An Analysis Of Why The Blue Taffeta Striped Gown Dates From The Turn Of The 20th Century And Not The 1880s.
© Kay Inverarity (B.A. Hist., Dip. App. Sci.) 2010.
This was written as a response to the blue silk gown being described as an1880s gown in a recent publication. I first saw this gown in the collection of my dear friend Deborah Mc Keown (nee Jackson), and have been involved in mounting it for display. As Deborah is no longer able to give her point of view, I felt that I should put our case for it dating not from the 1880s, but from about 1901-1902.
The gown itself is a two piece garment consisting of a bodice with a high collar and long sleeves, and a two tiered skirt made of fairly crisp glacé silk with woven stripes in blue and white. It shows no signs of alteration and there are very few signs of wear (fig 1) I believe Deborah purchased it in America when she was living in Virginia, sometime between 1988 & 1995.
As the gown in question is a day gown, I have restricted my research to day-wear, the following observations are made with this in mind.
In the 1880s the general construction of the bodice was rather stiff and structured the fashionable line being rather masculine in nature favoring clean lines and superb cut[i]. (fig 2)These bodices were made of two layers of fabric seamed up together and then boned at each seam[ii]. The bodice usually consisted of a front darted panel, side panel, side back and center back panel and were made up to fit the body like a corset, a center back seam was included as this assisted in fitting the garment over the bustle (fig 3). The extra side back panel appears first in the late 1870s and was a necessary development as it assisted with fitting the long figure hugging cuirass bodice fashionable at this time. This method of back construction continued to be used until the late 1890s, however in the 1890s one starts to see a decrease in the number of back seams, the center back seam is seen less often and a divergence between the number of seams in the outer fabric and the inner lining occurs. The tight fitting inner lining is still boned on its seams but may have more seams than the outer material especially at the back where the outer material is often draped and tucked over the inner foundation (fig.4). The outer material still fits the foundation closely for much of the 1890s but this development paves the way for the softer less fitting Edwardian look where the outer fabric is loosely draped over and tacked to the fitted foundation[iii].
Many Edwardian bodices have the front outer fabric closing on the left side front with hooks and eyes that go up to the shoulder across the shoulder to the neck and then follow the collar around the base of the neck to the center back, I seem to remember that this gown closed differently, (straight down the back). Back closures are occasionally seen on 1890s gowns[iv] (fig.5) and become more common in Edwardian gowns from about 1907. In every other respect the bodice construction of the blue striped gown tallies most closely to the construction methods used at the end of the 1890s and into the early years of the 20th century.
The distinctive pouched front as seen on this gown is designed to fall down over the waist band and is a sure indication of the gowns manufacture either at the end of the 1890s or in the early years of the 20th century. According to Norah Waugh[v] this effect began to appear in English women’s dress in 1898, beginning with a slight fullness that became more pronounced as the Edwardian period progressed, however when one looks at fashion illustrations from the French fashion journal “La Mode Illustrée” one can see the beginnings of this fashion feature in the sporting blouses of 1895 (fig.6) [vi]. The pouched front was achieved by cutting the front panel several inches longer than the tight fitting lining, the outer fabric and lining was then tacked together in front to form a pouched effect. This pouched effect became more pronounced when the dress was worn over the straight fronted corset introduced in 1900.
The dynamic nature of fashionable sleeves in the 1890s and early 20th century give us our best way to narrow the garments date of manufacture down to a very limited time span.
The cut of the sleeves was a major fashion feature throughout the 1890s and into the early 20th century. These underwent as many as five major changes between the years 1890 to 1905.
