When is it from?

[frualeydis]

When would you date this? It has the aesthetics of the 1860s, but the skirt seems very narrow. On the other hand it may not be photographed with the correct underwear. Anyway, it's from our city museum and I plan to ask them if I can come and look at their costume collection. It's never on display but it would be really fun to look at them, and hopefully be able to take photos for my own research.

The photo is taken at a meeting for a museum society in 1928. It appears to be too small for her, both the sleeves and the skirt seem a bit too short.

Comments

[sneprinsesse.livejournal.com]

Isn't the skirt a bit short to go over a crinoline? Or, perhaps the lady in the photo has very long legs, or it was shortened for her?

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

You're right of course, not 1860s, maybe 1870s? The lady in the photo may well be too tall for it, she's photographed in lots of different dresses from various times, so the photo isn't contemporary with the dress.

/Eva

[idahoswede.livejournal.com]

I agree, the bodice and sleeves especially just cry out 1860s. Perhaps it was some sort of country walking dress, where the crinoline wouldn't be used? There's what appears to be a little bit of a train or draping in the back. I would venture this might be some kind of a day dress, where one wouldn't need or want the fuller skirts with underpinnings (supervising things in the kitchens, pantrys, housekeeping arrangements, etc.)?

[koshka-the-cat.livejournal.com]

I'd say maybe 1868 or so? There was a very brief time when skirts got somewhat narrow. I was actually just reading Costume in Detail again last night, and there's a dress in there, page 221 from 1868 with a very similarly shaped skirt. And bodice, for that matter.

The description says: A simple day dress, not easy to date; perhaps made in the early summer of 1868, soon after the collapse of the crinoline in the winter of '67...The dress hardly appears to have been worn, which is possible, for during that year over-skirts, extra trimming, and draperies were looped up over the bustel, and women were once more 'caged' and padded, this time at the back.

Very pretty dress! I love the trimming. So simple, yet effective :)

[koshka-the-cat.livejournal.com]

Also, I have a Godey's from 1868 that has skirt shapes that are similar to the dress. They obviously have supports, but it looks like you could put a similar one under the dress. A small elliptical crinoline, I'd guess:

http://www.koshka-the-cat.com/godeys_september1868.html

[pinque.livejournal.com]

That would be my feeling too. Everything bar the narrowness of the skirt screams 1860s but I too recall a brief very narrow period. I thought it was just an odd few fashion plates, which is why I never saved them and now have no idea where to find them!

It'll be interesting to know what the back looks like as we cannot see it in any photograph. And a look at the waist would probably help identify if it has been altered as well.

[jenthompson.livejournal.com]

That's what I was thinking too - 1868. I've been looking at a lot of those pictures because that's when my current project is from, and it looks pretty spot on.

[operafantomet.livejournal.com]

Honestly, the skirt looks more early 1900 to me. Not only the shape and cut, but also the black pattern. It has a very distinctive Egyptolog-ish / archeological quality to it, something that was very fashionable in the early 1900 (ca. 1910-1915 ish?).

Any indication of the skirt being re-done and the black trims being added later? I agree that the bodice looks very 1860-ish. If the whole dress has had a big hoop skirt it would be a fairly easy task to narrow it and update the whole look of the dress.

That's my best contribution.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

The pattern is greek and white with black geomtrecial trim was very popular in the later 1860s. I think the bodice would be impossible to wear with a corset from after the 1880s (or without a corset), but I won't pass any judgement until I have seen it IRL.

/Eva

[operafantomet.livejournal.com]

Fant ikke riktig ord på engelsk... Men stilen minner meg om "orientalismen" (eller "eksotismen") som var veldig populær tidlig på 1900-tallet. Er enig i at mønsteret er gresk (løpende hund? Dette burde jeg egentlig kunne...), men det er noe med utførelsen jeg forbinder mer med 1910(ish) enn 1860. 1800-tallet generelt hadde mye arkeologiske detaljer, men jeg synes ofte de virker mindre grafiske enn hva de gjør på tidlig 1900-tall. Tidlig 1900 hentet man mye fra nyoppdagelser i Egypt og på Kreta (dette kan du sikkert mer om enn meg uansett....), og der er mønstrene gjerne mer stilistiske og grafiske enn hva f.eks empiremoten (som var mer romersk keisertid og klassisk gresk i uttrykket) vektla.

Er veldig åpen for at jeg kan ta feil!! Sier bare hva mitt førsteinntrykk er.

[operafantomet.livejournal.com]

But of course, if the dress HAD been from (or altered around) 1910-15, I would assume the museum wouldn't have too much trouble categorizing in in 1928?

Could be a Nordic interpretation of continental fashion, made to be more practical up north? I've seen a few examples of that at Norsk folkemuseum and in a book called "Folkedrakt og bymote i Gudbrandsdalen" by Ragnhild Bleken Rusten.

[mirazandar.livejournal.com]

Det er ingen folketellinger hvor du kunne sjekke opp fødselsdatoen til damen på bildet. Det ville i værste fall hjelpe deg til å plassere den innenfor en 15-årsperiode.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Det är inte originalägaren på bilden, den är tagen 1928 på ett möte för en museiförening.

/Eva

[mirazandar.livejournal.com]

Ah. Det var jo synd.

Nå er jeg spent på hva du kommer frem til.

[myralea.livejournal.com]

well, i do agree with operafantomet that it has very much an air of the 1900s on it (it something with the bearee's facethat looks very much 1920s...).

but if you say that the picture was taken in the late 20s that would explain everything. my guess would then be that it is something of the 1860s, possibly the skirt could have been altered some time during the early 1900s? or may be just wearing it for the photograph without the proper hoops and corset gives it such a 1900s look.

/m

Best guess

[valina-anne.livejournal.com]

My first guess was 1900s too - high neck, full bust, long narrow skirt.
I can imagine it with an Edwardian s-shaped corset.

It's definately worth a closer look, it's a shame it's not on display.

[mirazandar.livejournal.com]

Wow. They have so much cool stuff ni that costume colelction.

this one for instance is so flashy. I love it in spite of it's natural formness

I also adore the contrasting colours of this one

Ok.I might be in a very colourful mood today, but those are still awsome.

[mirazandar.livejournal.com]

and the asymmetric lace on this one makes me drool

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

I adore the natural form dress too. It must be the colours, because it's a period I really don't like.

/Eva

[love3angle.livejournal.com]

oooooh, I LOVE the trim/accent at the bottom of the skirt!

[mynningsflamma.livejournal.com]

have you spoken with Gotvik's drots Gunilla about it?