all of your garden parties and days out shopping. While we wanted to embrace the 20s and 30s love of color, Lillian will be able to go with all sorts of fun outfits in your wardrobe!

Check it out! Lillian in person! This is Lady Mortimer Davis at the Grand Prix de Deauville, August 1927,  from the book Elegance pg 62 

Shoe, 1920s, Shoe Icons

Shoe, 1930s via

Above: Roxy Gold Below: Roxy Silver

"The name on everybody's lips is going to be...Roxy" :) If you want glam, comfort, and jazz then Roxy is the shoe for you. With gold or silver leather and her rhinestone buckle, she's the perfect shoe for dressing up any outfit and having a glam night out on the town. Lauren wore her gold Roxy shoes all over New York City this fall and was comfortable the whole day.We're kind of obsessed with them... to be honest.

1920s Gold Shoes

1920s Shoes, Shoe Icons 

Silver Metallic Pumps with Ankle Straps, 1920-29, Goldstein Museum

So that's it! This is the newest Royal Vintage Collection. We're so excited about our shoes, and we hope that you are too. The 1920s was such a fun and exciting time for fashion, and we are thrilled with how our collection symbolizes and celebrates this era. Don't forget to check out Royal Vintage to snag yourself a pair today!

Read More

How to be a Boss at Research - Part 3

How to be a Boss at Research Part 3: Rules of Engagement - Primary Sources

Alright, kids, we're here. Part 3 of what appears to be a very long series about researching historic dress. Let's do a recap before we move on - yes?

Part 1: Introduction to this long series. Go back here if you're just now tuning in.

Part 2:  What are Primary sources and Where you can find them. This section directly coincides with what's coming up. This is a good link to just bookmark so you can refer back to the different databases I've listed in the post.

Rules of Engagement: Primary Sources (AKA how to actually use these silly databases so you get something out of it. (Note: All of my examples are related to the 18^th century, but the guidelines are applicable to all time periods....it's just the best era for me to use as examples.)

1.      Spelling. In the 18^th century there was more than one way to spell a word, and this lack of spelling formality affects how we research today. Just because you know that we spell Mantua-maker this way today, does not mean that will bring you up a lot of hits on your database. You might (and should) try multiple spellings of words to help you find what you’re looking for. For example: Mantuamaker, mantua-maker, manteau maker, manteau-maker, mantoe (seriously.), etc. You might get repetitive hits, but you also might find hidden information that you missed in your first search.

2.      Understand that our dress history terms are not the same as they were in the 18^th century. This is crucial when you are searching 18^th century American or English databases. We use French terminology today to describe a lot of the clothing and accessories, but 18^th century Americans and Brits did not do that. For example, A robe a la franaise is called a Sacque or Sack in 18^th century English. You might find a couple of hits if you search the French term, but you will find a lot more if you use Sacque. (Sack is problematic since it is…well…a sack and you’ll probably get a lot of hits on boring stuff like grain prices, etc.)

True Story.

3.      Accept all information for what it is, and do not leave out things of your research that you do not like because it does not fit your personal narrative of how history is supposed to be.  I cannot state this enough. I have seen time and time again (hell, I’ve probably been guilty of it too!) where people will purposefully manipulate or ignore primary documentation because it does not suit their personal opinion of how that time period is supposed to be. PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS. If you are researching a subject it is now your responsibility to try and understand it from the perspective of the 18^th century. Listen to what history is telling you, and learn from it. History is not here to fit into our molds of what we think it was like. We learn from her.

4.      Beware of confirmation bias This is a lot like above, but instead of ignoring information you’re misinterpreting or manipulating faulty resources to suit your viewpoint instead of acknowledging that the information cannot confirm or deny your hypothesis.

Let’s use aprons as an example for both of these bad habits. You’re trying to figure out the most common way to tie an apron during the Rev War period, but information is kind of all over the place, and frankly, the more you look the more your eyes go cross. So you start to only look for images that suit your viewpoint and ignore ones that contradict it. When you do this though, you realize that your image and source documentation is weak, and so you start including images that are debatable (they do not prove or contradict your point, but you want to include them in the “prove” category), misidentify objects to validate your argument, and try to use how people wore aprons in the 1910s to validate how they wore them in the 1770s.  It’s hard for us as costumers and reenactors to acknowledge our deep desire to put history into sealed boxes. We want it to be easy. We want it to be clear. We want rules to follow so we’re not “farby” or “n00bs”. We don’t want to be attacked by people we consider our peers, idols, or anyone. The problem here is when it goes to an extreme and you are ignoring the human element. We are researching a culture. A people. And we are all different. Whether it was the 18^th century or the 21^st century people are as people are, and we cannot be put into boxes. The more I have researched the 18^th century, the more I have realized that while there may be good solid guidelines, there are very few rules, and just like the English language, for every rule there is a lot of breaking of that rules. Look, it’s just human nature.

