Talk:1750-1795 in fashion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fashion WikiProject
Fashion Portal
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within fashion.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Thanks for doing this one; I really want to tackle men's clothes in this period. Now I just have to get my notes together. - PKM 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reorganization

I reorganized this in preparation for adding Men's fashion. Added some styles of gowns and details on hats, bodices, sleeves, etc. Linked to some surviving clothes in museums and added a pile of references.

I have more illustrations to add (will make a gallery) and I want to do something on fabrics and embroidery.

I am also going to start 1700-1750 real soon now. - PKM 20:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Men's fashion

Barest beginning of men's fashion. More soon, including the Quaker influence in America (Ben Franklin's clothes and hairstyle).

We need to talk more about powder and patches!! And wigs. - PKM 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a March 10th 1795 caricature "Leaving Off Powder, or A Frugal Family Saving the Guinea" about the transition away from powdering in England -- you can see it at http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/rgnclfil.html#gencaric ; I'll upload it, if you want. Churchh 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Is Pemberley.com your site? Doh! = PKM 03:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Just the "JaneInfo" section... Churchh 06:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions March 17-18

Added underwear, shoes, hairstyles, and a picture of a riding habit.

Churchh, think you'll appreciate the tight lacing cartoon. - PKM 18:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Pouter-pigeon look"

The 1906 book at http://www.archive.org/details/englishc00caltuoft says that the hey-day of the "pouter-pigeon look" was the mid-1780s, not the early 1790's, so now I don't know which is correct. It might be nice to have picture of it, also... Churchh 03:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have spent way too much time looking at period portraits lately. I'd call it a couple of years either side of 1790. This is certainly it. The engraving is 1790, after a portait by George Morland. Lots of Morland engravings at this site with the pouter-pigeon look, with dates 1788-1790. Romney's Miss Constable of 1787 looks like the precursor of the style. Jane Ashelford (The Art of Dress) isn't specific, but she describes the starched muslin kerchief (buffon) that gave the look after events of 1785 and before events of 1789.
Interestingly, she mentions flat shoes (for walking) as opposed to high heels (suitable only for those who could ride in carriages) as one of the reactions to the French Revolution. - PKM
OK, you've eased my mind...  ;) All I had to do was change an image caption. Churchh 04:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Bought a used copy of this book [1] yesterday - it shows some pouter-pigeon looks up to 1793 but not later, including a large version of this portrait[2] which (unusually) shows the poufed fichu and the neckline beneath. Will work on getting us a better image of this. - PKM 02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Ouch -- she's kind of trying to have it both ways (follow some incipient neo-classical trends at the same time that she's also following certain lingering non-classicizing fashion trends), and the overall result doesn't strike me as too aesthetic... :) I think I saaw the Ribeiro book a few years back, but I don't remember it all that clearly -- I was quickly ransacking the library for anything scannable which matched my particular interests at the time. Churchh 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headdresses and shoes image

As a semi-lark, I uploaded Image:2nd-half-18thc-headdresses-shoes.gif from the archive.org project; you might find it useful... Churchh 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I am always reluctant to use "redrawings" as authoritative, given the Victorians' penchant for simply ignoring codpieces etc. These are fun. - PKM 02:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ducreux

I found a color version of the Ducreux, but it's lower res. Not sure which is better to use. Linked them in any case. ` PKM 03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure it makes too much difference -- neither looks too great at 120px tall... Churchh 04:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"The Pleasures of the Married State"
"The Pleasures of the Married State"

[edit] Family pic

Here's another cute pic (unfortunately not too precisely dated). Churchh 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Blanking

I am still stumbling across missing bits that were not replaced after someone came through and blanked random sections of the History of Fashion series and other clothing articles. Pleasee watch for these and help me put them back. - PKM 17:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breeches etc.

I am reverting out this unsourced, mis-informed, and un-encyclopedic material:

:Breeches that were stiff, close fitting and rather uncomfortable were worn during this period. They usually had a string that was tied tightly and stiffly, then tucked under the breeches so they weren't visible. They wore up-to-butt stockings that were always silk-white and skin-tight. Vain people tended to purchase stockings for their children that had strings at the butt, so they could tie it stiffly and uncomfortably. This forced the child to stand up straight because of the pain at the legs everytime they didn't stand up straight. Unfortunately, this cause pain everytime they sat down, so the children of rich parents, especially royal families, had to endure pain starting at the age of 4 or 5, when they had to start wearing breeches and stockings, until they got used to it, which could take months. This practice didn't stop until breeches and stockings went out of fashion. They fit right above the butt VERY stiffly, making them difficult to take off. As a result, people generally wore the same pair of stockings for 3-5 years, until they were stained, etc. To wash their legs, they soaked their legs in a tub of water, so the water soaked through the stockings. Then they sat by the fire until their legs dried.Because the stockings were skin-tight and stiff, it was difficult to run or even walk. Therefore, rich people rode horses most of the time, and usually had an assistant to help them on and off horses, and walk into buildings. Additionally, children were often whipped on the legs as much as 15 times a day per leg, and the stockings couldn't rip because it was made of a special type of silk, so children's stocking often remained blood red until the end of the day, when the stockings were washed in the tub, and the blood was washed away.

- PKM 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)