Showing posts with label Romantic Corset. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romantic Corset. Show all posts

July 18, 2014

Stays Cording Tutorial


These stays are certainly the most complex cording project I've done, so I wanted to share how I've been going about it!  First off, I'm using a totally different cording method than the ones shown in my Making a Corded Petticoat post.  In both methods shown in that tutorial, the cord was put in place first and its channel was sewn around it.  Those methods work just fine for a corded petticoat, but won't work very well for these stays.  Instead, I'm sewing channels into the fabric first, then inserting the cording afterwards.  As a reminder, this is the pattern I'm working with:



Fabric Prep

Since the criss-cross cording is the most difficult part of these stays, that's what we'll focus on.  Each of the squares that make up the criss-cross pattern are only 0.25" wide, so they're very small and difficult to sew accurately.  The space between each square forms the channel that the cord threads through.  I'm using a green shot cotton as the pretty outer fashion layer of the stays, with two layers of thin but tightly woven white cotton as the strength layers.  My stitches will go through all three layers of fabric, but the cording will be run between the two white layers of cotton.

The first challenge was figuring out how to mark the stitching guidelines on the fabric.  I could have made all the markings on the back of each piece, but I find that the top side of my stitching often looks a bit more precise than the back, so I needed a way to mark the green fabric so that I could stitch accurately, but not have the markings visible later.

Squares marked with water soluble pen, with a penny for scale.

At first I tried using a water soluble fabric marker that had a relatively fine tip.  It showed up very well on the fabric, but since it is a marker and the fabric wicked the ink out a bit, the line it left was fairly thick.  The thicker line made it very hard to see where exactly to stitch.  Some of my test squares were more parallelogram than square, and the width of the squares varied between 5/16" and 3/16" wide.  It may seem like I'm being overly picky, but that is a difference of 1/8", which means I was off in some areas by the width of half of a square!  When working at such a small scale, even a little bit of deviation becomes extremely obvious.

Wibbly wobbly stitching due to wide fabric marker guidelines.

I considered using a fine mechanical pencil to draw more precise, accurate lines, but there were two potential issues.  One, I was worried it wouldn't wash off well, leaving me with pencil lines all over my stays.  Two, it's actually pretty hard to draw an accurate line on this fabric with a mechanical pencil, as the pressure of the lead warps and distorts the fabric as you're trying to draw.

Can't draw a straight line b/c the pressure of the lead warps the fabric.

Luckily, I was able to solve both issues at once with my favorite secret weapon:

Mah super-sekrit weapon.  Shh, don't tell!

Starch has saved my butt on many a sewing project.  Here, it serves two purposes.  First, it stiffens the fabric so that it is almost paper-like, so now I can easily draw on it using the mechanical pencil without the fabric distorting.  Now I can get perfectly straight, thin, highly accurate stitching lines!

With starched fabric, no distortion!

Comparison of marker lines vs mechanical pencil lines.

Second, thanks to Lifeofglamour's various experiments with tinting starch for use on ruffs, I know that very often, pigments and dirt that are mixed in with or sitting on top of starch wash out without staining the fabric.  When I tested this theory on my fabric, washing the starch out washed the pencil marks down the drain too!  You can buy spray on starch or the liquid kind you dip your fabric into from the store, but thanks to Frolicking Frocks (dude, check out those petticoats!) I'm a convert to making my own out of cornstarch. 


My test stitching proves much more straight and accurate with the pencil
guidelines, and after washing all evidence of the pencil lead is gone!

Now that I've got that settled, the last step before stitching is to use a lightbox to trace my design onto the fabric.


Stitching

My original plan was to hand-stitch the stays, but I came to my senses after attempting a sample.  I tried using my modern sewing machine, but it's very hard to stitch a line precisely 0.25" and stop in exactly the right place using the pedal control, so I pulled out the little Singer 99 hand crank machine I refurbished a few years ago instead.

Remember this one?  Isn't she pretty?

With a hand crank, it's really easy to stop right at the exact number of stitches you want.  A lot of fiddling and several tests later, I settled on a stitch length calibrated to precisely 1/16 of an inch, giving me squares that were 4 stitches wide on each side.  Getting the correct stitch size is no mean feat on these old machines, since you set the length by screwing an unlabeled knob in or out as needed.