Beginning at the very end of the 1880s sleeves began to show extra fullness at the head of the sleeve and gathers or pleats were arranged so that they formed a stand on the point of the shoulder (fig.7). A wedding bodice from 1889 in my collection has small sausage shaped pads in the top of the sleeves to assist the gathers to stand vertically, this fullness developed throughout the 1890s, until by 1895 the fashionable line was for enormous puffed sleeves in which the fullness frequently extended past the elbow to the fore arm. By 1896 this fashionable feature had progressed until the style was “full blown” and by late July that year the first intimation of a change can be seen in the fashion pages of the French fashion journal “La Famille” (figs.8&9). In these illustrations we see that the sleeve fullness has retreated to the upper arm and the puff has become smaller, throughout the rest of the year the large sleeves and smaller puff coexist with the smaller puff slowly becoming more dominant, by January 1897 the fashion pages show that the small puff had become the dominant fashion (figs.10 &11). This small puffed sleeve became the dominant sleeve throughout 1897 and 1898, it continued to deflate and some bodices only have the suggestion of fullness at the head accentuated by fancy epaulets or trimming (fig 12). By 1899 sleeves on day gowns were long and tapered reaching to the wrist and sometimes partly covering the hand, the small puff had deflated so much that there was just a suggestion of fullness at the head (fig.13), these gathers unlike the ones of 1889 did not stand vertically. In the magazine “La Mode Illustrée” dated the 7th of October 1900 we see a suggestion of the puff reappearing but this time at the wrist (fig.14), in these sleeves all fullness has evaporated from the upper sleeve, they fit smoothly on the upper arm and open into a small bishop sleeve at the wrist. These early bishop sleeves are frequently cut in several horizontal sections, the tight upper arm in one section, the full bishop in another and a separate cuff at the wrist, these are mounted on a tightly fitted under sleeve that is cut in two sections like a suit sleeve, whilst the outer fabric has only one vertical seam. By 1903 this construction has become less common and the dominant cut is for the upper arm to be cut in one with the fullness the foundation sleeve is frequently omitted leaving the fullness to drape unsupported. In these garments the upper part of the sleeve is frequently tucked to reduce the fullness and give the illusion of tightness whilst the very full lower end is attached to a cuff that can be quite long. This latter cut provides a rather sloped-shouldered “droopy” outline[vii]. In the years 1901 & 1902 there occasionally appear illustrations of sleeves with a puff at the elbow, (fig.15)(as in the blue silk gown) but the bishop sleeve eventually becomes the dominant style and continues to expand until 1904, by this time it is very large. The year 1905 sees another transition in sleeves, this time the puff moves back up to the upper arm but unlike the 1890s puff these tend to be made of softer material that drapes rather than standing out stiffly. (fig 16)
A fashionable line does not change overnight it undergoes a transition period where several different lines may exist together before a dominant style becomes the accepted fashion. Unfortunately these transitions are rarely shown in text books dealing with fashion as they tend to focus on the dominant fashion features of each era. To see these transitions it is necessary to return to primary source materials. Fashion journals, especially the French journals such as “La Mode Illustrée”[viii] that were published weekly give a much more in-depth illustration of the nuances in fashionable line. During a transition phase a blend of the old and the new can exist together until a dominant fashionable line crystallizes into a new style, this continues to develop until it can no longer sustain itself, then the cycle of transition begins again. The distinctive sleeves with the puff at the elbow are in transition from the long narrow sleeves fashionable in 1900 to the bishop sleeves fashionable until 1905 when the fullness again moved to the upper sleeve. The same effect can be seen in 1841 when the sleeves were changing from the flamboyant large puffed sleeve fashionable until May 1836 to the long and narrow straight sleeves of the early 1840s (fig.17).
Although puffed sleeves did occur in the 1880s they were not very common and their etiology was entirely different. Mainstream fashion in the 1880s favored the tight and slender two piece coat sleeve with a cuff terminating just above the wrist or just below the elbow (see fig.2). The 1880s puff was rather political in origin and stemmed from the arts, crafts and esthetic dress movements. These organizations eschewed the modern industrial world with its emphasis on mass production and the restrictive nature of fashionable dress, they took their inspiration from medieval and early renaissance fashions, an era that they regarded as ideal[ix]. These gowns usually have a puff at the top of the sleeve and may also have several other puffs down the arm imitating late medieval or early renaissance fashions, but not just one puff at the elbow, as seen in the blue silk gown. A surviving example of PreRaphaelite, artistic dress is the “Hamo Thornicroft” gown, catalogue number T.171-1973 held in the Victoria & Albert Museum[x] (fig.18). The painting by W. P Frith, entitled ‘Private View at the Royal Academy’ also shows a number of Pre Raphaelite and aesthetic gowns, notably the olive green gown, the terra cotta coloured one next to the woman in green, and the apricot coloured gown in the centre, these figures contrast with the woman in blue who is seated in the centre and wears main-stream fashionable attire (Fig.19). The figures dressed in aesthetic dress appear less restricted in their attire which appears more fluid and less fitted than the main-stream fashionable dress.
