#corsetry

Poland Model: Absentia (@absentia_veil).

Headpiece: Veil Workshop, Le Belle Burlesque

Poland Corsetry : Corsetry & Romance (@corsetry_romance. Owner: Paulina)

At simplest: because it isn't shaped like an S. Also, not only is there a better, more descriptive name for it; "S-bend" fails to describe the full range of corsetry made on the style and it's a post-period term.

I wrote a whole article here about this, but happy to explain in brief :)

First off, what distinguishes this "new" (emerging 1897-99) style of corset from the "old" Victorian corsets?

Izod corset 1887 vs. Izod ad c. 1905. Do you see the pronounced front curvature (out at bust, in at waist, out at belly) in the older one, and how that's been forced straight at right?

By any reasonable logic, the older corsets are the curvy ones. The distinguishing feature of the new corsets is that straight front, and it was called that in-period (droit devant).

There's no S in these corsets.

It's not a period term, and at best it refers to the sinuous shapes of the clothing on TOP of the corset. And yet, when we actually look at it, "S" is really just evocative of that Art Nouveau shapeliness of long flowing lines, and not an actual S. This 1900-1908ish style is MUCH better described as "Art Nouveau," trumpet skirt, pigeon-breast etc rather than a letter. I've found that my students remember it much better that way, too.

La Mode Artistique, 1905 / 1910s photo from VintageDancer.

This style of corsetry also long outlasts that particular style--see the 1910s image at right. Those women are definitely wearing straight-front corsets, but they've lost the sinuous lines of the 1900s; they're headed into the WWI fashion era. 1920s-50s corsets ("girdles") are also made on the same lines with the straight front.

It's absolutely a pet peeve; nobody's hurting anyone by saying "S-bend." But as a historian, I find the term useless: it's illogical as well as incongruous with period materials in a way that obscures the actual words that were used. Straight-front is more descriptive and more accurate.

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.