Help with Maison Worth labelled gown

[Lily K.Chadwick]

Hi! I was wondering if perchance I could ask for some help on a recent purchase (hence the photos not being mine, but rather sent by the seller). A two-piece gown labelled Worth.
While the label/inner band seems to be well affixed, I was wondering if you could please help pinpoint what exactly (beyond appropriate undergarments) is missing from it/possible alterations (I confess to have been slightly blinded by the sequins).
It's in overall very good condition, however the back of the black silk band to the jacket may, I suspect, have gone missing?

 

[pastperfect2]

It's beautiful. And in lovely condition for net and sequins.

Is it possible there was a chiffon/tulle/ net layer over the plain cream front? Might have matched the undersleeves? I'm not saying there was, but it looks plain as is. If you don't see any telltale threads, then I wouldn't worry about it. Is there an opaque silk lining to the silk? Or is that an underskirt you show next to the main sequined skirt?

 

[Lily K.Chadwick]

Hi Hollis, and thanks ever so much for your reply!
I'll definitely have a look at the front area for signs of a missing tulle area. Regarding the skirt, the seller included the item to the left of the overskirt, believing (both decoration and dimensions suggested such) that it was the underskirt, along with an opaque black petticoat, pictured below. That said, I wonder if it might still be missing a layer of opaque light silk somewhere in there?

 

[Rue_de_la_Paix]

What a beautiful gown. Could you please show a close up of the label and a few inches around it? Is the name Worth woven into the band or has it been hand stamped? It appears as if ink stamped but hard to be sure without a close up. Also, do you know if the tag with the numbers is an inventory tag from a museum or similar from where this was purchased? If it is original to the gown it could be the production tag which would place the gown in the 1890s. It looks more 1900 ish to me but it is very hard to tell the shape without seeing it on a mannequin or person.

Nice that you have the under layers.

 

[claireshaeffer]

Barbara, I think the number is the Worth #. Did you use Anne Coleman's book for dating the #?

I don't think the blk silk was on the back. There's no evidence of stitching on the inside of the bodice. A photo of it on a dress form would help.

 

[Rue_de_la_Paix]

Thanks Claire! I wonder slightly about the label. I was thinking that perhaps it should be woven in ivory silk on ivory or gold silk on black. Have you, Claire, see a (stamped?) gray label like this on a Worth gown from this time period? I am far far from an authority on the subject but have not seen this one before. I have had a number of Worth gowns from this time period in my own collections but none had this style label.

I tried to blow it up so we can see the details, but an actual close up photo would be clearer.

 

[Lily K.Chadwick]

Thanks ever so much for your replies Barbara and Claire, I really appreciate them (will be making a donation to the VFG soon, having been so very grateful for the help you've all given me over the last couple of years)!
Regarding the label, while I'd thought it to be woven, I have come across confirmed Worth gowns (sold through reputable auction houses) with what is described as a printed petersham waistband. I've enclosed a closer shot of both mine and one sold at auction.
I'll definitely get a shot of it on an appropriately sized mannequin (or as close to as I can get my hands on) as soon as it arrives. I'm so looking forward to looking it over closer!
Also, I was wondering how comprehensive the extant Worth archives held at the V&A (or indeed elsewhere) are? Though it's a long shot, is it at all feasible to attempt to pinpoint an original owner? The gown did come from an estate with a similarly-sized (though sadly not acquired) Worth coat, which makes me think that the numbering would be original to the gown, rather than a museum addition.

Kindest regards,
Lily

 

[Rue_de_la_Paix]

Yes, if I look closer at the far ends on your label I can almost see part of the word "Paris" woven (not stamped) into the band which I did not notice before. I can see what looks like it could be "IS" on the left side of Worth and "P" on the right side. I looked for it before but did not see it. Perhaps I spoke too soon!

 

[Lily K.Chadwick]

Hi again Barbara, and apologies for my late reply!
It does indeed seem to have Paris woven into the band, though I to'll admit to not have notice it until my second/third glance!
Also, I thought I'd update the thread with a couple more shots of the gown, this time modelled (a friend who I got it sent to, and on whom it's rather large, was kind enough to pass them along)

 

[claireshaeffer]

I'll go through my Worth files. I have photos of the labels on all the Worth gowns I looked at at MCNY.

 

[poppysvintageclothing]

I wonder if you stretch out the Petersham ribbon out more if you might also find that other square woven stamp which is showing to the right of the woven Paris on the auction sold photo?

 

[claireshaeffer]

This is a photo of the back of a Worth waist stay where you can see the bolduc number and woven stay.

 

[Lily K.Chadwick]

Thanks so much for the shot Claire! It always drives me slightly mad when the seemingly only excluded shot from museum inventory forms is that of the label, so to have a back shot like the above is wonderful!
Mary Jane, I'll confess to not having looked to closely at that one! I'll be sure to ask my friend to have a peek. While it appears to read "Paris" to the top, I do wonder what the rest says. That said the blue one to the right of the woven "Paris" in the sold auction photo, does seem to be stamped in blue ink, rather than woven?

 

[claireshaeffer]

This was on a different dress. Isn't that hook exquisite? 40.401.1 this is the MCNY # if you want more info about this dress. Not the same as the label.
Reminder MCNY.org has an online exhibition of Worth and Mainbocher. About 50 of each.