The Ensemble Dress, c. 1877

Ensemble dresses were not just present in the 1890s- here’s an example from circa 1877 by Worth:

Worth Reception Dress 1877

Worth, Ensemble Dress, c. 1877 – 1878; Cincinnati Art Museum (1986.1200a-c)

The view above reflects the cuirass bodice style that was coming into vogue during the late 1870s and the lines are well-sculpted and clean with a minimum of trim. This bodice was intended more for wear at daytime functions while the bodice below was meant for evening functions:

Reception gown, Worth, c. 1877-78

With the night bodice.

Here’s a close up of the day bodice. The edges of the bodice front openings and sleeve cuffs are trimmed with the same fabric that the underskirt is made from, combined with lace trim.

Reception gown, Worth, c. 1877-78.

Close-up of the day bodice.

Although we don’t have a side profile picture, it does appear that the silhouette is a bit more slimmed down and with the cuirass bodice, the wouldn’t be much room for a full bustle.  Stay tuned for more on ensemble dresses…

From Inspiration To The Dress…

Here’s a preview of one of our current designs under construction, inspired, in part, by the Agapanthus in my garden.  Periwinkle is one of my favorite colors, it reminds me of the cool shade of summer. I dyed to match this cotton batiste and silk to match my herd of Agapanthus, perfect for a floaty bustle gown!

Image result for pantone color periwinkle blue

Style-wise, this day dress is about circa 1877 and is pattern off of some original garments in our collection. Constructed of a light cotton, this is intended for wear at a picnic or other outdoor occasion.

Karin Day Dress

Yes, I DO work in colors other than chartreuse…

Three rows of knife pleating along the hem combined with a little white lace and black velvet accents…

.facebook_1529368710497.jpg

Of course, one can never have too many knife pleating… 🙂

Karin Day Dress

And our creative consultant Angus the Dog Man poses the minute I start taking dress photos. Seriously, little dude…I’ll take you outside, just give me a minute… 🙂

Working with color can inspire or depress an artist but in this case, this periwinkle has enchanted me, I never get tired of Tissot-inspired gowns. 🙂 Next up is the bodice…stay tuned!

The House Dress – 1878

In the course of our research, we found the term “house dress” to be somewhat confusing in that it is often used interchangeably with “morning dress.” Below, we will attempt to shed some more light on this use of terminology and what it means in practical terms. Enjoy! 🙂


In a previous post, we discussed the etiquette of what dress to wear on what occasion and in particular, the role of the “morning dress” or “house dress.” Specifically, in an article on dress etiquette from the January 1878 issue of Peterson’s Magazine (page 87), the terms “morning dress” and “house dress” are used somewhat interchangeably but they are both talking about the same dress: a relatively simple, unadorned dress that was worn at home and only seen by immediate members of the woman’s family; it was not meant to be worn out or to receive visitors. Later on into the 20th Century, the term “house dress” became applied more exclusively to a dress that one wore for cleaning chores and the like. Below are a few examples from various issues of Peterson’s for 1878:

HOuse Dress 1878_1

Dress With Cuirass Bodice

House Dress 1878_5

Polonaise Cut In Princess Shape

House Dress 1878_3

Princess Line Dress

Each of the above figures demonstrate styles that were characteristic of the Mid-Bustle Era and especially with the cuirass bodice and the princess line dress.  While both of these styles are well-suited for are fairly simple and while they appear to still be elaborate by today’s standards, by Victorian standards these are restrained.

In some instances, ensemble dresses were made that combine the features of the more simple house dress with a more formal dress by means of two interchangeable bodices. Below is an excellent example of this:

39.377a,c_threequarter_front 0002

Day Dress Ensemble With “Home” Bodice, c. 1878 – 1982; Metropolitan Museum of Art (2009.300.87a-c)

39.377a-c_threequarter_front 0002

Ensemble With More Formal Bodice

39.377a,c_back 0002

Rear View With “Home” Bodice

39.377a-b_threequarter_back 0002

Rear View With Formal Bodice

The “house bodice” (for want of a better term) is extremely simple and fairly shapeless as bodices go and fact, it basically looks like a loose coat. This is perfectly suited for working around the house but in terms of style, it is spare except for the paisley-like trim on the rear and sleeve cuffs. The formal bodice is more conventional with a closely shaped cut. Decoration in the form of ruching on the front and fringed gold-colored edging, and knife-pleating on each sleeve cuff.  The dress’ stone gray color is perfectly suited for this dress and it fits perfectly within the bounds of proper etiquette, as least as prescribed by Peterson’s.

