1870s Tea Gown Style…

Today’s tea gown selection dates from circa 1875-1879 and incorporates a princess line style:

Tea Gown/Day Dress, c. 1875-1879; Kent State Museum (1983.001.0138)

The front of the gown presents a contrast between a purple colored front combined with white outer sides and back. The back and side fabric has a purple floral decorative motif (printed or embroidered is hard to determine). Running along the left side of the dress are a series of purple ribbon bows that help to create the illusion that the dress is a robe draped over a purple underskirt. However, in reality, it’s all one dress as can be seen in this close-up:

As can be seen from this close-up, it’s actually all one dress constructed in the princess line style. On the right one can see a row of buttons running town the front of the dress and the purple colored front is acting as a long plastron. Interestingly enough, the buttons and the ribbons on the front and cuffs appear to be more of a blue color. And here’s the side profile, both left and right:

Left Side Profile

Right Side Profile

The profile pictures illustrate that there’s a well-defined train and as such, this garment was probably made towards the Mid-1870s and would have been worn with a bustle. Below you can see the train:

Rear View

Compared the front, the rear is fairly unexceptional and presents a fairly conventional train except for the outline of purple ruffles running along the train. Unfortunately, the museum staging is not the best and the trim line is somewhat jumbled. This is a gown that we would love to have an opportunity to examine in person; the train is strangely asymmetrical and it would be interesting to see if this was by design or simply poor staging. But is what most compelling about this gown is the front- the color is amazing and it presents a bold contrast with the rest of the gown. We hope you’ve enjoyed this gown and may it be an inspiration. 🙂

The Princess Line Dress In The 1890s: One Example From Maison Worth

With its clean silhouette, the princess line dress was a very popular dress style during the late 19th Century, offering a wealth of fashion possibilities in terms of fabric and trim choices. Originally developed during the late 1870s, the princess line dress greatly influenced a shift in styles away from the bustle, instead focusing on a more slender, cylindrical silhouette.  While the princess line was more common during the 1877-1882 time frame, one still sees exampled well into the 1890s as with this one that was created by Maison Worth in circa 1896:

Worth, Bridesmaid Dress, c. 1896; Metropolitan Museum of Art (C.I.41.14.2)

The above example is a good illustration of the perfect princess line style: the waist is completely de-emphasized with a smooth canary yellow silk panel combining skirt and bodice into one unit. At the same time, the gold colored silk brocade sleeves, collar, and front inset panels present a contrast that draws the eye to the upper body. Although this dress is described as a “bridesmaid” dress, it would have been perfectly suitable as a dress for everyday wear (in contrast to today’s interpretation of the bridesmaid dress). Here’s some close-up of some dress details:

Rear view of the collar and shoulders.

Close-up of the collar.

Shoulder detail.

The above picture illustrates the front inset panels with beaded trim.

In terms of style, this dress is relatively restrained to the point of blandness and while it pushed no fashion boundaries, it does illustrate the basic characteristics of the prince line style. What’s especially interesting is that although the princess line style is attributed to Worth, there are very few extant examples of princess line dresses that can be linked to Maison Worth such as this one:

Worth, Day Dress, c. 1880; Galleria del Costume di Palazzo Pitti

We hope you’ve enjoyed this little excursion into the world of the princess line style. 🙂



House Dress? Wrapper? Morning Dress?

 

Wrapper? House Dress? Morning Dress? When it comes to these three garments, there’s a lot of overlap and it’s sometimes difficult to tell them apart. One useful way to approach this is to consider the characteristics that all these garments have, or to tend to have, in common:

  • Princess Line Styling
  • Relatively Loose Fit (This can be subjective)
  • Worn At Home Either In Private Or For Social Situations

When  stripped of all their trim and lace, they become functional, stripped-down versions of day dresses characteristic of the 1880s and 90s. Also, while it envisioned that a corset wasn’t worn with these garments, that wasn’t always the case but either way, the created a less structured silhouette. The Princess line style with its lack of a defined waistline was especially useful in this endeavor.

To further illustrate, we start with this dress from circa 1879-1880:

Wrapper/House Dress, c. 1879-1880; John Bright Collection

Side Profile

Rear View

This dress has clean lines and little ornamentation except for the embroidered middle hem, cuffs, and pockets. While this dress appears to be somewhat looser than a conventional day dress, it’s clear that it was meant for wear with a corset. This dress below is more unstructured and almost could be mistaken for being a robe:

And dresses could be more structured as with this one:

House Dress, c. 1880s; University of New Hampshire Textile Library

In looking at the side profile, to a great degree it maintains the robe-like appearance although it’s much elaborately trimmed.

This one has far more ornamentation and in our opinion really is more of a day dress than a house dress per se. But, as with a lot of this, the border between something that was worn out in public versus strictly at home is blurred and it’s possible that dresses often served “double duty,” especially for those of lesser means.

 

In the end, probably the easiest way to distinguish between dress types is to consider the dress silhouette, style, and use of fabrics and trims. Dresses meant to be worn in the privacy of the home are more likely to be functional and not as structured as dresses that were meant to be seen in social situations in the home. Finally, we wish to note that while we don’t profess to have the definitive answer, we do hope that we’ve provided some useful tools for trying to distinguish between dress types while acknowledging that there’s bound to be inconsistencies. Stay tuned for more!

