1860s cotton dress

[mala_14]

A question for those in the know: what separates later 1860s cotton print dresses from earlier ones? With the 150th birthday of Canada coming up, my living history group is delving into the 1860s. The exact year is 1867.

I've seen a lot of pictures of ones that look, to my eye anyways, decidedly early 1860s/Civil War era, but nothing that is definitively the latter part of the decade. Most seem to feature gathered (as opposed to darted) bodices and gathered or gauged skirts. I assume that earlier dresses have bigger sleeves (bishop sleeves or coat sleeves that are wider around the elbow) and have skirts that are fuller in the front with gathers, while later dresses would have the narrower sleeves and flatter fronts (pleats or flat) that were in fashion. But all this is somewhat conjectured. Any one have facts?

(Mourning Dress ca.1867 from the Met)

Comments

[jenthompson.livejournal.com]

Sounds right to me. It's hard to tell with the cotton print dresses. They don't show up very often in fashion plates, and it's hard to date the surviving ones to a specific year. But I think the skirt shape is the most important part. You can search the de Gracieuse archives for 1867 - sometimes they have more casual dresses there.

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

It's so true! Fancy, fashionable dress is so much easier to date. Thanks for the link!

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

It might be confusing because the Met dress is behind the times for 1867. The new shapes started appearing in the magazines midway through 1864, and that dress, which is lovely, doesn't really show any of them. Your analysis is pretty good.

You're good to stick with a gathered bodice, I think; it's safe, at least. What really sets aside later 1860s from earlier (and I can tell one that's the New Look almost immediately):

* Gored skirt (either slight to extreme, depending on the year), elliptical shape, set in wide box pleats (3" inches or more), with an extra-wide pleat centered in the front.
* Coat sleeves! Bishop sleeves were less typical, and open sleeves disappearing. Both were easy to cut down into coat sleeves to update an older gown; skirts could also be re-set.
* Short little standing collar. Atypical before c. 1864; typical by 1866.

There are also typical trim lines (like a big square; none of that upward curve, and vertical bits closer in to the neck). Any back emphasis, particularly those sashes (which wouldn't work for a cotton print). Actually, be a bit more careful with trimming a cotton; it still tended to be a workaday material, and usually untrimmed or self-trimmed.

Note that sheers have their own rules in the 1850s-60s. They're the wild card. :)

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

Thank you! That's super helpful. It's all those little details the really make the difference.

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

Sure thing! And I'd be happy to help with any specific questions you have later. :)

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

That would be awesome! Thank you! :) I was looking at your Pinterest boards for the 1860s and figured you had a pretty good handle on this stuff.

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

Hehe... I got into historical sewing via Civil War reenacting, 15+ years ago. So it's my "gateway" period, and the one I know the most about and keep up with the research. My specific knowledge ends about 1865, since everything past that is anachronistic for wartime; but a huge amount of stuff carries over. And what doesn't, I can figure out pretty quickly. :)

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

That's really cool. Getting involved in living history has really shown me, not only how much I have to learn, but also how much other people know. It's really great to connect with people who have so much knowledge to offer, like you! :)

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

Aww, wow! But yes, it's really neat to be able to learn from others, and also learn how they did their own research. ACW has some real benefits, because it's really a very short, precise period of time, and it's also well-documented in nearly all areas and socio-economic status. That's not an advantage that Rev War people have.

[ashamanja-babu.livejournal.com]

Fun! There are a lot of discussions about the darted vs pleated or gathered bodice and what was for cotton, what was for silk or wool, etc. and frankly I am no help to you there. No idea. But I agree with Jen about the skirt shape; for 1867-8 there is a transitional period with really flat-butt hoops, almost a straight cone shape, and skirts gored with smooth waists, as opposed to the rounded bell shape of 10 years earlier. As for sleeves I think the difference is that once you start creeping up toward the early bustle era you get the "coat" sleeve; wide all the way down, full ends or cuffs, but earlier the fulness was in the upper arm mostly and tapered to the wrist. Just look at as many fashion plates for your target year as you can find.

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

Fun for sure! Skirt definitely seems to be the most obvious difference. Thanks!

[isabelladangelo.livejournal.com]

The waistline starts to creep up in 1867. The skirts are flat across the front but you begin to the start of the bustle at this point with more width to the back of the dress. The pagoda sleeve finally died but that sleeves aren't necessarily less full - the Russian style had very drape-y sleeves.This one has a crazy design.

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

Higher waistline is a good point. Casual cotton dresses probably also follow that change. That is pretty crazy! Thanks!

[atherleisure.livejournal.com]

You can also check out Reconstruction Era Fashions, which covers late 1867 and 1868. While there probably aren't many suitable patterns in there, I seem to recall seeing some discussion of wash dresses in the text. It's all pulled from original issues of Harper's Bazar, which can be found without the pattern supplements here.

You'll probably be safe going with a gathered round waist, raised a bit above the natural waist and a gored, pleated skirt worn over an elliptical hoop and coat sleeves. Practically everything I've seen from this period has coat sleeves, the variation seems to be in the degree of fullness at the elbow.

[mala-14.livejournal.com]

That book is on my wishlist for sure. I would have taken it out of the library before this but it's checked out right now. Thanks for the link!

I think that's exactly what I'm going to do.

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

Yep, this. Very good guidelines.