And finally we made it! In spite of all the last-minute adjustments, snafus, and general craziness, it was all worth it! Of, course no ball is complete without last-minute adjustments to the ballgown…
Arriving at the Assembly Rooms…
Overall, it was a marvelous experience and the pictures don’t do justice to the event- we’ll definitely be back. 😄
The topic of evening dresses during the late 19th Century has always been an interesting one to us in that style-wise, it covers a lot of ground. Some evening dress styles seem to be more like ball gowns while others lean more towards reception dresses or formal afternoon dresses. It also doesn’t help that period sources are often inconsistent (as well as modern museum classification). We have found that probably the most convenient way to separate the evening dress from the ball gown is to consider the presence of sleeves or lack thereof. Ball gowns tend to have either no sleeves or minimal ones consisting mostly of some sort of net, gauze, or organza. Also, ball gowns tend to have lower necklines while this seems to be less of a thing with evening dresses. Finally, ball gowns tended to have lower neck lines on the back bodice.
Recently we came across an exquisite circa 1885 evening dress on the Augusta Auction website.
Evening Dress, c. 1885; August Auctions
The fashion fabric consists of a Prussian blue colored silk Ottoman fabric combined with a floral patterned gold on blue silk jacquard; the blue appears to be a shade different than the solid Ottoman. Silhouette-wise, it’s firmly in the mid-1880s and has a train, suggestive of a more formal dress.
The bodice is primarily made from the solid Ottoman fabric with a yolk made from the jacquard and all combined with a Medici collar trimmed in ivory (probably yellowed with age). The sleeves are three-quarter and trimmed with lace similar to the collar. This bodice is definitely reminiscent of Renaissance Era styles.
As with many dresses of the era, it’s got an overskirt that essentially is a train, combined with an apron that wraps around the waist area, below the bodice. Also, the jacquard underskirt has inset panels in the Ottoman. The side profile picture below gives an excellent view of this:
And with this rear view, one can definitely see that there’s a high back…
Below are close-ups of the upper front and back bodice:
And here are two views of the jacquard fabric:
And here’s a close-up of part of the bodice that gives a better view of the Prussian Blue fashion fabric as well as the corded trim. Note the horizontal weave pattern characteristic of an Ottoman fabric:
This is a really exquisite example of 1880s evening dress style and especially with the use of an Ottoman fabric- the Prussian blue Ottoman fabric provides a rich background for the floral pattern jacquard fabric which attracts the eye, leading it upwards to the wearer’s face (helped along with the yoke made from the same fabric). Overall, an exquisite example and perhaps a good style for recreating some day. 😄
It’s a truism in fashion that the natural world has always been a source of inspiration for artists and fashion designers and the late 19th Century was no exception. Examples of natural inspiration in fashion abound and in particular have often been a source of inspiration for many of Maison Worth’s designs. In a previous post, we discussed two examples of Worth’s use of the natural world theme in the form of wheat stalks and butterflies. Today, we look at another example, this time Chrysanthemums with this circa 1895-1900 evening dress:
Worth, Evening Dress, c. 1898-1900; Metropolitan Museum of Art (976.258.5a–c)
With a multi-gored trained skirt and minimally sleeved bodice, the dress silhouette reads late 1890s and more specifically in the 1898-1900 time frame. This dress is constructed of a salmon-colored silk satin and features a Chrysanthemum floral motif pattern. With the exception of the upper bodice, there is no trim on this dress and the Chrysanthemum design speaks for itself. Below is a close-up of the bodice:
The bodice features a semi-wrap style and continues the Chrysanthemum floral pattern with a jeweled net backed with salmon-colored tulle at the bustline. The sleeves are minimal, consisting of two strips of silk satin, some white chiffon and trimmed with gold fringe. Below is a close-up of the design motif:
As it can be seen in the picture above, the decorative design is composed of embroidered appliques that give the appearance of a velvet. It’s an amazing contrast to the silk satin skirt and bodice. Finally, not only does this dress have the Worth label, but also a label with a unique dress number which was likely to have been to a specific client. It would be interesting to know more about this… :-).
What’s also striking about this dress is that the design is not a singular occurrence but rather as part of a family of ball/evening gowns Maison Worth produced around the same time:
Worth, Ball Gown, 1899; Metropolitan Museum of Art (26.381a-b_front 0004)
Worth, Ball Gown, c. 1895 – 1900; Metropolitan Museum of Art (2009.300.1290a, b)
House of Worth, Ballgown, 1898; Metropolitan Museum of Art (2009.300.1324a, b)
Worth, Ballgown, 1900; Metropolitan Museum of Art (2009.300.1250a, b)
The above garments are all masterpieces in their own right, all featuring a large design with a natural theme. Also, judging from the silhouettes and styles, it’s clear that these garments share many of the same pattern blocks.1Although they produced haute couture, Maison Worth was still a business and early on adopted many mass production techniques although they’d never publicly admit it. Ultimately, while each of these dresses was a unique work, they all had common characteristics that made them part of a collection. Either way, they’re all artworks to be enjoyed in their own right. 🙂
It’s a commonly accepted part of today’s fashion wisdom that specific fashions are introduced on a seasonal basis (or faster) by armies of designers attempting to come up with the next best thing. However, this connection between designer and customer hasn’t always been the case and in fact, throughout history, fashions have been introduced “from above” by people of higher social status, often a monarch and their inner circle. From there, the specific fashion moves downward through the social strata, adopted by an ever-widening group of people until it reaches the lower class where the fashion eventually becomes extinct.
