Historical accuracy – Regency

The term ‘historical accuracy’ is often found in historical costuming. It’s that elusive ‘getting it exactly right’ in making historical clothing. Making something which a contemporary wouldn’t be able to distinguish from their own wardrobe, even on close inspection.

Of course, there’s a lot of different levels of historical accuracy, and often the ultimate goal is not to get it right at all costs. Money, skill and time can all effect how far you wish to go, and there’s nothing wrong with just wanting to make a pretty dress! I’ve personally never tried to make anything 100% accurate, but I do always like to know when I’m deviating from history.

But it can be difficult to find out what’s ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ when you’re just starting out. There are a lot of different aspects to it, and a lot of information in different places. So I thought I’d try to give an overview of  what to pay attention to, and how it applies to dresses from ca. 1805-1820. A little disclaimer: all of the info below is from my own experience of looking at and reading about historical clothing. If there’s any ‘mistakes’ or nuances I’m missing I’d love to know!

Fabrics

The fabrics of existent dresses are most often silk or cotton. Wool and (fine-woven) linen are also seen. Although cotton and silk are seen more often, it is good to remember that the fancy dresses are also the ones most likely to survive and be preserved. It’s very probable that ‘back in the day’, cotton and especially wool was more common than museum collections might suggest. Anything which has a synthetic fiber, viscose, rayon or polyester, is not historically correct, as these weren’t invented yet. For silks and cottons, look for thinner fabrics. Very thin white cotton was often used. Heavier draped fabrics aren’t seen much. Silks are usually either satin or taffeta, but again, rather thin. Crepe silk was also used, very thin and and almost sheer. The examples of crepe I’ve seen aren’t shiny, and have a different look than modern chiffon. Dupion silk is very modern, the ‘slubs’ in the fabric weren’t appreciated. If you have a very smooth dupion you might get away with it. Silk velvet is also seen sometimes, though a bit too heavy for evening wear.

‘Back in the day’ the term ‘muslin’ was used for the very fine cotton. Be aware that modern ‘muslin’ doesn’t refer to the same fabric, it’s a lot heavier. Terminology can change over time (to make it easy on us…). A similar thing holds for the term taffeta, which is often used to refer to poly taffeta. The historical variant is always pure silk. Also, be aware that ‘velvet’ and ‘satin’ refer to the way in which a fabric is made, not the fiber content. Historically, these would’ve mostly been silk or sometimes wool. Velvet nowadays is usually cotton, polyester, or a silk/polyester mix. The last one is usually referred to as silk velvet, so be aware that it’s usually not 100% silk!

Left is dupion silk. With a lot of texture, which wasn’t used. Middle is silk taffeta, with a smooth surface and crisp texture. Right is silk satin, shiny, with a drapey texture. Taffeta and satin are correct, taffeta being the more common choice.

Fabric

Fabrics in those days were often narrower than modern fabrics, which can have effects for how for instance skirt panels were cut. This also means they could use the selvage sides of narrower fabrics more often than we can. It’s nearly impossible to find historical-width fabrics nowadays though, so don’t feel bad for not using them.

If you are going for a non-historical fabric (silk is expensive…), you can always try to find something which has the look/feel of the real thing. My white/red regency dress is made of a cotton/polyester mix, but it looks and drapes quite similar to satin. It won’t pass close inspection, but it’s a lot better than my first regency dress, which was made of floral upholstery fabric. Really lovely, but way too heavy and roughly woven for the time period.

Left: wrong fabric (upholstery cotton), too heavy and too roughly woven (never mind the floral, also not completely right).  Right: still wrong fabric (cotton/poly mix), but in looks way closer to something historical (satin), so you have to look closely to see it.

 

 

Fabrics could be plain, patterned or embroidered. You get stripes, checkers and dot patterns, stripes being the most common. Flowers are also often seen, but you have to be careful with modern flower patterns! Generally, flower patterns were a left-over from the 18th century so you see them most often in the early regency. Anytime after 1810 it’d be old fashioned. A very fashionable lady wouldn’t have a printed flower fabric, but a rural lady re-using old fabric might. Flowers in those times were also often stylized, and the more modern ‘English rose’ type of flowers didn’t exist yet.

On the left, a very modern flower. Not regency at all. On the right flowered prints from actual dresses.

