![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Anyone else?
Feb. 1st, 2008 05:19 pmThis is a lovely little number but my thoughts are that is actually modern. Yes, it's in horrible condition but I'm thinking "bride of Frankenstine" here; maybe the dress was used for some play and needed to look "distressed".
The label, for one thing, looks too "new" to my eyes. If the dress was really that bad, wouldn't the label be all distressed too? Instead, it's pristine...and looks like a modern woven label.
Most honestly old fallen apart gowns tend to fall apart in three distinct places; the seams, the armpits, and the hem. The hem looks machine stiched and near perfect. The under arms don't even looked touched! The seams are all still very intact as far as I can tell. The "distressing" is in random spots, not in "wear" areas.
Anyone else think differently? The same?
In other news, I did start at least cutting out the 18th c stays last night. I should have some semblance of stays by Sunday night, hopefullly. I'm just using cable ties for boning because I know those things work!
The label, for one thing, looks too "new" to my eyes. If the dress was really that bad, wouldn't the label be all distressed too? Instead, it's pristine...and looks like a modern woven label.
Most honestly old fallen apart gowns tend to fall apart in three distinct places; the seams, the armpits, and the hem. The hem looks machine stiched and near perfect. The under arms don't even looked touched! The seams are all still very intact as far as I can tell. The "distressing" is in random spots, not in "wear" areas.
Anyone else think differently? The same?
In other news, I did start at least cutting out the 18th c stays last night. I should have some semblance of stays by Sunday night, hopefullly. I'm just using cable ties for boning because I know those things work!