5.      Running around with a “UFO” as a rule. This goes to the opposite end of the spectrum that I discussed above. There was weird stuff happening in the 18^th century. WEIRD. People wore weird fabrics, clothing, etc. They styled themselves differently. This all goes into the human nature element I was discussing above, but it’s also important that you do not take one weird ass story and make it gospel. For example: There is a man’s jacket in the Tailor’s shop at Colonial Williamsburg. It is made out of a bright red and white checked fabric that is commonly used for furniture. When you ask the tailors about the jacket, they’ll go on to explain that they recreated it based off a newspaper advertisement of a runaway slave. This enslaved person ran away…a lot…. so much so that it seems like his master had a jacket made out of the bold fabric check so that way he could be easier to spot. It was so weird, even for the 18^th century, that it was made to be used a signifier. Does this mean that you should make a jacket out of red and white fabric check? Not unless you are portraying that particular individual, or one very similar to him, and you use that fabric as an education point. This jacket is a UFO and should be treated as such: Proceed with extreme caution. Context is everything.

Whew! We did it! We got through the Primary source part of this series! Next up is the readily available, but sometimes confusing Secondary sources!

Read More

1820s Green Dress - Basic Measurements and Sleeve Examination

Hey Everyone!

Abby here with another post about the 1820s Green Silk Lustring Dress that has recently come into my possession. (You can read about how I got the dress here. If you're curious as to why I've dated it in the 1820s check out the post here.)

Like I promised and many of you have asked, I'm now going to share with you those fun detail shots, interior pictures, and discuss my construction notes with you. Due to the insane amount of images and notes I've taken on this thing, I'm going to break up the posts into 3 parts: Sleeves, Bodice, and Skirt. Today, we're going to look at my general observations, list of measurements, and the sleeves.

General Observations

- Dress is made up of a bodice with separate skirt. Made up of bottle green silk lustring. Due to fading in places where moisture was present, I am inclined to believe that this green dress was created using yellow and blue dye & not arsenic.
- Minimal signs of damage (tears, holes, shatters).
- No evidence of major remakes or refashioning.
- Threads appear to be mostly 2 kinds. 1 of green silk and 1 of green (faded to yellow in some places) cotton or linen(?) There is black thread used in some cases which might be evidence of later mending & possible mild alteration.
- Bodice is lined in glazed cotton or linen. Unable to confirm without microscope.
- Waistband appears to be of a coarse linen. Also unable to confirm fiber content.
- Sleeves are Unlined.
- Original button still in place at the skirt (and OMG it's so cute!)
- Hooks and eyes are missing.
- Hem of skirt is faced in a brown cotton or linen, and then wrapped in what appears to be a green worsted wool.

Cute button is cute!

List of Measurements

Bust: 30-31"
Shoulder to Shoulder: 20" (dropped shoulder)
Bodice Length: CF- 10.25" CB - 13.375"
Bodice Waist:  26-28"
Skirt Waist: approx 25" (Altered to make smaller. Original size probably around 28")
Sleeve Length: 31.5"/14 nails* (top) & 23.5"/10+ nails (under)
Sleeve Poof: 23" around & about 13.5"/6 nails long (interior tape holding the poof in place is 6.25"/about 3 nails)
Sleeve Wrist: 9" around
9" up from Wrist: 10.75" around
Hem Circumference: 97.5" (5 panels of silk @ selvage to selvage approx. 19.5" wide)
Skirt Length: 40.25" long (not including waistband)

* "nails" is another form of measurement used during this period to get to ell (nail/quarters/ell). Special shout out to A Fashionable Frolick for my housewife w/ my special measuring tape that has nails and quarters marked out for me!

