I love browsing through the internet looking for historical dresses. There’s such richness out there, so many gorgeous examples. I find that it’s also very important how a dress is presented though. I recently found some photos of dresses on the hanger, or laying flat, and it’s such a shame. Clothing is 3-dimensional, and not meant to lie flat. I often tend to skip over badly photographed items, which is actually a shame, because the dresses themselves can be quite gorgeous.
In this post, some images on how much presentation matters.
Dress, ca. 1810-1815
Dress, ca. 1810-1815
The same garment, one on the hanger, with bad lighting. The other on a proper mannequin, with studio light. Look at the difference this makes!
Some more regency examples:
Dress, ca. 1800-1810
Gown, ca. 1810
The same two gowns. The studio lighting does so much more for the fabrics!
Gown , ca. 1800-1810
Gown , ca. 1800-1810. The bow in the front adds so much!
While for these regency dresses the difference is big, it becomes even greater when considering other silhouettes. Regency dresses are supposed to fall straight, but when hoops and bustles and corsets come into play, the silhouette is very different.
Bodice, 1873/1874
So much prettier when it’s filled out!
1888/1888
The left dress is the same. Look at the difference a good bustle makes!
This post is mostly a note to myself: to not dismiss dresses just because they’re not photographed well. And let’s just hope that all museums will make good inventory images in the future!
Atelier Nostalgia 