Chintz chosen by Cecil Beaton for his country house, reproduced by Beaudesert (via little augury).detail of 1795-1800 dress 18th century fabric

Color-wise, nearly everything goes. Be aware though, that very bright colors usually need chemical dyes which weren’t invented yet. Bright emerald green or hot pink/purple didn’t exist. White/ivory/beige/blush were very popular, but definitely not exclusive!

Shades of white:

White

Some decidedly non-white examples:

Colors

 

Full lace dresses also existed, though due to the fragility of the fabric not a lot have lasted. This is usually silk blonde-lace.

Lace

 

Cut

The next thing to look at is cut. With this I mean the shape of the pattern pieces. Regency bodices had a very specific cut to the back of the bodices. The shoulder seam was to the back of the natural shoulder, and the center-back panel was very narrow in the middle.

This picture clearly shows the seam lines. The diamond-shaped back panel, the side panels extending towards the back and the front panel extending towards the back. The sleeves are also set very far to the back.

1981.393B

 

For the skirts a relatively simple pattern was used. Generally speaking, there were either 2 rectangles (one for the front, one wider one for the back, gathered mid-back), or a combination of rectangles (front/back) and triangles (sides). The further along in the regency, the more common the rectangle/triangle shape became. This gives more of a flared skirt. Skirts were always gathered at the back to the bodice. Sometimes they were gathered all the way round, sometimes from the sides to the back, sometimes only in the very center of the back.

Two examples from (http://www.19thus.com/WomensClothing/) show the shapes. As you can see, sometimes multiple panels were used (could be due to smaller fabric width), and the triangles often cut together with the rectangles.

Pattern

 

Sleeves were either short (halfway upper arm-ish) or long (to the hand or even a bit longer). I’ve never seen elbow-length sleeves. Short sleeves were sometimes fitted in the early Regency, but became more universally puffed later on, even though many versions existed. Long sleeves are either fitted all the way, with a little gathering at the top and fitted at the bottom, a puffed sleeve with a longer fitted one attached or little puffs all the way down. Longer sleeves were more common for day-wear and short for evening-wear, but it was mixed up as well. Dresses practically always had sleeves! Sometimes a sleeveless over-dress was worn, but these wouldn’t usually be worn on their own. Shoulders almost never showed.

Top row left-right: A fitted sleeve, a puff sleeve with lower sleeve, the little puffs all the way down (not very common, but very typical for the period), a wide sleeve at the top becoming narrow near the bottom – this is later Regency and would become more popular in the 1820’s and 1830’s, and a straight sleeve with wider top.

Bottom row left – right: The classical puffed sleeve, a straight short sleeve and example of a sleeveless over-dress.

Sleeves 2

 

Waistlines were high, right underneath the bust. Around 1820, the waistline starts to lower a bit, but is still well above the natural waistline. Necklines are generally low, but there’s a lot of variation here. Remember that square low necklines were also sometimes filled in with a chemisette. This is the common way to get coverage, full dresses with a neckline right underneath the chin are very rare. Very low necklines did happen often, although it might depend a bit on class and country (high-born French ladies being more risque than say, lower-class English).

Some portraits showing the point for the neckline to sit. The top-row ladies all wear chemisettes in different types to cover up (yes, they’re often transparant, covering up is relative..). The bottom row are some of the lower necklines I could find. Notice though, how even the ladies in the top row have very low necklines on their dresses. Just above the mid-bust point was very common. Remember, in these days ankles were considered decidedly more sexy than cleavage.

Necklines

 

The portrait on the bottom right and top middle also show the bust-shape really well. The chest was pushed up by stays, and separated. The fashionable shape wasn’t pushed up and pushed together, as modern push-up bras tend to do.

Finishings

The sewing-machine was invented in the 1850’s, so all dresses during the Regency were sewn by hand. This means a fully historically correct dress is sewn entirely by hand. Many people also ‘cheat’ for the inside (invisible) seams, but hand-sew the visible parts, such as on the hem. If you want to be totally correct, also keep in mind the ‘natural fibers’ for sewing thread and don’t use polyester threads.