Below is yet another example of the loose bodice and skirt combination from that could have easily been utilized as a “house” dress:

1934.493front

Day Dress, 1877; Manchester City Galleries (1934.493)

1934.493side

Right Side Profile (that pocket you see was NOT meant for a parasol but rather a handkerchief)

1934.493side1

Left Side Profile

1934.493back

Rear View

1934.493detail

Trim Detail

Now admittedly we could be reaching in our interpretation in terms of fabric detail but it is still relatively simple in design and style. But more importantly, even it it’s not spot on, it does goes a long way towards illustrating what Peterson’s had in mind when talking about the house dress.

The princess line which was another popular dress style during the late 1870s – early 1880s and below is just one example:

Czech Dress1

Day Dress, c. 1878; National Museum, Prague (H2-193316)

Czech Dress2

Side Profile

Czech Dress4

Three-Quarter Rear Profile

The princess line could be fancy or plain and anywhere in between. The relatively loose fit made it perfect for use as a “house” dress. In some ways, it could be argued that, aside from the tea dress, this was about as casual as Victorian women’s clothing could get. 🙂

The above are just a few illustrations of the house dress and its potential. We hope that you have enjoyed this small detour as we attempt to bring greater clarity to the world of Victorian fashion.

Fashion Observations From 1878 – Part II

To understand fashion, it is important to know when it was appropriate to wear each item. In contrast to today’s casual styles, the Victorian Era was highly formal and how one was judged was largely dependent on one’s appearance. Appearance was also important because it made a statement about one’s social position, and just as important, the position of one’s family. While America prided itself on its seemingly egalitarian society, it was in many ways just as class-bound as Europe with the only major differences being that one’s social position was largely defined by one’s wealth and that social boundaries in America were far more fluid with the possibility of social advancement always within reach.

For fashion, etiquette provides a guide as to what was worn and when and this in turn serves as an aide to the modern reconstructionist or living history. In the past, it has been our observation that while people will go to great lengths to recreate historic clothing, they will wear it to events that are inappropriate for those particular garments. Case in point is where ball gowns or evening dresses are worn during the day and especially in direct sunlight- not only is it incorrect, but it reads poorly (silk satin with its high luster simply does not look good in bright daylight). Conversely, we have seen day dresses, complete with tall hat and parasol, worn indoors at a formal ball. Once again, the effect is poor and spoils the whole occasion.

With that said, let us continue with our exploration of the year 1878…


Today we continue with our survey of fashion etiquette from 1878 as described in the January 1878 issue of Peterson’s Magazine (Page 87). First, the proper color and trim for a dress worn at home is further explained:

In large towns, where calls are so usual from one to four o’clock, the morning-dress, which we have described, is not appropriate after one o’clock: that Is if the lady is “At Home” to any except her intimate friends. Then, a dress, with a demi-train skirt, made of silk, cashmere, or any other material that is preferred, should be worn. In winter, the tint should be rather dark for ordinary occasions; but it may be of some rich color. Plain linen cuffs and collars, with a little lace edging, or embroidery; a locket, suspended around the neck, by a velvet; a bow of bright, or light-colored ribbon; a bow of ribbon In the hair, suitable to be worn with the dress; neatly arranged hair, and well-fitting shoes. If the throat is pretty, a dress cut open at the neck, with a plain frilling, is admissible. A dress of this kind is suitable for a house-dress all day, let the material be what it will; and if the stuff of which the dress is made is not too cheap, the ruffling, etc., etc., may be rather elaborate, otherwise such ruffling would be out of place.

In terms of color and trim, dresses worn at home are to be relatively simple. In terms of color, winter colors are darker although rich color (i.e., a jewel tone) is perfectly acceptable. Peterson’s now proceeds to describe dresses appropriate to other occasions:

For more ceremonious occasions, such as a “Reception,” or a formal “At Home,” the dress should be of lighter tints, brighter colors, and more elaborate in make. It will be quite appropriate to have more trimmings on skirt and waist; and the hair may be a little more showily dressed. A small bouquet of artificial flowers may be worn on the breast, or in the belt: or if the window garden will afford it, a few
geranium leaves, with a cluster of the rich flower, or a rose bud, may be substituted and will be much better. The sleeves, for a ceremonious morning-dress, may, if desired, only reach to the elbow; but in that case the gloves should have four, or five buttons; and for these ceremonious occasions gloves are indispensable. Or the long mitts, which have been introduced within the last year, may take the place of the gloves. A fan will often be found necessary, in the heat and excitement of such a reception; but it should never be of lace in the daytime. All morning-dresses, it must be remembered, should be high at the back and on the shoulders; but, if preferred, they can be cut open, square, or heart-shaped, in front. A good deal of lace may be worn about the neck, or tulle can be crossed over the besom. The neck should not be too open, however; or, if the dress is very dark, a soft, white fichu, or one made of soft, light-blue silk, or crepe, pink, buff, or scarlet, will add very much to the “dressy” look of the costume. Very little jewelry should be worn, even with a “reception-dress;” but more is allowable than with other day-dresses.