The most common form of neck insert in the 1880s was “the plastron” a long narrow insert of fabric with a high military collar that was placed over the center front opening, this gave the appearance of a waistcoat under a fitted jacket. It was usually made in either a contrasting fabric or colour. The decorative yolk was also used in the 1880s but these tended to be in either a long, yet narrow rectangle, popular in the early 1880s or a ‘V’ shape, they frequently feature ruched fabric but very rarely appear in lace (fig.20). The elongated nature of these features fit with the ideal line of the 1880s, tall hats, long narrow trimmings, slender parasols and the hair dressed high all gave a vertical, tall slender effect when viewed from the front (see fig.2). In contrast the wide yet shallow star-shaped lace yolk and collar seen in the blue striped gown is a shape not seen in the 1880s. This shape came into favour in the 1890s when large puffed sleeves gave a horizontal emphasis to the shoulders. The wide yet shallow yolk increased in popularity throughout the 1890s and by the end of the 1890s lace was frequently used for these decorative features. The popularity of wide lace yolks continued into the 20th century and they are commonly found on Edwardian gowns and summer blouses (fig.21) .
The blue striped gown differs in look and construction to 1880s garments. The pouched front is a feature that does not appear in the 1880s also the width and shape of the yolk and the use of lace indicate a later date than the 1880s. The sleeves of this gown are cut in three horizontal sections, an upper tightly fitted section, middle full section and a long cuff section that correspond to the construction methods of 1901-1902. If examined closely you may also find that the upper sleeve of the blue striped gown has only one vertical seam not two as in the 1880s coat sleeve, the use of a single seam is a feature that becomes dominant in the Edwardian period.
From this we can conclude that the cut and design of the bodice of this silk gown does not fit into the fashionable line of the 1880s, but compares favorably to a style that was popular briefly at the end of 1901 and into the early months of 1902.
In this gown the skirt is cut in a circular section with the central back seam on the cross, this kind of skirt came into being in 1891[xi] and was known by various names such as the “umbrella skirt”, “bell skirt” etc., each had different nuances in the cut, but all were based on a circular shape. The umbrella skirt was made from double width material on the cross and had only one seam down the centre back, it was difficult to cut properly and required a talented dressmaker to achieve a good result[xii]. This method of cutting not seen in the 1880s has the advantage of allowing the skirt to fit closely at the hips whilst at the same time having a very full hem. The fashionable skirt of the1890s was achieved using a number of methods; by cutting the material in one circular piece, using gores or a combination of the two. (fig22) The hem is frequently held out with a stiffened facing, this helps to give the somewhat triangular line fashionable in the mid 1890s. The typical 1890s skirt was lined with cotton or glacé silk (this gave a fashionable frou-frou sound when the wearer moved), it frequently had an interlining, and a facing at the hem that encouraged the skirt to fall in stiff folds (see fig.5). Up until the end of the 1890s stiff fabrics with plenty of body were preferred, these included satin, brocades, figured silk, rep-silk and heavy glacé silk. From 1898 softer fabrics became increasingly popular. These softer fabrics gave a more fluid effect and when combined with extra darting over the hips we see the precursor of what was to become the typical Edwardian skirt[xiii]. By 1900 (for all except tailor made gowns) the structured interlining and lining had softened, and in many cases were discarded in favour of a separate foundation skirt or skirts. These were frequently attached to the outer garment only at the waist band. The emphasis on hem fullness continued, skirt gores where sometimes cut with extra flare from the knee to the hem or a shaped circular gore was added at knee level to provide even greater fullness, this became more common as the years progressed. In order to support this extra fullness the foundation skirt frequently sported flounces below the knee, this encouraged the skirt to form a “bell shaped” silhouette.
