Resource post of doom

[ktlovely]

I've said to a number of people that I ought to compile all the information that was kindly given to me by nuranar and others over the (crash)course of my education in Civil War costuming. I still think it would be a good idea, and I'm too sick to want to get up and do anything around the house, so it seems like an ideal time. Really, I ought to make a website out of it; however, my computer with its webpage templates is en absentia right now, so I'll be using LJ and possibly converting it later.

Our saga begins back in January of 2009, shortly after superiorcap picked up a hoop kit from Needle & Thread for me.

I began with this source image. I was only vaguely entertaining ideas of Civil War as a plausible option for me, and this was the first dress I'd found that I actually LIKED. It came from the Real Women's Clothing section of Démodé.

nuranar, my personal 1860s clothing fount of information, had this to say about my choice:

Blue with black lace and white accents is a very classic 1860s choice! (They trimmed any color with black, really. Really and truly.) Just don't go too dark; your source image is as dark as I'd recommend, especially if this is for dancing. Matter of fact, if it's for dancing, you need taffeta. Dance dresses are to be light and crisp, which satin is not. Satin would be for a formal evening dress, which this looks to be. (Not sure what you mean about navy... it was one of the few colors rarely used in the 1860s.)

Black and white would be seriously awesome! Totally period and gorgeous. If you and Gwendolyn want to coordinate, she can also do white and trim with another color. I went to an event in December, and I and two other girls were all wearing white: me with pink, one with red, and the third with black! White material can be either silk, or one of the multitude of beautiful plain or pattern-woven sheers.

Have you checked Anna Allen's site? She has a great section called "Originals," basically a collection of images, of fashion plates, CDVs, and original garments (mostly from ebay), organized by type of garment. I always go there when I'm cruising for inspiration.
The Graceful Lady.

Nice lace, too! That's a great site. Definitely stay as far away from synthetic lace as possible; not only is it not period, it is stiffer and doesn't remotely give the right look. Also, search on ebay for "chantilly"; the last time I tried, that pulled up a number of listings for vintage/antique cotton lace, most of it black and often wider than not.

By the way, are you hoping to copy that dress design exactly, or is this to be an early 1860s one? The skirt and sleeves are distinctly late 1860s, post-CW, and need a very elliptical hoop. The bodice trim is similar to early 1860s, though. The overall trim scheme can be translated to an early 1860s look; it's the shape of the overskirt (and the base skirt itself) which are different.

She continued in response to a generic reply from me:

I'm brainstorming here... Fashion plates are not meant to be copied exactly; use them for ideas and elements, but in most cases they're incredibly elaborate.

Overskirt shapes... this is 1860 or 61.
http://www.thegracefullady.com/civilwargowns/images/fashionplates/peterson%27s1.jpg

Flounces are a holdover from the 1850s; this is 1859. They were rarely used after 1860 or 61.
http://www.thegracefullady.com/civilwargowns/images/fashionplates/petersons_59.jpg

Look at the figure with the pink skirt. That's actually a pink dress trimmed with white lace on the bodice and a big white lace overskirt. A very, very pretty effect is to make a white dress out of very sheer material and wear a bright silk underskirt.
http://www.thegracefullady.com/civilwargowns/images/fashionplates/godey1860.jpg

These are pretty, and simple enough to copy. The deep flounce on one is a pretty effect (flounces are cut bias); the other is an overskirt effect, done with a wide piece of... puffing I think is the term. Wide berthas (the trim around the neckline) are usually removable and very, very typical. Lots of variety in them. The one on the left looks like a deep fall of lace with shapes of silk over it. The right looks like another wide, shaped puffing with a deep tucker over it. I think. ;)
http://www.thegracefullady.com/civilwargowns/images/fashionplates/ballgown.jpg

This dress on Anna's site still has its original bertha. There are more pictures there.)
http://www.thegracefullady.com/civilwargowns/images/originalgarments/eveningballgowns/lovelyballgown.jpg

There are more examples worth looking at on that whole page.
http://www.thegracefullady.com/civilwargowns/originals_eveninggowns.htm

I'm afraid there are too many options for me to be bossy about! :D Do you have a budget? A time limit? (What about the rest of the underpinnings?) Give me some more limits and I'll be more bossy. ;)