Screenshot from Workwoman's Guide that explains the units of measure. 1 English = 45" and 1 French Ell = 54"...do these numbers sound familiar? Now you know why fabrics are woven at those widths! It's a holdover from this unit of measure. :) 

Now let's talk about the sleeves:

This is the "deflated" sleeve with the broken interior tape. I used this one for my measurements.

Here's the broken tape. You can see how it was reattached with the black thread, but the other side is out of the same greenish thread that is seen all over the dress. I would guess this is linen tape. The other side is a later twill tape fix. 

Detail of the piping and gathering on the sleeve

This the end of the piping that is at the edge of the sleeve. It was originally split up the wrist with piping on the edge. It was whipped closed with the black thread later. I believe the piping is a natural wool yarn 1 to 2 yarns thick in the channel. 

Here's an interior shot of the piping at the wrist (shown above). You can see the knot (!) that secures the faded green thread. The piping is made with running stitches (visible).

There is piecing at the underside of the top of the sleeve. It's mostly invisible from the outside. I'm curious as to how common this was in silk gowns of the period, and if there was a standard "piecing" technique used. It makes sense since we need a lot of fullness at the sleeve head and the silk was only 19.5" wide.  

Another view with the side seam. They're about 3/4" wide and backstitched (12-14 stitches per inch). Also see where the green dye has faded to yellow due to the moisture? The blue dye faded away with the sweat. 

Top of armscye. You can see the back-stitching stops, and it seems like the are just running stitches holding the top of the sleeve in place. I'm a little unsure about what is really going on here. It's very messy, and hard to see. 

Silk side of the same sleeve. Just...yeah...messy. Overcasting....running stitches..just..everywhere. 

Alright, that's it for today! Next week we'll keep looking at the gown (either skirt or bodice - I have yet to decide as of writing this post).

Read More

The 1790s "Jane Austen Goes to Ikea" Gown - The Corset

Ikea does it again - Ingmarie curtains >>

This year is 1790s year.

After completing all the book projects, Abby and I can finally settle into share-able projects. Both of us are mad for the 1790s after studying and re-creating various pieces for the '90s Round Gown chapter, so we've decided to explore further.

I'm making an open robe with a gathered bodice and long sleeves, to be worn over an embroidered white-work petticoat.

My sketch for the back of the gown.

I have three new pieces to make for this costume - the corset, petticoat, and gown itself. The corset was a quick project - two layers of linen with very little boning, lacing in front. I based my design on garments shown in Fashion: A History from the 18th to the 20th Century (the KCI book), Corsets: Historical Patterns & Techniques by Jill Salen, and Corsets and Crinolines by Norah Waugh.

My simple two-piece pattern for the '90s corset

The term "corset" or "corsette" existed throughout the 18th century, appearing to describe semi-boned, quilted, or stiffened bodices worn instead of stays. In the '90s there's a shift altogether from stiffly boned stays towards softer, lighter corsets, or stiffened bodices, that created a more natural bust shape while still lending support.

World, 1789 - "The French Corsett"

"Patent and [other] riding habit, elastic stay and corset maker, to which [her] Majesty and the Princesses have been pleased to express their most gracious approbation." - The Morning Post and Fashionable World, 1797                                                                  

"Corsettes about six inches long, and a buffon tucker of two inches high, are now the only defensive paraphernalia of our fashionable belles, between the necklace and the apron strings" - The Times, 1795

Interestingly, many of the 1790s corsets were still to-the-waist and many still had tabs. In experimenting with short and long stays, I've found that the waist length actually effects the bust and how it is raised, supported, or separated (later on). It's boob engineering - the boning in the front of 1790s and early Regency corsets cantilevers off the stomach at the bottom to stay close to the sternum at the top.

A quick try-on. The bust is low and full and round, unlike the high, compressed busts of earlier and later silhouettes.

The corset is bones at the center and side back all the way down into the "tail."

The corset vs. stays has been a bit of a mind melt for me. My inner staymaker wanted this garment to be stiff, with no wrinkles, but 1790s corsets were soft, form fitting, but not *tight* the way stays were. The point is not to reduce the waist but instead to support the bust, so lacing the corset loosely is key. Additionally, the shoulder straps and bustline drawstrings both play important roles - the shoulder straps keep the corset up and pulled in at the very wide side of the bust and the drawstrings on each side pull the sides in further, to eliminate gapping. I've also constructed my shoulder straps in an 18th century posture-correcting configuration seen on several extant pairs, such as these late 18th century stays from the Philadelphia Museum of Art:

Stays, late 18th c., Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1998-162-50 

My '90s stays complete and laid out flat. They're not perfect, but they get the job done.