That knob is the stitch length regulator.  Notice the distinct
lack of numbers or any useful markings of any sort?

Now that I've got the length set, sewing each square is now as easy as starting the needle in the right place, sewing 4 stitches, sinking the needle on the 4th stitch, raising the presser foot, turning the fabric, putting the foot down again, sewing 4 more stitches, etc, all the way around the square.


This leaves a bunch of thread tails all over the place.  Of course I can't just trim them because the stitching would come out, so the loose threads are pulled to the back and tied off.  Since I'm a bit paranoid about the knots coming undone, I put a dot of Fray-Check on each to prevent unraveling.  Remember to test the Fray-Check on an inconspicuous spot first!  My layers are thin, and on the first few knots I used too much and it soaked through to the front.

Threads pulled to the back for tying.

At first I was tying the threads after each square, but it's more efficient to sew several squares, then flip to the back and start pulling through/tying off.  The problem with doing it that way is that those loose tails get in the way of stitching, and if you sew through the tail of a square a few rows down it's a mess to untangle.  Luckily, I'm owned by two exceedingly furry felines, and thus have a clothing de-furring brush that doubles as a way to clear all my loose threads off to one side with a single swipe.  Guess the fuzzbeasts are good for something.


There's something like 200 tiny squares on just ONE front panel, plus more on each side panel, so you can see why this has been taking me a while!

 Cording

After washing the starch out, drying, and pressing each piece, it's FINALLY time to stuff some cord in there.  I'm using the same Sugar n' Cream cotton cord that I used in my corded petticoat.  You'll want a cord of a width that fits fairly snugly in your channels, so choose accordingly, or stitch your channels to accommodate the cord you wish to use.


I'm using a thick, blunt needle with a wide eye.  Tapestry needles are perfect.  The eye should be large enough that the cord just fits through it, but not so big that the needle won't fit through your channels with the now doubled cord in tow.  I also have a pair needle nose pliers, because despite my best efforts, the eye of my needle still gets stuck in the fabric sometimes.



When I made my last pair of corded stays, I broke the only good needle I had and swapped to one that was nearly the same, only sharp instead of blunt.  It sorta worked, but the sharp tip kept shredding the fabric on both sides, and those scrapes later unraveled into larger holes, allowing the cord to poke out.  I wouldn't have minded if they were all on the inside, but most of them were on the pretty outside!  If all you can get is a sharp needle, grind the tip down.

Holes in channels caused by sharp needle shredding fabric.
Sadly, these are on the front, so they show when I wear it.

On the backside of the stays, I poke the needle through just one layer of fabric right at the start of a channel.  Since the needle is blunt, with some fabrics an awl is needed to start the hole.  It takes a bit of practice to get the tip to go through just one layer of fabric, but practice makes perfect, right? 

Using an awl to start the hole.

Threading the needle into the channel.

Once inside, the needle is pushed down the length of the channel, dragging the cord behind it.  It's tight, and I have to moosh (super technical term) and manipulate the fabric around the needle to move it along.  Sometimes the pliers are necessary to pull the needle through the channel too.

The eye is stuck at the entry to the channel, so I use pliers to help it along.

At the opposite end, I poke the tip of the needle back out through the back fabric and pull it out, taking care to not pull all the cording out with it!  The pliers are also super useful here, as the eye of the needle generally gets stuck on the way out.  All the pushing and pulling on the needle is pretty rough on my fingers; using the pliers instead solves that problem.  The downside is that I'm more likely to break a needle when pulling on it with the pliers.

It's easier on my fingers to just use the pliers to pull the needle out.

I don't trim the cord close to the fabric just yet; instead I cut it so there's about 1" still hanging out, then move on to the other channels.  The places where the cords cross are a bit tricky to get through, but it's doable.  Eventually I end up with a small forest of cord ends growing out of the back of the stays.

Well that's a right mess.

Once I've got a whole section done, I start trimming the stray tails.  I cut the cord pretty close to the fabric, but not right flush with it.  There are till some tiny tails hanging out.