I can be bossy about a few things. Since this is a dancing dress, the fabric must be lightweight and the color white or light. If you want a color, it needs to be silk, and a light silk taffeta or maybe organza. One of the peculiarities of 1860s is that solid-color cottons were incredibly rare. Solid colors were silk, wool, or combinations thereof. Another is that cotton dresses were almost never fitted with darts. Gathered, pleated, tucked, seamed, but not darted. So when you make your cotton print, don't dart the bodice and don't make pagoda sleeves. (Better yet, don't show me your plans unless you don't mind me being bossy there, too. :D) Back to the ballgown. If you want cotton, which is perfectly feasible, if needs to be white or patterned (printed, although that's not common for a ballgown, or plaid) and sheer or semisheer. Dharma Trading has some great bleached sheers, and there's an ebay seller with more options including organza with woven patterns.

We discussed some other options, and I said that I would be using the Laughing Moon Silverado corset. This is a good mid-century corset and can be made with several variations. Ginger (nuranar continued my education with some more information about undergarments and patterns.

Yep, that's a good mid-Victorian corset. An elliptical hoop... I want to say there's a Truly Victorian pattern. *checks* Here it is!
http://trulyvictorian.com/catalog/103.html
When you balance it, make sure that the bottom hoop is no less than 12" from the floor. It looks waaay too long in the photo.
There's also a skirt pattern for it.
http://trulyvictorian.com/catalog/247.html
If anything, the blue dress looks smoothly gored instead of pleated at all, but it's hard to tell with just one view.
Now, this looks closer:
http://trulyvictorian.com/catalog/202.html
It says "It is designed to be worn over TV108 Grand Bustle, or a small elliptical hoop." The smooth gores in the front look better from that angle to do the blue dress.

I think the blue bodice is darted in front, not princess-seamed. In that case, this might work as a base, but with adjustments.
http://trulyvictorian.com/catalog/416.html
Front-opening, and with a straight waist. And the neckline must be a shallow, just-off-the-shoulder curve, not a scoop; the low point shouldn't be more than a handspan below the collar bone. The shoulder seams still need to be slightly dropped, and you'll probably make up the sleeve. Otherwise, go with this one which we've used extensively.
http://www.pastpatterns.com/704.html
You'll just need to make a straight waist and maybe tweak the shoulder line and neck (less of a V), besides doing the sleeve.

(I don't have any PoF books or anything, so what I'm giving you is the commercial patterns I know about. If nothing else the line drawings show you what to look for.)

The petal overskirt will just probably need to be draped over the hoop. You'll need at least one over-hoop petticoat; one will probably do if it's very well starched (full strength Sta-Flo, for example). Just use the skirt pattern and make it a bit shorter; a wide flounce around the hem would be good, too. Flounces should be cut on the bias, by the way. Oh, and since you'll be dancing, hem it slightly shorter than a regular dress (allowing for what shoes you'll be wearing).

Yay for silk taffeta! I did a search on FFC and turned up squat. But it is something that they seem to get in regularly, if not predictably.

I asked about bias flounces--i.e. why are they bias? We also then discussed shoes a bit.

Come to think of it, I don't think it's necessary, especially for underskirts. I just know that bias-cut flounces began to be used extensively no later than the 1840s. It was extremely popular with striped and plaid materials because of the designs it created. I speculate that while fabric still was pricey, it wasn't so fantastically expensive or time-consuming to produce as before the Industrial Revolution.

From personal experience, bias-cut flounces tend to hang better, staying "fluffy" and not droopy. Straight-cut cotton in particular seems to get limp and flat so easily. But if you starched it real good, it would probably be okay. :D Oh, one other thing about flounces. Because the skirt supports are already so full, the flounces themselves don't need to be very full. 1:1.5 would probably be just fine.

