Calculating the spacing between tucks, so that they’re perfectly even and so the hem appears to be one of the tucks, is a mathematical nightmare riddled with second guessing and the occasional hissed epitaph. But eventually I managed it, and stitched and pressed it all. I’m relieved it’s over.
However.
My stitches are not perfectly even. The tucks wobble some, even though I pulled threads for both the fold lines and the stitching lines. Also, the spacing between the top, wide, tuck and the tuck below it is about 1/16th of an inch too wide.
I am not okay with this.
I’ve cursed the fabric which made perfection impossible, vowed never to used it for fancy underthings again, and played Scrabble on my iPad for a few hours (yes, hours – don’t judge me). Now it’s time to push on.
The next hurdle is a question of historic accuracy – should Maddie have a petticoat and chemise, or should she have a slip?
My first point of reference was Theimer’s Huret book. It states that in the beginning, the dolls had drawers and petticoats. But it wasn’t long before they switched to drawers with full slips. This would be fantastic information if not for the fact that Chiffonnette, the envy of every other enfantine poupée on the planet, has a petticoat.
Next stop was my collection of patterns from La Poupée Modéle. They provide patterns for petticoats, but no full slips. Which explains Chiffonnette’s choice. However, Maddie is neither a Huret, nor Chiffonnette, nor the Lily of the Poupée Modéle patterns. So which example applies?
I poured through stacks of old Antique Doll Collector and Doll News magazines searching for stories and photos from famous wardrobe dolls of the past ten years. I looked at a lot of pictures, but found almost nothing to add to my information about underthings. I had slightly more success on Pinterest, where I found dolls with slips, dolls with separate petticoats, and about thirty differently made examples of hoops. I also found a doll with both a slip and a petticoat in her trunk. And another doll was wearing what appeared to be a chemise and drawers, with a full slip over the top, and a petticoat over that (go figure). I did not see any all-in-one garments, which makes sense, since these were designed later as skirts grew too slim to accommodate unnecessary layers.
As a side note, the one thing all of these pieces of white work had in common was a lack of ornamentation on the bodices of slips and chemises. One had gathering at the upper edge, and one had tucks. Many, including the Huret book examples, were completely plain. The fanciest things I saw were chemises with tiny lace at the edge. Absolutely none of them had lace insets, bows, or embroidery (which I think only became commonplace in the early 1880’s or after). Maddie really wanted something more elaborate, but I’ve had to put my foot down with her.
After a full day of googling and searching (I even checked Godey’s archives for 1865-67) I came to the conclusion there isn’t any one right answer. So I’ve decided to defer to the master of pattern making – Sheryl Williams. She has seen a lot of antique doll clothes and wardrobes, and I never question the historic accuracy of anything she does. Her fit is also spot on. Maddie will have a slip modeled after her pattern for the resin bodied Huret dolls. I love that the bodice is plain and that the skirt is cartridge pleated.
If you’d like your own copy of Sheryl’s wonderful pattern, you can find a link to it HERE.
For the continuation of Maddie’s Underthings Project just click HERE.
To follow along with all of Maddie’s wardrobe building, her personal page is HERE.