Trouser Saturday

Cutting out makes me think of freeing mastodons from glaciers

If this is Saturday, I must be sewing trousers. I’ve managed overalls in a day from cutting out to made up, lacking only buttons and buttonholes, so I have hope for the trousers. It is true I am starting a new pattern, and so I am considering adapting the pattern I already use for breeches and overalls…. except that the style is 20 years out of date for where these are going. At least the first pair is for the kid, for whom oddly-fitted clothes are the norm now because of his size and personality, and would have been then, since he’s not the son of gentry.

He’s got shoes, though, and they fit! His feet stopped at size 12 in fall 2011, and the 12.5 Fugawee straight-lasted Ligonier shoes fit him over his winter socks. His feet are just too big not to put into better shoes–no one can help noticing them, and there are no gaiters to hide them under.

We’ll see how leather-soled shoes go. Expect slipping and falling.

Dining/sewing/library room with "assistant"
Dining/sewing/library room with “assistant”

My plan is to knock out the trousers today to the point of finishing work, and then finish the waistcoat tomorrow (it lacks only buttons and buttonholes). Having spent Tuesday on costume research scrutinizing seams, and blinking at buttonholes from 1788-1800, I feel better (and less self-conscious) about my sewing skills. They’re not as awful as I think they are, and the worst part of the tan waistcoat was the placement of the buttonholes, not their actual execution. Of course, the placement is the part I can’t fix…

On another note, on Tuesday I also looked at a number of ways to do pockets in breeches and jackets. Some were chamois lined, and then I wondered, how do we know what kind of leather the pockets are lined in? Aren’t they more likely to be deerskin than actual chamois? It doesn’t take long before you’re down the rabbit hole of historical wonderings.

Sandby’s Women

20130109-061710.jpgSara Hough’s date of ca. 1805 piqued my curiosity and Cassidy was suspicious, too. So I went looking into Paul Sandby a little bit more.

Many of us know him for the sketches and watercolors of working people in mid-18th century England. They’re oft-used references for people doing Rev War reenacting as they’re full of the kinds of details seen in the watercolor of Sara Hough. I hadn’t thought of Sandby for later 18th century references, which shows how little I was thinking.

Sandby: Figure with Lute & Tamourine, YCBA
Sandby: Figure with Lute & Tamourine, YCBA

Thanks to the 18th Century Material Culture Resource Center, I found the Sandby “People and Places” presentation, which led me back to the Yale Center for British Art, and this image of musicians, horses and women. There’s no date in the record, though the presentation calls it ca. 1785. There seems to be a series or portfolio of Sandby sketches similar in size and type from about 1785, so it’s a reasonable assumption…with the usual caveat about assumptions, but no aspersions on the compiler of the presentation.

Sandby, detail, YCBA
Sandby, detail, YCBA
Sandby: Two Women and a Basket, YCBA
Sandby: Two Women and a Basket, ca. 1759 YCBA

Let’s look at a detail of the women in the drawing. Their waists are higher than we see in earlier Sandby drawings, and their profile slimmer, more classical, particularly the figure on the far right. Her bodice looks to me like a late 18th-century bodices.

Sandby: A Fishmonger, YCBA
Sandby: A Fishmonger, ca. 1759 YCBA

Sandby had the skill to depict clothing with minimal gestures, as he does below in A Fishmonger, part of the London Cries series.

It’s that circa that gets you. I believe it for the ca. 1759, all the way. The figures fit into the visual continuum of Sandby’s mid-century work as I know it. (You’ll just have to trust me that I have a visual memory, and that, for once, the years of art school matter.)

And I kept wondering if he really had worked late into the 18th century, and then I found this:

Sandby: Family in Hyde Park, YCBA
Sandby: Family in Hyde Park, YCBA

Again, no date, but there are distinctive markers to tell us this is post-1780, even inching to the early 1790s. The waistcoats on the adolescent boys are shorter and double-breasted. The shape of the boy’s hats has changed: these aren’t cocked hats, and they’re not soft round hats. But look even closer and you’ll see the ties at the knees of their breeches, very typical and fashionable for the 1790s. All this before we’ve even gotten to the woman! Look at what she’s wearing: that’s certainly a plausible ensemble for 1794, isn’t it? The waist has moved up, the skirts are lighter, likely mull or muslin, and the skirt of what I interpret as an open robe, much like Sara Hough‘s, is trained on the ground. If this is a Sandby drawing, which I don’t doubt, then I think we definitely see him working into the mid-1790s.

And just for one final kick, I checked the Met again, where they have a Paul Sandby drawing dated 1798-1799. I wonder…but the coat collar and waistcoat might have it.