Cunnington notes that in 1899 the tunic skirt increases in popularity this was a dress or skirt where;
“The upper skirt may be pointed front and back, the points reaching nearly to the ground; or with scalloped edges; or as part of a polonaise closed at the waist in front and sloped off at the knees…. Tunics are frequently fringed or simulated by trimming”.[xiv] (Fig.23).
This kind of skirt remained in fashion for a number of years but by 1903 it was on the wane. In 1904 gored skirts with very full flounces at knee level seem to have been the norm. The skirt we see on the blue striped gown is a classic tunic skirt as described above.
In contrast to this the 1880s skirt had a much straighter line, it was cut with barely gored front and side panels, and the central back panel of the foundation skirt was always cut on the straight (fig 24) This cut gave a more cylindrical line, with limited extra fullness at the hem, the fullness in the back panel being held in place over the bustle with a series of horizontal ties running from the side seams and tying behind the legs[xv]. These ties held the fullness to the back encasing the legs in a cylindrical sheath. A strip of tape or elastic continued to hold the back fullness in place until the late 1890s when they ceased to be used. As the 1880s progressed the bustle became larger and more ledge-like giving greater fullness to the skirt but retaining the vertical angular lines. Embellishments in the form of drapery, fringing, beading etc were mounted onto a foundation skirt rather than being cut as an integral part of the skirt. By the end of the 1880s the inspiration for many fashionable gowns was taken from the Directoire period of the 18th century, in turn, the designs of the late 18th century were inspired by gentleman’s fashion, this lead to the somewhat masculine styles seen in many late 1880s gowns[xvi] see (fig.2).
The fact that the skirt of the striped gown is cut as an umbrella skirt, that it has the tunic effect, is not lined, and has no ties inside, all point to this garment being made around the turn of the 20th century.
The fabric of this dress is a crisp glacé silk taffeta woven in mid-blue and white stripes that are flecked in blue, the stripes are moderately broad being about 2 inches wide. This fabric bears a remarkable resemblance to a selection of fabrics pictured in the August 1900 edition of ‘The Delineator” magazine (fig. 25).[xvii] Unfortunately the material is showing signs of splitting a phenomenon common in early 20th century silks as Valerie Mendes states in her article on 20th century dress.
“Sadly 20th century dress does not mean more durable dress. Weighted silks proved a great problem. They were popular for petticoats and linings though, fortunately they were employed less frequently for dresses themselves. Soaking in a compound of tin gave these silks a fuller ‘handle’ and increased their weight. Low levels of weighting were accepted by the trade but, in order to make a quick profit, some unscrupulous manufacturers exceeded the amounts, resulting in weakened silks which eventually disintegrated”[xviii]
The silk in this gown appears to be of a reasonable quality and the shattering is minimal.
The Edwardian silhouette.
