Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Historical underwear - The unmentionables ;)

Over Easter (with some days off and not being religious at all) I sewed some foundation clothes. I know they are not exactly necessary for WGT and should spend my time sewing for the big events, but I currently have some troubles with my sewing mojo and have to grab every straw I find! I used an original historical pattern published by the marvelous Marquise:

 photo IMG_6006_zpsb22a9239.jpg

 photo IMG_6007_zpsbbc409cb.jpg

 photo IMG_6008_zpscf7d6523.jpg

The fabric - a plain black, thin cotton- was bought last weekend in Münster and is almost gone already! The lace is also from the most recent order from Stoklaza and still feels a bit stiff. I worry a bit because I could not wash it before usage, but since it is ruffled, I guess it will stretch a bit if needed.

What you cannot see here is that they are made in the original fashion which leaves the crotch open. This was done to allow for easier toilet access and I'd like to try that out. I'll make the same pattern again with a closed crotch and compare them for usability, if you'd like... ;)

7 comments:

Ms Misantropia said...

I have a friend who makes historically correct clothes and she wears crotchless "panties" under. One time we had an Edwardian picknick and after a few glasses she didn't think about how she was sitting anymore - all skirts rode up and the pants opened. It was a sight to be seen, for sure :) Strange to be wearing so many layers, corsets and what have you, and then no underwear.

MindLess said...

@ Ms Misantropia: You just made me spit out my tea with laughter! How horrible for the poor girl! And how funny for all of you around her... ^^

I was thinking about a tame event to try them out because I would want to sit somewhere unhygienic with direct access to my *ahem* crotch. But with so many layers I imagine the split pants to be comfortable when *ahem* powdering your nose. If you know what I mean! ;)

Vulcan_Butterfly said...

Crotchless underwear? Sounds like fun! I didn't realize that was a historically accurate detail.

Neisella Nightmare said...

Deine BlogEinträge und Kommentare sind der Knüller <3

MindLess said...

@ Vulcan_Butterfly: If you juyt imagine that the poor girls had no central heating and wore a bunch of layers (underpants, chemise, underskirt, petticoat, skirt and potential draping overskirts), I can imagine the crotchless thing being very practical. But it sounds rather nasty, right?! ^^

@ Neisi: Was? *rotwerd* Echt jetzt?

ette said...

Hihi, schön geworden!
Ich habe eine alte hier, daher ist meine Motivation mir eine zu nähen nicht sehr hoch, andererseits wäre es vielleicht doch schonender für den Stoff. Hatte ganz vergessen, dass es da bei MArquise eine Anleitung gibt.
Die Öffnung hat übrigens nicht nur was mit Hygiene zu tun. Es waren gleichzeitig mit die ersten Hosen, die Frauen trugen und das war schon ein ziemliches Politikum. Um das ganze Abzuschwächen und den Männern nicht das Gefühl zu geben, dass die Frauen jetzt "die Hosen an" haben, machte man halt zwei einzelne Beine.

MindLess said...

@ ette: Aha, aber es gab doch auch vorher schon Unterhosen (oder zumindest so gewickelte Höschen). Was war denn an den Drawers so anders?!