I love the black lace and look at her skirt. It seems to have been pleated into small pleats first and then pleated into big ones.
Look at the different clasps and her curls!
At first glance it's easy to miss that she has a split skirt.
A very peculiar hair ornament...
I adore the jacket!
6 comments:
Oh, I just spent a lovely part of my morning enjoying these images. I was thinking about how much work it took to make and wear these outfits and then there is the last image of the servant boy...of course. Now I can see the army of people it took to maintain these ladies and their wardrobes, their hair, their homes...it must have taken servants to maintain the servants!
Thanks so much for posting these.
What-I-Found: Labour was cheap in those days... :)
What a treasure indeed! Love the detail on the first one - you can even see the details on the clothing on the peeps in the background..!
Lady N.o 3 is a little odd... Her bodice doesn't have any seams?
Madame Berg: Isn't it! :)
I know. It may be the freedom of the artist, but I think Dreamstress 17th century gown is made without front seams. I have never seen any extant examples of that, though.
What a lovely collection! I especially love the lady in a red dress: there are too many muted silver gowns in 17th century art, even for a minimalist like me!
I made my 17th c gown without side-front seams, based on all the paintings that show no seams. My dress does have a CF seam, but it would be easy to make it without it too. I know there aren't any extent mid-17th c gowns without side seams, but there are more paintings that show this than extent 17th c gowns, so I figure it is at least historically plausible!
Dreamstress: Yes, silver seem to have been SO popular.
I think you are right. I know it's easy to paint something that isn't there, but if you see something a certain number of times, then I think it is very plausible to think it really excisted. And the further back you go, the more you have to work from guesswork.
Post a Comment