Your Bum Needs a Bumpad

(The 18/19c Bumpad)

While planning for my quick and dirty Dickens costume, I piled “petticoats” onto my dummy, attempting to achieve some sort of vague fullness. I quickly realized that my sadly narrow skirts just weren’t going to cut it. I also couldn’t find my oddly stiff 360++ degree original faire skirt that I was considering starching into service. I tried cheating by adding a mid-length 50s tulle underskirt. That did add some volume, except the shape deflated from waist to hip and below the knee. Clearly I needed more volume! And in the right shape. This was an era of maximum fullness in skirts. I’m not portraying an upper class lady, but I reason that even most working women would aspire toward fashionable fullness when they go out on the town, to High Tea and whatnot.

Two petticoats, cheater tulle and a faire skirt standing in for the yet-to-be-made top skirt. What sad shape with fullness only in the middle third.

I researched the easiest way to get volume under my 1860 skirt and came across the American Duchess post about her unconventional underpinnings. I too find myself a bit lazy when it comes to underpinnings, impatient if you will. Her comments about always using a Bumpad and the “Ugly Puffer” seemed like an excellent place to start. I thought I’d make the bumpad, use the tulle, and add a 14″ flounce to the bottom of a tiered petticoat, for extra fullness (meaning I needed about 7y x 15″). The Ugly Puffer wouldn’t be necessary, surely?

I first tackled the Bumpad. Using the three section idea from American Duchess and the shape of one on the Laughing Moon #112 Bustles and Hoops pattern, but making it like 8 sizes bigger, I got to work. My materials were a remnant of white dotted cotton, some grograin ribbon, stuffing and a zipper, all from my stash. I didn’t know how much to stuff the bumpad, so I decided the best plan was to make it changeable. Hence the zip.

Only being a two piece item, the Bumpad came together easily. I hadn’t done a zip in ages and managed to leave the top and bottom bits a little outside the seam. Meh. Only I’ll see (#lazysewing). Once stitched together and tried on, I made some stuffing adjustments, took the stuffing out, stitched the seams for the sections and restuffed it. Accomplishment! (Sometimes it’s the little things).

The waist could have been more curved. I hadn’t stitched the sections yet in this pic.

Dummy is now wearing my late Victorian waist cincher (Laughing Moon pattern) and the Bumpad. I don’t have a full corset and am not making one this go-round.

The more full petticoat, Bumpad and stand-in top skirt. Not bad, but a little butt-focused and deflated at the front and sides.

Under the petticoat it did make a big difference, but it was bustle-like and the petticoats still lacked the right fullness. The tulle was already out because it didn’t fit over the bumpad. I’d been hunting up enough fabric for that huge flounce and was unhappy with my options. Perhaps I could skip that extra flounce and make my own Ugly Puffer… By making one more thing I’d have one less thing to make??? What was I getting myself into?

Next time: Bonus pocket

Later: Son of Ugly Puffer!

 

Elizabethan Corset Comparison with Victorian Waist-Cincher

Corsets from different periods mold the body into very different shapes, which is why it’s important to wear the correct corset for the correct time period. My grandmother used to refer to undergarments as “foundations” and indeed, real corsets – the ones meant to change your shape – are exactly that. You can’t create the correct period effect with your costume without first having the right foundation.

More after the jump.

 

Bridal Corset Wrap-up with Bonus Gown

It’s nice to see a project like this finished and someone very happy with their custom garment. I’m quite pleased with the way it turned out. It is pretty, while being very sturdy. She’ll be able to get wear out of it for some time. We sized it so that it will still be wearable after some weight reduction.

Dress pics after the jump.

 

Historical Unmentionables

I’ve been enjoying Fashion Revealed’s Tumbler page of corsetry, hose, shifts, slips, early bras, bustles and hoopskirts from (mostly) various museum collections. You might too!

The above corset is a lovely silk number in the Met‘s collection.

 

15c Linen Bra Discovered in Austrian Castle – UPDATED

The Rogues have just returned from the annual SLO Renaissance Festival where bras were definitely not in fashion! We were trussed into our bodices (and in some cases also a corset) that were designed for maximum cleavage, not modern bra separation.

Corseting may have been the norm, but there were apparently exceptions. Anthony Castellano at ABC News writes:

“… four linen bras [were found] in an Austrian castle dating back to the 1400s, proving that women wore bras more than 600 years ago. It’s such a revolutionary find because fashion experts thought the modern-day bra was only about 100 years old after women became tired of tight corsets.”

 

First 1912 Pattern – #0336 Slip

(Early Century Combination from the FIDM Museum Blog – not the 1912 Slip!)

So the 1912 Project began and I was so excited. I couldn’t wait for my first pattern. But there was much admin and organizational work to do and I had to be patient. Eventually (about 2 weeks ago) I finally got a pattern. Not the Group 24 pattern, but the Feb Challenge Pattern, a slip (#0336). I have to admit I was disappointed. I’d seen the available patterns and had my heart set on a beautiful coat. The slip seemed dull and like nothing I’d ever wear.

One of the first things I do when I see a pattern for a particular period is do a little research. So I asked myself a couple questions:

1. Since women in 1912 were still corseted, what would the slip dimensions be?
2. If I were to make the slip, did I have the proper foundation garments?
3. When did women start wearing slips in the first place? What happened to corset covers and petticoats?

 

A Victorian Chemise

Close up of a Victorian chemise under a waist cincher corset. Despite what “bodice ripper” romance novels may tell us, very little bodice ripping actually happened in Victorian times. Not through all those layers! A lady in say, pre-1856 (when the crinoline was invented), wore a minimum of a chemise, corset, corset cover, possibly 5 stiffened, flounced petticoats (infrequently washed and highly unsanitary), her dress or skirt and blouse and probably a coat or shawl because she was cold. Oh, and pantalettes, if she should choose (though it was considered vulgar to speak of a woman’s nether limbs, so don’t ask her). These were two separate legs tied at the waist, no crotch). Try ripping through all that bub.

A corset was never worn next to the skin. A woman would want to protect her investment in complicated and double sewn canvas (or preferable coutil – a tiny-weave herringbone, that didn’t stretch) and bones (first wood or whalebone, later spring steel). A chemise would protect the corset from her skin and her skin from the corset. To some extent. The chemise, depending on her station in life and her capability to fund a full wardrobe, might have been her nightgown as well.

Lest my tangent continues… This particular chemise is made of fine lawn. It is very full and gathers into a narrow neckline. It falls to the knee and is decorated with delicate lace at neck and armhole.

 

All images by The Rogues of Thread (bythebodkin.wordpress.com) and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, unless specifically attributed elsewhere.