In contrast to the normal “morning dress,” more fancy dress was essential for formal occasions such as a reception or if one was was receiving visitors on a formal basis. For these dresses, colors were to be lighter than standard morning dress and more elaborate trims were permissible. Necklines could be lower than for morning dress but within limits and the use of white fichu around the neck for darker colored dresses was recommended. Finally, gloves were an essential fashion accessory and fans were also highly recommended.

Below is an example of what would be a more fancy dress that reflects the above advice.

M2003.76.1.1-3-P1

Day Dress, c. 1878 – 1883; McCord Museum (M2003.76.1.1-3)

M2003.76.1.1-3-P2

Three-Quarter Rear View

M2003.76.1.1-3-P3

Side Profile

By the criteria of Peterson’s Magazine, the above dress is one that would definitely not be a “morning dress” but rather something more suitable for being seen in public. The lighter wine colored silk fashion fabric contrasts nicely with the darker burgundy of the velvet trim around the neckline and the small “apron” swagged across the front.

So what did this mean in practical terms? Basically, it distinguishes between morning dress which was meant to be simple and somewhat utilitarian versus a more elaborate dress, such as a reception dress, in which was meant to be more fancy and a lot less practical. But more importantly, this distinction served to make separation between the private and the public: what was worn in the intimacy of the home was not what one wore publicly and to do otherwise told others that one was of a lesser social status. Image and appearance were everything in the Victorian world.

In considering the role of etiquette, the above is only one example and while these provided a guide to proper presentation and deportment, they were only guidelines and often people modified them to suit their needs. The wide variety of etiquette books and advice public in magazines of the period provides ample proof that people desired this sort of guidance. In the end, etiquette provides a link between fashion and its role in society. We look forward to presenting more of this information in the future.



Fashion Observations from 1878 – Part I

During the mid to late 19th Century, the American fashion press was a growing industry, thriving on the desire of a newly-emerging middle classe’s desire to keep abreast of the latest fashion trends. As part of the fashion press’s mission was to also instruct on fashion etiquette. The guiding philosophy behind the need for proper fashion etiquette is explained in the January 1880 edition of Peterson’s Magazine (pages 87-88):

Etiquette for Morning-Dress.- For a lady, dress is so important, that, even as a matter of etiquette, it must be given the first place. In other words, there is an etiquette of dress as well as of manners. Certain dresses should be worn, at certain times, and in certain ways: one is fit for the house in the morning, another for promenade, another for an evening party; and one who dresses differently, in cultivated society, is apt to be thought underbred.

We would premise that we do not encourage extravagance, when we say there should be this variety of dress; for if a lady uses one dress, she cannot be wearing out another; and one suitable dress for each occasion will not only last for one season, but for two or three, if the material Is good, and it is well made, and Is not cut, or trimmed, in too pronounced a style. For, be it remembered, a very showy dress Is one that will date itself; in other words persons will say, “She has lived In that dress for years; it was made at such and such a time.” With this preliminary observation, we proceed to speak, this month, of the etiquette for the dress a lady should wear at home, and for morning callers.

Some of the above advice even holds true for today in that a more restrained, perhaps “classic” style tends to age less than one that is based on the latest fad and as such, provides better value for the money in that it will not age as fast. One dramatic example of this phenomenon can be found with styles of the 1970s, most which have aged poorly and are generally avoided as style inspiration by designers (that’s an interesting discussion best saved for another day 🙂 ).

Turning to the passage itself, one is struck by how the “standard” is obviously one that is oriented towards the more wealthy who had the wherewithal to maintain several styles of dresses for each specific occasion and time of day. But even so, this upper class ideal still remained the standard to which the middle classes, or anyone with any pretensions of aspiring to a higher social status paid heed to. In practice, while many lacked the means to follow it to the letter, it was still something to aspire to and as such, people  made do with the means at hand.

The above passage also illustrates the downward theory of fashion, one of the basic theories of how fashions are transmitted. Essentially, the theory holds that fashion is transmitted from the upper classes, flowing downward to the lower classes. Throughout history, this process had been slow and gradual but with the industrial revolution and the advent of cheaper clothing, the process of fashion began to speed up. Of course, today this theory has been greatly modified in today’s modern world but elements of it still hold true. Next, we proceed to some more practical advice:

For the morning, at home, a dress ought to be longer than one for out-of-doors. The demi-train Is much more graceful than the short skirt; and with a ruffle, from a quarter to half a yard deep basted on the inside of the skirt, the train is kept clean; and the ruffle can be taken out, and washed, and replaced, as often as is necessary: this ruffle need only start from the side gores.