Generally, bodices were lined (most often in cotton or linen), skirts were usually unlined. As far as I could find out from pictures, bodice linings were often constructed separately and put in raw-edges facing each other. The lining was then stitched in place along the main seams. The outer-fabric bodice edges were turned over inside and stitched to the lining to keep them in place. (So no stitching the lining to the bodice neckline right sides together and then turning them inside-out). (If anyone has more info on construction techniques I’d love to know)

A picture showing the lining of a dress and the stitches keeping it in place. You can see the sleeves were attached after the bodice lining.

 

Dresses closed in a myriad of ways, but some methods were more common than other. By far the most common method was using drawstrings in the neckline and waistline to close in the back. Gowns closing in the front used a combination of drawstrings and pins to close. Buttons down the back existed, but were pretty rare. (Fabric covered buttons are most common). Hooks and eyes were probably also used, and occasionally lacing is seen. Be aware that metal eyelets didn’t exist yet, the eyelets would always be hand-sewn.

At the top two examples of laces tying shut. On the right an example of a front closing dress, the lining closing with lacing the rest with tapes and pins. At the bottom three less common examples. Lacing, buttons and hooks and eyes.

Closures

 

Trim on regency dresses is relatively rare. Ribbon was often used, put around the waistline, but I suspect also used separately from the dress. You see it more often in portraits than in existing dresses. Embroidery is one the most common decoration methods. A lot of trims are also made of the same fabric as the dress. Piping is sometimes used in sleeve decorations, but not really seen anywhere else.  Lace is sometimes used as edging around the neckline and/or sleeves. Later in the regency, fabric ‘tubes’ are also used to create designs. Generally speaking, later in the regency the emphasis on the hemline grows stronger and with it grows the amount of trim on the hem. Always be aware of modern ready-made trims, most of them are not very fitting. If in doubt, look for images of dresses and see if you find anything similar.

At the top 3 examples where all trim is embroidered on. A the bottom from left to right: self-made trim, lace, and fabric tubes.

Trimming

 

 

 

Catwalk – Fashion in the Rijksmuseum

When the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam announced that they were organizing a fashion exhibition this year it immediately made me very happy and curious. I’d seen some of their pieces, and some photo’s of others, but a lot of it hadn’t been photographed or exhibited. So finally a chance to see some of their collection! The exhibition is called ‘Catwalk’ and ranges fashion from the 17th century to the 1960’s. The whole thing was designed by Erwin Olaf, a Dutch photographer. He also made some of the publicity shots and a short movie clip showing the changes in silhouette over the years (my only wish was that it’d been in chronological order…). Both can be seen here: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/catwalk .

Last Easter weekend I finally had a chance to visit. We went very early, because the Rijksmuseum can be extremely busy especially on holidays. Turned out to be a good choice, when we arrived at 9:30 it wasn’t quiet, but still doable. When we left around 13:30 the crowds had gathered. We went through the entire exhibition twice, and on the second round I also took the chance to make some photo’s (at the bottom of this post). The lighting wasn’t perfect, but I think I still managed to get some okay photo’s of details.

All in all, I really liked the exhibition. It was very well set up, with a some of the pieces even moving along a catwalk. Where possible, the dresses were displayed without glass and viewable from every side, which is always a big plus for me. The rooms were organized by theme. The first was children’s clothing, with one 1850’s dress surrounded by moving children’s clothing. In addition, there were sounds of children’s play in the background, to really bring it to life. The second room was for the old pieces, 16th century to halfway 17th century. Including one of the only existing 17th century underpants. The third room was the catwalk, with 20th century fashion 1900 to 1950’s moving around. They’d put up chairs around the catwalk and a booklet so you could read about the pieces as they moved by. The third room showed the changes in silhouette, from the constraints of the 18th and 19th centuries to the 1960’s as era of freedom. The fourth room was about details, with spots lighting out specific details in dresses. The final room consisted of the show-pieces, several gorgeous dresses between 1750 and 1820 worn for special occasions and weddings. The top-piece was a 18th century wedding dress which is 2 meters wide. Especially the embroidery was absolutely gorgeous. I’d seen it in all the promo shots and thought it actually looked a bit plain because there’s barely any trimming on the dress. But seeing the thing in real-life completely changed my mind. The embroidery is so stunning, and the colors so well preserved that it’s definitely more impressive up close.

