A Little Light Reading- Charles Frederick Worth

January 3, 2017May 17, 2020 / Adam Lid / 4 Comments

A knowledge of fashion history plays an essential role in the design process and one is always researching how the fashions of the past as one means of drawing inspiration for the future. Moreover, when recreating historical garments of any era, it’s essential that one learn as much as possible not only about the styles themselves, but also about how they were designed, constructed, and marketed. While online research is the first step (unfortunately, for many it’s the only step), it’s only the beginning. The next steps are examining extant original examples and reading books- a lot of books. 🙂

Books, whether recent or old, can provide great insights about fashions of the past and while we may disagree with their conclusions, they do provide interesting perspectives and are often a reflection of when they were written. In the end it’s up to the individual to make their own informed conclusions and it’s from there that the design process begins.

There are many excellent books in fashion history out there and I’d like to take the opportunity to talk about one centering on one of the greatest couturiers of all time- Charles Frederick Worth- so enjoy! 🙂

worth-label

Charles Frederick Worth (October 13, 1825 – March 10, 1896) was one of the first couturiers in the modern sense of the word and he not only influenced fashion in the Mid to late 19th Century, but his innovations also gave birth to modern haute couture. However, while the basic details of Worth’s life are well known and a large body of his work survives, there is little hard information about the man himself and his specific accomplishments.

charles-frederick-worth-english-fashion-designer-active-in-paris

One of the few English language books on Worth is Diana De Marly’s book Worth: Father of Haute Couture which examines Worth’s life and career and places it in the context of the larger social and political world that Worth operated in.

De Marly gives an excellent overview of the Worth’s career and is especially strong in its coverage of the relationship with the Empress Eugénie, and the Princess Pauline von Metternich and how they were instrumental in Worth’s rise as the first celebrity couturier. The book is less strong in covering Worth’s later career after the fall of Napoleon III and the rise of the Third Republic but it still provides a good overview. Unfortunately, one of the major weak points of this book is the lack of illustrations of many of the dresses that De Marly cites although online searching through the collections at the Met and elsewhere go a long way to correct this.

Worth’s influence in eliminating the crinoline in the late 1860s and replacing it with the bustle, and then again nearly eliminating it in the late 1870s (and once again returning to a modified bustle) are well covered and she cites various surviving examples (although looking them up online was not always easy). De Marly also describes Worth’s introduction of the princess line style although I do believe that she overstates her case that it was solely invented by Worth. What is also interesting is when she briefly touches on Worth being one of the first to introduce bias-cut sleeves in the early 1890s, some 30 years before Vionnet- I only wish that she had discussed this more in depth and cited some actual dress examples, all we have to go on is an engraving.

One of the strongest parts of the book is De Marly’s detailing how Worth was not merely a designer of fancy dresses but that he was a fashion dictator, determining what looked best on his clients and then dictating the specific dress details. As De Marly points out, the taste that his clients exhibited wearing his creations was really Worth’s taste rather than those individual clients. Worth’s influence was such that before attending any major social function, his clients would stop by Worth’s atelier so that Worth could personally examine and approve their outfits (or making last-minute changes when a client’s outfit somehow fell short).

I would highly recommend this as essential reading for anyone interested in getting an in-depth view of the great couturier himself and his profound influence on the fashion world of the late 19th Century.

House of Worth, Label on Box:

P.S. Regretfully, this book has been out of print for a long time but second-hand copies can often by found here:

<br />

Emile Pingat, THE Artistic Dressmaker In Paris

August 4, 2016January 16, 2020 / Adam Lid / 1 Comment

Lately, Emile Pingat has been a major focus here at Lily Absinthe. To us, it seems that history has largely ignored Pingat while giving exclusive focus to Charles Frederick Worth. While by no means do we mean to denigrate Worth’s achievements, we also feel that it’s worthwhile to also call attention to some of the other couturiers who today are less well known.

