Clothing Questions

CapnJack

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
105
Reaction score
3
Location
In my head
I have a few questions regarding women's clothing, in the mid-to late 19 century, that I need some help with.

What would a woman, who wore a handmade shirt as an outer garment, have worn as sort of a bra? Would a corset have been OK to wear under a buckskin shirt (She is a Native woman)?

Or, if not that, what might she have worn for an under garment?
 

Maryn

Sees All
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
55,320
Reaction score
25,292
Location
Snow Cave
I'm mostly guessing here, and will of course bow to anyone who actually knows something, but I would think if she's Native enough to wear a buckskin shirt, she's not wearing any garment that lifts her breasts or whittles her waist. Those are white-women clothes.

What tribe she is and whether she's at all emulating white settlers might mean a lot, too.
 

CapnJack

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
105
Reaction score
3
Location
In my head
She's Comanche, but is working with a white man (Her husband, but that's a long story) as a team. She wears kind of a combination of her own clothing and store bought.

Does that clear things up any? Or would it still make sense that she wouldn't wear anything under it?
 

Maryn

Sees All
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
55,320
Reaction score
25,292
Location
Snow Cave
Hm, thinking aloud here. Okay, she's kind of cross-cultural, got it. Wants to appear "civilized" enough to suit her husband and the people important to him--but clearly not willing to go all the way and dress as the settlers do, or she wouldn't be wearing the buckskin shirt she made.

Does she live in town, or on a farm or ranch? I would think a woman who grew to adulthood in a culture in which people don't wear anything like a bra or corset would find them incredibly restricting and uncomfortable. She might wear such a garment in town, to be ladylike, but would she with buckskin which won't be regarded as ladylike?

And I'm not sure corsetry would make much difference under the buckskin shirts I've seen, which unlike the movie versions of the 50s and 60s, were not darted and princess seamed to show off the female shape but more box-like, sometimes belted (or held in by a skirt) at the waist but otherwise not especially form-fitting.
 

CapnJack

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
105
Reaction score
3
Location
In my head
Actually, never mind about the messaging.

She and her husband are a bounty hunting team. Yeah, they've got a little house somewhere for when they need to take a break, but the rest of the time, they're typically on the trail, or if they're in a town, it's not for very long.

On the trail is probably where she'd wear whatever homemade clothing she has. But would it make sense that, in town, she'd wear something more presentable?

And if so, what might she wear in town that could hide a gun or knife?
 

Maryn

Sees All
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
55,320
Reaction score
25,292
Location
Snow Cave
So in town she's wearing white-lady clothes? Those skirts were voluminous and it would be easy to create pockets on the seams which would not be noticed but would be an easy, convenient reach for a lace hanky or a knife. It would also be easy to have an invisible opening at a seam or inside a pleat, allowing access to a pouch or bag held closer to the body. Not how I'd carry a knife, but maybe she wears it strapped to her thigh?

Here are a few modern-day sewing patterns for people to make historical costumes. The large red plaid and the blue plaid on the left are of your era, more or less, and I think the green is, too. I doubt your woman would wear a hoop skirt underneath, but you can see it's an enormous amount of cloth that's going to have a ton of folds when worn. This one is approximately the turn of the century and would have petticoats rather than a hoop skirt. Maybe half as much fabric, but still plenty.

And I found you an image of a Comanche woman taken in 1868: http://www.firstpeople.us/photographs/pt/Comanche-woman-1868.jpg
 

Cindyt

Gettin wiggy wit it
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
4,826
Reaction score
1,954
Location
The Sticks
Website
growingupwolf.blogspot.com
Last edited:

Maryn

Sees All
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
55,320
Reaction score
25,292
Location
Snow Cave
Repeating that I am most certainly not an expert, I think that skirt is far, far too snug to be proper in that era. Remember, it was a period when it was inappropriate to refer to women even having legs--they had limbs, if mention was necessary at all--and did not show their ankles. A skirt that hugs the curves of the body below the waist would be scandalous.

The skirt's cute but it look quite modern to me.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,284
She's Comanche, but is working with a white man (Her husband, but that's a long story) as a team. She wears kind of a combination of her own clothing and store bought.

Does that clear things up any? Or would it still make sense that she wouldn't wear anything under it?

She'd wear leggings likely made of deerskin; possibly buffalo, but deerskin is more likely.

No one with a choice wears skirts in the saddle on rough terrain for long distances and days of riding. Stupid, uncomfortable and possibly dangerous.

Deerskin leggings and tunics are much more sensible for riding, especially for someone who is Commanche.

Their clothing, even their boots and horse tack, tended to be beautiful, decorated with quills, beads and even painted designs. Their are examples in lots of museums. Google!
 