I hope the links help! I think Katherine (of Koshka fame) did an elliptical ballgown for Costume College last year. The bright pink one, if you remember pictures. It was a surprise project so there aren't in progress entries, but I think there's some info when she made The Revelation. :D

Shoes! The 1860s was a decade of fashion transition, and footwear wasn't an exception. I'll show you what I know for the early 1860s, and then extrapolate for later years. I HIGHLY recommend the book Women's Shoes in America; get it through ILL or something, because it's fantastic.

http://www.robertlandhistoricshoes.com/servlet/Detail?no=45
This shape is the dominant footwear for women from 1840-1865. It's actually a low boot, lacing on the instep. These particular ones are early 1860s. Earlier boots had practically no heel (1/4") and extremely square toes. This is a moderate square, more chisel-shaped, like in this picture.
http://www.robertlandhistoricshoes.com/servlet/Detail?no=8
At least by the 1860s these boots were called "gaiters" because they were made in leather and cloth/leather combinations that mimicked the look of wearing gaiters.

Robert Land is just about the only repro maker of gaiters, and they're pretty expensive as you can see. (Side-lacing shoes are way easier to put on, though!)

Good grief, too long for one comment!

Elastic-sided boots were also around.
http://www.robertlandhistoricshoes.com/servlet/Detail?no=48
http://www.fugawee.com/cw%20women's.htm - See the "Rose," second one down.
It gets pretty good marks from fairly authentic reenactors. In shape it's not ideal, but it's still a quite decent approximation. It's also good for larger feet and ankles (and not for smaller ones) because of the elastic.

There were some side-button shoes as well; IIRC they followed the same general shape: low heel, not quite a block, with chisel-shaped toes. The "Victoria," at the top on the Fugawee page, is *not* a good reproduction of originals, though.

In the early 1860s new types of boots began to appear: front-lacing, higher tops, slightly higher and more shaped heel, slightly less squared toe. These are examples:
http://www.robertlandhistoricshoes.com/servlet/Detail?no=18
http://www.robertlandhistoricshoes.com/servlet/Detail?no=46
They're still a *very* far cry from so-called "Victorian" or "granny" boots, though.

Dance slippers... Slippers are a very old design, originating in the Regency.
http://www.robertlandhistoricshoes.com/servlet/Detail?no=36
Slippers were the dominant footwear before gaiters came around; they were worn with ribbons in the 1830s. Modern toe shoes look virtually identical, except that the square toe is actually functional. These in the listing are 1860s versions because the toes aren't completely square. In black, worn with white stockings, they were dance wear in the early 1860s. You'll be very safe wearing something like that with your ballgown. I have some Sam & Libby slippers I picked up on ebay, and they look great. You want them to be made of soft leather, virtually heelless, and with flexible soles; absolutely nothing hard, patent, or "clacky." Mine have black rubber soles which are fairly inconspicuous. Try to avoid a bow, but that's not always possible. Get a square toe and fairly high vamp. The latest trend is for round toes and low vamps, a la 1960s, but that's unfortunately quite the wrong look.

And... actually for the late 1860s I'm pretty sure evening footwear had changed. I never bothered to study it so I'm not sure, but I think slippers gained low heels like those of the front-lacing boots, and probably had less-square toes. They *may* have been other colors, too. That sort of thing will be rather hard to find, though, and definitely needs a look at Women's Shoes before even trying. IMO you'll be just fine with ordinary black slippers.

BTW, I <3 the white-on-white O Chevron stockings from Sock Dreams for dancing. They look gorgeous with black slippers.
http://www.sockdreams.com/_shop/pages/product_detail_ProductID_566.php

As a point of interest, I did end up purchasing the recommended stockings, along with a couple other styles from Sock Dreams. I loved all of them, and I've also purchased net gloves from them with good results for stage use.

I then decided that I was going to do this Civil War thing whole-hog, and posted a list of questions from the skin out.

My questions:

Chemise

I have the Past Patterns low-necked chemise pattern, since this will be going under a ballgown primarily. I'm making the one with the fancy yoke, though I probably won't be embroidering it this time around. My question is what kinds of fabric would you recommend? I want something pretty soft...I could use more of that 3.5 oz linen (of which I still own a ton), but nuranar said to use cotton. Muslin? Lawn? Batiste? The pattern says "sheeting," but I'm not really sure what that is, either.

Also, I think I'd like to do just a little row of lace around the neck opening and sleeves. Because as we all know, I do not embroider (anymore).

Drawers

Same as above--fabric recommendations? Also, a lot of the undergarment info I've seen says that tucks are a great way to embellish. Is there some trick to doing tucks? Because left to my own devices, I'd probably just iron in a crease, sew down 1/8 from the creased edge, and then iron the tuck to the side/down/whatever. Right/wrong?

