A question

[mandie_rw]

For my fellow costumers who know the 18thc very well!

In a few 1780s portraits (like this Fragonard, but I know I've seen it elsewhere), there's no obvious front opening to the bodice. I've seen/heard of two options to recreating this, either a very wide stomacher that pins in, or a separate under-bodice that closes in back, with the gown worn over top of that.

Practically speaking, the separate bodice sounds easier to me, as you could just pin the gown into place with a stable layer (as opposed to my ever present wonkus pinning of off-centered stomachers! especially trying to reach around my own side-back), but I don't know of any actual evidence to support this. Anybody? Bueller?

(And there's always the third option of Total Artistic License!)


In this particular painting I suppose it could be a complete ivory gown underneath, with a completely separate robe worn over top of that. (Wait...that fastens where? Now I'm just confusing myself!) Well, opinions anyway!

Comments

[chocolatepot.livejournal.com]

The separate underbodice is definitely described in the Galerie and/or Cabinet.

1779: "The underbodice is separated from the petticoat, and pleated like the fourreaux à l'Anglaise."

Also 1779: "The petticoat and undervest, called à l'Assyrienne..."

[mandie-rw.livejournal.com]

Awesome! Thank you muchly! I knew you'd have Evidence. :D

[chocolatepot.livejournal.com]

It is nice having a searchable database of French fashion plates. :D

[bauhausfrau.livejournal.com]

Pretty sure the last time this came up the experts weighed in and said it could be either separate or sewn together at the side seams. I like separate because there are more options that way.

[mandie-rw.livejournal.com]

Thank you! Good, I can do it the way I want, then. I like it! :D

[blackcat452.livejournal.com]

for my russian court dress, I did a separate bodice. It was based on research by demode.

[mandie-rw.livejournal.com]

Oooh, thank you! I knew I'd read/seen it *somewhere* but I couldn't think where.