Last edited:

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,851
Reaction score
5,128
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
I was actually wondering, since she's out West, if this would have been something she could have worn into town?

http://www.cattlekate.com/store/womans-western-wear/casual-western-wear/ingalls-1800-skirt

Does that make any sense?

No. That's not historic at all. (And looks darned difficult to ride in.)

There are good books out there of nineteenth century general American and Native American costume (Texas Tech University Press has put some good ones out). Also many excellent museum collections.

But as a crash course on the parts I'm more familiar with:

No bras. Bras are a twentieth century invention.

Corsets were available mail order. They were always worn over a chemise since they were not washable. A chemise looks pretty much like a sleeveless white cotton nightgown. There was sometimes another layer of underwear over that like a very fitted white cotton nightgown before the actual dress went on, and there was always at least one petticoat.

Corsets provide plenty of bust support -- better than bras, actually. While they were laced up the back, by the mid-late nineteenth century they also often had patented quick-release "busks" in front so the lacing could be left alone.

Most corsets were made of tough utility canvas fabrics.

Many Victorian women went commando under the dresses. Underpants are another twentieth-century invention, and anything else was difficult to manoeuvre in under the skirts in the toilet.

Judging from old photos of pioneer women, some would forego corsets entirely. But just about everyone older than a teenager wore headgear whenever she set foot outside the house -- a sunbonnet, if nothing else, but always a hat, bonnet, or flowery frou-frou of some kind, never a bare head. It was considered a little shocking and unorthodox to do otherwise.
 

CWatts

down the rabbit hole of research...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
1,751
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Virginia, USA
And if so, what might she wear in town that could hide a gun or knife?

So in town she's wearing white-lady clothes? Those skirts were voluminous and it would be easy to create pockets on the seams which would not be noticed but would be an easy, convenient reach for a lace hanky or a knife. It would also be easy to have an invisible opening at a seam or inside a pleat, allowing access to a pouch or bag held closer to the body. Not how I'd carry a knife, but maybe she wears it strapped to her thigh?

She could also wear the knife strapped to her calf, the way a man would wear in it his boot, though it would be a little harder to access depending on her skirt and petticoats.

I've read that those skirts had big pockets, and women sometimes carried smaller revolvers in them. (Ann Parker's sleuthing saloon keeper Inez Stannert packed a Smoot that way.)

Judging from old photos of pioneer women, some would forego corsets entirely. But just about everyone older than a teenager wore headgear whenever she set foot outside the house -- a sunbonnet, if nothing else, but always a hat, bonnet, or flowery frou-frou of some kind, never a bare head. It was considered a little shocking and unorthodox to do otherwise.

I wonder what your Comanche would think of the use and abuse of exotic feathers in women's hats and bonnets?

Not to redirect this thread too much, but while it's been easier to dress my rather coquettish lady gambler (think Joanie Stubbs' wardrobe from Deadwood - so many fabulous hats btw), how would a woman open-carry in the west? The dress silhouette does not lend itself to a man's gunbelt. Could a shoulder holster work? Might take some adjustments as the straps on period rigs (see various recreations of Doc Holliday's) were more on the chest than the modern detective style. Note that she would not keep a derringer in her cleavage there's too much chance of it going off.
 

CapnJack

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
105
Reaction score
3
Location
In my head
I'm not sure how she'd view it. Might have a problem with it.

For how your character would carry, shoulder holster might work best. That's how my characters carry in town.

And may I message you, possibly?
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,553
Reaction score
6,363
Location
west coast, canada
If they're only in town to pass through, it might depend on what image she wants to project. If they're bounty hunters, she might not want to look too much like a 'town lady'. A rough-and-ready image might be better for business, and to remind people not to mess with her. (Also, if she has to dress like a townswoman for a disguise, people are less likely to make the connection, if they've only seen her in her trail clothes.)
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,553
Reaction score
6,363
Location
west coast, canada
It seems to me that a lot would depend on what she looks like, and what she wants/needs to look like.
If she has big breasts, she might be more comfortable with some support when riding all day, if her breasts are small, not so much. I would think binding would work as well as a corset, and be easier to get hold of on the trail.
If she's light-skinned, she could more easily pass for a white woman.

As to want/need: she might be safer on the trail as a male. Bound breast and a loose, bulky buckskin shirt might disguise her build enough to pass for a young man. Also, it might be better for business if she's thought to be a guy. The trusty male sidekick would be common enough for a man in a dangerous line of work, while a female companion might leave the impression of a guy who brings a date to a gunfight. Confident, perhaps, but with skewed priorities.:)
 

Jerome Price

Registered
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
There's a website, Historical Emporium I believe that sells modern made Victorian, and Western clothing for men and women for reenactors. It will give you a very good idea of what people wore back then.