Just to give an example of Pingat’s reach, we found this little reference in the December 3, 1885 edition of the Marin County Journal, a newspaper that was published in San Rafael, California:

Pingat is considered the artistic dress-maker in Paris fashionable circles, Worth now playing second scissors.

Ok, maybe we’re reaching here but it’s interesting seeing a reference to Pingat, albeit a brief humorous one, in a small newspaper (granted that San Rafael is relatively close to San Francisco).

Just a fluke? Maybe not..consider this extract from the “Fashion Notes” section of the November 3, 1883 edition of The Pacific Rural Press, a newspaper that was published in San Francisco from 1871 to 1894:

A leading feature of the fashions of the season, as shown at the October openings, is that of combination costumes. Scarcely a dress among all those made by the great French dressmakers Worth, Pingat, Felix, and the rest is of a single fabric, the rule being the combination of brocade or fancy dress goods with plain material to match. This is the case especially with the fine woolens, the use of which is constantly increasing, and which will this winter be worn for everything except elegant reception toilets.

And just to further show Pingat’s reach, below is an an advertisement from the September 22, 1895 edition of the Los Angeles Herald:

Los Angeles Herald, September 22, 1895

Of course, one does wonder if the advertised garments were actually manufactured by the designers as advertised or were knock-offs… 🙂

While the above has been focused on Pingat, it does indicate that Parisian designers like Worth and Pingat had cachet even on the West Coast of the United States in much the same way that the names Dior, Lagerfeld, and Dolce and Gabbana (to name a few) have cachet today among fashion consumers. The above is only a small sampling and as we find more references, we will share them with you. 🙂

Pingat- Sometimes Less Is More…

August 2, 2016August 1, 2016 / Adam Lid / 1 Comment

When it comes to Victorian Era fashion and especially fashion of the period from 1870 through 1900, people have the idea that a dress with more trim and accents (i.e., “bling”) makes for a more elegant and opulent dress. However, this is not always the case and sometimes too much trim and accents can have the opposite effect with the end result being a mish-mash of details that ultimately do nothing towards creating a unified style or “look.” In some cases, we see little more than a fashion trainwreck.

However, this wasn’t always the case and often designers utilized more simple designs, relying on the use of the fashion fabric alone to achieve results. One example of this can be found with this 1880s dress designed by Emile Pingat that we found on the Augusta Auctions website:

Dress Ensemble, c. 1880s; August Auctions

Emile Pingat 2

Emile Pingat 3

Emile Pingat 2

Emile Pingat 5

According to the website, the dress is from the 1880s and we suspect that it was made sometime in the mid-1880s. Also, although the dress is described as having both a “day bodice” and a ballgown bodice, there was no picture of the ballgown bodice thus at a minimum, this dress was probably meant as a visiting or reception dress. However, that said, our interest is that there is no trim on this dress and it only uses the fashion fabric itself.

The vertical stripes serve to accentuate the length of the dress and give a nearly cylindrical appearance. Also, at the bottom, we see two layers of narrow knife pleating separated by ruching, all from the same fabric. Unfortunately, there were no pictures of the dress from the direct front and it’s hard to get a full idea of the bodice’s appearance but it’s evident that the strips on the fabric do accentuate the curves of the bodice. Although this dress looks fairly “plain,” the manipulation of the fashion alone does the work and gives the dress an overall sense of aesthetic uniformity. In short, “less is more”.

And here’s a view of the hem detail:

Emile Pingat 4

Now, admittedly, aesthetics and style are a very subjective matter and we all have our preferences but nevertheless, we see that designers utilized various methods to achieve their visions. While unfortunately we do not have a formal treatise on Emile Pingat’s design philosophy, it’s evident that he was flexible in his approach.

Many of Pingat’s designs involved clean lines and the use of the fashion fabric as the central focus. Here is another example that’s perhaps a bit more elaborate than the above example but still exhibits the same characteristics:

Emile Pingat, Dinner Dress, c. 1883 – 1885; Smith College Historic Clothing Collection (1989.1.3ab)

Rear View

What’s interesting here is that like this first dress above, Pingat uses only two colors as a combination only this time there are two separate fabrics, blue silk and white silk.

