Capricorna
 
Intermediate
GERMANY
Member since 12/5/03
Posts: 15 |
Login to reply to this post
Date: 7/6/12 12:24 PM Hey all,
I´m considering sewing Simplicity 9769 (not sure if linking to pattern is allowed here?)
But I´m wondering how you would wear both the chemise with the pants... The chemise is more than knee-length. How would one be able to wear such long a dress underneath the pants, as the pattern photo suggests?
Would they really have you gather the long dress into the pants upper part? Sounds both uncomfortable and rather puffy looking to me. Am I missing something here?
I´m really bummed here, but itching to sew both to go with a ready made corset.
Anyone out there who already sewed this or has any experience with underwear like this and how to properly wear it?
Thanks everyone for any help! |
SquishSews
Advanced Beginner
Member since 1/18/09
Posts: 322 |
Login to reply to this post
Date: 7/6/12 12:52 PM No idea; I would agree it looks uncomfortable but a lot of fashion is, to me anyway, regardless of era.
In the meantime, here's a link 9769 |
Elona
Advanced
CA USA
Member since 8/24/02
Posts: 7401 |
Login to reply to this post
In reply to Capricorna <<  1 member likes this.
Date: 7/6/12 10:04 PM But these were not intended to be worn as outer garments.
If you check out historical costumes, the chemise was the first layer next to your skin. It was nightwear and/or the first layer of daywear, depending on your income and social status. Back then, appearing in your chemise was as shocking to them as running around in public in a bra and panties used to be to us, but is no longer.
Here's how it was all put together. The article has the pantaloons going on first, and in that time period, perhaps it was so. But originally, the basic thing was the chemise for the simple reason that panties had not been invented.
When they did come along, they were--sensibly, given the hygiene of the times--crotchless. That's what makes this Fragonard painting scandalous: The lady is flashing her boyfriend (supposedly hidden in the bushes) while her older husband is pushing the swing.
-- Edited on 7/6/12 10:05 PM -- |
Courtney Ostaff
Intermediate
WV USA
Member since 11/23/10
Posts: 624 |
Login to reply to this post
Date: 7/6/12 11:19 PM Heh! I had no idea that painting existed! |
mastdenman
Intermediate
CA USA
Member since 1/12/04
Posts: 5840 |
Login to reply to this post
Date: 7/7/12 0:03 AM I've seen that painting before, but had no idea . . ------
Marilyn
January 2009 to January 2010 81 yards out and 71yards in January 2010 to the present 106.7 yards out and 146.5 yards in. January 2011 to the present: 47 yards out and 69 yards in.
|
Capricorna
Intermediate
GERMANY
Member since 12/5/03
Posts: 15 |
Login to reply to this post
Date: 7/7/12 11:12 AM Thank you so much for the helpful link and your explanations! :)
I will wear the chemise and pants under the corset, as is intended, but in a non-public environment, so no one will be shocked - quite the contrary, I do hope... :D
Now wearing the chemise over the pants makes much more sense in terms of comfort. I´m not one to find the easiest solution myself, and I wanted to do it just right, so I thought the photo must be correct!
I knew the Fragonard painting-always wondered how the story would go on... Would her lover be hit by her lost shoe, revealing it all? :D |
The Dreamstress
Advanced
NEW ZEALAND
Member since 7/4/09
Posts: 28 |
Login to reply to this post
Date: 7/7/12 7:17 PM Yep, wear your chemise over your drawers - don't try to tuck it in.
Actually, in the era of the Fragonard painting they didn't wear any drawers - crotchless or otherwise. There are numerous examples of the merriment and court gossip that ensued when a lady fell off a horse or otherwise exposed herself. 
Still, despite all the clothes they wore, because drawers weren't the norm an occasional flashing didn't cause quite the sensation that it does now when a modern starlet goes out without knickers. We expect women to wear knickers - they didn't. |
unfinishedprojects
Advanced
AB CANADA
Member since 8/26/07
Posts: 522 |
Login to reply to this post
Date: 7/7/12 10:41 PM Crotchless drawers were apparently one of the reasons that the Can-can was considered so scandalous. |
|Login|Help]
Printable Version