Sandby, Group of 4 Children and a Dog, MMA

I’m still not sold on ca. 1805 for Sara Hough (why no ‘h’ on Sara when the drawing is inscribed by Sandby, “Sarah Hough…”?) but I’d endorse 1795. The tricky part, as always, is the circa: so much depends on how a museum interprets ‘circa.’ For some, it’s 5 years either side of the date; for others, it’s 10. When I see a circa date, I get skeptical, and start doing math.

HSF #0: Waistcoat, Bloody Waistcoat

Challenge garment peers from jacket. Calm thyselves, fellow authenticity hounds. New buttons for jacket are on order.

(Actually, the jacket was bloody where I jabbed myself with the needle inserting the sleeve, but that’s fun for another day. And how you know your historical sewing project is complete. I bled for this, man.)

The Challenge: #0, Starting Simple

Fabric: Body: ¾ yard remnant from Wm Booth Draper WWB816 Broadcloth, light brown. Lining: Left over heavy-weight linen. Might also have come from Booth, I forget.

Pattern: Kannik’s Korner Man’s Waistcoats, 1790-1815

Year: Call it 1799. That’s the year where it will be worn.

Notions: 9 brass buttons from Wm Booth Draper

What monkey did those buttonholes?

How historically accurate is it? Well…the pattern has good documentation and the fabric is within reason for the period. The waistcoat is entirely hand-sewn, but the button holes were apparently accomplished by drunken crack-headed monkeys, which is what you get for trying to finish a garment on New Year’s Eve. I was neither drunk, nor on crack, and have no helper monkeys, but all the same…thank god for jackets to hide the sins of my buttonholes.

Best welt I ever made–aside from butting heads with a colleague once.

Hours to complete: Don’t ask. It’s a soul-robbing number. The buttons and buttonholes alone took 1 full and two half Abbot & Costello movies, and two “Monarchy” episodes. Probably 25 hours total (I started in November, but stopped sewing after December 2). Total time may include naps taken when I fell asleep while sewing.

First worn: To be worn by the new owner (Mr S) January 19, at the Winter Frolic.

Total cost: Blood, sweat, tears… sorry, wrong war. Buttonholes bring that out in me.

  • Fabric:  $13.50
  • Lining: Leftover, hence not factored in.
  • Buttons: Used 9, but bought 10 because I’m not as simple as I look, so $12.50
  • Pattern: Also from Wm Booth, $16.

That puts the cash outlay at $26 for materials, and $16 for pattern, which I will use again starting yesterday. Yes, sports fans, another bloody waistcoat to sew. Lucky for me, it’s red, so the blood won’t show. Checking the HSF schedule, I can see that the only 1813 garment I can make is another waistcoat (1790-1815, remember?) for the Young Mr, who needs a full set of clothes made by January 19. Waistcoat underway, pattern pieces assembled and two more pieces of broadcloth remnant order for a jacket, leaving trousers to wrestle with. At least I have fabric. 

It Isn’t History Till it Hurts

End of the day, Sunday
End of the day, Sunday

That’s approximately what the costumed interpreters say their leader says.

Let me affirm for you that history does, in fact, hurt, when you are doing it right. That is to say, you will be bodily tired. You will be hungry. You will be cold. Your judgment will be impaired. Your world will shrink.

I have so many thoughts/ideas/inspirations/observations after another weekend at the farm that I do not quite know where to begin.

Yesterday, I made 290 candlewicks and draped them, with some help, over 50 sticks. My colleague and I managed to dip each stick of 6 wicks 2 or 3 times, though I had to trim the wicks after the first or second dip so they would match the depth of the kettle. Today, we got there late (thanks to my broken stay laces which had to be replaced…once replacements were found…annoying) so the fire was not hot, the wood not gathered, the tallow not melted—oh, it was not what this control freak wanted. I wanted to both make dinner and dip candles.

Well, we did manage both, in a way. Dinner was more of a snack of boiled chicken and root vegetables, followed by a snack of squash custard tart, and the candle dipping was managed only sporadically once the tallow was melted. First it was too cold, then too hot: it was a day of details. At some point I realized I was so tired that I could no longer think about a simple thing, and that what got in my way was simple lack of fluency. If I did this every day, I wouldn’t need to think about it. But I don’t. So while I can do these unfamiliar tasks, they are just a bit harder when I am cold, hungry, tired, or hurting.

Hot tip: sheepskin insoles. In wool stockings yesterday, my feet were freezing cold in the kitchen when I was not near the fire. With sheepskin insoles, my feet were warm today. Your mileage may vary, but well worth a try.