Wrapper Ideas

[BetsyConnolly]

After a few months of sewing hiatus (moved, finished grad school, found a new job, moved again, started new job, etc etc etc), I am finally ready to work on things again. On my radar of Things Needed is a wrapper.

I'd like to do it without a pattern - I have a toile draped for me, and as I have some fitting quirks it just seems to make more sense to me to try and adjust my toile to make a wrapper than to spend money on a pattern that will be virtually useless.

So, here's the scheme, after research and looking at pictures: I need a wrapper that functions just as a wrapper, not a wrapper that can double as a reasonable work dress. I'd like one that has the front skirt and bodice treated as one, unfitted, with contrasting fabric panels down the center front. The main fabric I have is a blue and tan striped print calico, contrasting fabric TBD. Here are my questions:

1) How do I cut out the fronts with the skirt and bodice as one? How does the lining work - do you just turn under the bottom portion of the lining and tack it down?
2) How wide should the contrasting panels be? Are these lined? Does the lining fabric just extend the entire width of the panel to treat the panel and fashion fabric as one?
3) I've searched and not found answers on hems - are the usually faced?
4) I've seen wrappers that seem to be cotton prints with open sleeves. Would that be a reasonable type of sleeve for this wrapper?
5) Closures-wise, I've seen some that tie up the front. Is that also reasonable for this wrapper, or should I stick with buttons or hooks/eyes?

Thanks in advance!

[K Krewer]

There's no ONE answer to a lot of these things.  Keep in mind that a lot of wrappers started life as a dress that was then expanded or adapted into a wrapper, so construction varies, plus a lot of these things are really affected by personal preference or skill.

For cutting out those that are not starting life as a dress, Mrs. Pullen suggests taking a fitted pattern or toile and simply increasing the width by cutting a wider angle from the amscye down.  (I would think you'd also want to put the front on a wider angle, as well, so that it lies straight and flat over your hoop.)

The  lining depends on whether you line the whole thing, or just the bodice.  You can either flat line the bodice separately, or just have the front bodice lining attached at the underarm seam but otherwise separate; if the latter, the most common treatment is just to do a simple hem at the bottom.  (I've also seen them just hacked off!)

I've seen the contrasting panels in front as narrow as 2" or as wide as 10" -- it depends on personal preference and, to some extent, how much the wearer needed to sufficiently expand an existing dress.  Frequently they're an addition, one piece of fabric folded in half.  But you can also apply them over the dress fabric or over the lining.  The lining fabric CAN extend the width of the  fashion fabric but doesn't have to.

Hems are frequently faced but don't have to be.

The openness of the sleeve depends on what you're going to use the wrapper for.  Lots of people use these for getting-ready-camp-chores dressing, and an open sleeve is sometimes less practical for these activities.  There's no ONE answer to a lot of these things.  Keep in mind that a lot of wrappers started life as a dress that was then expanded or adapted into a wrapper, so construction varies, plus a lot of these things are really affected by personal preference or skill.

For cutting out those that are not starting life as a dress, Mrs. Pullen suggests taking a fitted pattern or toile and simply increasing the width by cutting a wider angle from the amscye down.  (I would think you'd also want to put the front on a wider angle, as well, so that it lies straight and flat over your hoop.)

The  lining depends on whether you line the whole thing, or just the bodice.  You can either flat line the bodice separately, or just have the front bodice lining attached at the underarm seam but otherwise separate; if the latter, the most common treatment is just to do a simple hem at the bottom.  (I've also seen them just hacked off!)

I've seen the contrasting panels in front as narrow as 2" or as wide as 10" -- it depends on personal preference and, to some extent, how much the wearer needed to sufficiently expand an existing dress.  Frequently they're an addition, one piece of fabric folded in half.  But you can also apply them over the dress fabric or over the lining.  The lining fabric CAN extend the width of the  fashion fabric but doesn't have to.

Hems are frequently faced but don't have to be.

The openness of the sleeve depends on what you're going to use the wrapper for.  Lots of people use these for early morning camp activities, and an flowing sleeve may not be the most practical.

Closures for wrappers include a self-fabric tie belt (very common with cotton),  a cord belt, buttons, double buttons with loops over, or simply sewng shut at the bottom and buttons or hooks and eyes at the bodice.  I'm not sure what you mean by tying up the front -- if you mean separate small ties, I don't think that's a common treatment.

