Sew Last Century

tonight's fun fact: edwardian/straight-front please don't call them S bend corsets actually are NOT good if you have a huge bust! (comparison to victorian at end of post)

you're SOL if you can tightlace really tiny in Victorian styles and want to do the same thing with your huge bust in something c. 1905! it won't work! if you want that straight front you're going to have to learn to live with a larger waist or having your boobs shoved 90 degrees to the side!!!!!!

note that all the influencers with tiny waists in them ALSO HAVE SMALL BUSTS!!!!!

proof (on my body, at least) via six edwardian corset patterns i tried over the years:

Black T-shirt: Atelier Sylphe Ref W pattern, c. 1905. Nice waist reduction, but I had to compress my boobs as much as possible and it shoved them up way too high. later cut it all up so that there was boob room. as you can see, this destroyed the straight front (kudos to that extra-wide busk for being straight anyway). AFTER that destruction i had a mostly-ok silhouette under my blouse.

Yellow: Black Snail 1910s pattern. Looked nice, except I had to SHOVE my boobs down and unlace the waist MULTIPLE INCHES if i didn't want to look like I was squeezing out of a toothpaste tube. 0/10. inherent issues of straight-front design & 1910s bust/waist proportions.

Black long-sleeve: Atelier Sylphe ED8 pattern, c. 1900. I love this corset but hilariously I use it as an 1870s style because the busk bends and therefore it doesn't look like a goddamn straight-front. (note: i took in the sides of the bust a touch because, like those below, it shoved my boobs out to the side and looked terrible.)

Grey shirt: Truly Victorian c. 1905. first corset I ever made. I went with the high bust bc i thought that was meant for big busts. No. (tbh, low wouldn't have helped much.) this corset a) has very little hip spring and b) shoves your boobs WAY too high. Not the edwardian silhouette, though at least it doesn't shove your boobs out to the side! Also, it didn't end up with a straight front. My fashion history teacher at the time straight up asked me why it didn't look right (LOL). sorry hanna, it was because i had boobs!!! my bad!!! (screams)

Hershey's pants: Underpinnings museum c. 1905 pattern. Left, with full busk and boning. Shoved my boobs out fully to the side. NOT the fashionable silhouette; unusable. I switched to a short busk and took out some of the boning. Still bad silhouette for the period: too much boob and set too high. ruined straight front.

Blue dress: Atelier Sylphe Ref E (iirc), which is the only one of these actually taken from an original larger corset! c. 1908ish. Best one I ever found; still shoved my boobs out to the side and a bit to the front, ruining the "straight front". Limited amt of waist reduction w/o toothpaste effect. you just can't win.

.

ALL of these corsets had the same issue of shoving my boobs up *too high to look good in my shirtwaists*. Part of the issue is that, as a fatter person, my waist length was shorter than the expected for these styles. very typical! In the end I actually had a better look WITHOUT A CORSET in my lingerie dress, because between the forced lack of waist compression + needing to have my boobs in a more natural position, that gave the best result. which was crazy. + You also need a really stiff busk/extra-wide or to use an underbusk if you want a small waist and straight-as-possible front.

Also probably important to note that all of the above pictures were taken with me posing VERY precisely in the only way that looked okay. and they still don't look right.

.

MEANWHILE, a corset DESIGNED for busty figures in a period that didn't hate them, pattern from 1871:

gorgeous. stunning. SO comfortable. very much NOT a straight front because i'm allowed to have a projecting bust and a belly!!! i was the same body size here as in the photos with silver hair. yes. crazy what good fit does. (my bust was still a touch too big for it as patterned though lol)

ymmv. i have a lot of feelings on changing corset shapes and technology in the late nineteenth century.

Annett-Hitchcock's Intersection of Fashion and Disability is the most prominent work currently out. It doesn't really describe the basics of what disabled people wore generally, but it provides some interesting case studies and touches on historical cultures of disability. There's a lot on scoliosis supports (not surprising, as that's a big part of the surviving literature) and men whose wounds were documented. It falls into the trap of comparing corsetry to foot binding (sigh), so grain of salt and all that, but it's an important starting point.

I can also point you to Bach's thesis on scoliosis in 19th-century dress, but beyond that, there really isn't much. Dress and disability is a developing field, and most work concentrates on contemporary topics. The history of it is something that I'm interested in myself and may start to pursue after I complete my dissertation on fat fashion history. I run into it a lot as clothing for fatness (as well as pregnancy) has many intersections with that for disability.