Cage

Mine's 95". As I understand it, that's quite narrow, so I'll be using petticoats of varying types to get some more width. Which leads me to:

Petticoats
How many is appropriate? Am I allowed to put flounces on one (or more) of them for more fluff? Is it worth buying Skirting the Issue from Elizabeth Stewart Clark, or is mostly this something I can figure out on my own?

My understanding is one or two petticoats is fine. They should be straight panels, gathered or gauged to a waistband and balanced from the waist with the hem on-grain. The outer petticoat can/should be decorated; tucks seems like a common way to do this. I've already downloaded and printed the instructions from the ESC site, but she referred the reader to Skirting the Issue for all but the plainest of petticoats. So once again; to buy or not to buy? I gather I'll have better luck with a crisper fabric--would Southern Belle cotton be a good choice? Pimatex has also been recommended--has anyone worked with that before?

And then nuranar came through for me again!

Chemise

Muslin (to use the modern term) would be too coarse. Batiste and lawn make lovely chemises; I believe lawn is nicer, if you're not talking Swiss batiste. Definitely use narrow cotton lace trim on the edges of the joke and the sleeves! I want to say all around the yoke, too, not just the neck edge. Whitework-type from Martha Pullen or another heirloom sewing place is best. It'll be gorgeous. Use shell buttons. Maybe thread ones, but that's more my own idea. :p


Drawers

Pretty much the same on materials, since these are fancy undies. The only place ornamented on drawers is the cuffs, where you do the tucks. And there's not much of a science to doing tucks; your way sounds fine. You can put lace on the edge of these, too, and maybe insertion between tucks, I think.


Cage

Narrow side, yes, but two petticoats add a lot of fluff (no problem getting through door!) and it *is* a good side for you. A larger cage would be limited to fancy uses.


Petticoats

You can do petticoats without Skirting the Issue, but I think you'd find it helpful for the ballgown skirt itself. I'll try to look at it later and re-assess, though. Your understanding of petticoat construction is pretty much spot-on, except that the vast majority are gathered; gauging is a lot less common. Also, they usually button in the back. I didn't figure that out for a long time.

Flounces are absolutely fine; do that directly under the skirt. The key is using lightweight, crisp material so you don't die of weight. They are tough to starch and iron. Flounces are cut on the bias usually, not very full (1:1.5), and gathered with a corded header.

Southern Belle would be awesome! Pimatex is very similar. But I thought (and so did Katherine) that Joann discontinued it years ago. Do you have a hoard or something?

I experienced quite a bit of flail when I realized that I had approximately three weeks to become as proficient in 1860s as I am in 18th century. Again I turned to LiveJournal for advice.

nuranar
Basic Bodice is Basic Bodice. Use the Laughing Moon one. It specifics for wools or silks; no problem using for cotton, except gather (see below) and don't do huge pagoda sleeves.

http://www.lafnmoon.com/111_day_dress.html

Excess in front that would've been fitted with darts is taken in with gathers, confined in the few inches where the darts would be otherwise. Lining is usually darted, so it makes gathering easy. You'll have a waistband for the bodice; easiest to "fake" it, pretty much appliqueing it over the bodice and lining.
This dress shows where the gathers are concentrated on either side of the CF. Also the lengthwise strip for the waistband.
http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/facts/reports/civilwar/dress.cfm

Easiest sleeves are like in that picture: Bishop sleeves. Essentially a big rectangle, with long very shallow curve at top, gathered into a cuff. Maybe 20" wide. Full, but the cuff controls them and they can be rolled up. Other option is the two-piece coat sleeve that comes with the LM pattern. Even more practical than bishop sleeves; wrist can be looser and are easier to roll up. (Really wouldn't roll up unless you were working, but it's up to you.) Cuff is just a doubled strip of nicer-than-muslin cotton, basted to the inside of the cuff or sleeve edge to protect it from your wrist. Can just show for 1/2", or can be wide and fancy and starched stiff and fold back over the sleeve. Collar pattern included with the LM pattern. Use a ribbon bow at your neck.