[BetsyConnolly]

K, you are brilliant - thank you for such thorough information. I estimate that maybe 1% of the use this dress will see will involve early morning camp activities - I do not camp much. I've gotten some inspiration for a bishop sleeve, but if I decide to go with an open sleeve, would that be okay in a cotton calico for this instance? I know that a lot of the rules for "regular" dresses are not so firm for wrappers, and I've looked at a LOT of pictures, to the point that my head is spinning at the variety!

For cutting out those that are not starting life as a dress, Mrs. Pullen suggests taking a fitted pattern or toile and simply increasing the width by cutting a wider angle from the amscye down.  (I would think you'd also want to put the front on a wider angle, as well, so that it lies straight and flat over your hoop.)

Do you mean cutting it at a wider angle at the side seam, to increase the width there, or slashing and spreading?

I've seen the contrasting panels in front as narrow as 2" or as wide as 10" -- it depends on personal preference and, to some extent, how much the wearer needed to sufficiently expand an existing dress.  Frequently they're an addition, one piece of fabric folded in half.  But you can also apply them over the dress fabric or over the lining.  The lining fabric CAN extend the width of the  fashion fabric but doesn't have to.

So, what I'm picturing is taking the front of the wrapper and the contrasting panel, sewing right sides together along the opening of the wrapper and one edge of the panel, folding the contrasting panel in half lengthwise, turning down the raw edge and stitching it down? Am I totally off?

I've seen some wrappers (like this one: http://thegracefullady.com/civilwargowns/images/originalgarments/underpinnings_wrappers/silkwoolwrapper2.jpg which have the bodice fronts and front skirt panels cut as one, sort of princess-style, making a totally loose front. How does one cut this? My instinct is to just lengthen the bodice front the length of the skirt. Is there another, better method?

I promise I'll stop overthinking this soon 

[K Krewer]

For cutting out those that are not starting life as a dress, Mrs. Pullen suggests taking a fitted pattern or toile and simply increasing the width by cutting a wider angle from the amscye down.  (I would think you'd also want to put the front on a wider angle, as well, so that it lies straight and flat over your hoop.)

Do you mean cutting it at a wider angle at the side seam, to increase the width there, or slashing and spreading?

***
So, what I'm picturing is taking the front of the wrapper and the contrasting panel, sewing right sides together along the opening of the wrapper and one edge of the panel, folding the contrasting panel in half lengthwise, turning down the raw edge and stitching it down? Am I totally off?

I've seen some wrappers (like this one: http://thegracefullady.com/civilwargowns/images/originalgarments/underpinnings_wrappers/silkwoolwrapper2.jpg which have the bodice fronts and front skirt panels cut as one, sort of princess-style, making a totally loose front. How does one cut this? My instinct is to just lengthen the bodice front the length of the skirt. Is there another, better method?
[/quote]

What Mrs. Pullen suggested is just cutting it at a wider angle at the side seam.  My suggestion is also to slightly increase the angle at the front, as well.  It just seems to me that in order to expand over a hoop you need the straight front laid at a slightly different angle, but perhaps if the underarm- angle is wide enough you don't need that.  Do you have access to Godey's?  In an 1862 Godey's is a diagram called the Madeline Wrapper -- I think it shows the underarm seam cut at a very wide angle -- that's what you need.

And yes, you can do the contrasting/facing panel the way you've suggested.

[Joanna Jones]

Betsy - the coat I'm working on (and the pattern I'm going to send you as soon as I get your address hint hint) has the same idea - one piece from neck to hem - so the side seam takes off at an abrupt angle at the waist area.  If you are confused, perhaps looking at the pattern when it gets there (need your address hint hint) will help.  The two items are really shaped similarly, now that I think about it!

Regards,
Aunt Jenny 

[BetsyConnolly]

Thank you both for your input - you helped me out immensely. I can definitely picture it now, and have things to consider!

[lindym]

For my wrapper I used Kay Gnageys green dress Simplicity pattern #2887 (no waistline in the front: http://www.simplicity.com/p-1799-costumes.aspx#t-2).
For the front I followed the pattern (adding extra with across the bust for gathered fullness) but made the back with a standard waist attached to the skirt. The front is totally lined along with the bodice back. I used bishop sleeves and 22 functioning buttons down the front. It is made from tropical wool with the front and sleeves of a wild paisley cotton.  Love my wrapper!

Linda

[BetsyConnolly]

After months of dithering and working on other projects, I am finally ready to start work on this (and now need it in a few weeks, of course). I'm still planning on doing the front all as one, and have drafted a pattern based on my paletote front, with sides that cut away very sharply.