For a bit of contrast, let’s take a look at this reception dress from circa 1874:

Emile Pingat, Reception Dress, c. 1874; Philadelphia Museum of Art (1938-18-12a,b)

In many respects, this dress is a precursor for the above two from the 1880s in that we see a blue and white striped silk overskirt combined with a solid blue silk underskirt and bodice. Also, we see white lace trim used to edge the overskirt and trim the bodice cuffs and front. Finally, we see white silk used along the hem and part of the underskirt for contrast. While we would expect an early 1870s to be somewhat elaborate with several layers of draped fabric, it’s sill relatively simple for the period.

Perhaps we’re reaching here a bit but it’s still interesting to consider the idea that Pingat tended to be more restrained in his designs and that he was firmly in the center- being neither too fashion forward or too regressive. Anyway, we hope you’ve enjoyed this excursion through some of Pingat’s designs. 🙂

Further Defining The 1880s Look…

July 9, 2016July 6, 2020 / Adam Lid / Leave a comment

In a previous post, we discussed the influence of the bustle, or more properly the tournure or “dress improver,” in defining 1880s style. Specifically, in contrast to bustles of the early 1870s, those of the 1880s were designed to create a very sharply defined train. Often times, the bustle/train became the center of focus for the dress, dominating the visual effect. One example of this effect can be seen with this dress ensemble from circa 1885 – 1888:

Afternoon Dress, c. 1885 – 1888; Metropolitan Museum of Art (2009.300.2033a–e)

In the above picture, we see an asymmetrical skirt in a solid royal blue silk. The skirt has been drawn up sideways so as to create a flat surface on the right and draping on the left. On the right side there are panels of a floral pattern which matches the fabric used for the lapels and cuffs on the bodice. The bodice has been arranged so as to create a jacket/waistcoat effect with the “waistcoat” fabric being ruched and pleated. In the above picture, we also a see a wide belt also made from the same patterned fabric as the skirt trim panels, cuffs, and lapels that is very suggestive of an obi (the wide belt typically found on a kimono). While the fabric pattern is decidedly Western, the style is definitely influenced by Japonisme and it definitely catches the eye, possibly minimizing the massiveness of the train.

Side Profile

In the above picture, we see the same dress only the wide belt has been replaced by a thin belt of royal blue silk that matches the rest of the dress. With this substitution, the focus is brought back onto the train.

With optional shawl.

In the above picture, the dress is now worn with a shawl made of the same patterned fabric as the skirt trim panels, cuffs, and lapels. The shawl definitely provides contrast to the solid royal blue of the dress and serves to balance the train somewhat.

However there is one caveat: the staging of the dress for the museum display can make a difference and skew our perceptions- often times one will see a dress in a museum display in which is displayed without the proper bustle and underpinnings thus creating a flat look. On the other hand, it can also be overdone so we have to be careful. In the case of the above dress, in the pictures below, we see that the train and bustle have been toned down; it’s probable that a different bustle was used in these pictures:

In order to counter the possibility of getting a skewed portrayal of the 1880s silhouette, here are some period pictures:

Mr. Garrigan and lady, Montreal, 1888; McCord Museum (II-87490.1)

Above, we see the “shelf bustle” in full flower and for this woman, the style works. The train, skirt, and bodice appear to be in relative proportion.

Mrs Hughes, in cuirass bodice suit with shelf bustle and flower pot hat, c. 1887; State Library of New South Wales collection.

Here is a less effective rendition of this style. The bustle and train appear to be an appendage that’s been tacked on and it lacks unity and the proportions are somewhat off. The woman’s severe look also doesn’t help the look.

Archduke Josef Karl of Austria and spouse, Archduchess Clotilde, neé Princess of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, c. 1884

Here we see a definite mismatch in proportions between the train, skirt, and bodice. The bodice bottom is too short in relation to the bustle and skirt- it looks oddly truncated.

