Vanity

[chargirlgenius]

So, when and if I ever get around to making 18th century clothes, do they all have to be ankle length? I've been looking mostly at extant stuff, so I have no idea how long it would be on somebody.

I'm vain, and I've always preferred floor-length to make me look longer than wider. Ok, so I know if I add the bum roll thingies and maybe pocket hoops and all of that I'll be plenty wide, but y'know what I mean?

In other news, 29 lbs of tropical weight wool arrived today. Woo! The cranberry is a little too stretchy to be the 100% that it's advertised as, and the houndstooth is a bit too modern. So I have to think about those and what to do with them.

Comments

[isabelladangelo.livejournal.com]

Ankle length tended to be day wear while floor length tended to be evening/ball gown wear. I think I have some links to various pretty pretties of extant garments and fashion plates if you would like.

[sarahbellem.livejournal.com]

My take, which isn't exactly based on hardcore research or anything, is that the petticoats tended to be ankle length, but the gowns had skirts that ranged from ankle to floor to floor in front with a train in back.

Occasionally, skirts went even shorter, like mid-calf, but that's a really extreme length and I've only seen it a handful of times in extant garments.

[tattycat.livejournal.com]

It depends on your social class, time period, and location, like with anything else. You see a lot of shorter skirts on working and middle class women-- the French are *scandalous*-- for ease of movement.

I can bring my books with me the next sewing day I can get to, if you like. Also check out Mara Riley's website (although keep in mind she does working class primarily as do I).

[chocolatepot.livejournal.com]

I think it's really just the 1770s that are short - in fashion plates of the 1780s you can just see the feet, and in the 1790s you can't even do that at times.