The one thing giving me pause - the fabric has verticle stripes. The sides cut away very dramatically - should I be worried about the stripes looking funky? Is this something the original cast would have been worried about? Or will it just add to the visual interest?

[E L Watkins-Morris]

Go for visual interest!

Stripes and gored skirts (which is what the front will essentially be) make for killer pattern effects.

Play with the layout-you can match it or you can intentionally make the join way off.  Depends on your fabric.

Also if the idea of the wonky stripes still gets you, lay some 2-2.5 in flat trim over the seam to break up the line. The simplest way is use one of the stripes in your fabric to make a "ribbon" (use your scraps and piece it together).  Repeat that trim as needed on the fronts and/or the sleeves to balance it out.

Liz W.

[Jehanne H]

Were wrappers always worn over several petticoats?  Did women really put on all of those clothes to be casual?  How against our modern sensibilities that is!

I like the idea of wrappers.
Someone had purchased some wrappers for the costume room and no one knew what to do with them.  They seem to have gotten very little use.  The one time I did see them being worn may not have been the correct way.  It did not look appealing.
They certainly do look appealing in some of the images that I am seeing here.  I am going to find them and give them a second look.
Hey! If you can wear your undergarments hanging out, that might appeal to some of the younguns'.
I like the idea of the pretty,white petticoat hanging out.  It is surprising, given the perceived prudishness of the time.

[Elaine Kessinger]

Madame H.-
Please do not take something out of context in your excitement.

Wrappers were generally worn with all the appropriate underpinnings, often including the corset and sometimes a cage crinoline.
Wrappers should be thought of as a "lounge suit" is today... you have everything from raggedy sweats and tee of the "white trash" to the elegant and trimmed silk elastic waist pants and zip-front jacket of the "society grand dame"

Some wrappers were worn by the wealthy to "take the waters" at a resort spa... or to the dinning room of a hotel for breakfast... those would be of fine, delicate fabrics and open in front to show off a special petticoat with yet more delicate trimmings... conspicuous consumption at it's best.

Some wrappers were worn by the less affluent as casual lounge wear or "getting dirty" clothes... as we might change from our office dress into sweats and tee at the end of day or on Sat. to clear out the garage.

The wrappers that will be most helpful in outfitting your historic site are the ones that are closed in the skirt, not showing off any petticoats and without the nifty contrasting panels at the sides... because the idea is to use wrappers that look as close to a dress as possible. ALL the underpinnings are still needed to give the appropriate look... as is a white collar or different print neck kerchief to protect the neckline. Again... the idea you are shooting for is for the wrapper to look like a dress... so you'd want to treat the wrapper as you would a dress.

The idea of going without underpinnings in period should be viewed as a woman today of moderate to large bustline going without a bra. Respectable women, no matter how affluent or economically challenged, just don't do such things without stares and snarky comments. Do you really want your site on the period version of "People Of Walmart"? Didn't think so.

[Jehanne H]

Elaine, "getting dirty" clothing is just exactly what we need.  We are often wet with fragrant canal water, are covered in canal mud and our bodices are wringing wet with sweat.  The sun eats up the fabric on the shoulders of our bodices and our skirts are ripped and patched from catching on things.  And, that is all before lunch!  It IS a pretty rugged day!  No doubt about it!  This is steel toed boot work!
I think that one reason that I am having difficulty trying to find the right medium is just because the nature of the work is not work that most women would find themselves doing, even on the canal.   Sure, there were many physical jobs, but many of these things were done by men.  Sure, women worked hard at doing many other things, and some did do a man's job, no doubt.  It is a bit anachronistic, in that regard.  And, the time period is a little vague.

There are some other duties around the park that would allow a more period dressed appearance.  There are some programs and some historical interp where one might want to be better dressed.  The main reason that the  period clothes are worn is to work on the boat.   Most of the time, employees and volunteers will wear street clothes and uniforms.  So, it is not all living history.  It is not as complete a living history experience as are some other venues.  There ARE some pretty intense living history experiences to be enjoyed by the public.  And, there are some very talented people who are attracted to this line of work.  Many of them come from an interest in history, science and the theatre, and teaching.  Many of them have a lot to add to the performances they put on for the public.  They are pleasure to work with and to spend the day with!

Also, there are some displays in some parks that deal specifically with period dress.  So, the public will get exposed to authentic period clothing within the parks system. 

Woe, that we should appear to be mid 19th century Walmart!  Oh, no!  Rugged rascals, maybe---but, not scallwags and skanks!  Just really hard working ladies...