Mrs. G. S. Davidson, Montreal, 1884; McCord Museum (II-73351.1)

In this picture, the bustle is more restrained, perhaps because it was taken in 1884 before the second bustle trend has completely taken hold.

Fashion is a constant process of extremes followed by reaction and it was no different with the tournure as we see from the following comments from the February issue of Peterson’s Magazine:

The diminution of tho tournure, the falsely -so- called “dress-improver,” appears to be definitely decided upon. Worth is using all his powerful influence in that direction,
as he dislikes very much the ungraceful stiffness imparted to the upper portion of the toilette by its undue dimensions. The newest articles of this description are composed of ruffles of hair-cloth— the genuine “crinoline”— and the sides are simply laced together underneath, neither steel springs nor whalebone being used in the fabric.

The most stylish toilettes have simply a silk cushion, stuffed with horse-hair, set just at the back of the skirt-band, and three rows of steel springs are set in the lower part of the skirt to hold it out. This is merely a return to the combination which was in vogue before the present— or, rather, the recent—exaggeration of this detail of feminine dress.

Even Worth had enough of the “shelf bustle” and was pushing back and the results were to become strikingly evident as the 1880s gave way to the 1890s. We hope you’ve enjoyed this little foray into the world of the “shelf bustle” and stay tuned for more.

Mid To Late 1880s Daytime Fashion

July 8, 2016September 25, 2020 / Adam Lid / 1 Comment

When it comes to mid to late 1880s style, it’s easy for one to conjure up visions of dresses with severely sculpted lines that were largely defined by an extremely angular “shelf bustle.” Naturally, as with all fashions, they manifested themselves in both extreme and moderate versions but it was the more extreme versions that caught the attention of the press and assorted satirists. One of the most oft-repeated quips was “one could set a tea service on top of the bustle.”

Here’s just one example from an 1883 German humor magazine in which the women is likened to a Centaur:

bustle-satire-fliegende-bltter-magazine-1880s

From Fliegende Blätter; Band LXXVIII (1883), p. 147.

Interestingly enough, the above cartoon was made in 1883 when the bustle was re-emerging- perhaps they were ahead of the fashion curve? 😉

All joking aside, to a great degree, 1880s style was defined by the “shelf bustle” as shown in the picture below:

Evening Dress, American or European, c. 1884 – 1886, silk; The Metropolitan Museum of Art (C.I.63.23.3a, b)

Structure was everything in Victorian fashion and below are some examples on how the distinctive 1880s silhouette was created:

Bustle, c. 1885; Los Angeles County Museum of Art (M.2007.211.399)

Bustle, Steel Frame, c. 1884; Victoria & Albert Museum (T.131C-1919).

Bustle, 1880s

Within the parameters created by the basic silhouette, there was a wide variety of possible styles. As a rule, day dresses were defined by an under and overskirt, one draped over the other, and these could either in complementary or contrasting colors and/or a solid color combined with a pattern or even two different patterns. As for bodices, this could either be one solid unit or a combination jacket and waistcoat. The waistcoat could either be a separate garment or a faux waistcoat that has been integrated into the jacket to create a single bodice. Below are just some examples:

Godey’s Ladysbook, January 1887

In the above plate, on the left one can see a combination jacket/waistcoat styled bodice combined with with a solid colored overskirt covering a patterned underskirt. Interestingly enough, the waistcoat fabric matches the pattern on the underskirt. On the right, one can see a solid bodice trimmed with an embroidered panel that matches the pattern of the underskirt. At the same time, the pattern on the overskirt matches the basic fabric of the bodice. While there may be contrasts in fabric patterns, the do harmonize in the way that they’re both used on the skirts and the bodices. At the same time, the colors also harmonize even when they’re contrast colors.

