I found this today and bought it thinking it might be a vintage skirt and now I'm not so sure. Any idea how old and if it is indeed a petticoat? It's very heavy and sturdy material. It's missing one of the hooks. The waist is so tiny!
That is a lovely antique petticoat. It looks Victorian, possibly early Edwardian. Knowing the exact shape when it is on a body or dress form will help in dating. Is the hem an even length all around, or is it longer in back? How wide is it in the general hip area? The hem protector on the bottom is always an extra special and slightly scare thing to find on a petticoat. I suppose it could be a skirt, as you say the fabric is a bit sturdy, but that might be from all the starch they used to put in them to make them stand out. But some petticoats could be quite thick and sturdy weight linen or cotton to hold up the weight of the dress or other petticoats worn over it.
Thank you! I think you are right, that it is a petticoat, and I bought another one with it that there is no doubt about it. I'll post that in a separate thread. The two pictures showing the entire petticoat are taken while it was on a dress form, front and back views. It's the same length all around. I also measured it. It's 25" around the waist (including the overlap that occurs when it's hooked and snapped closed) 46" around where the hips might be, although I think I measured a little further down than was necessary. I also measured the hem and it's 168" around, and it's 40" long from waist to hem.
I have some more pictures. I moved it to my Wolf dress form. This dress form is too big to do up the hook and eye on the petticoat, but it hangs more naturally. You called that a hem protector on the bottom. I can't figure out what it's made of. It almost seems like fur.
Those photos are very helpful. In the first photo, it looks 1890s. Now with the rear view photo, I might change my mind. It almost looks like it could be very early Edwardian, with that added volume at the top back. Does the back seem like there would be room to cover a smallish sized bustle and still hang correctly? If so, it could be 1880s, but the deep flounce at the bottom was not so typical of that era. The hem protector is probably made of horse hair, from the tail (not the mane). Hard to be sure without feeling it myself. I am just guessing, hopefully others will chime in.
I don't think a bustle could fit under it. It's cut so close at the hips. The first pictures are more accurate to how it looks at the waist and hips. It's just that the dress form has a skirt cage that fills out the petticoat a bit. It hangs looser on the other dress form, only it's so small on the second dress form pic that it can't be done up properly. I might just try it on myself and see how it looks. The hem does seem like hair!
OK, thanks. The first photo is more accurate, I forgot to go back and look at it again. I think it is 1890s.
I am thinking its more likely a skirt because of how it is fitted over the hips, with the dome fasteners, and I think more c. 1907ish, again because of the smooth cut over the hips, which is more typical of high-Edwardian styling. The brush is, in this case, mohairI think, typical of European skirts of this period, less so American.
