jennylafleur (
jennylafleur) wrote2007-11-20 12:21 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
confusing the Victorians
As per the TV board, apparently I confused a 1870s fashion plate with an 1880s wedding gown. How embarrassing! My response:
Umm... oops! I wasn't looking at the dates when searching my files, I didn't realize the extent gown was so late. So perhaps it's not the best example of what I was looking for. I don't intend to copy the decoration per-say (or the bodice, I'm using TV405). What I liked was the line and proportions of the skirt/pouf/overskirt.
I'm not into the aprons and swags in front so I like the idea of that decorated flat front, pouf behind as shown in these 1875 fashion plates:
http://www.festiveattyre.com/victorian/p75/may1.html (left green)
http://www.festiveattyre.com/victorian/p75/sep1.html (middle blue)
http://www.festiveattyre.com/victorian/p75/jul9.html
I'm really bad at translating the plates into reality though and couldn't tell if it was separate (full underskirt) or sewn together (false like TV216). I'm guessing now that either is acceptable for the 1870s? Thanks for you help and advice!
Clear as mud? Yep, thought so. :P
no subject
Off the top of my head I can't come up with any that are seperate skirts without front-parts, but that doesn't mean there aren't any :-)
no subject
no subject
Just my two cents :o)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Good luck on your dress! The world needs more bustle dresses! :)
no subject