Snippets

I'm back in that hut at the bottom of a garden in Oxfordshire again, this time for a production of Great Expectations. I'm going to share a few of the costume highlights so far (a trip to Bristol Costume Services is on the cards for next week, I LOVE hire companies).

 First up, fabulous military jacket covered in braid, mmmmmmmm braid.

Next, a couple of delicate embroidered blouses. The first one is commercially made (as opposed to being made for theatre or by a costume company).

The embroidery is really fine, in a pale blue variegated thread on the latte colour silk crepe.

I haven't got round to doing the ironing yet.

The second blouse is possibly a one off, there are no labels to be seen, so I don't know if it was a theatre make or a home make that has made it's way into the costume store.

The scallop detailing on the cuff is incredible, but what had me most intrigued was the embroidery on the body of the blouse.

It looks like a simple running stitch outline, with a trellis pattern in the flower centres, but the leaves and petals look more opaque than the surrounding area. At first I thought it was an incredibly small and neat applique, but closer inspection of the reverse shows that this is not the case.

It's not very easy to see in the photo, but the running stitch on the outside is actually the back of a herringbone stitch that has been worked over all the petals and leaves, which is what's making those areas more opaque. I've never seen this technique before, does anyone know if there's a particular name for it? Clearly it's only effective with sheer or semi-sheer fabrics, but it's so clever!

Finally it's this late Regency velvet and damask gown. There are so many details in this dress that I love.

Narrow braid over the curved bodice seam.

Pleated front section, gold piping and a crepe chiffon contrast.

MASSIVE puff over sleeves.

I fully expect to see more of this kind of thing next Friday as I'll be in Bath to see the Laura Ashley exhibition at the Assembly Rooms, expect many photos.

Size Matters

I've been thinking about size a lot recently. More specifically clothes sizing, most specifically women's clothes sizing and how very arbitrary and unhelpful it is for numerous reasons. I proably won't be able to cover all of my problems with it in one post, so I might try to cover the issues very generally now, and then come back to some select points at a later date, we shall see.

Why must we define our size with just one number?
I understand that it is not possible to make every item of clothing a company has for sale in every single possible combination of sizes, obviously it would be never ending. I also see that compared to men's clothing it makes sense, as they tend not to go in for all in one items*, and these numbers are 'dress' sizes. When trying to design and fit an item that covers 3 of the key measurement areas (bust, waist, hips) as well as the question of length in body, skirt and arms, it must be difficult to average it all out to a point where it fits the majority of women. Clearly the people in the know have had to perform some complex maths in order to create a univerally applicable sizing system that makes shopping a breeze.

 But they haven't. Or they did, but it was decades ago and it's become largely obsolete with modern diets, lifestyles, style of clothes we're wearing and the underwear we are choosing.

Even if it did still function it wouldn't matter because individual retailers and designers have free rein to fudge the numbers and make the customer feel better or worse about themselves, to sell more clothes (flattery), to sell less clothes (exclusivity) or just to be a pain in the arse (I have no proof of this one, it's just a suspicion). I've found that the older the target market of a store, the more generous the sizing. Also, the more expensive the shop the smaller the range of sizes they hold. Is this an indicator of production limitations or an effort to refine the customer base (the range will be at the smallest end, without fail.)

 *Perhaps the ubiquitous onesie may change this, should it prove to have sartorial staying power, but I doubt it. On a similar note I have never fathomed the logic of selling men's shirts sized only in relation to neck measurement, the smallest measurement you could base it on, except perhaps wrists. At least for women it tends to be your widest part that gets the deciding vote.