One of the prettiest fashions for morning dress is the Princess, straight down the front and almost close-fitting there, but quite so at the back, with a train that is untrimmed: the front is usually trimmed all the way from the shoulders down, and buttoned the full length. This dress can be mode of camel’s hair, cashmere, merino, or any of the hundreds of varieties of woolen goods that now come, varying in price from twenty cents up to two dollars a yard, and therefore can be brought within the means of all. Silk can be used, but it is not so soft and pretty.

For those whose occupations are no more arduous than making point laces, embroidering in crewels, or reading the last new book, light blues, or pinks, or delicate buffs, even whites, or soft grays, or fawn colors, trimmed with knots of pretty gay ribbons, are suitable. In such a case, frills of lace, zigzagged down the front, with bows or knots of ribbon, add very much to the effect. For those who are older, and require a more sober style of dress, darker shades of blue, violet, crimson, deeper grays and fawns are in keeping.

The above is interesting that it is advocates both fashion and practicality at the same time in regard to trains and the use of what was termed a bayaleuse, or dust ruffle, that lined the inside of the skirt along the hem and acted to pick up the dirt and otherwise protect the skirt’s fashion fabric. These were often simply basted in and could be readily removed and laundered or replaced.

Also interesting is the advocacy of the princess line dress, a new style that was coming into vogue as this time characterized by the lack of a waist seam between the bodice and skirt. Below are some illustrations of the princess line:

Journal Des Demoiselles_1878_1

1982.528.4_F

Day Dress, American, c. 1878, Metropolitan Museum of Art (1982.528.4)

1982.528.4_TQL

The second paragraph is also interesting in that it’s clearly aimed at someone who has servants to bulk of the household work, or at least the more arduous tasks- use lighter colors if one does not have to do any serious work since there is little chance of stains or soiling showing up against the light-colored fabric.

So, from the above, it appears that the princess line dress was definitely trending for 1878 as an ideal dress style for “morning dress,” constructed preferably of wool (although silk was acceptable. Morning dress was meant to be worn at home, preferably in the morning hours (hence the name). Below are some more style ideals:

The busy housewife should have the train of her morning dress made shorter than that of the woman of leisure. It should be without the lace, the many bows of ribbon, buttons alone being the only ornaments down the front, with ribbons at the throat and pockets only. Pretty flannels, in small plaids, or some simple-figured goods, will stand the wear of much use better than a plain material. Of course, for summer, the simplest chintz, or pique, or any white goods, may be worn, trimmed with braids, or ruffles: a belt or sash would add greatly to the summer morning dress. To protect the dress, while busy, a neat white apron should be worn; it may be full of pretty, suggestive pockets, if liked, or it may be inside of one of the towels, that ore now embroidered in rod at the ends (for which embroidery we have given patterns), and pinned on. In our next number we will give an engraving of a morning dross with one of these towel aprons.

The above provides some interesting information in regard to how the morning dress should be constructed and detailed in regard to the train. Also, it notes that a decorate apron should be used if the dress-wearer is going to be doing any sort of household chores.

And now we get to the some commentary on the appropriateness of wearing the morning dress and overall appearance:

When the breakfast cups have boon washed, the room dusted, and the flowers watered, the apron may be laid aside. Neatness, above all things, is necessary to the true lady. One woman will look perfectly thorough-bred in a shilling dress, while another may have on the most expensive toilet that Paris can produce- and yet look vulgar. No crimping pins, or curl papers are allowed after a lady learn her chamber: the hair should be simply, but becomingly adjusted; the collars and cuffs should be spotlessly fresh; the shoes and stockings neat; and above all no jewelry is to be worn in the morning; rattling bracelets and dangling chains are utterly out of place then. If the ears are pierced, only the simplest ear-rings should be worn, and the fingers should be divested of all rings, except the wedding or engagement ring, or a seal-ring. By following these hints, any lady can be prepared for either the privacy of her own home, or for early morning callers. But no matter what the material of the “breakfast dress” may be, nor how pretty made, is it allowable to be worn during the whole day; the half tight fitting dress that looks so comfortable and appropriate in the morning, looks slovenly when morning occupations are over.

In the above, projecting the proper image is critical and especially if one is going to receive morning visitors. The emphasis is definitely on dressing simply with a minimum of jewelry and at the same time making sure that everything is neat, clean, and in the right place. In short, the woman’s appearance here is also a reflection on her household, and by extension, her husband. Definitely the Victorian ideal personified.

In the next installment, we will take a further look at some fashion commentary in regard to other sorts of dresses. Stay tuned!

(To be continued)