Here Be Dragons: The 19th Century

AAAAAAAAAAA

As darkly hinted at in previous posts, the next project rushing towards me like a bullet train is not just a) soon and b) important, it is also c) something I know nothing about.  Namely and to wit, some dear friends are getting married on Halloween, and they are having an historical theme.  The wedding party themselves will be high Victorian, but any historical era is welcome.   (And yes, we could certainly roll up in 16th century...and I'm keeping that option in my back pocket in case everything goes completely and utterly pear-shaped...but seriously that would be cheating.) Now, I have a lot of aesthetic appreciation for the dresswork going on in the late 19th century, but honestly it's not a period that really makes my heart sing, so I decided to ratchet it back a little earlier because, okay, let's be honest, I really want to see my blonde Yorkshireman in tight green wool trousers.

can I get an "Amen" or possibly a "Hallelujah" for Sean Bean as Sharpe.

So what I'm looking at for my lovin' man is a reasonable approximation of a Napoleonic Wars-era 95th Rifles uniform.  The garments themselves break down thus: 

hatten ar din.

• A white shirt which hasn't really changed that much over the centuries; that's easy
• Dark green front-fall trousers, should be wool, we can compromise a bit there due to expense and probably what will be a very warm venue
• Dark green tunic.  With a metric shit-ton of black soutache and pewter buttons. -_-;;;;
• Bright red silk sash--also easy, particularly if I pretend not to see the fancy cording; there were some that were just silk knotted at the ends and entasseled.
• Theoretically a black silk stock, but most of the time we don't see Sharpe actually wearing it?  This could probably be left off without anyone noticing.
• Dark green felt shako with a black or dark green plume, cording, and a pewter badge.  OH FFS.



This dress makes her look smokin' hot.
Ergo it is historically inaccurate for the 1810s. 

• (And I figure we can leave off the sword because it is after all a joyous civilian occasion.  More to the point that means I don't have to faff around with the leather belt etc.)

Do I have patterns for any of these things?  Do I hell.  There are a couple out there, but they seem questionable at best.  Research continues.  I don't think the actual construction will be particularly difficult (howls of derisive laughter, Bruce) but getting 60-odd pewter buttons plus miles of thick corded trim on everything is going to be a giant shit-burger, oh yes it is.  Not to mention trying to MAKE. A. HAT.

For myself, I'm intending to cheat a little in the opposite direction.  The true Regency style is, frankly, not flattering to any shape, but it is maximally unkind to the zaftig; the sought-after look was slender and willowy, and if you are not that, you look like a stuffed pillowcase.  So I am going to duck up to somewhere around 1830, where you start getting figures again.  And, happily, I do have a source for patterns for that.  And my garments break down thus:

• Chemise, which is more like a camisole than chemises as we medievalists know 'em.  Should be trimmed with lace &c., but that could be eschewed.
• Drawers.  Can be skipped.  fnarr fnarr.
• Corset.  This...will be another load of Not Fun.  But I wanted to learn this technology anyways; might as well do it when there's a gun to my head.
• Gown.  Silk, should have some lace or other decoration, but considerably less than those poor sods in 1860-1890.
• Gloves.   Buying them, believe you me.
• And, if I have time, HA HA HA HA HA, a reticule.

1820; a little earlier, and a lot of work.
But something not unlike a shape.

1828.  Now we're talking.  The fabric
speaks for itself.