CoCo Gala Plans

[theladyrebecca]

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. 

Comments

[fairegoddess.livejournal.com]

:O

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

I know, right?

[fairegoddess.livejournal.com]

Okay, so honestly, the more I look at it, the more I think she's holding a really fancy mantle or cloak, not her train. I don't see anything to suggest that it's attached to the waist at all - yes it's hiding most of the waist, but I'd expect to see at least a bit of something on the far right (her left). It has to be an overskirt if it is a train, but there's no sort of facing or balayeuse, which I would expect on something that was designed to drag on the ground. She's also holding her gloves, which suggests to me that the bundle is outerwear. Plus, those pleats(?) on the underside perhaps were meant to be seen in the turnback of an overgarment.

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

I was thinking it was one of those court-gown type trains, where it just sort of fastens to the gown, and then goes trailing down, like this one: http://inspiringdresses.tumblr.com/post/28052117086. Though you certainly do have a point about the balayeuse...

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

LOVE IT!!!

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.

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

Do you mean that the whole thing is lined silk taffeta, or just the train? I hadn't even thought about lining it (and of course, now even more dollar signs are flashing through my brain).

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...

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking the skirt may be. It's not fancy lining material; just a cotton. Period books say "book muslin," which may be similar to modern muslin... I'd want to verify. It's recommended to add body to thin silks.

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.)

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much for all your help! I'm going to have to look into bag-lining the skirt. I know I've read of skirts from various other eras being lined as well, but I've never done it. Do you line a lot of your skirts?

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!

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

I've actually never had to do it for any of mine. (I haven't made a court dress for this period, though!) It really isn't the norm for the galaxy of dresses at the time; wools and cottons don't need it, and it's pointless for sheers. It's mostly for silk gowns, and even then not for all of them. I also get the idea that it's a thrifty thing to do, because it will make a lighter & cheaper silk drape more like a better silk, and it will also protect the silk so it will last longer. Pretty sure none of those considerations affected Isabel. ;)

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/

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

And I just realized - I need to emphasize that stuff like lining the skirt is *totally optional*! I approached this like a super fun analysis project, hence my noodling about skirt linings and how to deal with a train, and what the fluffy white mystery stuff is. But that is MY approach, because (I flatter myself) I know a lot about these few years. But seriously? Who cares if your skirt hangs differently from the painting??

So please, please take all I'm saying as nothing more than presenting info and maybe assisting with brainstorming/problem solving. No pressure!! :D

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

I love the brainstorming! Especially because I know you know way more about this era than I do.

Though I have to admit - it's making me want to start working on this project now!

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

Aww, you're so kind! Please let me know if there's anything else I can help with. It makes me so happy to be helpful.

That is definitely the danger of brainstorming! :D

[lifeofglamour.livejournal.com]

Beautiful!

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

*drools* SO gorgeous! Another thought on the white trim under the pleated blue is that it might be fringe. No real idea though, just a thought. Also, I think what makes it look like a train is the way it loops back from behind her right arm. But yeah, you probably need at least 36 bazillion yards of things! ;p

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

Agreed - IMO, it definitely looks like it's attached to something in the vicinity of her waist.

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.

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

I had an un-hemmed organza flounce on my gala dress. Shed and frayed like CRAZY! I had to Fraycheck it. Silk tulle or net might be another (of course, more expensive) option that won't fray.

Another random thought is that it's swansdown or something like it, but that's also rather wintry.

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

Ooh, I like the silk tulle idea. I've never looked into it before, so if it's really expensive, it probably won't work. Silk organza is quite affordable, and I have plenty of fray check if all else fails.

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

I'll bet it really is silk tulle! But also I think it's about $100/yd. Gulp. (And also super flammable, for some strange reason.) I think organza will work. You can also cut it on the bias; it will not fray then. BUT it stretches and expands like crazy, so it can be a little exciting to work with. :p

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

Oh my gosh, silk tulle is that expensive?!? That's insane!

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

Oops, I lied! It's only $57/yd. :)

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.

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

Would the fine poly tulle look all wrong?

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

Whew... really not sure. Definitely not if it's blue/optic white; I can spot that *really* far away. It should match the lace, with a regular white, even slightly yellow. Silk lace, called "blonde" in the period, was very slightly off-white because it was the natural silk color. If the color was right, and it's delicate enough to gather the same way, I think it would work. Can you do a sample bit against a similar blue and take some pictures? Especially next to the lace you want to use, or a similar one? I think Samantha may have worked with silk net (I haven't) so she might be able to help with figuring it out.

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/

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

Ooh, I love that last pink one!

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.

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

Isn't it amazing?

Sounds like a plan!

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

Dharma Trading has a cotton net that is out of stock right now, that is MUCH cheaper. Not sure how fine it is though. Waiting for it to come back in stock because I also want to use it for a gown c. 1870.

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

Good to know! Let me know how that works out once you get it.

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

That probably won't be for a while. I have MANY projects in line before that one. :p But maybe you could get a sample? The dots per inch makes it seem like it'd be fairly fine.

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

This won't be for a while either (like, next year). I guess we'll have to see who will get there first!

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

I think that net has bigger holes than the English bobbinette. It does work for things where the large holes aren't a drawback.

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

You're probably right. I looked into it. The Dharma net has holes that are about 14 per inch. English cotton net seems to come in 10, 14, 18, and 24 holes per inch, so less fine than the nicer ones for sure. Isabel probably had the super fine stuff! ;p

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

Holes per inch - brilliant!

No question about that! And in silk, natch! No cotton for THAT lady, I'm sure. ;)

[starlightmasque.livejournal.com]

It's absolutely gorgeous and would look dreamy on you!

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I hope so!

[helenwinfield.livejournal.com]

Looks gorgeous!

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

I found some info on the elliptical hoop/train question! Stumbled on it purely by accident. This is from Peterson's Magazine, June 1863:

"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!)

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

I know I've seen a bustle pattern with the hoops flaring out flat on the bottom. I didn't realize they did that with elliptical hoops, too. In fact, I didn't even realize they had started with elliptical hoops in 1863. I'll have to go search and see if I can find any extants like this.

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

As the magazine states, it's definitely a VERY high fashion and Paris-only thing. It wasn't adopted in England and the U.S. until about mid-1864.

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.

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

Ooh, I forgot I had just seen this in the previous month. May 1863, Peterson's. Link to the whole year: https://books.google.com/books?id=mY5FAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

"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.

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I don't think a plain petticoat had ever crossed my mind! The elliptical one I have has a ruffle at the bottom, as does my cage. It's interesting that they note that the ruffles are actually pleated. Doesn't that make it not a ruffle? I guess our terminology has changed a bit. :)

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

I think it has! And I'm not sure I've ever seen the term "pleat" anyway, or if so, it's only for a specific type. "Plait" is usually used instead. And then "fluting," which is definitely specific. Really, it makes sense - there are so many ways to do and describe pleats, different terms would be helpful!

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.

[theladyrebecca.livejournal.com]

Ooh, that one sounds perfect!