Charles II Presented With A Pineapple. c. 1675 – 1680
Probably one of the most specific examples of a fashion trend starting at the top was when October 7, 1666 King Charles II decreed that a new fashion was to be worn at Court consisting of a vet, waistcoat, and breeches, an outfit that ultimately evolved into the modern three-piece suit. While older fashions lingered on, the nobility and anyone else with pretensions of social standing were quick to adopt the new fashion.
1660, King of England, Charles II (1630 – 1685) with English statesman and writer William Temple (1628 – 1699). Original Artwork: Engraved by J Parker after a painting by T Stothard.
The traditional idea of fashion trends starting at the top of society has been largely replaced by the idea that fashion trends can start from a multitude of sources ranging from “street fashion” originating with the lower classes, political leaders, the military, and high-profile media figures. Central to the concept of fashion diffusion, whether it starts at the top, the bottom or somewhere in between, is the idea that most people are passive when it comes to fashion, only adopting what’s put in front of them to wear, a phenomenon that was noted during the 19th Century, usually in a negative fashion, by a host of commentators. Here is just one example from the March 10, 1896 edition of the Los Angeles Herald:
The Paris leaders in dress are neither women in private life nor in public life, as one so often reads, but the inventors of toilets in the swell dressmaking establishments, who succeed in interesting their patrons in their creations. Not one woman in 500, or in 5,000, knows what she wants to wear, and not one in 25,000 what she should wear. The designers who make up designs for the dress goods manufacturers have more to do with the fashions in vogue, from season to season, than any queen on any throne.
No longer are fashions being disseminated by those of a particular social class (i.e., a king or queen) but rather it’s being driven by fashion designers. The author goes on to note that:
The loom owners come next, staking much upon their belief that a certain design will sell. Then the dress designers, who do nothing but make pen and ink and colored chalk pictures of fashion figures that they think will show off to advantage the goods in the market, come in for an important place in the line of fashion creators. The “big” dressmakers buy the designs of these artists, and employ other artists of their own to invent fashions, and only then does the woman who buys and wears the clothes come in for any place in the procession of those who are responsible for the modes of the times.
What is interesting here is that the author is describing the fashion industry (of the time)- essentially, the industry itself has created a self-sustaining structure, something that comes as no surprise today. Finally, the author somewhat cynically concludes by stating:
Do heather mixtures and chameleon mohairs, colored damasks and taconnes with filete effects, moiré velour and wool and mohair jacquards, Mozambique checks and two-toned silk construction crepons, grenadines and et avimes, and so on and so forth—do any of these become the fashion because a duchess, wears them, or is It because Worth or somebody else coaxes her into having gowns made from them? The great popular demand for anything does not spring out of the fact that real queens wear certain things; too few people ever see them to know what they wear. It is because some of the people in the popular eye like stage queens exhibit taking toilets.
And here we finally hit at one of the major foundations of fashion trend-setting: the role of popular figures (“fashion influencers” as they are termed today). While the author only touches on this before concluding, it explains much of what we see today. The concept of fashion trends is not as modern as we would think and it’s always fascinating to see people’s reactions in earlier times.
One fascinating aspect about Charles Worth was that although he positioned himself as an exclusive couturier, he also licensed printed paper patterns of some of his designs. Worth himself didn’t publicize this to any great extent and you have look hard for the evidence but it’s true. One example of this is this Redingote style was offered for sale for as a printed pattern in the 1882 edition of The Ladies Treasury:
And here’s the accompanying commentary:
Redingcotes are most popular in Paris. M. Worth makes them for summer dresses instead of polonaises. They are made in grenadines, over contrasting colours, for evening dresses. A mauve grenadine, on which are moons of black satin, two inches in diameter is made plain, over a lining of maize yellow satin. The grenadine is turned off in the front, to the sides, and is outlined in jet embroidery, black. A full frill of thread lace goes round the neck, and continues down the centre of the bodice. The petticoat of black satin has a pleated flounce of satin, and a front breadth of yellow satin, which is nearly hidden in jet embroidery, and bows of moire ribbons.
This style is M. Worth’s protest against the bunched-up paniers at the back, which it is said he detests.
Worth’s licensing of patterns is an interesting aspect of his business and is an area that’s not well documented. Of course, it would be interesting to locate the actual pattern but so far, our efforts to do so haven’t been successful. What’s also interesting is that even though Maison Worth was doing very well financially, it’s interesting that he would even bother with such pattern licensing- the revenue from pattern licensing could not have been much when compared to sales of his haute couture. Unfortunately, details about business side of Maison Worth are thin and we may never know the precise answer but it’s interesting to speculate on. As we find out more, we’ll be posting it here. Enjoy!