Talk:1700–1750 in Western fashion

Comments[edit]

Good start, but you might consider including some version of "Portrait of Mr. and Mrs. Andrews" by Thomas Gainsborough -- it's kind of iconic (the "American Gothic" of the 1740's, if you will). I have a scan linked at http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pembfun/victcfsh.html#ssprereg , but you can probably find better ones around. Churchh 19:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent catch; it was already in wikipedia but I grabbed a detail. Thanks. -PKM 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things we still need[edit]

More German and Italian styles (dresses with cuffs, and wrist-length engageantes) - not having much luck finding images bigger than postage stamps.

Cloaks and other outerwear. Stockings.

This could become a very long article. :-) - PKM 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panniers[edit]

The widest width of panniers (as opposed to hoops) started late in this period, and had the most influence in the fashions of the 1760s and 1770s, so I'm not sure Marie Antoinette really belongs in this article. On page 425 of the 1st edition of Blanche Payne, there's a hugely wide 1751 Swedish court gown that might have more relevance to this article than Marie Antoinette. Churchh 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see Wetman's edits to pannier (clothing)? I need to include a Velasquez reference in the prior period (which has no women's section yet, though it will - I just unearthed the article on portraits in negligee that I was looking for). Will see if I can find that Swedish gown in a portrait - my take on copyright is that photos of actual clothes in museums are copyrightable, and therefore not fair game (though a case could be made for fair use...). - PKM 16:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not it, alas - probably a portrait as Queen Mother for the coronation of her son as King of Sweden in 1771 (all that ermine...!) http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Lovisa_Ulrika_av_Preussen%2C_m%C3%A5lad_av_Lorens_Pasch_dy.jpg - PKM 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Lorens Pasch didn't start painting for the court until 1766. And some online digging indicates that "änkedrottning" is Queen-Dowager (caption: Lovisa Ulrika som änkedrottning, porträtterad av Lorens Pasch d.y.). - PKM 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a regional fashion even before this period, but its greatest influence on pan-European fashions was still after this period... Churchh 03:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There's another pic at Image:Luise Ulrike von Preussen.jpg Churchh 12:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was looking for that one - had seen part of it photoshopped into an article on her jewels. - PKM 17:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Textiles[edit]

Peter Thornton, Baroque and Rococo Silks demonstrated that the cut of a woman's dress changed less year to year than the patterns that were fashionable. I rember the "bizarre pattern" silks of the 1710s he illustrated,, though I haven't seen the book in going on forty years! --Wetman 05:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, we need stuff on eighteenth century fabrics, and embroidery. Good point. I have some references - will try to find some good PD images to go with! - PKM 02:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Around 1826, high-contrast plaids and stripes seemed to come into style, which for some reason was picked up on as the eye-hurting black-and-white checkerboard fabrics for the movie Pride and Prejudice (1940 film)... Churchh 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: bizarre fabrics - a good link and reference text. http://www.manchestergalleries.org/costume/narrative.php?irn=189&QueryPage=index.php&themeback=1&CostumeTheme=Close+Up - PKM 03:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranging[edit]

Moved men after women, so now all articles in this series have that structure. I'm not entirely happy with the way I have the images laid out to support this change; will probably add some and move some around. - PKM 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced Image:Plettenberg.jpg with Image:Philips Charles Group Portrait Of A family By A Lake And A Classical Pavilion detail.jpg - I think it's easier to see, but I am open to feedback. - PKM 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Plettenberg young boy seems to be wearing a wig -- not quite sure what to make of that... ;-) Churchh 05:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only bad thing about moving women up is that Mr. and Mrs. Andrews are dropped down to the middle of the page; not sure if anything should be done about that... Churchh 05:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the infelicities I am struggling with. Perhaps more overview to allow space to move it back up. - PKM 16:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recategorized in 2006 in accordance with a scheme for organizing articles in Category:History of clothing.

That effort has been superseded by WikiProject Fashion.

Please join that project or see its talk page for further discussion.

- PKM 03:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved image to 1750s[edit]

I moved Image:Jean-Marc_Nattier_003.jpg to 1750-1795 in fashion since every source I can find dates the painting to 1754. Thanks for posting it - it's great. - PKM 16:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children's fashion[edit]

I have some relevant images linked from Image:1778-Bourgeois-daughter-fashion.jpg . Anyway, Image:Watteau the dance.jpg should probably be moved down... Churchh 14:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, will do. - PKM 03:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe also Image:Jean-Baptiste_Siméon_Chardin_002.jpg ... Churchh 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to scanning the formal mantua image I have been wanting, which takes care of the corset reference, so I moved this image as you correctly suggested.

We need more images for this period. - PKM 20:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1680-1730[edit]

The 50 year articles are problematic. One should probably rather have a 1680-1730 article (I know that is not possible) and move most of the present 1650-1700 stuff into that. The present article seems to be rather a 1730-1750 article, the 1730s shift in fashion (e.g. towards less opulent wigs is not really dated...) --Olaf Simons (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct the 50 year articles are problematic. They should run something like this: 1650 to 1665, 1665 to 1680, 1680 to 1720 (or so). Fashion for men had not changed much from 1690 to 1715. Azalea pomp (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Round Gowns a la Francaise[edit]

Does anyone have a source for a robe a la Francaise with a closed-front petticoat? I've never come across an example, either in paintings or extant garments, that doesn't have an exposed petticoat-- all round gowns I've seen have been robe a l'Anglaise. I can certainly believe they exist, but it seems prudent to maybe have an example picture to substantiate the claim that both robe a la Francaise and robe a l'Anglaise could be worn as round gowns. 131.229.236.145 (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original commenter here, months later I’ve finally come across a single example of a robe a la française with a closed front. However, it’s noted that this particular gown was refashioned from an earlier robe volante with some constructional elements (such as the closed front) maintained. As such, I think it’s safe to assume this is an exception to the exposed-petticoat rule for robes a la française, so my edit of removing the mention of round gowns a la française still stands. Just wanted to share the find! PDFDownloader100 (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]