The Wrapper…

During the Mid-Bustle Era of the late 1870s/1880s, the princess line dress came into its own as a specific dress style. One interesting sub-variant was the informal wrapper, a garment meant to be worn around the house and usually only seen by immediate family members (or maybe close friends). The princess line design especially lent itself to the wrapper and there was endless variations in fabrics and trims. Below are two examples of the wrapper patterns that were offered by Peterson’s Magazine. First is this example from the November 1880 issue:

Here’s a description of the wrapper:

For ordinary wear we prefer the flannel, either plain twilled in one color, or striped, in two colors…this model is a loose, tight-fitting princess dress. It may be made loose by leaving out the darts in front. The back fits tight like a basque, to about six inches above the waist, there the fullness of the back is put in by six or eight rows of fine gatherings. A narrow knife-plaiting of silk, or of the material finishes the fronts, edge of pockets, cuffs and collar. The collar, cuffs and top of the pocket, are of velvet to match, or black as may be preferred. Twelve yards of flannel or seven yards of cashmere will be required. [One] half-yard of velvet. One dozen buttons.

And here’s another example from the January 1881 issue:

And here’s the commentary from Peterson’s:

We give the front and back view of a simple and comfortable everyday wrapper, to be made of flannel, cashmere, or chintz. If made of flannel it needs no lining; cashmere, or chintz will require a lining of silesia, or colored cambric. It is cut with half-fitting tight back, a little below the waist line, and then the fullness of the back breadths is put in, with two double box-plaits finished at the top, and lined with the material, as seen in illustration. The fronts are loose without darts, and a sash, or cord and tassels confine the wrapper at the waist This, however, is optional.

Many ladies prefer the garment entirely loose. A flounce of the material, gathered and put on with a heading, trims the bottom of the skirt. Our model calls for the flounce to be edged with torchon lace. Collar, cuffs and pockets of the same, edged with lace. A narrow knife-plaiting may be substituted for the lace as a finish; or if the wrapper is only intended for ordinary wear, the flounce may be simply hemmed, and plain cuffs, pockets and collar simply stitched on the edge.

And finally, there’s this example from the January 1878 issue of Demorest’s Family Magazine:

Now let’s take a look at some extant wrappers staring with this example from circa 1879-1880:

Wrapper/House Dress, c. 1879-1880; John Bright Collection

Rear View

Side Profile

This particular dress is a fairly simple design and in many ways is reminiscent of a modern bathrobe. The wrapper is constructed of an ivory cashmere and is unadorned with any decorative elements except for the embroidered strips around the mid-hem, cuffs, and pockets. Below are close-ups of the embroidery:

Pocket and cuff detail.

Detail of embroidery pattern.

Finally, there are these two wrappers that we found on the Augusta Auctions website:

Although the auction website was short on dating details, we believe it’s safe to say that these are most likely from the 1878-1881 time frame (although we could be wrong). These wrappers are princess line and share a similar silhouette even though the decorative elements differ. Moreover, the wrapper on the right also features a long train. Below are some pictures of the left wrapper:

And here’s a close-up of the embroidered design running down the dress front:

The above wrapper has a definite emphasis on the practical although the black silk velvet collar, cuffs, pocket flaps provide nice accents along with the embroidered silk circles running down each side of the front. Also, it’s interesting in that a robe effect has been created with the inset front panel. Overall, this one is functional yet stylish. Here’s a close-up of the embroidery:

And here’s some more pictures of the right wrapper:

With its long train, this wrapper is seemingly more of a formal garment than a simple wear-around-the-house garment, a perception that’s helped along by the elaborate silk ruched panel in front. Also, the same ruching is also incorporated into the pockets. And here’s some details of the cuff. Note the layering of different colored silk fabrics with differing textures combined with pleating and lace.

In closing, we just want to mention that in the course of researching this post, we note that the terms “wrapper,” “house dress,” and “tea dress” are used interchangeably to describe the same garment and there’s quite a lot of overlap between all three garment types although functionally, each had a different purpose. Of course, to a woman of modest means, one garment could have fulfilled all functions so as with a lot of fashion history, there aren’t always absolutes. In future posts we hope to uncover more about this fascinating yet obscure aspect of late Nineteenth Century fashion.

Some More Redingote Style…

Redingote style turns up over and over again in late Nineteenth Century fashion and this was especially true during the Mid-Bustle/Natural Form Era. From roughly 1877 through 1883, the fashion silhouette moved away from the earlier bustled style to a more slender, cylindrical silhouette. One interesting example of this redingote style can found in this dress:

Day Dress c. 1875-1880; Norsk Folkemuseum NF.1935-0014)

What especially makes this dress interesting is that the redingote incorporates the low demi-train characteristic this period. Also, from the photos, it appears that the redingote gives the appearance of having been cut from one piece of fabric thus giving it a princess-line appearance (albeit incomplete). At the same time, while the basque bodice and under-skirt appears to be separate pieces, this still give a very princess line effect. Without actually examining the dress in person, it’s difficult to say for sure but from what we can tell, it appears the redingote and the bodice are attached and most likely the bodice is a faux bodice, just nothing more than two front pieces. Here’s a closer view of the bodice:

Also the dress designer is unknown to us, it appears that they cleverly combined a number of style elements together in a well-blended manner. This period in fashion never fails to amaze us and is always a source of inspiration. 🙂