With the corset done, it's on to the gown. More on that soon...!

Read More

How to be a Boss at Research - Part 2

How to be a Boss at Research Part 2:  Where to find those pesky primary sources from (mostly) the comfort of your own home! (For Review: Part 1)

Hey Ya'll! Abby here again!

So after the first post I'm sure a number of you are thinking, "Alright then, so where can I find these “primary” sources Miss Hoity-Toity Smarty Pants?"

It’s a fair question, and it’s a bit of a pain in the bum, I agree with you on this. I have missed my access to databases after leaving Colonial Williamsburg and University, but there are options for those of us who don't have access to the same databases as museum professionals and academics do.

However, with that being said...maybe you do want the same kind of access that college professors and grad students have...it can be done. There are two different ways to go about it. One is going to be more successful than others..

Your Local University Library

Though you usually cannot get remote access from your home to your local Uni’s databases unless you’re an enrolled student, almost all University libraries are open and free to the public when you’re on campus. You can get a free guest login for their computers, and then a whole new world will be opened to you. For eighteenth-century research there are several databases that are extraordinarily helpful: Eighteenth-Century Collections Online (ECCO), Burney Papers Collection (Historic British Newspapers), America’s Historic Newspapers, Accessible Archives, and more. Most universities that have a moderately successful history department should have at least some of these databases that you can search for free. If you bring a USB stick, you can spend a day saving whole books or parts of documents about your subject to look through later. If you’re worried that your local University library wont let you in, just look up their website on the internet before making the trek over to find out for sure…or if you’re not a millennial who hates talking on the phone…just call them up and ask!

Your Local Library

This will probably be more successful if you are near a larger city (like Boston), but some will also have access to databases like the ones I mentioned above. It’s just a case by case basis. It’s up to you to find out if they have access to these databases or not.

Oh really? Well then, you should come sit next to me on the couch, and I'll tell you all about it....

But what about if you don't want to/can't make it to the University library and your local library is a bust, too?

It's ok! There are databases on the internet. Right now. For you to look through! Below is a quick list that I have come up with. All but one is a free database - which is awesome! Also, if you know of other searchable databases please share them in the comment section below and I will add them to this list!

1. Archive.org (It's great for 19th century. All of Ackermann’s Repository is on here, Godey's Lady's Books, tons of Victorian and Edwardian Dressmaking and Tailoring manuals…as is the 1990s version of Oregon Trail….)  $Free

2. The Old Bailey Records - This is a database of all the court proceedings from London’s Old Bailey (17th century - 20th). It is really helpful for finding out the cost of some things, what was commonly stolen, and some unique quirks of the different social classes in England. Some court proceedings are a bit brutal to read, just a forewarning. This is a favorite for a lot of reenactors because of its easy to use interface and accessibility.  However, I would caution using it as your sole point of reference, which I have noticed is becoming more and more common with reenactors, and I find this a bit troubling. It is a great resource, yes, but it should not be your only resource.  $Free

3. Larsdatter's List of Runaway Ad Databases - This is someone else’s collection of different runaway slave and servant advertisement databases that range throughout the Colonies in the 18th century. With runaway advertisements…it’s kind of like the Old Bailey, but even more specific. They are an excellent reflection of a certain social class during this time period, and you need to keep this in mind when you are working on your outfit/character development/etc., but they are not the end all be all for all social levels. Nonetheless, these advertisements often include stolen articles, and so they are going to use common language and descriptions to help get their stolen goods back as best as they can. It can be an excellent way to learn terminology. $Free

4. Google Books. Seriously. Try it. When I was doing my hair research, I was able to stumble across a TON of primary source books on the subject matter. There are even a few Lady’s Magazines on here too. Searching can be a bit fussy, but just keep trying different key words, you can find some amazing primary documentation here! $Free

5. Newspaper Archive - Though you can get free access to this database if you’re near the right library, you can also sign up for a private subscription so you can fight with this beast in your own home. I was a member for a while, and I found some great articles in here when I was researching milliners and mantua-makers in the Midwest during the early 1800s. I did find it to be a massive pain in the backside to work with though. $Paid Subscription

6. Bunka Gakuen Library's Digital Archive of Rare Materials  Here is where you can find the entire Gallery of Fashion from 1794 to the early 1800s, as well as other great resources. You can search by century, too, so it’s actually pretty easy to use once you make sure everything is in English. Warning: Like so many other searchable websites, it can be a bit fussy at times. $Free


While there are probably more “Free” Databases on the web that I have missed (Like I said earlier - if you know of any please share in the comments!) this should be a good “starter” game plan for you to go off and start doing your own research! Next, we need to talk about how to use these primary source databases, how to understand them, and some precautions as well.

