Help on understanding 20\'s corsets. Been relatively new to vintage fashions and a fan of the 20's, I am not very clear with a few point about women wearing corsets in the 20's:- a:- Am I right in thinking that contrary to the corset adverts I have seen on the web. A corset was worn next to the body, with a slip and undies over the top?. b:- For dancing "flappers" did not wear corsets. In the daytime with dresses the same "flapper" would have worn a corset?. c:- 20's corsets were longer going down the thigh. Did this restrict moment like walking greatly, and how far down did a average on go?. Sorry to be such a pain their is not much writhen about 20's undergarments compared to Victorian or Edwardian ones apart for they did not wear many layers ! Thanks Paul.
Hi Paul The book that my friend Melanie and I plan on writing one of these days hopes to clarify the mystery and history of the corset but for now I can I can be of some help! a:- Am I right in thinking that contrary to the corset adverts I have seen on the web. A corset was worn next to the body, with a slip and undies over the top?. A corset was NEVER worn directly on the skin! In a time when most people handwashed things and detergents were not available or very expensive, it was in a woman's best intereste to keep her clothes as clean as long as she could before washing them. While the long cotton heavy weight cotton chemises of the Victorian and Edwardian eras were no longer worn during the 1920's (except by older women who had grown up with them in the 19th century), all women wore some sort of camisole, chemise or chemise/pantie garment underneath their corset (most of the time made from silk, "art silk" or a lightweight cotton) to prevent chafing (and rope burn from the laces which I can safely say, is VERY painful!) and to prevent sweat and body oils from dirtying up the inside of the corset. The 1920's is a transistional time when it comes to underwear as alot of the old ideas of wearing petticoats and corset covers still held fast. What a woman wore OVER her corset depended on her age, beliefs and fashionableness (and the style of dress she was going to wear!). Older women still tended to wear shirtwaists and long sleeve and longish dresses so most likely they would have worn a 1910's style of corset cover and a petticoat over their corset. Younger women who wanted to wear lighter and shorter dresses, could have worn a light little camisole over their corset as a "cover" or for light bust support. It's hard to say descively with the 20's though as there were so many new styles of underwear being developed mixed with the previously century's ideas that a mix was worn by the population BUT there was ALWAYS something worn under the corset. b:- For dancing "flappers" did not wear corsets. In the daytime with dresses the same "flapper" would have worn a corset?. Again, it depended on the age, fashionableness and weight of the wearer. Dancing corsets were made and I have an example of one here: <img src="http://www.corsetsandcrinolines.com/fsimages/corset/dancingcorset1.jpg"> The straight shape would have given the wearer the tubular straight boy shape but the elastic panels at the sides would have allowed the wearer the freedom to dance. Obviously very thin girls probably didn't a corset for for evening or day use (except maybe for some light support like a stocking suspender belt or light bandeau bra) but in an age where being thin was fashionable, any heavier girl would have HAD to have worn a corset even when dancing. Older women, even thin ones would have worn a corset for day and evening wear just because it was what they were used to. Suddenly leaving off a corset would have made them feel naked! c:- 20's corsets were longer going down the thigh. Did this restrict moment like walking greatly, and how far down did a average on go?. In the early 1920's corsets were generally the same shape, style and length as they were in the 1910's. Again, not to repeat myself, but it was the same with corsets during this transistional era, many different styles were being worn before the late 20's familiar shorter "girdle" length ones (like the kind worn from the 30's to the 60's) seem to have become the average. I have seen long 1910's length ones worn in the first half of the 20's and then at the same time, seen shorter hip length styles like my cluny lace corset made in 1922: <a href="http://www.antiquecorsetgallery.com/article.php?article=19">Cluny Lace Corset</a> You still had the ladies who were used to the straight front longline corsets of the late Edwardian period want those styles and had the young things want less support so there was a healthy mix of old and new styles available. I've worn long line corsets and I don't find they restrict movement very much. Infact, I don't think they support the figure enough! Lei
Hi Lei Thank you for all the time you spent writing the reply, you have cleared up a lot for me, I have a 20's sheer silk black beaded dress dating from around 1925 to 27 and did not know what was worn under it, because been so sheer something had to have been worn, also it's large for the age so it would more than likely the original wearer would not have been a "Young Bright thing " but she was following the trends I guess in her late 20's or early 30 for age and well off by the amount of bead work. Any how my knowledge has increase a lot now Many thanks Paul.
I learned a lot too I have a 20's sheer silk black beaded dress dating from around 1925 to 27 and did not know what was worn under it, because been so sheer something had to have been worn, If its extremely sheer, there would be an underdress to go with it over the undergarments. You see it a lot in the 1930s as well. also it's large for the age so it would more than likely the original wearer would not have been a "Young Bright thing " What is the bust measurement? And it was probably not meant to be worn skin tight either. There were larger sized women in the 20s just like today. And Lei can tell you how she has found plenty of "tall size" edwardian and victorian dresses. Just like any era there is an "ideal" that is pushed,depicted, and accepted. We think of them a certain way because of the films, and magazines that have survived from the era and what the folks of the time chose to depict. But when you look through a family's old photos from the same time, they tell a different story sometimes.
You are possabully right I am not 100% or even 15% clued up on this sort of thing it's a 40" bust . If you put your hand inside can see the skin tone, not even on a bright day. Here is a photo of it it looks nicer than the photo , it's got the same beads on the front and back, and the skirt is as you say not tight fitted and also long when hung in front of me it's a half we down my calf. and I am 6ft.. In a way it's ashame that I have it and not been worn but saying that it might last a little longer that way. Paul.
Hi Paul Like Chris said, it would have had an underdress to wear with it for modesty and more than likely, a slip worn underneath that as well to stop it from clinging. It's common to see "larger " bust sizes in flapper dresses as things were less fitted and corsetry was less constricting as it had been in previous centuries. The bust was no longer pushed up and supported but a corset so in a sense, it was like women were letting it "all hang out". Although by our standards, they still wore a heck of alot more clothes than we do. But can you imagine how a woman must have felt back then? She would have grown up wearing a fully boned Victorian or Edwardina corset, a bust bodice, layers of underwear PLUS tightly fitted outer clothing. It must have felt weird suddenly wearing loose fitting fashions with less corsetry underneath! Must it felt like you weren't wearing anything. Actually your dress with a 40" bust would have been worn by a medium sized woman with a 36"- 38" bust. It wouldn't have been worn skin tight and the extra inches in the bust, waist and hip, would have allowed the dress to drape and flow nicely along the body. My bust is 41"- 42" but I fit into 1920's dresses with a 44"- 46" bust and I used to have a lace flapper dress with a 38" bust but that fit my 34" busted dress form perfectly. That's why you tend to see alot o 1920's flapper dresses with very large bust sizes to accommodate the body and still allow for flow. Your dress probably would have been worn about mid calf by someone about my height (5'9"). There is a big misconception out there that women of the past were short and petite and I used to think that too before I started collecting costume. After seeing the multitude of sizes things come in and studying period catalogs and seeing the range of sizes that clothing was made in, then that truly blue that idea out of the door for me. Lei
Hi Lei It's all starting to make sense now, I had not realised that a under dress would have been worn but I could not see without something how even in the 20's a lady could have worn it without loosing her modesty and until now i did not know what. The dress with all the glass beads is heavy and will make it flow very nicely as you say worn not too tightly, the skirt is also wide and hangs down nicely, It came from Castle Howard in North Yorkshire well about 80% certain. I had at the back of my mind to make a mannequin, now you also given me an idea of the measurement. I will have to find time to go ahead with that project . I have leared so much in a short time thank very much. Paul.
