Got around to photographing one of the dresses...

[isabelladangelo]

pemberleyserena's post asking what made you (all) fall in love with Regency reminded me I should probably photograph my favorite early dress in my odd little collection. It's, I guess, really late Regency, just barely pre-Victorian. The dress is done in the 1820's style but I think it's more likely late 1810's originally. The dress was clearly made for a young girl given the length (I'd say it would fit your average 8 or 9 year old today). It has a growth pleat and the skirt is tucked up into the dress enough you could easily let it out another 3" without letting out the pleat.
I love this dress because it's so simple but pretty. The fabric makes the dress. It's hard to see via computer but it's a very nice purple ink color design on the white (Indian?) cotton. The dress just looks like summer.

Comments

[pinkdiamond.livejournal.com]

What makes you think it is a growth tuck? These were fashion features for many years. The boning and darts in the bodice that I can see suggests it is for someone with a more adult figure. The number of 19thC garments I have seen in person and the one I have myself are for very short women. I think they average to about 5' and I was 5'6" at the age of 14 ;)

Very pretty dress :)I wish it were possible to locate something of a similar age over here.

[isabelladangelo.livejournal.com]

One of the main reasons I think it's a growth tuck is the overall construction. The shoulders, armscye, and length look to be made for someone who is around 4' 7". The dress doesn't even touch the floor when on my dress dummy and the dress dummy is 50" high. :-) So, if it was for an adult, it was a very short adult (I'm thinking pre-teen really).
Also, the hooks and eyes have been moved over which would suggest it was made for someone who was growing (even though we all grow that way, I'd think you'd mainly move those if the dress was still fashionable and you were growing).

Although they look like darts in the photos, they aren't really. It's more like casings for the boning. I thought they were darts too until I picked the boning up and realized they weren't angled to accommodate the breast, they were just folded over to hold the boning. I guess they could be a dart but it's more casing than it is construction, ya know?

Thanks!

[pinkdiamond.livejournal.com]

If the folds travel the entire length of the panel then they are just pinches, but it they taper they are darts:) Boning is put into darts like that in the 19thC as a rule as well :)

It sounds more like the hem might have been taken up (ie made shorter) and the bodice let out for someone stouter but shorter than the original :) I have seen that on my own bodice for an adult woman too :)

Is the stitching the same on the tuck as on the rst of the dress? How about the alterations?

[isabelladangelo.livejournal.com]

I tried to take more pictures but my camera just isn't cooperating right now. They are darts then, two on each side and not symmetrical. One side has the darts further apart than the other.

I tried to take photos of the skirt but it wouldn't come out. There are several small pin sized holes along a line about a hand-width up from the growth tuck. The way the stains are and the holes are, it looks like a second growth tuck had been in place and taken out. Also, the growth tuck that is there is basted in but the stitches fall in line with the hemmed stitches. The biggest alteration looks to be the sleeves. It looks like "winged" sleeves were added later. There's a stain that fits with the back part of the bodice and the long sleeve but isn't seen at all on the winged sleeve. Also, the stitches for the sleeves are different from the rest of the dress. The lace looks like it was added much later too.

So, it could have been actually lengthened for a slightly taller, stouter, lady (not that 33" bust is stout by any means!) but it looks like it did have a second growth tuck at one time. I'll try to take better pictures tomorrow in the day light.