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.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
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.)