Trimmed close, with just a little bit hanging out.

Then, without holding onto the cord, I tug on both ends of the channel, stretching the fabric slightly.  Most of the tails pop back into their holes and disappear.  A few are still sticking out a bit, but this is the inside of the garment, so I don't care overmuch.  

Gently stretching each channel.

There are still holes at the start and end of each channel, but again, it's the inside, and they close up a little with time anyways.

No more tails!
Wow, that got lengthy!  If any part of this tutorial isn't clear, let me know and I'll try to unmuddy it a bit.  If you've got a cool cording project you're working on, show us in the comments!  I've still got a few panels to go, so I'm off to the sewing table again for another late night. 

July 13, 2014

Stays Update


I'm still plugging away at the stays!  I've avoided posting updates on them so far, mostly because your feed would end up looking like this:

 Finished another 20 little squares.  Hooray!

 Finished another 5 little squares.  Dammit.

 Finished another 35 little squares.  Have a hand cramp.  Send tequila.

... and so on.

However, I've gotten several requests for a tutorial on how I'm cording these, so I wanted to let you know that I should have one up by midweek!  I've learned a lot of nifty tricks to make this process go smoother, so even if you're a cording pro you might learn a new thing or two. 

 
In the meantime, I've got another bagazillion little squares to stitch, so see you soon!

March 19, 2014

Beginning the Romantic Era Corset

Back to that Romantic Era corset, shall we?

Late 1820's stays from Corsets and Crinolines, page 76

The drawing above is of a late 1820's corset from Corsets & Crinolines.  Page 76 features a pattern taken from this corset in the collection of the Manchester Art Gallery (Accession Number: 1948.250).  All those crazy lines and patterns are cording, quilting or embroidery.  I've set my sanity aside long enough to convince myself to make this, or something quite like it.

The image provided by the Manchester Art Gallery is not the highest quality, and it's difficult to see the details.  Luckily, the V&A has a VERY similar corset.  So similar, in fact, that I thought the C&C pattern was taken from the V&A corset for a while!  A closer look reveals small differences, but overall the two are remarkably alike, right down to the vine embroidery in the curved waist sections and the scalloping in between the bust gussets.  I wonder if these were made by the same person?

Corset, ca. 1825 - 1835, V&A museum number T.57-1948
© Victoria and Albert Museum, London

I decided to use the pattern and design from the Manchester corset, fleshed out with details from the V&A corset.  I'm updating it to fit into the 1830s (though as we saw earlier, there's not a whole lot of differences between 20's and 30's corsets!) with a slightly more nipped in waist, and I'm making it strapless so that it can be worn under an off the shoulder ballgown.  I chose to swap the straight wooden bust for a split busk for ease of dressing.  It's not common on corsets of this era, but the split busk was invented in 1829 so it could have been in use in the 30's.  Keep in mind that for this project I'm not going for strict accuracy, though I do prefer to keep within the bounds of possibility. 

In switching out the type of busk, I wanted to maintain some of the super strong support in the front that would have been provided by the original straight one piece busk.  The most commonly available type of split busk today is fairly flexible and doesn't provide strong support, so I went looking for an alternative.

I can bend the lightweight white busk nearly in half with no effort at all,
but the heavy duty busk doesn't want to bend much, even under pressure.

I found an extra wide, heavy duty stainless steel busk at Sew Curvy.  Each side is 1 inch wide, for a whopping 2 inches across!  I'm confident that this super stiff busk will provide plenty of support. 

Scaling up the pattern proved to be pretty tricky.  At first I attempted a rough method that sometimes works, or at least gets you in the ballpark.  I scanned it into CorelDraw, then scaled it up proportionally until the total waist measurement of the pattern was 1/2 my desired waist (because, of course, the pattern is only half of the corset) and printed it out to see what it looked like.  The results were... comical.

Just... no.

Yup, that's the bottom of the corset hitting well below my crotch.  It's practically a minidress.  So much for that method.

