A Most Beguiling Accomplishment

Mourning dress, c. 1830 by unknown designer

This dress is made of black silk twill.

day dress, c.1910-12 by unknown designer

this dress is made of silk velvet, silk taffeta and silk tulle

Hi! So the main thing to remember is that the corset is the support device. The bodice should not have to do anything on that count *unless you aren't wearing a corset* (which was uncommon, but some people couldn't tolerate them, etc.) If your corset isn't giving you enough support, you need a different corset. Historically, there were many different types of corset made for different proportions, sizes, silhouettes, and needs, so it isn't that surprising that modern corsets don't do the job for everyone.

I used to be extremely busty (good riddance!), on the order of a 15" difference, 2XL bust size, ~G/H cup. Below, two corsets that I used daily. They support the bust from below, and underneath the corset you're meant to wear a non-stretch layer--I use cotton and linen chemises. That restrains the top half of your bust from spilling over.

Green is an 1890s style with partial cording, made by Clockwork Faerie Corsetry, and grey is the Redthreaded 1860s pattern that I added larger bust gores to.

I fitted many costumes on top of these corsets! Below, the rainbow dress was a quick make and actually not even lined, let alone boned; it went over the grey corset and was totally smooth. Meanwhile, the blue dress at right was one of the first-ever costumes I made, and while it's also unboned, all that wrinkling is because I didn't understand how to fit the thing to my corset.

For the green corset, this brown 1880s bodice below also has no boning. I won't claim that it's perfectly fitted--it isn't, there were a lot of problems--but this wrinkling could have been mitigated by letting the 2nd darts out a little more at the top of the stomach. The red plaid dress I made over the same corset, and there's none of that wrinkling because the front was fit better. (Also no boning.)

Meanwhile, this silver 1890s gown (also made over the green corset) DID have boning on every seam, and that couldn't save it from bad fit. I really hated this one. I hope its new owner enjoys it more than I did lol

But back to the topic at hand--hopefully you can see how the bust was already contained by corset+chemise, and none of these bodices had anything to do with support. They are just another layer added on top, icing the cake.

The whole thing about corsets and support is that they lift the bust by pushing down on your nice, squishy waist (rather than pulling from the shoulders and putting pressure around the ribcage, as bras do). They create a shell for you to fit clothes to. Bodices are just the very nicely fitted blouse you throw on at the end, and any boning is meant to affect *their* look, not the way your body is shaped.

Historical comparisons:

Left: lady in a stretchy (jersey) bodice, almost certainly no boning (c. 1884, KL26.13). Corset very clearly doing all the work. Middle: big bust shoved up by corset (c. 1885, 25.9). Bodice wrinkling for various reasons, but it's not doing the support work. Right: a dress worn without a corset, so bust touches belly. (c. 1850, 23.546)

Left: This is what a bodice looks like when it is being forced to support the bust: bad. (there's surely a corset under here--they might've retouched the lines--but the strain lines show that the bodice is doing work here.) (late 1870s, 23.80) Right: the corset doing all the work on a very heavy bust = smooth result. (c. 1889, 23.534)

You also really do not want your bodice to have to take any strain because they're usually closed with things like buttons, which (as opposed to zippers, for example) attach to the other side at intervals. Intervals = gapping = strain marks, as seen in that photo above. Also, more likely that your buttons will pop. Your closures should *not* be under that level of strain.

Corsets are designed to take strain; bodices aren't.

English Embroidered Mull Dress

c. 1815

Journal des Dames et des Modes, 1821

Dress

c. 1875-1880

Taffeta, satin, and lace

Italian

G2022.19.001

Incidentally, this is why I don't care that the recent Wuthering heights wasn't realistic period dress or society etc. It was blatantly symbolic (and Symbolic!) and wasn't trying for realism or period accuracy, so I don't criticise it for period inaccuracy. Like, who walks across the moors in a massive tulle gown in real life? No one ever, and that's the point. It's obviously performance, and that's what its going for. My criticisms are based on other criteria.

But this new adaptation of S&S seems realist - the colour palette and grading, the costumes and hair that aren't accurate but look like something real people at some point in time have worn, the characters that read like real(ish) modern women... It's trying to read as realist without being realistic and just. What's the point in setting it in the past then?? Why adapt Sense and Sensibility, a realistic realist novel, into an unrealistic realist movie?

I'm just so tired of earth tones being "realist." People wore bright clothes! The past wasn't drab, honestly it might have been brighter than now given our whole obsession with beige minimalism.

But no, it's not realistic unless it's BROWN and BORING

This is just modern minimalism imposed on the past. Just make a modern.

a) If you are doing Jane Austen, you are doing the top of society, percentage-wise. Stop lying to yourself. (Even the Dashwoods. They're poor in comparison to their previous situation but they still have incomes and more to the point, their old clothes.) They have servants. There is someone waiting to help them change clothes.

b) Oh my god it does not take hours to twist someone's hair up and stick a comb in it, and cosmetics were minimal. The alternative to pristine is not "full blown mess".

*) For further context: One of the top areas in Czechia from which people emigrated into the US for better prospects later in the century.

(Original source is Miroslava Ludvíková: Kvaše z roku 1814)

With cotton printing... seeing her kerchief... My initial gut instinct at point c) was I wanted to say "I live for the day someone puts a Regency era character in indigo resist print", and then I realised I don't have to because F. L. Věk already did back in 1971. (Well, a 1790s character.) Sadly in black & white. That series is far from authentic in its costuming, but I get the sense at least it did not commit this mistake of "realism".