Posted on 01/16/2011 9:11:15 AM PST by Pharmboy
Revolutionary war fashion show comes to Corsicana
Corsicana Yards and yards of embroidered silk and damask, wool and linen swirled through the Kinsloe House as part of a special 1700s fashion show hosted by the James Blair Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution Wednesday.
The creator of the dresses was Carolyn Schiewe of the Captain Molly Corbin Chapter of the DAR in Grapevine. Schiewe researched the dresses and then sewed them for herself and her friends.
Ladies during the revolutionary war were just as interested in fashion as we are today, Schiewe explained. And although she had assumed the colors would be muted or limited, she was surprised and delighted to find that wasnt true.
They had some dyes were very effective, she said.
Daily Sun photo/Janet Jacobs The Daughters of the American Revolution hosted a 1700s fashion show Wednesday at the Kinsloe House. Shown, left to right,
are Anita Robidou, Jane Doclar, Carolyn Schiewe and Hertha Northcraft of the Captain Molly Corbin Chapter.
Most of the nicer gowns came from England or France, and wealthy women could order their gowns by seeing fashion dolls called moppets that were shipped over with the full dress on them. Others ordered the fabrics and made their own in the colonies, Schiewe said.
Prior to the revolutionary war most fabrics were imported from England or France, although some fine silks came from China and calico from India, she said. People with money in the colonies had access to fine fabrics.
As the war progressed and England took actions to close the ports in Boston, New York and other colonies, fabrics were still a money maker for blockade runners or smugglers.
Cotton wasnt used as much as wool or linen because the gins that made separating out the fibers from the seeds werent common, and it had to be done by hand, which was expensive. Nor did the colonies have any large mills or weaving houses because England didnt want to lose its textile market in the colonies.
Carolyn Schiewe explains the construction and history of the clothes of the 1700s at a fashion show Wednesday at the Kinsloe
House while Anita Robidou models a riding or travelling outfit. Schiewe researched and then sewed all the outfits
In her presentation, Schiewe had her models show off not only the gowns, but also their undergarments, which were also authentic to the period, and the construction of the dresses. Women of that century didnt wear underwear, but only a shift, which was a long undergown that was also their nightwear. However, well-dressed women did wear layers of petticoats and well-to-do women wore corsets which pulled in their waists, sometimes to the detriment of their health. The wide-hipped look was made with bags on either side, and women had pockets accessed through slits in their gowns and below the various petticoats.
Among the beautiful dresses was also a more work-a-day dress that would have been typical of a tradeswoman, Schiewe said.
In showing that gown, Schiewe pointed out that women of that day only bathed every few weeks and didnt launder their clothes as often as modern women do.
They believed the natural oils in the skin protected them from disease, Schiewe said.
Their lacy mob caps were to hide their greasy hair as well as to keep the dust and dirt from collecting in their hair, she added.
Having the Grapevine group come and present in Corsicana was a special treat, according to Geneva Davis, the regent for the Corsicana chapter. Schiewe and her group are taking the educational program all over the state this year, she said.
I was so glad to be able to get them, Davis said. This is a perfect program for us.
Janet Jacobs may be reached via e-mail at jacobs@corsicanadailysun.com. Want to sound off to this article? E-mail: Soundoff@corsicanadailysun.com
You can watch a tremendous 6-part PBS series on the Revolutionary War (titled “Liberty: The American Revolution”) online at this link:
http://libertymaven.com/2008/03/23/liberty-the-american-revolution-from-pbs-video/984/
What a nitwit. Has she never looked at any portraits of the time? That would be the first little bitty baby step in buying a clue. She's obviously on in the DAR for the social connections.
mark to watch later
I expect this was a subject which had not always been of interest to her and as with many people, who begin to study a subject, she had preconceived ideas about it. I applaud her honesty in admitting she had been mistaken and her pursuit of authenticity.
My first reenacting dress for WbtS had serious authenticity issues, further study on my part and the guidance of an excellent, well researched, pricey, seamstress have improved my impression greatly. I can pass the test of the stitch counters at any event.
I’ve been a member of the DAR since I was 18 and am not an expert on every aspect of the Colonial era. ;)
Get them interested in reenacting. It’s a family friendly activity.
We do WbtS.
Thanks so much for this...I had seen parts, but never the whole. Bookmarked now, and will watch it completely.
That’s a little harsh.
Many people in the DAR are in it because of genealogy, and genealogy only. They learn the basics of their ancestors and often nothing else.
So it’s not too shocking she might not really realize this. Not to mention many of us more versed in the period are still only “amateurs” who don’t know everything.
I thought this was an interesting piece focusing on women and fashion and every-day life.
Any sixth grader should know their fabrics weren't dull. I bet she doesn't know that men were the fashion plates of that day with their wigs, lace shirts and padded leggings to make them look sexy.
You should be able to download it to RealPlayer if you have it. It was a fairly long download for me, about an hour per episode if I remember. Then again, I’m on DSL. It would probably be much faster for faster/better connections.
RealPlayer is a free program which allows you, with a single click, to download YouTube and many other videos:
http://www.real.com/
My point is maybe she didn’t have any interest in the subject before this.
For 1, you can’t assume that a) the portraits, often painted decades after, are accurate and b) they represented the norm.
For another, it’s not shocking that someone not really interested in history (which could be she) would “look at a portrait” of that era. I grew up that way; maybe she didn’t and never realized it. Never mind my 1st points.
Many things you or I might expect to be common knowledge may not be.
thanks for the tip; waiting to get on the home,satelite(wildblue) ‘puter,,
Thank you for posting this interesting article.
Your Obdt. Svt.,
P_____y
Wow...pretty harsh. Bet you’re fun at parties...
I was watching ‘John Adams’ last night on DVD, and remember seeing Rutledge (sp?) of South Carolina who was wearing quite a vibrant suit of a shade of purple. Part of the entertainment value for me in watching historical movies is seeing the dress and mannerisms of long ago.
I’ve told my oldest that what makes history so interesting is not all the dates and figures, but the people, their actions, and the consequences that carried on to future generations. I had a professor or two in college who imparted those things on me, and it’s something that made history that much more enjoyable for me.
Your efforts are really appreciated! Thanks again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.