....Uh huh...sure...

Read More

Dating the Green 1820s Dress

Hey Everyone!

Abby here- 

So last week I posted about the awesome green dress my mom found in a little antique store in my hometown, and when I shared the photos here and told the story of the dress, I dated the gown c. 1825. Today, I thought I would go through why I think the dress is from around that time period. Then, hopefully next week, I'll post all about the construction details, interior photos, the yummy guts of all this. But first, let's talk about the dating of this gown.

Here she is again, in case you're new to the party.

Now, to be perfectly honest, this is not a time period where I feel particularly confident, I mean, let's be honest not a lot of us seem to pay that much attention to the 1820s. We usually focus on earlier decades or we get completely blindsided by the crazy 1830s. The 1820s seems to sometimes get lost in the mix, even though 1820s is just as crazy as the 30s and has some really lovely aspects about her that make it sometimes prettier than the 1810s. So let's look at the dress on Frankenlily and look at some of the construction and design details that I used to help me get an idea of her date and what I looked for when I compared her to other original gowns and images from the period.

Ok, so those were the immediate things I picked up on when I looked at the dress. Next, I started digging around on pinterest to see what I could find in the realm of imagery of portraits, prints, and other original gowns. I have to admit...this was tricky. There doesn't seem to be a lot that survives from the 1820s that is simple. Most gowns in collections seem to be on the much more fashionable side of things, but I was able to find a few. Challenges were also faced for the prints and portraiture, because event though I can see some of the gown in Ackermann's - these women are being rightly depicted as fully dressed with gowns covered in trim, and they're wearing  belts, pelerines, bonnets, etc, and so it can be hard to see the neckline, shoulder slope, etc. So, with that in mind, some of the images were picked because the sleeve size and shape looks the same, the waist sits at a similar place, there is fullness in the skirts, etc. 

Morning Dress, Mid- 1820s, Met Museum, 1977.197.3

Morning Dress, 1827-30, Met Museum, 1981.13.1

Quaker Dress, c. 1825, MFA Boston, 53.1770

So all of these gowns seem to have at least a couple of similarities to the green dress - skirt fullness, sleeve shape and construction, sloped shoulder, and if I could - neckline. The neckline is the hardest thing to compare the green dress to others. This time of neckline does not seem to be common in original gowns in museums. As for fashion prints, like Ackermann's below, some gowns do look like they could have a very high neckline like my dress, and others seem to have a more open neckline, in keeping with the cotton dress in the Met. 

Morning Dress, May 1825, Ackermann's Repository (Neckline similar to the cotton Met Dress)

Morning Dress, November 1827, Ackermann's Repository (It looks like it might have a high neck like my gown.)

Promenade Dress, August 1827, Ackermann's Repository  (Neckline unclear)

So, after obsessively trolling everything I could find on Pinterest to help figure out the dating of this gown, I also contacted a curator friend and picked her brain about it, and she agrees that the gown appears to be from the mid to late 1820s. Since the provenance of this gown is a mystery - all we know from the dealer is that it came from an estate sale "out west", and when you're located east of the Mississippi river, that's a pretty broad placement. It is always possible that this is some weird anomaly dress that might be 1830s, and it's kept the hallmarks of earlier fashions. However, there seem to be some really good matches with the gown that are within this 3-5 year time frame. 

Next up, we'll go through the gown's construction details and photos. It might manage to fit all in one post, or I might break it up into "Bodice" and "Skirt"...this will depend on how much I find in the skirt and if it will warrant its own post. 

If you are a fan of the 1820s, and you know of any original images or gowns that look similar to the green dress - I would love to see them! 

Until then - have a great weekend everyone! 

<3 <3 

Read More