What followed was a lot of unscientific smooshing and mooshing of lines in CorelDraw until I felt it was more or less in my size, then mocking it up.  I was able to Hulk out of the first mockup simply by flexing my abs (seriously, it burst at multiple seams and fabric went a-flying everywhere), so it was back to the drawing board to add more around the upper chest and hips.  After I got the fit right, the pattern pieces were proportioned very differently from the original, so it was a challenge to redesign the cording and embroidery to fit in the new shapes.

The redesigned front piece.  I used multiple colors to
help me quickly differentiate between lines indicating
boning, cording, embroidery, seams and cut lines.

It's quite a bit shorter overall, and obviously a lot wider.  I think it will end up looking like a slightly strange hybrid of late Regency and early Victorian, which is pretty much what I'm going for.  Now I just have to actually sew all of it...

March 14, 2014

Cording Sample

Just to show that I haven't completely been derailed from that Romantic Era corset we talked about in January...

Cording test stitched on a hand crank Singer


This sample was just a tester to see if I was in way over my head, but the real deal is on it's way and will include detailed instructions on how to deal with all those crazy cording channels!

January 9, 2014

Romantic Era Corsets

Having been quite successful making my very first pair of Regency stays (remind me to show you more about those later) and with a Romantic Era dress looming on my schedule, I've decided to dive headfirst into making a 1830's corset, complete with hand-stitched cording channels.  Only one problem- I know little about this era of corsetry.  So, research!

Corset, ca. 1825 - 1835, V&A museum number T.57-1948
© Victoria and Albert Museum, London

In addition to combing through my various historical costuming books, I went on a pinning spree and loaded up my Romantic Era Research board with corsets.  Most are from about 1820 to 1840, with a few earlier and later ones thrown in to get a sense of how corsetry evolved over time.  The majority are from museum collections, but a few are from auction sites or private collections.  I expected to see some obvious changes between Regency, Romantic and Early Victorian periods, but to my surprise that wasn't the case!  With a few exceptions, it was actually pretty difficult to tell at a glance which was from which era. 

Corset, 1840s, Met Accession number C.I.42.74.12
© The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Challenge accepted!  To tease out any differences, I selected several features to compare between 50 extant corsets (well, 49 extant corsets and one fashion plate).  I looked at differences in busks, grommets, lacing, cording/boning, gussets and more.  You can view the spreadsheet I made with all 50 corsets here.

A note on dating-  While I organized the spreadsheet more or less by date, I'm not sure how much faith I put in the dates given for each corset.  Most of these are in museums and would hopefully be dated more accurately than ones hanging around in private collections.  However, I noticed that several were displayed inaccurately, using criss-cross lacing when the eyelet placement was obviously designed for spiral lacing.  Certainly, the person who dated the garment and the one who set it up to be photographed may not be one and the same, and dating undergarments can be difficult anyways, especially in an understaffed or underfunded museum.  Still, if they can't recognize something as simple as spiral lacing holes, I begin to wonder if they know enough about this type of corset to accurately say when it was made.  Anyways, mini-rant over, back to corsets!

First off- busks.  Having read in Corsets and Crinolines that the split busk was invented in 1829, I expected that women would have rapidly ditched the old solid busk-in-a-pocket design, especially as a split busk makes getting in and out of a corset by yourself much easier.  Turns out, NOPE.  Even the corsets dated to the late 1840s sported a solid busk, or none at all.  The one and only example I found was in a fashion plate, dated around 1830.  I don't know if women were slow to adopt the new design, or if they wore them eagerly, but for some reason few early split busk corsets seem to be around.  It's possible surviving corsets of this type are mistakenly dated to the 50s and 60s.  Or perhaps thrifty Romatic Era women salvaged their still usable split busks from their worn out corsets to use in newer, more fashionable ones?  I've certainly done that before!

After the surprise persistence of the solid busk over the split busk, I was curious how another Romantic Era invention fared.  Metal eyelets/grommets were invented in 1827 (Corsets and Crinolines again), and were a big improvement over handsewn eyelet holes.  Stronger eyelets made it easier to lace a corset tighter without ripping it; very useful as fashion moved towards a lower, more defined waist.