Piping is no big deal. Cut bias strips 1.25" wide. Seam (at right angles so the seams are diagonal) into one long piece. Use a single foot that's adjustable. Tuck piping cord into the strip, set the single foot next to the cord, and away you go. You usually only pipe the armseyes, neckline, and waist.

Hmm... Dressmaker's Guide has most of this info with much better explanations and pictures. I lent mine out - wah!

Headwear is *not* a hard-and-fast rule. A corded or slatted sunbonnet would be the most appropriate (and not very hard) if you want one.

Just use your big fake bun and lots of pomade and your hair will be fine.

Honestly, a day dress is far easier than a ball dress. Hang in there!

At this juncture, I pretty much abandoned the ballgown and finished the day dress in short order. We bounced around a few more ideas and inspiration images for the ballgown, but didn't cover much new ground.

rvqavalon:

Okay, so I did some looking. I think closest to my second-original design (i.e. right after McCarty put his oar in but before we started doodling all over my sketch) would be the white dress here, only blue, not green. I had the sash thingies shaped differently and set a little farther back, but that's the gist of it. Blue piping on the bertha, instead of a small tasseled monster clinging to the chest. Silver accents. I kind of liked that.

And then I started going "omg I'm going to look drab next to Mike and Gwendolyn again dagnabbit omg" and nearly passed out from all the ruffles in the fashion plates I looked at subsequently. Then I found this plate and liked the plain black and white, but that would depend upon finding a nice black lace. This wasn't so bad, either, with that little swooping shape. But I keep coming back to not wanting to do ruffles.

Something in the back of my mind keeps insisting that if I swag the skirt like Mike talked about, it's going to end up looking like a lampshade.

nuranar:

Ooh, pretty pictures! I hadn't seen either of the first two before.

(1) Lovely design! Very elegant. One thing - don't do contrast piping. It is found, but very, very rare. There are lots of ways to trim things without doing piping. What material is your blue? You might not like the "small tasseled monster," but there's usually some kind of corsage element in the middle of a bertha in the plates I've seen. It's more often a bunch of flowers, but it's there. Oh, and that's probably a straight-waisted design with the sash, but it doesn't have to be. (The coronet thing is awesome. I've always wanted to make one.)

(2) I'm not sure what the drape thing is. I'm inclined to think it's either semi-outerwear or an accessory, but that would probably not be for a ballgown; some other kind of evening dress. Black lace, last time I looked, isn't too hard to find on ebay. And that trim doesn't look like a simple row of double-edged lace. (If it is, it's not simple lace.) A similar effect from doubled rows of narrower lace, or flat lace ruched in the middle, or flat lace with applied silk, both ruched together... stuff like that. An excellent way to get the right scale to trimming these dresses is combining two or more elements. The biggest mistake, worse than being "plain," is to use skimpy trim on a skirt. Plain skirts are FINE, especially for dancing.

(3) Ah, yes, a good one. Note that it's an evening dress and probably not used for dancing; doubled skirts are heavier and not lofty like dancing dresses. Ruffles aren't that hard, if you do have to do them; they can be cut on the bias (silk! no hemming!), are gathered over a cord, and aren't very full (no more than 1.5:1) because the skirt itself is already big.

Okay now, let me through some stuff out. I'd link to pictures but I can't get to my favorite site on this computer.

Overskirt/overlay of net or tulle or something. The look of an overskirt without the weight.
Overskirts don't need to be ruffled. They can be trimmed with fringe (of certain kinds), or caught up with bows/ties/flowers. Can be straight, shaped, or asymmetrical.
Puffings! Strips of fabric, probably bias, gathered on both edges and applied to the dress. Can be dress fabric or a sheer. Sheers can have bright-colored ribbons running through them - awesome shadowing effect.
Ruching I've touched on. If your blue is silk, this is a good option.

I know these are just elements, and I've missed other things... I've just really never made a fancy ballgown before! Let me get my brain in gear some more and I'll engage better.

rvqavalon:

1. I think I'm going with the first one, or at least "inspired by," the more I think about it. I went and bashed my head against a wall visited Gwendolyn at Field's yesterday with swatches and got my head put back on straight. The "blue piping" isn't actually piping. It's actually a bias strip piped on both sides, more because I couldn't find a ribbon or trim that I liked than because I like piping. It'll be surface decoration, treated more like a ribbon.