What we consider to be the fashionable Edwardian silhouette was totally dependant on the new straight fronted corset this was designed by Mme Gaches-Saurraute, of Paris in 1900. She was a corset manufacturer who had studied medicine. Mme Gaches-Saurraute, designed this garment not only to provide the fashionable straight line down the front of the gown but also to support the abdomen and free the thorax,[xix] manufacturers cited that the new shape was much healthier than previous corsets as it did not compress the diaphragm in the same way as traditional models (fig.26). Thus the effect on the fashionable line was to lower the bust line and thrust it forward whilst forcing the hips backwards. This gave the body the fashionable “S” bend shape, these corsets tend to put pressure on the lower back and having worn them I can assure you that not all women would have found them comfortable, some like myself would have found them positively excruciating to wear for long periods of time. It is interesting that the craze for tea gowns that allowed the wearer to loosen their corset and relax a little in the afternoon reached new heights of popularity at this time. Having studied a number of corset advertisements it becomes clear that not all women took up this new fashion, the older style is still readily available and contemporary photos bear this out. Of twenty five original photos of women dating from between 1900-1905 in my collection, ten of these women were not wearing the fashionable straight fronted corset, suggesting that the take up rate was not as high as we would think. Some of the factors that may have influenced the adoption of the new corset could have been, the age of the woman, her status within society and the event that she was attending. An older woman who finds the traditional style of corset comfortable would be reluctant to change unless she felt compelled to. She may adopt one for special events such as balls, weddings etc. whilst still wearing her more comfortable model at home. An example of this is in the collection of the Gawler S.A. branch of the National Trust, in their collection they have two garments that are of the same vintage and belonged to the same pastoralists wife, one is a conventional late 19th century bone coloured corset showing minimal wear, and the other is a corded “liberty Bodice” that has been considerably worn. The disproportionate wear of the artifacts suggest that this woman wore her “Liberty Bodice” for every day whilst reserving her conventional corset for more formal occasions. From this we can conclude that the likelihood of a fashionable corset being worn under a garment would increase with the formality of the occasion. Hence women attending balls, evening functions, weddings or those who led a public life where image was important (actresses, socialites etc.) would be far more likely to conform to the fashionable Edwardian silhouette.
In my opinion the so called term “Edwardian Bustle” is a misnomer, the garment in question holds no resemblance to the metal structures of the 1880s that are now associated with the term, it is more akin to the bustle (tornure) of the 1830s & 40s. At this time and in the Edwardian period it was an optional extra that took the form of a series of ruffles attached to a foundation that provided a rounded effect to the back of the skirt (fig.27). The book Authentic Victorian Dressmaking Techniques was first published in 1905, but shows techniques and designs from about 1900, it relegates this garment to the chapter on wedding and evening gowns and comments that;
“Bustles are comparatively little worn now, but some figures, especially those having large abdominal development with a corresponding flatness in the back, will be improved by a bustle of this kind.[xx]”
In this comment the author makes it quite clear that these structures were most frequently used to correct a physical deficiency. This is also highlighted by the fact that in all my thirty five years of handling original costumes from numerous collections, I have yet to see a garment with one of these bustles, or one detached from its garment. I have however seen small bustle pads attached to the waist of 1890s garments.
As in the wearing of the straight fronted corset there appears to be a dichotomy between the fashionable Edwardian silhouette and reality.
The striped silk gown is clearly a fashionable garment however the rather stiff fabric gives it a conservative air. It may have been made for a mature woman who preferred a little more structure to her garment. This could also explain the bodice construction. Whoever the first owner was, it is clear that she was a lady of some means who led a fashionable lifestyle. The back closure indicates that she had someone to help her to dress, and the multiplicity of fashionable details indicate that she liked to keep up with fashion. Ironically it is one of these details notably the distinctive sleeves that would have shortened the garments useful life as these were in fashion for a very short time. Why then did the dress remain intact and not altered, as was the fate of many garments? Either she was a lady who could afford to lay her garments aside and have another made, or it was not worth altering. I suspect in this case it was a combination of the two. The sleeves could have readily been altered to the later “Bishop” style, however by this time the umbrella skirt was becoming old-fashioned. The circular cut being replaced by gores and flounces. These gave a better flair at the hem as more fullness could be added from knee level to achieve the fashionable “bell shaped” skirt. The circular cut of the umbrella skirt made it almost impossible to alter effectively.
In conclusion the blue and white striped gown is cut and constructed in a manner that was fashionable at the turn of the 20th century. The circular cut of the skirt was not used before the 1890s and the pouched front moves this date to the end of the 19th century. The sleeves with their puff at the elbow were only fashionable in the years 1901-1902 and the gown shows no signs of alteration and little sign of wear. This means that in all probability the gown was constructed sometime between 1901 and 1903 and may only have been worn a few times before being set aside.