I was happy to find several corsets in the 30s and later that sported metal eyelets.  I was quite surprised though to discover that ivory or bone eyelets were used prior to the invention of metal ones!  I'm still trying to wrap my head around how you would set a bone eyelet into a piece of fabric, since my only experience is with the metal ones that you pound into place.  However, not all of the bone/ivory eyelets were set into the corset as you might expect; some were sew onto the edge like rings.  See examples of both set eyelets and sewn on rings on the corsets below-

Bone or ivory eyelet set into fabric.
Corset ca. 1820-40, sold by VintageTextile.  Original link no longer exists.
Bone or ivory ring sewn onto back edge.
Corset ca 1810–20, Met Accession Number- 1970.106.5
© The Metropolitan Museum of Art


I could only tell what type of eyelet was used in 30 of the corsets, since many of the photos didn't show a back view or were too small to be able to see clearly.  Of the identifiable ones, 8 corsets sported hand-sewn eyelets, 16 used ivory or bone eyelets, and 6 had metal ones.  Of course, the metal eyelets only begin to appear in the corsets dated after 1927, but the other two types continued to be used during that time period as well.  I think it's safe to say I can use metal eyelets for my corset :)

Next I looked at how the eyelets were placed in order to tell if the corset was meant to be laced spiral fashion or criss-cross.  If you're new to spiral lacing, check out Festive Attyre's excellent post on the supject; pay close attention to how the holes are offset from each other.  As previously mentioned, several times I had to ignore the way the corset was laced in the photo; always look at the eyelet placement for the truth!  I've always associated spiral lacing with the 18th century and criss-cross with the 19th, but to my surprise I found both in equal measure.  Of the 35 corsets that had photos of the back, 16 were spiral, 16 were criss-cross, and one was fan laced.  Both types were evenly distributed across the whole timeline, so either would be appropriate for my corset.

 I had quite the time tweaking the gussets on my Regency corset to provide the appropriate...er... lift, so I was really curious to see how gussets changed across the decades.  Turns out, I wasn't really able to nail down anything specific.  Most of the 50 had at least two bust gussets per side, though there were examples of 0, 1 or 3 per side as well.  The length of the bust gussets ranged from fairly short, to down to the waist, with both early and late corsets sporting both extremes.  Hip gussets were less common than bust gussets, with a fairly even distribution of 0, 1 or 2 per side throughout the represented time periods. 

Corset ca 1830–35, Met Accession #- 2009.300.3031a–d
© The Metropolitan Museum of Art

I did notice a slight progression of corsets getting curvier as time went on, though since many of the examples are photographed flat or on poorly sized mannequins it can be hard to compare properly.  Regency fashion hid the natural waistline, so there wasn't really a need to have a small, defined waist.  As the fashionable waistline started to drop and the waist started to come back into focus, corsets needed to be able to nip things in around the middle a bit.  Those metal eyelets I mentioned earlier helped, as they allowed the corset to be laced tighter and take more strain.  Designing the corset to flare back out over the bust and hips made the waist look even smaller by comparison; thus, curvier corsets.  This trend toward curves is most apparent in the latter corsets, though of course there are examples of curvy corsets in earlier years and straight ones in later years, so it's not a hard and fast rule.

Now on to cording vs. boning.  Given the trend towards more shapely corsets with defined waists, I expected that latter corsets would use the firmer support of boning instead of cording.  Yet 30 of the 50 corsets used only cording, and those 30 are pretty evenly distributed between the early and late styles.  5 used only boning, but those too are scattered evenly across the timeline.  Of the remaining corsets, 11 used both cording and boning (though most of those had boning just along the back edge), 1 had none, and the rest lacked enough detail for me to tell either way.  Looks like I'm doing more lots more cording!

Last but not least, I looked at fabric and thread color.  I wasn't at all surprised to find that most all of these corsets were white or off-white, with the same color thread.  However, I did find 7 that were of colored fabric, and 9 that had contrast stitching (some boasting both).  Since I'm going to be investing a lot of time in this corset (hand-sewn cording channels!) I want it to be extra pretty.  I've decided to ditch the white and use colored fabric and contrast thread to show off all that work. 

Hey, you made it through this whole long-winded thing!  Here, have a photo as a reward-

Regency stays, doing their uplifting work!

Next time I'll try not to bore you to death :P