There's a bit more that's come out recently on maternity dress (by Catriona Fisk, as well as the A History of Maternity Wear pattern book, but that isn't as scholarly). I can tell you that "invalids" were allowed to doff corsetry and wear looser clothing, so Gray's work on the Mother Hubbard is a good reference. I can also point you to my own work on "Fat Ladies" and freakshow performers who were dressed absolutely perfectly when required, which shows that people with limb and body differences were easily accommodated by the pre-RTW nineteenth-century fashion system (presuming you had the money for a dressmaker).

While a good corset shouldn't be putting any pressure on your ribs, it is a fact that there have always been people who either a) simply cannot tolerate pressure and have to go without support or b) don't care enough to do so.

That did not stop them from wearing clothes!!

(KL22.25, c. 1875 -- KL23.258, c. 1880 -- KL23.457 [Nena Palmer Roberts, June 6, 1908])

It is quite rare to find images like this, though, which speaks to two things:

Most women did wear corsets, which was accomplished by the diversity in available corsetry. People could easily buy corsets with less or no boning if they needed it; those choices simply weren't the fashionable ones.

Paintings and photography inevitably show people dressing their best. Even if they didn't wear a corset in everyday life, the likelihood is that they would put one on for a portrait.

Among the images you do find of corsetless people, most of them are older women. It is even rarer to find young women going without (which is part of why I bought the above photos for my collection).

Probably 1760s, [Christie's, Old Masters & British Paintings, auction 6360, 6 July 2012, lot 141] -- 1787, Giquello et associés (Binoche et Giquell), Objets d'Art et d'Ameublement, 10 June 2016, Paris, lot 17.

Disabled people have always existed and disabilities are not always visible. And while corsetry and ideal body shapes are an important aspect of fashion, they did not preclude a disabled person from engaging in fashion. People have always wanted to look their best :)

Mid 1880s, KL23.122 (Miss Shulze, "Tannte mäh laufen [couldn't walk]" written on back) -- c. 1908, KL23.62

I do want to end by reiterating that 19th-century corsets should not be putting pressure on your ribs or chest. (Bras give me back spasms even when they barely feel like they're putting pressure on my ribcage, and I've never had the same issue with corsetry.) 18th-century corsetry also should not be pushing on your ribs, but it does compress the bust a bit, so I can see it causing issues.

Make the historical costumes! Enjoy yourself!

...a few more pics from sewstine's March ball, along with one of the dresses that served as inspo...

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.

I have several pet peeves about historical costuming. While I try not to get too annoying about it (cough stop calling the straight front corset an "S bend" cough), it's time to get on my soapbox about boning.

My credentials: I am a published dress historian specializing in 19th-century Western womenswear. I have handled and studied hundreds of bodices of varying qualities, from Maison Worth couture right down to cheap, home-made clothing. I have also made these things myself and understand how technique affects results.

There is a tendency when sewing bodices to bone every single vertical seam, as it keeps them taut and reduces wrinkling.

But it's a massive fucking drag and sometimes you still get wrinkling! (And, if you're using steel boning, it weighs a ton.) So, consider going without.

--Hey, what??

Yes. Here is an interior shot of a c. 1897 bodice that has boning in every seam. Theoretically, the standard to which we aspire--right?

This used to be in my collection (KL 24.26) and the pattern is available here. It has since passed into new hands.

There are fifteen bones in that bodice. You can tell the maker wanted it to go as fast as possible, so they used a catch/cross-stitch to whack it all on.

My soapbox message today is that actually, proper fitting is FAR more important than boning every single one of your goddamn seams. Also, no boning is accurate too. See exhibit B:

This is a c. 1890 bodice. There are zero bones in it.

This is still in my collection; KL 26.5. Haven't contemplated patterning it yet.

Boning is, to some extent, a practical consideration (see above note about tautness). Equally, it is a mark of quality, expense, and time period. What do I mean by this?

Quality and expense: Bodices by better dressmakers, who charged higher prices, tend to have finishings that go above and beyond and represent a serious labor commitment. These two bodices are a good comparison for that; you can see that the blue one (which is silk, by the by) has the seam allowances pinked (the zig-zagged edges) while the tan one's raw edges were fully bound (a royal pain in the ass and major time sink, but looks fantastic). Equally, you'll sometimes see very nice, expensive bodices lined in china silk, while the cheap ones get lined in cotton.

You don't really need a silk lining or bound edges for something to be functional or even beautiful. The pinking did the "preventing fraying" job just fine. Equally, adding boning can sometimes cover up a bad fit job. Throughout the period, some bodices do not have any boning; some have partial boning, and some are fully-boned, and the correlation is very much [more expensive] 🤝 [more boning].

Time period: Boning is temporal--meaning that amounts increase as the century progresses. I have found that even by the 1880s, it is somewhat rare to find fully-boned bodices anywhere outside of couture establishments. Before that period, it's almost unheard of. But in the 1890s, you start to see a lot more boning at all levels of making! This might be a result of increasing availability (of boning in dry-goods and department stores; of pre-cased boning; and of different, cheaper varieties of boning) and also of changing sewing culture, with sewing books and magazines telling the reader to add boning to every seam.

Up through the 1830s, it's rare to see any boning.

From the 1840s-70s, the general rhythm is to bone the main pair of darts; sometimes both sets; sometimes sides; sometimes center backs. Usually not everything at once, and often the bones are quite short and just target the waist area. I *frequently* see bodices with no boning even in the 1870s, especially day bodices, and it's also common to just see 2-4 bones total, maybe 6 if they were really fierce about it.

With the long cuirass basques of the 1880s, boning helps to get around the wrinkling that comes with bad fitting and big hip spring from small waistlines. The 1890s took that and ran with it, and bodices in the 1900s are frankly over-engineered in every way, so of course they have it too.

Anyway, all this is to say that you don't have to go hard about boning bodices. Bone the closures if it's a lace-up situation, certainly, and boning can help if you don't have the skills to fit something perfectly. But in the long run, perfecting your fitting work (and wearing the right corset) will mostly obviate any need for boning.

See:

"Whalebones may be used, if desired, in all the seams, except the curved seams in the back, where they should never be placed, though some dressmakers put them in every seam. If a dress is properly fitted, and worn over a well-fitting corset, whalebones are not really needed in any seam." S. T. Allen, "Dressmaking at Home," The Woman's Book, vol. 1 (NY: Scribner, 1894), 256.

This post is directed at a dear friend of mine who likes to judge me when my makes don't have any boning in them.

See below: there is no boning in this bodice. The fitting was decent enough that it just didn't need it!

Bodice pattern is @mimicofmodes' Peacock Bodice, which is taken from an original (though I do believe the OG has some boning, lol). A very fun make from 2020. :)

🏳️‍🌈 This year's pride make! (2026) 🏳️‍🌈 I did finish it and wear it to an event in June, just forgot to post about it here 'till now. ;)

If I actually wear this for proper photos at some point, I'll probably jazz it up with self-fabric trim, tucker, fichu, engageantes, etc - it's a bit too modern/plain this way.

Pattern is the Amalia Jacket from Scroop Patterns, and hidden long seams were done on machine but I hand-stitched everything that would be visible. Got it all done pretty quickly in the week prior! I had to futz with the fit, as the expected bust-to-waist ratio on this pattern is only a 6" difference and in these stays I'm 10" (and I'm not even busty anymore..........) so the waist ratios of all the pieces are kind of uneven (oops). but in the end it's not even noticeable, so I'm happy enough! it just means i'm going to have to do the same futzing the next time I use it. really though, my kingdom for more patterns that have larger b-w ratios.

going absolutely crazy trying to figure out when various types of garter/girdle clips were invented. (goal: figuring out a consistent dating method for girdles.)

clearly they were using rubber/plastic by the 1910s. the white-background one above is from a 1940s pair (Lady-Lyke, seen further below), but the ones in museum collections from much earlier look the same. there are other types, but i'm trying to date the one on the red background...these full-plastic buttons were definitely in use by the 40s, common in 50s and later. I swear i was finding some from the 30s, but now i can't find my links. when were these invented????

anyway as a primarily 19thc corset historian i am really being stymied here by the fact that Essentially The Same Corset/Girdle was sold from about 1920 STRAIGHT through the '80s. this is so insane to me.

Link here. Sears changed to this logo in 1984 (and actually the blue version is from the '90s, but that might be fading.)

By the 40s-50s they do get more identifiable (more shiny synthetics, nylon introduced, lots of sheer stretch, zippers etc), but hardware aside, the actual construction and materials of these things basically went unchanged for 20 years.

this ^ could easily be a 1920s corset. the only reason i know it's not is bc it's labeled on the inside (Lady-Lyke 2105). LL sold girdles in this style from the 20s through 40s, and I found an ad with this model #(note that the illustration may show a diff one, that was not uncommon) from The Register (Mar 19, 1940), 8. Also, their model #s in the 20s were 3-digit, so this is definitely later.

so at this point i'm trying to look at the hardware, except i can't find a guide. anyone have advice?? (the corset in question that I am trying to date, because i'm probably going to pattern it, is below. at this point I'm guessing it's 40s.)

size 38! (waist size in inches) :)

for comparison, some 1920s styles:

L to R, c. 1921 corset (so still longer-line before mid-20s); Lady-Lyke ad from 1922 (Evening Baker Herald [Feb 9, 1922], 6); Lane Bryant corset from their 1925 summer sale catalog.