© Kay Inverarity (B.A. Hist., Dip. App. Sci.) 2010, The writer claims copy write on all original materials used in this article this includes written and original pictorial references held in the authors private collection. Permission must be sought from the author before reproducing any part of this article.
[i] This is a French fashion plate reproduced by Charles J. Peterson “Peterson’s Magazine” of 306 Chestnut St., Philadelphia in October 1888. This magazine was published monthly and began its life as a literary magazine but soon began to compete with “Godey’s Ladies Book” by printing fashion plates, including articles on fashion, cooking etc. and issuing monthly dress and embroidery patterns. “Peterson’s Magazine” catered to middle class households had a large circulation in the United States of America boasting a circulation of over a 100,000 in the mid 19th century.
[ii] Norah Waugh, The cut of women’s clothes 1600-1930, ( Faber &Faber Ltd. 1978), p.145, (first published Faber& Faber 1968).
[iii] Janet Arnold, Patterns of Fashion Volume 2, Englishwomen’s dresses and their construction, c.1860-1940, (Macmillan London Ltd. 1980) pp.44-55, (first published 1966). These diagrams show how the inner lining fabric developed into the Edwardian foundation bodice.
[iv] Nancy Bradfield, Costume in Detail, 1730-1930, (George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd. 1975) p.283, (first published 1968).
[v] The Cut of Women’s Clothes 1600-1930, (Norah Waugh, Faber & Faber, 1968, 1978 edition) p.229.
[vi] Victorian and Edwardian Fashions From “La Mode Illustrée”, (Jo Anne Olian, editor, Dover Publications, Inc.,1998) p.122.
[vii] The Voice of Fashion, (edited by Frances Grimble) , (Lavolta Press, San Francisco CA., 1998) pp.126-370.
[viii] The Magazine “La Mode Illustrée” was the source of much of “Harpers Bazar’s” material, indeed by the end of the 19th century, much of the information and illustrations available in “La Mode Illustree” one month appeared in “Harpers Bazar” the following month.
[ix] Newton Stella Mary, Health Art & Reason, Dress Reformers of the 19th Century, (Cox & Wyman Ltd. 1974) Chapters 2 & 5, pp. 24-35 & 70-88.
[x] Four Hundred Years of Fashion, ( Natalie Rothstein Editor), (Victoria and Albert Museum, London in association with William Collins, 1984), pp. 43 &139.
[xi] Cunnington C. W. English Women’s Clothing in the Nineteenth Century, (Dover Publications, New York 1990), p. 375. (first published by Faber &Faber, Ltd. London, 1937).
[xii] Ibid. Cunnington C. W. ,English Women’s Clothes in the Nineteenth Century, p.375.
[xiii] Buck Anne, Victorian Costume, (Ruth Bean publishers, Bedford, England, 1984), pp. 78-84, (originally published by Herbert Jenkins, London, 1961).
[xiv] Op. cit. Cunnington C. W. English Women’s Clothes in the Nineteenth Century, p. 411.
[xv] Op. cit. Buck Anne, Victorian Costume, p. 63.
[xvi] Four Hundred years of Fashion, p.43.
[xvii] The Delineantor, (Butterick Publishing Co. 1900) p. 211.
[xviii]Op. cit. Mendes Valerie, Four Hundred Years of Fashion, ( Natalie Rothstein Editor), (Victoria and Albert Museum, London in association with William Collins, 1984), p.78.
[xix] Norah Waugh, Corsets and Crinolines, ( B.T. Batsford Limited, London, 1987) p.85, (first published B.T. Batsford 1954).
[xx] Authentic Victorian Dressmaking Techniques, (edited by Kristina Harris, Dover Publications, Inc. 1999) p.79, ( originally called, Dressmaking Up to Date, and published by the Butterick publishing Company 1905). The original publication appears to be based on regular monthly articles that appeared in “The Delineator” magazine (also a Butterick publication) from 1899 to 1904. When viewed together a number of the illustrations have been re-used and the chapters follow the same premise.