As a rule, day dresses were defined by an under and overskirt, one draped over the other, and these could either in complementary or contrasting colors and/or a solid color combined with a pattern or even two different patterns. As for bodices, this could either be one solid unit or a combination jacket and waistcoat. The waistcoat could either be a separate garment or a faux waistcoat that has been integrated into the jacket to create a single bodice.

Magazine Des Demoiselles_1887_2

In the above plate, we see the use of different shades of the same color that are used to harmonize. The dress on the left simply combines a lighter brown with dark brown trim on the bodice lapels and are continued down the dress front (the dress appears to be a princess line but it’s hard to tell from the plate). The dress on the right is a bit more sophisticated in that not only do we see a dark and light shades of green combined, but we also see the use of a striped overskirt combined with a striped and patterned bodice. Interestingly enough, in both dresses, the dark color is only used on the trim and patterns, the light color makes up the majority of both dresses.

Below is another example of how colors and patterns could be combined:

Magazine des Demoiselles, 1887

On the left, we see the use of contrasting colors, in this case rose-colored vertical stripes combined with a light gray. The stripes are distributed around the skirt and on the sleeves and front of the bodice. There appears to be only one skirt. On the right, we see a solid dark gray/blue overskirt and bodice combined with a black floral pattern with a rose background for the underskirt, cuffs, collar, and bodice front. It also appears that the bodice cuts away to reveal a waistcoat of the same patterned fabric- to us, the patterned fabric conjures up visions of cut velvet.

The following fashion plates from 1886 and 1887 further illustrate some other possible combinations:

Peterson’s Magazine, November 1886

Peterson’s Magazine, February 1887

Peterson’s Magazine, June 1888

Fashion plates are are well and good but what about actual dresses? Well, in answer, here are some extant examples::-)

Day Dress, French, c. 1885; Silk plain weave (taffeta) and silk plain weave with warp-float patterning and supplementary weft, and silk knotted tassel; Los Angeles County Museum of Art (M.2007.211.34a-b)

Day Dress, c. 1885; Los Angeles County Museum of Art (M.2007.211.34a-b)

Day Dress, c. 1887 – 1891; Metropolitan Museum of Art (C.I.55.40.1a, b, e)

Close-Up Of Bodice

Detail Of Shoulder

Matching Fan

Label

Pingat, Promenade Dress, 1888; Metropolitan Museum of Art (2009.300.7758a, b)

Rear View

Left Side Profile- Unfortunately, the photography does not do justice to the dress.

Right Side Profile

Day Dress, c. 1887 – 1889; Metropolitan Museum of Art (C.I.53.68.2a–c)

Close-Up Of Bodice

Side Profile

Rear View

Worth, Day Dress, 1888; Metropolitan Museum of Art (2009.300.665a, b)

Madame Arnaud, Paris, Morning Dress, c. 1888; The Museum at the Fashion Institute of Technology (2008.46.1)

For many, the typical 1880s silhouette is off-putting and in our experience, we have found that for most people looking to recreate the styles of the 1880s, they tend to gravitate towards either towards the beginning of the decade with the Mid-Bustle Era styles or towards the end of the decade where the bustle was diminishing and we start to see a more cylindrical, upright profile that was to carry on into the 1890s.

However, while there’s no denying that the late 1880s fashion silhouette was defined by an often extreme, angular bustle, this was not always the case and there are many instances where women toned it down- just looking at the variety of bustle appliances and pads that were available for sale is testament to that. As with all fashion, there were those who went to extremes and others who tended to be more conservative and especially for those of more modest means.

Just as important, if not more so, the 1880s offers a variety of styles to suit every aesthetic and a lot of room for developing a unique “signature” style that’s unique to the individual. So, why not give it a try? 🙂

Lily Absinthe

Gowns & Corsetry

Charles Frederick Worth

A Little Light Reading- Charles Frederick Worth

Like this:

Emile Pingat, THE Artistic Dressmaker In Paris

Like this:

Pingat- Sometimes Less Is More…

Like this:

Further Defining The 1880s Look…

Like this:

Mid To Late 1880s Daytime Fashion

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: