18th century it is.

[frualeydis]

I was going to make an under dress in 15th century venetian style to wear under my wedding dress, which was made like an overdress, but worn just with a wide smock - sort of pre-Raphaelite-esque - but when I started looking for my wedding dress I couldn't find it. I must have packed it away somewhere in the storage years ago. I will look for it, but not tonight. So instead I decided to start on # 7 on this list: another 18th century outfit. The only problem is that I probably should make some kind of jumps too, since it will be lower class and I don't know if women from that social stratum wore stays. I'm not portraying a peasant or anything, just not nobility or wealthy bourgeoisie. I will have striped skirt in unbleached and blue linen/cotton and a gown from another, finer linen/cotton with a red print.

I plan to wear this on the 28th and that ought to be possible if I use the machine.

Comments

[marcine.livejournal.com]

I don't know about France, but here in Virginia just about every free white woman wore stays. There are some period references to women not wearing stays, but these are people of the period pointing out aberations. Heck, the church even supplied stays to women too poor to provide their own. Not all stays were fully boned but the vast majority of women were wearing some form of stays.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

I know they wore them in England too, but Sweden I don't really know about. On the other hand: my choice of fabrics etc is very influenced by "Dress of the people", so I guess that I could go with English customs.

/Eva

[isiswardrobe.livejournal.com]

I would say that if you do anything fitted, wear stays underneath. I'm not really well-researched on lower classes, but my impression is that syas were worn, though not heavily boned. Leather stays seems to have been used with little or no boning at all, at times. I you make a loose jacket, then stays aren't nececcarily. :-)