The comments that are coming in are quite revealing! Opinion is very divided, and more than one of the four finalist gowns is causing controversy. I’ve summarised some of the best comments on the finalists page at YWU.
Meanwhile, I’ll give you my own take (and I’ll try to be impartial – I have my favourites too!) What are the possibilities and the pitfalls in each of our finalist patterns?
1780-90 Sacque gown
Compared to many 18th century gowns, this one is quite simple. Looking closely at the photograph and the pattern, you’ll notice that the sacque back is not “built in” at the back section of the gown, but is a separate drape attached at the back neck (there’s daylight between the mannequin’s back and the drape.) You could say that this doesn’t make it a “real” sacque gown, however.
The pattern includes the gown only, but of course we’ll offer some possibilities for adding underskirt, stays and so on if you would like to. Meanwhile, by shortening the skirt there are possibilities to simplify the gown into a short jacket of the type worn in period.
Overall, not a classic sacque back shape, but a relatively simple introduction to the eighteenth century look, with lots of possibilities for the ambitious.
1885 Summer Dress
If you’re looking for a pattern that’ll really test us as we write your tutorials, and give you value for your subscription, this is it. In the 1880s the Victorian quest for perfect fitting methods reached its height of bizarre complexity as they wrestled with this cuirasse bodice, closely fitted right through from neck to hip.
Meanwhile, there’s lots of draping fun to be had with the seemingly complex arrangement of layers and ruffles in the skirt, plus bustle goodness a-plenty.
For the less confident, I’d suggest playing with one half or the other of this gown, either working on fitting a bodice (I can’t help picturing it with jeans or a plain skirt) or looking into the skirt draping and modernising that arrangement of layers and ruffles to make something that’s wearable today.
Overall, this is a complex fitting challenge, but it’s also a project to really get your teeth into.
1860s Day Dress
For number of garments, you can’t beat this mix-and-match fiesta. You have skirt, day bodice, bolero jacket and an alternative evening bodice (not illustrated) – but don’t forget that you can make as many or as few elements of the pattern as you wish.
There are many possibilities for using this gown as your blank slate for embellishments, as well as for leaving it plain and concentrating on cut and fit. Again, underpinning guidance will be there in the tutorials, although all the underpinnings won’t be necessary if you think laterally enough or modernise.
Overall, a pattern with many pieces that will perhaps be overwhelming for some to pick their way through at first, but also a pattern with many, many options that can offer possibilities for everyone.
1797 Empire Gown
This seemingly inocuous gown, more than any of the other finalists, has caused the most controversy. Some of you love it, pointing to its apparent simplicity, the lack of fabric in comparison to the others, and the lack of need for underpinnings.
(That’s true – the 1797 fashionista supposedly wore no corset with her gown, but the average woman most certainly still did, leaving you with plenty of equally valid underpinning options in period.)
On the other hand, some of you dislike it intensely, fearing that it’ll make you look dumpy or that the possibilities for adapting or varying it are limited. But, as GinaB puts it, “perhaps that’s the point, we should be thinking how we can make it better, using the basic pattern?”
Overall, perhaps a simple option (or is it? Look at the pattern and see what you think), but a more difficult gown to vary.
***
Have you decided what to vote for yet? Remember, you’ve only got one vote this time. The poll opens on Friday at midday GMT as before, and runs for 24 hours. I’ll email you with a reminder. Feel free to email us with your vote now if you won’t be around during that time.
In the meantime, did you start out rooting for one gown, but have changed your mind now? What made you shift your vote?
I’m supporting the regency gown because I already have good patterns for the other gowns and this would be the first time I could have a chance to work on a gown like this. The embroidery is lovely, and the lines are simple.
I’m torn between the 1860s and the 1885 because they have lots to play with; I’m leaning towards the 1860s because my previous experiments with bustle-wearing have been less than entirely comfortable.
I do civil war reenacting. So although the case could be made that the 1860 would get more use, I long to make a regency.
I have the undergarments for the Rococo… but I’m not in love with that pattern. The sacque is more like a cape. Kinda weird.
The bustle would make me happy though to be honest. I would love to make one of those crustacean esc tails. Fun.
But the regency has my heart. If I made the regency, I would need new stays. I enjoy corsetry the most.
For me, the gown that inspires me the most (and for me, that’s the whole point of a project of this scope) is the 1860’s day dress — not in an of itself, as I don’t do reenactments for that period, but rather as an adaptable pattern I’d be interested in making into a couple of different ideas. One is to turn the details and shaping/silhouette of the gown into a modern winter coat.
But for the sake of actually recreating the gown, I am most interested in the 1885 summer dress. It’s modernizable in most of its parts, and gorgeous in and of itself, as well; it also applies well to steampunk subgenres, and could be applied with the masterclass already up on drafing a victorian corset. Possibilities!
I was so surprised that the 1822 and the 1830 did not make the cut! I did vote for the 1885 since the bustle era is where I normally reside, I had to back my era! Since it was the only bustle choice I never ecpected it to make it in the final four.
