??'s on "Grandmother's wedding dress" with many (7 !!) photos.

amandainvermont

amandainvermont

VFG Member
??\'s on \"Grandmother\'s wedding dress\" with many (7 !!) photos.

OK - this is one of the dresses I got in my mini haul last week. The owner said it was her grandmother's wedding dress. It was kept in a cedar chest along with her mother's satin 1920's wedding dress.

It is completely hand stitched and I can't quite figure the buttons out, as they are definitely concealed for the bottom part of the dress/robe. Also the back of the skirt is pinned on in the inside to the bodice. I wondered if that had something to do with a bustle?

There's a little interior shell shown in a terrible blurry photo. And... I am assuming this is a light wool, rather than a heavy cotton of some type. It is completely lined. There are a few flaws here and there, but the colors are certainly fully saturated. I took a photo of the binding on the shoulder seam, if that helps date the piece.

dressall.jpg
dress34.jpg
dressback.jpg
dressbutton.jpg

dressseam.jpg

dressunder.jpg

dress2.jpg


I await opinions with gratitude :wub:
 
Hi Amanda,

Beautiful piece! I just love the colors and paisley pattern. It's not likely Grandma's wedding dress as it would be considered a "wrapper" or house dress. She may have made if for her wedding day or her trousseau but she wouldn't have been caught dead in it for the ceremony.

It seems that ancestors often get the story attached to clothing a bit confused and that's likely what happened in this case. It's also more likely her great grandmother's dress if her mother was married in the 20s as the piece dates to the 1870s.

Hope that helps!
 
Bright colors...early analine dyes. What we often think of 'Victorian' colors have faded (sometimes mercifully) or oxidized over the years. Somewhere in the heap I have a weird netted chenille tablecover that's screaming hot pink, neon chartreuse, peacock blue, black and brilliant red.
 
Really, as early as 1870? I thought the two flat pockets on the front were very unlike anything someone would have for a wedding. Not to mention the bright colors/pattern! A patterned tie on each side seam comes around the front and closes with one of those covered buttons.
 
Seconding 1870s and it could have been worn over a small bustle pad and a petticoat. And would be floor length in the front with a trained back.

Is there anyway the belt can go to the back leaving the front free? That would make sense with the back peplum and would mean it could have been worn as a wrapper with the front loose, or as at home dress with the front belted.
And Candy is right on - that may well been a part of her trousseau, but it's not likley to be a wedding dress as most wedding dresses would have been at least a "best" Day or Church dress and very fitted in the bodice.

I have had people hand me 1930s taffeta dresses and assure me it was their great grandmother's dress from 1890. They don't really pay attention when the oral history gets passed down and get it wrong more times than not.

Hollis
 
Hi Amanda,
I wouldnt call myself an expert on wedding dresses but just had a lecture in which my lecturer said that it is a common misconception that wedding dresses are white and that queen victoria was the first bride to bring about the trend of white wedding dresses. She also said that this trend took a while to catch on so if this lady's grandmother was old-fashioned or not well off, she may not have adopted this trend...I dont know...My knowledge on this limited and vague but thought I might share that titbit coz I find it surprising and interesting. Also, she showed us an Edwardian wedding dress that wasn't white...Though you probably knew all this already..;)
Amy
 
Okay, here's a question from someone whose knowledge stops about 1919:

Was this constructed from shawls, or was the yardage with a border like that available to dressmakers?

Any way, very lovely, Amanda!

Lizzie
 
Hi Lizzie - I took more photos today (new camera - $5 ebay - $20 shipping!) and was wondering about the fabric too. Heck - I'm not even sure if it's wool :BAGUSE: but think it is. Hollis - the belt has a button hole on one tie and a button on the other and they fit perfectly on the front but kind of hang uselessly on the back, so I do think it goes in the front.

My mannequin is tall - 5'10" - I think this would be ankle length on a shorter woman with a train effect, as you said. Here are some more pix...

PS - care to cringe ... she said she used this for a king at some Christmas Pageants.... somehow the dress became a cape.



old222.jpg
olddetail_1200176240.jpg
oldsideside.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top