Help dating a morning dress

G

Grover Street Girl

Registered Guest
174E04E4-A203-4673-93D6-B91653B68ADF.jpeg
BDDC14DC-951D-4DAA-81D1-0249022895D4.jpeg
0A63600C-2447-4207-9967-0B75240DE02F.jpeg
94C0CAB8-E26A-46F6-A50E-DFA606B964BB.jpeg
A15A97A8-8BDA-4CFA-A8D5-ECF6282A62C3.jpeg
8F5A89C5-D5A5-4B38-82A7-6AEB165EBB4E.jpeg
BFEEFC45-2DE0-48F4-B3F9-52F897D27E02.jpeg
C9FC7143-FF1A-4EB9-94A6-004600861C89.jpeg
C6638707-2680-478E-97CF-2ABB9BA0C9EB.jpeg


I’ve spent hours going down a rabbit hole trying to find a gown similar to this. Lots of things close, but I’d like to get the date as close as possible. Blue print cotton (honeycomb effect with sprigs), bodice underlined in muslin.

No closures at all (used glass head pins?). Placket up the front, but only opens to the hipline. Shoulder and hem ruffle. Narrow pleats beside the placket start below the collar. High capped sleeves are curved, narrow at the wrist, ruffled edge. Standing collar. Shoulder ruffle continues to the back and is broken by a narrowly pleated Watteau back that falls freely. Godets added at hem for more fullness. Princess seaming in back only. Longer in back than in front. No belt was included. Machine stitching. Thanks to all of the experts out there!
 
I'm in the same boat as Marsha and Karin, not familiar with this era, unfortunately, but I'm sure some of our experts who are will be along for you. What a beauty!!
 
Lovely, just lovely.

I see earlier, 1830, ( Victorian era ) but every time I look again--there is a Regency influence--maybe I'm seeing things that simply aren't there.
 
With the puff at the top of the sleeve in conjunction with the yoke ruffles, they are typical late 1890s features, I would say 1898ish. There is a Regency influence - that is, in part what they are reviving with these wrappers and without its belt (it would have come with one - sometimes they were attached to the back, sometimes not, it appears to have a high bustline because the dress flows without cinching. It would look like these, with a belt:
th.jpeg
 
Jonathan said:
With the puff at the top of the sleeve in conjunction with the yoke ruffles, they are typical late 1890s features, I would say 1898ish. There is a Regency influence - that is, in part what they are reviving with these wrappers and without its belt (it would have come with one - sometimes they were attached to the back, sometimes not, it appears to have a high bustline because the dress flows without cinching. It would look like these, with a belt:
View attachment 133736
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for the additional information, it’s incredibly helpful!
 
Jonathan said:
With the puff at the top of the sleeve in conjunction with the yoke ruffles, they are typical late 1890s features, I would say 1898ish. There is a Regency influence - that is, in part what they are reviving with these wrappers and without its belt (it would have come with one - sometimes they were attached to the back, sometimes not, it appears to have a high bustline because the dress flows without cinching. It would look like these, with a belt:
View attachment 133736
Click to expand...
Hi,

I don't think it is that late and I'm not sure it would have had a belt.

Yes 1890 s revival but that date, late 1890s, revival, dress would have had a harshness it doesn't have.

And the cloth, the appearance of lightness, delicate, I do think it is earlier then late Victorian.

If not 1830s I can't see it being later then 1850s and I think that a little to late.
 
I've been giving this some thought and looking through my books... I concur with Jonathan, and would also say 1890s. This was a garment that would have been worn at home and that would not have been as structured as an actual dress.

Those sleeves and ruffles just don't look right for 1830s or the next couple of decades IMHO.
 
Midge said:
I've been giving this some thought and looking through my books... I concur with Jonathan, and would also say 1890s. This was a garment that would have been worn at home and that would not have been as structured as an actual dress.

Those sleeves and ruffles just don't look right for 1830s or the next couple of decades IMHO.
Click to expand...
Hi,

I agree, this dress was never made to be worn outside as a dress, more at home, I see indoors, veranda, breakfast.

Sleeves and ruffles don't look at odds.

But have to accept what Ruth said, 1830' machine stitched would be unusual.

But then I'm not convinced this dress was British made.
 
Machine lock stitching wasn't invented until 1846 and not used commercially until the late 1850s/60s. Chain stitching machines have been around since the 1830s and were used commercially until lock stitching displaced chain stitching for all sewing but ornamental. Wrappers were intended for at home and were worn for maternity, which is why the belt is optional, and often lost.
 
I am so appreciative of everyone sharing their knowledge, and their ideas. It really is so helpful.

I think that the clue about machine stitching is probably our best. A sewing machine for home use wasn’t readily available until 1889, based on info I found online. And it is seamstress (not factory) made.
Maybe the dress was a personal design, not fitting exactly in any category, but with all the desired details of the wearer.
Thanks again to all!
 
In my post above I mentioned 1900-1905, with my best guess 1902-1904. I can definitely see this being a few years earlier, with Jonathan pin pointing it to 1898. A couple of years earlier than Ifirst saw, but surely it fits 1898 to a "T".

Most definitely not 1830s. Even if it was hand sewn it is all wrong for that time period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top