The bustle dress will offer a great deal of choice in everything, construction, design, and ability to change the look. I think the same can be said for the 1860’s dress as well, it is amazing what can be done with the shapes…
I think for me the biggest leap would be the sorta saque back dress. The empire dress I am having a hard time warming up to because like others have said there is not a lot to work with. I would so have loved to make the 1822 (sigh) Well we just have to START with the winning pattern, show the element we began with and work out from there…so that would be the biggist design challange for me I would want to make it into something else (LOL)
How ever the vote goes, I am really looking forward to this project, I don’t often get the chance to make something just for the fun of it!
Liz, I keep thinking coats too – could it be because winter is here I wonder?
I have to say that I may be changing my mind, after looking in the fabric stash. 1860 will proably more suit the modern fabric I have too much of, yet still be a convincing enough look (and the drape, etc should be ok for this) that I could try a ‘follow-the-pattern’ in its entirety to learn more about the historic techniques.
And my husband thinks the Empire gown is pretty…
Although I truly suspect that on Friday I’ll just make a random choice
it’s easier!
All these patterns were on my first list. The Regency is my numero uno because it’s one of my favorite eras, I have the muslin, I need a new gown, and it will set off any of Lynn McMasters’ exotic turbans. It’s also a look that will work for my mature body type. That 1822 wedding cake would have needed serious toning down.
Because the 1797 gown is ostensibly simple, it would let YWU focus on the process of working with a pattern sketch rather than plunging into the details. If this goes well, the process could be repeated in subsequent years to select another pattern. That’s an amazing collection.
How does one takes a simple pattern rendering and scale it up to one’s own size? I’ve followed the “drape and draw” method, draping my corseted dress form, staring at Jean Hunisett or Janet Arnold in one hand while drawing pattern lines on the dress form with the other. This works reasonably well for me; the pattern pieces are within an inch of where they should be. Moulage it is not.
Sewing the pieces together is another challenge. Studying dress manuals of the period is helpful. Nevertheless I’ve wound up with some odd joins.
Cathy has pointed out features of each gown that were not obvious to me. I’m subscribed to YWU to get guidance on improving my sewing and this looks like a great start.
To those who object to the Regency dress on the basis of frumpiness – I have seen the dress made up (in photos) several times, and the pattern doesn’t necessarily make up with the same awkward neckline. It has a pretty rectangular back-neck and the front can be brought down differently for a much squarer (more flattering) look.
I am torn between the two early periods – the Regency dress would further my current sewing plans, but I love saque-back dresses and have always wanted to make one.
My heart lies with the 1860. I do like the others, and all would be interesting in their own way, but for some reason the 1860 just ‘does it’ for me. And I have a huge fabric stash I can use on it as well. I’ve only made one Victorian era garment before so this will be very interesting, and I can do different things with each garment. Oh, and I need a new corset anyway!
Notably, the first entry isn’t actually a “saque”, nor even a variety of Robe a la Francaise. It’s a Robe a Piemontaise – one of the many many “exotic” intermediate variants between Robe a la Francaise and Robe a la Anglaise. Art in Dress mentions it briefly, and you can get some idea from looking at collections of fashion plates of the era. But for the most part the topic of the intermediate styles is underdocumented, because they were often such a flash-in-the-pan fad, with so little to distinguish then from the more prevailing modes.
I find the 18th c. Piemontaise to be so very graceful. The narrower detached “Watteau drape” and fitted back are unusual, appealing and slimming, and I like very much that it is not so much the “usual” Robe a la Francaise style. (Of course, I’m not shaped like the invisible mannekin, but this is a choice of imagination, no?) I keep looking at the back view on the Danish site and trying to suss out that drape, which falls free from the shoulders but seems somehow to be joined into the skirt rather than simply lying over it. Is this simply a trick of the lighting and photography? I can’t quite make that out, and my Danish is nonexistent. But it does appear that the match points D and J on the pattern suggest it is sewn in somehow. I’m fascinated.
The dress itself has lovely bones. Perhaps the experienced historical sempstresses among us have already “done to death” the 18th century, but as a beginning costumier I would love to have the experience of drafting and fitting this dress. I’m hoping that its uncommon design may beckon others…I wish I could see what’s going on in the front there. The pattern pieces look very much like a center-closing round gown, but the photo hints at…what? ruching? some sort of overlay? lacing? in the center front. This inquiring mind would LOVE to know!
Did anyone else have trouble opening some of the alternate views? I keep getting “page not found” errors…
On a humorous note — the Google online translator was the only one I could find that included Danish. I copied in the text from the description of the dress, and part of what came back was this: “…Fish inserted in the lead. In front is lick interior. The round neckline. Apron is wrinkled above and behind. 4.5 cm wide waistband open at both sides and sewn by 6 widths. In the backs are watteau-pleats to affirm life in the rear. …”
Ah yes. I DO love the way those Watteau pleats affirm life in the rear!
Now that I know the 1860s is one of those ones with the interchangeable day and evening bodices, I covet it like nothing else. I love stuff I can switch around.