Amneus Cynthia, “A Separate Sphere, dressmakers in Cincinati’s Golden Age 1877-1922”, Cincinnati Art Museum, Texas Tech University Press 2003, P.116.
Arnold Janet, “Patterns of Fashion Volume 2, Englishwomen’s dresses and their construction, c.1860-1940”, Macmillan London Ltd. 1980, pp.44-55, first published 1966.
Blum Stella editor, “Paris Fashions Of The 1890s”, Dover Publications Inc. 1984 pp. 86-88.
Bradfield Nancy, “Costume in Detail, 1730-1930”, George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd. 1975, p.283, (first published 1968).
Buck Anne, “Victorian Costume”, Ruth Bean publishers, Bedford,, England, 1984, pp. 78-84, (originally published by Herbert Jenkins, London, 1961).
Cunnington C. W. “English Women’s Clothing in the Nineteenth Century”, Dover Publications, New York 1990, p. 375. (first published by Faber &Faber, Ltd. London, 1937.
Grimble Frances editor “The Voice of Fashion”, Lavolta Press, San Francisco CA., 1998, pp.126-370.
Harris Kristina editor, “Authentic Victorian Dressmaking Techniques”, Dover Publications, Inc. 1999, p.79.
Harris Kristina editor, “ Authentic Victorian Fashion patterns, A Complete Wardrobe”, Dover Publications, 1999, pp. 59 & 106.
Newton Stella Mary, “Health Art & Reason, Dress Reformers of the 19th Century”, Cox & Wyman Ltd. 1974 Chapters 2 & 5, pp. 24-35 & 70-88.
Olian Jo Anne, editor, “Victorian and Edwardian Fashions From La Mode Illustrée,, Dover Publications, Inc.,1998) p.122.
Rothstein Natalie Editor “Four Hundred Years of Fashion”, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, in association with William Collins, 1984), pp. 43 &139.
“Victorian Fashions”, Dover Publications Inc., p.113.
Waugh Norah, “Corsets and Crinolines”, B.T. Batsford Limited, London, 1987, p.85, (first published B.T. Batsford 1954).
Waugh Norah, The cut of women’s clothes 1600-1930, ( Faber &Faber Ltd. 1978), p.145, (first published Faber& Faber 1968).
Butterick Publishing Co “The Delineantor”, monthly magazine. Nov. 1891, May 1892, Feb.1893, Aug. 1900.
“ The Designer”, monthly magazine, published by The Standard Fashion Co., 32 West 14th Street, New York & 87 7 89 Paul Street, London, August 1901, p. 348, Sept. 1901 colour plate.
“The Girls Own Paper” , monthly magazine, vol. 11, no.5, p. 139.
“ Godey’s Ladies Book”, monthly magazine, Croly publishing company Philadelphia, July 1887, pp.80 &81.
“La Famille”, weekly magazine, 9 Rue De La Perle, Paris, January 1894, p.60, July 1896 pp. 460 & 461, 476 & 477, August p.556, October pp.636 &637, January 1897 pp.28 &29.
“ La Mode Illustree”, weekly magazine, 56 Rue Jacob, Paris, July 1898 pp.354, 796, Oct. p.526, Nov. 1899 pp. 563,578, 7th Oct. 1900 front page, Oct 1901, 3rd Aug, 1902, Oct. 1902 pp. 409 & 411, Oct. 1903, p503. March 1904, p.147.
‘La Mode Pratique”, weekly magazine, published by Hachette & Cie, 79 Boulevard Saint-Germain, Paris, 5th Feb. 1905 pp. 78 & 81.
Munro George, editor, “New York Fashion Bazar”, monthly magazine, January 1890, p. 29.
Peterson Charles J. “Peterson’s Magazine” of 306 Chestnut St., Philadelphia 1879-1888.
“Journal Des Demoiselles & Petite Courrier Des Dames”, weekly magazine, March 1879 & 1882.
“Young Ladies Journal”, monthly magazine, published by The International News Co., 1st July 1895 p. 58.