...Can I make it an actual monster with tassels for feet? XD Kidding, kidding.

2. But if I buy black lace, that's spending more money. I already have the blue fabric, and I actually kind of like it, so I'll end up using it. I did get some narrow black lace ($0.19/yard!), but from any distance, it just looks boring; I think I prefer the blue.

It would be cool to do something (not on this dress but later...omg, I'm thinking of making another one of these already!?) like the narrow lace with white ruching, etc.

And no drape thing. Not only do I not know what it is, I don't need it and I have another dress to make after this as it is. And I hate having stuff that I have to carry at events. It ususally ends up with me shoving stuff in other peoples' pockets.

3. No doubled skirt! There's too much skirt going on as it is. WTF, 150 inch hem. Also...no hemming on bias? I didn't know that.



Both my fabrics are silk taffeta. I have seven yards of white, two yards of blue. Well, slightly less than seven of the white now, because I cut and assembled the bodice this week. Next up is piping (white) to finish bodice edges. And then I probably ought to kind of think about the sleeves.

nuranar:

I'm starting to see why evening dresses and dancing dresses are different. I look at some of these and go, "I'm supposed to polka in this. Uh...no."

Ding ding ding! It never even occurred to me until I read an article on Kay Gnagey's site. I really had to rethink some preconceptions.

The "blue piping" isn't actually piping. It's actually a bias strip piped on both sides, more because I couldn't find a ribbon or trim that I liked than because I like piping

That sounds very pretty. (The period term might be "cording" in that use, I want to say.) A narrow black lace (3/8", 1/4") would add a little bit, too, if you wanted. Don't go skimpy. How wide is the bias?

Oh, and by "skimpy," in general, "skimpy" refers just to the scale of the trim. Like 3 rows of narrow lace on a skirt. Skimpy. Simple is not skimpy; simple is an untrimmed skirt and a sufficiently-trimmed bodice.

What pattern are you using? The PP has some options; there are others. Sleeves aren't hard.

It doesn't sound plain to me. It sounds very elegant, and very similar in feel to originals I've seen.

From there, I managed to make some headway on the ballgown. I also did some experimentation with hair, since mine is just chin-to-shoulder length.

I'm not just randomly staring into space; I was trying to see the viewer on the camera.

I also spent a while this morning playing with my hair as a test run. I'm used to 18th century, where it doesn't matter what my hair looks like because it'll all be crammed under a cap. My hair is normally about shoulder length, with layers, so I was kind of at a loss as to what to do with it. This is what I came up with.



For my own reference, here's what I did. I used gel and "glue" allover in still-wet hair, then blow-dried it upside down while combing it to keep it from drying in chunks or spikes. I parted my hair down the middle and then ear-to ear. I pulled the back section into a ponytail and curled the two front sections to give them some body. Then I parted the back section in half and french braided it into two little pigtails. The ends are pinned flat against my head, with the braided hairpiece set over top to cover them. The front sections were curled in spiral curls and then combed through to fluff them. I ratted the back few curls out and rolled everything back together away from my face--sort of like a French twist. The ends are tucked under and everything is secured with a few hundred bobby pins.

In the future, I could probably do with a little less volume on top with the rolls and a little more toward the side and back, but this will work. The danger with setting the rolls lower is that the shortest part of my bangs might not reach. We'll see. I'm planning on sleeping on it tonight and seeing what I can do with it tomorrow--sort of as a simulation for camping next weekend.

nuranar checked in with some thoughts and questions, the content of which conversation is below.

Hair: I need a straight-on front view! :p Seriously, what I can see is a great start. I have always had bangs, too. My tips:

1. You're right about less volume on top. It needs to be as flat to your head as possible, at least to the corner of your forehead. (Where the hairline goes down instead of across.) Like painted-on slicked down. My hair doesn't always cooperate in this, either! The dirtier, the better. Get some oil - sweet almond, jojoba, even olive - and use a tiny bit. It works awesome.

