How many pettiocoats in the 18th century?
Nov. 16th, 2006 02:33 pmIf I'm going to finally make something from the 18th century during the NaCoFiMo I need to find out how many petticoats I need. I have a shift, a pair of stays and pocket hoops. However, I think I'm going to settle for something like this (the style, not the fabric, but I couldn't find a photo of the dress I want to use as inspiration) and then I should use a pad instead I think.
But the question is, how many petticoats? The visible one of course, but aside from that?
But the question is, how many petticoats? The visible one of course, but aside from that?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 01:51 pm (UTC)I found that one thick petticoat in addition to the visible one and the overskirt connected to the bodice was enough to work out for me, but if it's period or not, i have no clue.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 02:14 pm (UTC)/Eva
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 02:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 02:25 pm (UTC)/Eva
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 02:27 pm (UTC)it says on http://www.marquise.de/en/1700/howto/frauen/18anziehen.shtml that you need first a decency skirt, then as many petticoats that are necessary to keep the hoops from being visible. But you are not going to use hoops, so I don't know and shouldn't really be answering this.
I agree with
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 03:12 pm (UTC)I have to join NaCoFiMo too! What fun!
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 03:17 pm (UTC)I know that quilted petti's are period, but one ones that I have typically seen are worn as the outter layer, I am not sure if they were worn to cover the hoop ridges, as I used it for, though JP Ryan suggests that they did in her documentation for the Pent en la'are (sp?) pattern.
Not serious
Date: 2006-11-16 03:52 pm (UTC)This is ten years ago, when we did "The wedding of Figaro":
http://home.swipnet.se/skavel/fotosida/foto/figaro.jpg
But I still can't even think about the 18th century without getting a pain in my neck from those heavy wigs...
(I hadn't heard of NaCoFiMo either. I'm just now failing miserably at NaNoWriMo)
Re: Not serious
Date: 2006-11-16 05:01 pm (UTC)/Eva
Re: Not serious
Date: 2006-11-17 08:39 am (UTC)Re: Not serious
Date: 2006-11-17 08:45 am (UTC)He's awfully handsome in that picture. You're very pretty too, but you're always pretty.
/Eva
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 04:49 pm (UTC)I reckon one additional to the visible one should do it, if you need an additional one at all for that look.
Teddy
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 09:24 pm (UTC)It is continuous right? I really should enter it with my gowns that has been dragging along over the years.