Some of my favorite pieces are below, with the official high-quality shots (you can find them in full (big!) size on the website of the Rijksmuseum) and my additional photo’s. (Reduced size to save space, but if you’re interested in the full-size image just send me a message!)

One of the oldest pieces, dress with Watteau pleats of sild, embroidered with flower and leaf motives, ca 1740-1745 (link: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/BK-1961-90-A)

BK-1961-90-AIMG_6776IMG_6780IMG_6781

The show-stopper, a wedding dress with train, 2 meters wide, 1750-1760. The dress was worn by Helena Slicher in 1759. Interesting is that it combines various court-fashions. The bodice with ‘tail’ follows the English court fashion (manteau), while the separate train is mostly seen on the European mainland. (link: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/BK-1978-247) The dress is deceptively plain, the only trim is on the sleeves, but the embroidery is absolutely gorgeous. I tried to get images of the back, it was standing relatively close to a wall (no walking behind), but the mirror behind made up for a lot. Underneath the sleeve flounces you can see the attachment of the train.

BK-1978-247IMG_6987IMG_6986IMG_6984IMG_6985IMG_6973IMG_6975IMG_6983IMG_6980IMG_6974IMG_6976

Robe a la francaise, ca 1765-1775. The width and fabric indicate that this was worn for a formal occasion. The leafs in the silk are woven with gold and silver thread. The petticoat is a tablier, it only fills the front opening of the skirt.

BK-NM-8432IMG_6942IMG_6944IMG_6947IMG_6943IMG_6950IMG_6951IMG_6952IMG_6953

Redingote, ca 1786-1789, made of silk. I love the color of this garment, and interested in the little flaps which make the over-skirt stand open at the bottom. Never seen that anywhere else. (link: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/BK-1978-250)

BK-1978-250IMG_6872IMG_6888IMG_6889

Dress of blonde-bobbin lace, 1815-1820. Lace wasn’t very popular after the French revolution, but Napoleaon obligated wearing lace at court in 1804 increasing its popularity. This type of blonde lace is named after the light color, and due to the fragility of the fabric blonde gowns are rare. (link: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/BK-NM-14105 )

BK-NM-14105IMG_6956IMG_6957IMG_6958IMG_6959

Riding costume, ca 1826. (link: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/BK-VII-N ). I love the color of this costume, and it was absolutely tiny! (54 cm waist…)

BK-VII-NIMG_6880IMG_6877IMG_6878

 

Dress with silver embroidery, worn at 12,5 year marriage party by  Maria Elisabeth Verwer-Offermans in 1915 (link: http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.23624)

BK-1978-292

IMG_6808IMG_6810IMG_6815

 

Inspiration – Trimmed Regency outerwear

I’ve begun working on a new regency spencer, red to go with the red/white dress. I want this one to be a bit more fancy than my blue spencer, ideally with some surface decoration. So I went looking for inspiration images, and stumbled on a couple of spencers & pelisses which seem to have the same type of trim. I can’t be sure, but I suspect the trim is made with small tubes of fabric, which are then stitched on as a braid. This has the advantage of resulting in perfectly matched colors. There also seems a bit of a trend of flower/leaf patterns. I haven’t found a lot of examples, but enough to make me belief this was done more often. All of these are from ca. 1820.

So far, my plan has been to use soutache braid to decorate my spencer, but if I can’t find properly matching red braid I might try the fabric tube idea.

For this post, some pretty pictures!

The Met museum has 2 nearly identical spencers with a gorgeous trim design. This is the design I also plan to use for my red spencer.

Close-ups show the lay-out very well.

 

Another spencer in the Met which seems to use this technique has a more geometrical pattern.

A close-up shows the same fabric tubes. I especially love the sleeve treatment, and will try to copy it for my own jacket.

Untitled-1.jpg

 

Another one playing with lines, from the DAR Museum.

Eggplant-purple velvet and purple silk twill spencer, about 1818, from the DAR Museum, Washington DC. From the (John and Abigail) Adams family, possibly worn by a granddaughter.:

More wiggely lines, although a bit tricky to see with all the black, from the Germanischen Nationalmuseums.

This one is getting back into the floral theme. From the Chertsey Museum.

 

Spencers are most common, but I also found this pelisse is from the Museum of London. A lovely blue with a leaf/floral pattern, combined with embroidery.

But to really do it justice there’s the close-ups: