CoCo Gala Plans
Aug. 21st, 2015 12:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Okay, I know this is ridiculous early, but I think I have found my 2017 CoCo Gala gown. It's a painting of Isabel de Borbon y Borbon, by Vincente Palmaroli, from 1866.

Isn't it gorgeous?! I'll definitely need at least one additional ruffly petticoat to go over my cage, because that is a huge skirt. And that's got to be a 5 ft train, at least. I may be insane. I think besides the lace and the pleated ribbon (or is it pleated silk?) there is trim made out of gathered white organza with white ribbon over the center. I believe there is tightly gathered white organza underneath the blue pleated ribbon as well? (Otherwise it's white fur, but this dress seems a bit too springy for that.) And it looks like each of the lace ruffles on the skirt have a ruffle of turquoise organza underneath. The bertha seems so gauzy, but I think that may just be the painting style, because I don't feel like I've seen a lot of chiffon on berthas of this period. (Please let me know if you have!)
Here's a close-up detail of the bodice:

I wish there was a picture/painting out there of her with the train down - she's hiding so many details! Of course, I think the real question is, how many bazillion yards of silk taffeta am I going to need for this dress? Good think I'm planning two years in advance!
Edit: Yikes, after the world's quickest estimation, I think I need 13+ yards of fabric for this gown. If it's 60" wide, I think I could get away with 11 yds. And that's not including if I make all the pleated trim out of the actual fabric.

Isn't it gorgeous?! I'll definitely need at least one additional ruffly petticoat to go over my cage, because that is a huge skirt. And that's got to be a 5 ft train, at least. I may be insane. I think besides the lace and the pleated ribbon (or is it pleated silk?) there is trim made out of gathered white organza with white ribbon over the center. I believe there is tightly gathered white organza underneath the blue pleated ribbon as well? (Otherwise it's white fur, but this dress seems a bit too springy for that.) And it looks like each of the lace ruffles on the skirt have a ruffle of turquoise organza underneath. The bertha seems so gauzy, but I think that may just be the painting style, because I don't feel like I've seen a lot of chiffon on berthas of this period. (Please let me know if you have!)
Here's a close-up detail of the bodice:

I wish there was a picture/painting out there of her with the train down - she's hiding so many details! Of course, I think the real question is, how many bazillion yards of silk taffeta am I going to need for this dress? Good think I'm planning two years in advance!
Edit: Yikes, after the world's quickest estimation, I think I need 13+ yards of fabric for this gown. If it's 60" wide, I think I could get away with 11 yds. And that's not including if I make all the pleated trim out of the actual fabric.
no subject
Date: 2015-08-21 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-21 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-21 09:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-21 09:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-21 09:09 pm (UTC)I'm thinking that that is lined silk. It's not painted like satin, but with the weight of the trim it's either a heavy taffeta or faille, or fully lined to give it more body. Particularly those deep folds in the front.
I wouldn't do a ruffly petticoat; there's so few of them (and they're HIDEOUS to wash, starch, and iron), so the bouffy look is another way. I'd be tempted to try a trained petticoat, possibly of pimatex, and maybe with a single flounce of that super-super stiff cheap organdy. Under that, just a fully-starched pimatex petticoat. The hoop needs to give the shape; petticoats are only necessary to soften the outline. And with heavier fabric or a lined skirt, there's less softening necessary from the petticoats.
no subject
Date: 2015-08-21 09:16 pm (UTC)I don't think I've seen a trained petticoat to know what it looks like. Do you have an examples? And I had no idea the ruffly ones were uncommon! The one I have now is just cotton (it might even be just muslin, I can't remember), and it is in the shape of the 1860s skirts and has one deep ruffle around the hem. If I remember correctly, I need to shorten it though. I know it kept wanting to show underneath my candy bustle - I can't remember if it was doing that under my ballgown, too...
no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 04:21 am (UTC)I know! The ruffly cotton petticoat is really established among costumers, but someone mentioned it on the Sewing Academy a few years ago and it was like an AHA moment: I don't remember ever seeing an example. Maybe pre-hoop... but even then, those were true crinoline and didn't need washing, starching, and ironing.
I'm honestly not sure of a trained petticoat, now that I think of it. Gowns with true trains in the 1860s were quite rare; the only ones I recall are nobility/court wear. For all other long gowns (like trailing for a few inches), a deep hem facing would be sufficient to protect the gown.
For this one... Now that I think about it, I wouldn't bother with a trained petticoat. The skirt lining is enough to protect the skirt fabric. If the lining is white, an extra deep or shaped facing in the train area in a similar fabric means it won't show weird when carried.
Sorry, didn't mean to make it complicated! :D Mostly I didn't want you to spend a lot of material and effort making a flounced petticoat. And lining the skirt is pretty simple; IIRC it's basically a bag-lined skirt. I can look up the instructions on the Sewing Academy if it would be helpful.
ETA: Haha, I should have looked more closely at the portrait! I agree, I think that train is a separate piece that attaches at the back waist. Not only do you have the blue and orange example, but it's close to what was going in in 1866 normal fashion. The little add-on poufy overskirts that hinted at the bustle.
And in that case, it may or may not still be lined. Most taffetas I've worked with tend to collapse when held over the arm; lining the separate train piece with a similar color would probably help that, though.
Annnd then for petticoats, you may be just fine with what you have plus a lined skirt! (Sooooo sorry to be a confused mess. I'm sleep deprived, honest.)
no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 05:09 am (UTC)I think as far as lining the train goes, it may come down to budget. Because it does look like the reverse of her train is also the blue taffeta, but I estimated that train to be about 9 ft long from waist to hem, and that's already a lot of fabric!
no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 05:46 am (UTC)That IS a lot of fabric! I didn't line the long skirt train on my 1690s court dress, although the portrait showed that it was lined in a lighter pink silk. It worked okay, though it wouldn't have been so limp when I picked it up. Maybe you can use a cheaper silk? The stuff from Bangkok Thai Silk is truly silk, very lightweight but also halfway crisp; like I imagine washed taffeta would be.
http://www.bangkokthaisilk.com/100-auth-silk/
no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 06:13 am (UTC)So please, please take all I'm saying as nothing more than presenting info and maybe assisting with brainstorming/problem solving. No pressure!! :D
no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 07:15 am (UTC)Though I have to admit - it's making me want to start working on this project now!
no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 12:09 pm (UTC)That is definitely the danger of brainstorming! :D
no subject
Date: 2015-08-21 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-21 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-21 10:42 pm (UTC)Hmm, fringe sounds messy. Then again, so does organza... Though it does look a bit messy, so maybe un-hemmed organza? If this was just a little more wintry, fur would probably look amazing. But it seems like too out of keeping with the rest of the dress.
no subject
Date: 2015-08-21 11:56 pm (UTC)Another random thought is that it's swansdown or something like it, but that's also rather wintry.
no subject
Date: 2015-08-21 11:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 04:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 05:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 05:37 am (UTC)http://www.fabrics.net/Silk-Tulle-s/151.htm
Cotton net is about $30/yd; it's nice stuff, and definitely has its use for a tucker, but I don't think it's light enough to give the look you need for the trim application - both dense and light.
no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 05:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 06:08 am (UTC)Silk lace, looks like on a net foundation:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/228135537349318473/
Not very clear, but the fluffy sleeves are identified as silk net:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/228135537345769329/
This one shows what I mean about how the skirt is hanging. This is very, very expensive moire satin, and it falls in heavy-looking folds. Bonus - detail shots of the gorgeous silk lace, and the berthe which should also be silk net.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/228135537345553695/
no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 07:17 am (UTC)I will almost definitely be purchasing lace with a net base, but I'm sure it will be a poly base, because money. I'll probably buy the lace before the tulle, so I can match it, and if all else fails, I'll do what you said with the bias-cut organza, dyed to the right color if necessary.
no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 12:08 pm (UTC)Sounds like a plan!
no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 07:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 08:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 08:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 08:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 11:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-23 05:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-24 03:47 pm (UTC)No question about that! And in silk, natch! No cotton for THAT lady, I'm sure. ;)
no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 03:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 03:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-22 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-09-02 04:44 pm (UTC)"The change in the shape of Crinoline is daily more apparent in Paris, but in London there is no difference as yet visible. In the former city, crinolines and steel petticoats of all descriptions are made flat and clinging from the waist to the knee, and from the knee downward they expand until they attain round the bottom larger and wider dimensions than formerly. For out-door wear these crinolines are made to reach only to the top of the boots at the back, as dresses still continue to be drawn up; but for evening and in-door wear they are made much longer at the back, and are cut with a train or fan-like expansion, as dresses with trains fall more gracefully over petticoats which are cut in some measure, although in a lesser degree, in the same shape."
I'll keep an eye out for more info. (I'm actually searching for outerwear tidbits!)
no subject
Date: 2015-09-02 05:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-09-02 07:40 pm (UTC)I think I may have seen one... but I also may be conflating that with the later bustle image! Let me know what you see.
no subject
Date: 2015-09-02 04:47 pm (UTC)"Petticoats are now trimmed almost as much as dresses at the bottom. They are usually ruffled, and the ruffles fluted. Crinoline and steel hoops are also frequently ruffled, or at least have all the lower hoops covered with a piece of muslin, as this prevents the shape of the steel showing."
I take that to mean that petticoats have deep/elaborate hem trimming. "Fluted" I think means small-ish (1") spaced box pleats. Interesting about the hoops, too. Not many reenactors or costumers do that to the hem of their hoops, but it's smart.
no subject
Date: 2015-09-02 05:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-09-02 07:43 pm (UTC)I've found one more paragraph in 1863 that describes what you need very clearly:
August 1863.
New Petticoat.--In London a new petticoat, christened "The Princess of Wales' Petticoat," has lately been introduced, and is found to be an almost perfect invention for wearing under a dress which is made with a train. It is plain in front, like an apron; a flounce, which commences at the sides, is fulled on round the back; and a second flounce, quite at the edge, forms a train and holds out the dress. It is impossible, under thin dresses, to wear anything better than this most excellent contrivance. Many ladies, in Philadelphia and New York, have already adopted it.
no subject
Date: 2015-09-02 07:46 pm (UTC)