2. The more slicked-down your bangs are, the better and easier it is to do good rolls. Yours look pretty good! Practice is pretty important. If you have rats, or wads of fake hair lying around, now is the time to use them. *They* used plenty of fake hair, both in front and in back, so don't stint! :p

3. Move the hairpiece down. It's certainly not bad as it is, but the more fashionable style was very low on the neck, like right on the hairline. I still can't manage to get mine that low! But a higher bun is *slightly* out of fashion.

My reply:

Front view--ask and you shall receive!


It's a little tall and square in front--the top should be flatter and the rolls set farther down. Like this, as far as I can see.

I need rats. I haven't any right now, but I was wishing for them this morning. Hairnets are on the pre-event shopping list for just such a purpose.

I'll move the bun down as much as I can. It's fake hair, so it rubs a little on the neck if it's too low, but I think it can move a bit. I can't put it too low or it'll fall out when I move my head--its main method of anchoring to my head is a comb that relies on gravity to keep it in my hair. If it gets pushed up, it'll pop off!

Ginger responded:

Yep, your diagnosis of the front is spot-on! We're seeing the same thing. :) And you *can't* go wrong with the Barton picture. Her back hair is in the slightly-higher position, too. The hairstyle in my userpic is the ultra-low fashionable one and mostly seen on young women. Both are completely valid; it's a choice! :D

I hear you about hair rubbing. That's part of why I have such a hard time getting it low enough! There's just nothing to pin to. While you're out and about, get some of those tortoise-shell-looking plastic pins. They're superb for anchoring braids and fake hairpieces. You don't have to use just the comb. ;)

At the end of my weekend test run, I came away with some valuable tidbits that really helped my hair be a non-issue during the actual reenactment. In fact, I showered and styled it according to these guidelines on Saturday morning, slept on it, and only had to re-roll the front for Sunday. I slept on it again that night and it held up fine for Monday. In fact, I left it in all day minus the hairpiece and it survived fine until my shower Monday night.

ANYway, I took my hair down last night so I could sleep more comfortably, and because really, it was the projected end of my test run. The verdict is as follows, on a number of points:

• The spiking "glue" worked well for extra hold. I have plenty of that; I'll need to get more gel before I go, though. I use that on a daily basis and am running low.
  
• I think if I parted my hair ear-to-ear a little farther back and included a little more from my hairline around the back, I would have better luck with the rolls. They want to sit at or slightly behind the part, so letting them do so and just moving the part back seems like a fair solution. Also, the longer I can extend the roll, the fewer ends I have sticking out in the back.
  
• The braids worked well, both giving me something to pin into, containing the short ends, and giving my hair a similar look to the braided bun. The ends pinned surprisingly flat and were easy to conceal.
  
• My hair does not want to lie flat to my head, no matter what I do to it. I didn't actually have any oil on hand, but even with extra goop in it, it wanted to be slightly fluffy on top. But then, I took a look through my '64 Godey's, and that didn't seem to be too horrible. I mean, yes--those are illustrations, and yes--probably less typical than what you see in CdVs and such. But there are a few examples (here, here, and this looks more like my hair on the second day. I had bangs-flyaway problems then, though. This is a little weird, but taller. And I don't even know what's going on here. Obviously it's short--I wonder why. And then there were some really crazy ones in my Godey's. Like, one? Sticking straight up. Crimped. Craaaazy.
  
• I think Holly, once upon a time, received a hair straightener as a gift. I might have even given it to her. But it came with switchable plates--one of which was a crimping plate. I might go see if it's still at my parents' house, and give it a try if it is. Or if I run out of time, curling works pretty well and I can keep this in mind for next time.
  
• My scalp is totally spoiled with my wash-and-wear lifestyle. It still itches and feels weird from being actually asked to do work (i.e. support an actual hairstyle and hold up the weight of that big braided bun.)

Ginger checked in a bit in response to my links of source images for hair, too.

Real quick - in '64 American hairstyles started changing. It's all part of the big fashion shift that happened about 1860/61 in France and was established over here by 1865, the shift that led rapidly to bustles. So height, with crimped hair and stuff, *is* an option, but it's also a fashion-forward option that's not suitable before 1864. (Perhaps with caveats for the upper crust in New York and Philadelphia, etc.) :) It's still up to you!

For me, I can't get my hair to lie down flat unless I get it wet. I'll usually use a squirt bottle and get that top part (and bangs) drenched, then comb to the scalp and smooth with my hand. That works very well. (I think it's actually what *they* did to train theirs down.) Oil and other products give it weight and keep down the fuzzies.

And just one more quick note, a reply from Ginger on the subject of hats:

I've actually done some semi-research of my own on hats. Since I feel compelled to air my opinion, here goes:

(1) Hats first appeared in Ye Olde Dark Ages of the mid-1850s. At that time they were for specific uses, mostly:
(a) gardening, and
(b) seaside/watering places.
These hats were usually medium, approaching wide, brims curving down fore and aft, with low, slightly domed crowns.
Also (c) riding habits, but that had been established for decades and decades, and are another animal mostly.

(2) By the 1860s they had been gradually co-opted for more general wear, and I think had more variety (meaning More Than We Think) in shape than 1850s hats. Generally, they were smaller. (Remember Jo being laughed at for her big wide-brimmed hat in Little Women? That's a big 1850s hat.)

(3) These trends began as top-line fashion trends. It's a reenactorism, or a lazy over-simplification, that that means only young and/or unmarried and/or fashionable and/or rich women wore them. It means that the women who wore them were the ones who had the means and the inclination to keep more or less up with fashion. Such women tended to be younger and richer, but that's by no means exclusive. You can bet the upper crust of New York society wore hats! If we're indulging in lazy over-simplification, it's like expecting Sarah Palin to wear 90s power suits because she's over 40. :p
(By the way, this only-young-and-unmarried junk applies to more things than hats. There's a huge amount of photographic evidence showing clearly mature women wearing extremely fashionable ensembles.)

Conclusion: It comes down to who you're portraying, which is a function of who are are/pretending to be and where you are. It's a juggling act to avoid the cookie-cutter look of the mythical 'average 1860s woman', show enough variety to be interesting, and not add to elements that are already over-represented.

Hopefully, this isn't too horribly confusing. I'm hoping to be able to use it later to compile an actual webpage, but for the time being it's in mostly chronological order. That's why it skips around a bit--I skipped around on projects, so the order of my posts reflect that (i.e. Ballgown, daydress, ballgown again.) But now at least the extremely helpful information is all in one place, and it's become abundantly clear to me that nuranar is very much to blame for my now-extended foray into Civil War reenacting. Way to go, Ginger. I'll see you in December! ;)

Comments

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

Wow. Sometimes I just can't shut my brain off. (And is it pathetic that I pretty much re-read everything? :p)

Some of what I wrote, I notice, is specific for your particular use and/or desires. And most of it is in the gray area between (1) recommendations and (2) complete authenticity. Meaning I didn't type out all of the options you had, because with the reasons/rationale for doing some things, I would've written four times as much. So pretty much most of what is there is very good advice. Just don't assume it has to be that way and none other. Make sense?

I'm so excited for you to come in December! And Mike, too. I'd like to see he and my brothers and their friends together. :D

[ktlovely.livejournal.com]

I totally re-read everything like twice while I was putting this together. You should just keep talking and we can make it all into a book later. And usually with stuff like this, I've found, lots of "good advice," is way better than one particular hard-and-fast source (i.e. It Must Be Done THIS Way Or Else)...because that's not how the world worked back then, either.

Like I said, I'm already setting vacation time aside mentally to go visit you. I'm pretty sure Mike will be bored out of his skull by then, if he doesn't come up with something big and wonderful to do between the end of season in October and school starting in January, so this might be a good thing for him. I'd like to see Mike looking short for a change. I'm excited to meet your family, too! :)

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

*cackle* He'll totally be short around MY family! :D Wow, I'm so excited already. I needed motivation to work on things. Like finally making my own silk ballgown. Really feeling the need now, after umpteen years!

[ktlovely.livejournal.com]

Hee, yay! :D

[raspberry383.livejournal.com]

ah thanks!!! I meant to comment a few days ago but I forgot. I just kinda browsed at the corset section. since that will be specifically what I make (more than likely). and more than likely when it comes time to make those corsets I will be asking you many questions. :)

[ktlovely.livejournal.com]

The nice thing about Victorian corsets is that after stays? They're super easy. I think they might be a little harder to fit, a little less forgiving in that sense, but they go together much faster in my experience.