Based on these three manuscript illustrations, I worked on this gown. The style is early 15th century French. The headdress is referred to today as a “heart-shaped hennin”, but I don’t know if that was a term in the 15th century for it.
Given that this is paper doll #15, it might surprise you to know it was actually the first or second one I sketched out. Most of the 1910s stuff was the first stuff I worked on, but the 15th century paper dolls were being worked on at the same time. Historical 1400s clothing is not an area that I’m super knowledgable about, but I have been itching to do some for a long time. Even more than the 1910s, it is an era I’ve largely neglected.
This is partly because I don’t know much about it and because I find it all a little intimidating. Also, the headdresses are…. bananas.
I went back and forth about this dress and the headdress. In the end, I decided the sharing things I’m not sure about is an important part of this month long project. Finish it and move on is my motto right now.
Today’s paper doll is wearing a 1915 corset and shoes from an ad from 1913. Her corset is the “Perida” model, which seems to have been a name for several different styles sold by Perry, Dame & Co at a variety of price points. This model was advertised as a comfort model, likely because of the elastic inserts and lack of heavy boning.
Confession: I am not 100% happy with how this paper doll’s hair came out. I started with a reference image, as I do, but somehow between the penciling stage and the inking stage and the reinking stage, because I hated the first inking, the end result doesn’t look like the reference photo at all. I’m hesitant to even state what I was working from, as the resemblance is… not really there.
But I did have a source even if the outcome doesn’t look much like the source. Sometimes, that’s how it goes. I did not put it on the paper doll file, because I thought doing so suggested a higher level of fidelity to the original than exists As a librarian, I think a lot about the idea of constructed authority- if you cite a source, people then assume a higher level of accuracy than if you don’t cite a source. Since most people don’t actually check sources, this can create a false appearance of historical rigor where no such rigor exists.
Is this a high standard to hold paper dolls too?
Well, yes, but I still think it matters, especially because this image will likely be separated from this blog post by the whims of the internet and I don’t want people to get a false impression. Mrs. Ike Perkins and Mrs. Sargent Dorsey deserve better than that. Don’t you think? I think so.
Popping back to 1915 to continue with that 1910 theme which has been a part of this whole month. I did not finish these pieces in anything resembling the order I started them in (as usual for me), so while this is one of the older ones I drew, here it is on day 10.
Day 10. I am quite proud!
Anyhow, this dress is from Perry, Dame and Co catalog. Perry, Dame and Co. was a New York department store. The dress was described as a bargain, but I have no idea how one assesses a bargain dress in 1915. The price did seem lower than most of the other dresses in the catalog, since the prices range on dresses from about 7 dollars to 2 dollars. To put that in perspective, according to inflation calculator 2 dollars in 1915 is about 60 dollars today.
A better way to think about it, I think, is that in 1912 a union female postal clerk made between 66 to 100 dollars a month in 1912 in NY while a female telegraph operator made between 1.39 and 1.94 per day. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports are just fascinating, if you feel like looking through them. The one I looked at didn’t break out race, just sex, but, in general, black women would have been paid considerably less than white women and had fewer employment options.
Anyway, I assume most people don’t get joy from reading through these sorts of things and I’ll not bore you with more labor statistics from the 1910s.
Today’s 1915 paper doll drawing comes from Perry, Dame & Co. was a New York department store which also did extensive mail order business. The Internet Archive has a few of their catalogs available online one from 1915 and one from 1919-1920.
One of my favorite sources to draw from are clothing catalogs which I did for this 1915 paper doll suit. I love flipping through old catalogs and I love knowing that what I am drawing is clothing women could actually purchase. It’s not hypothetical, as many fashion plates are, or something very high fashion, and it’s fully styled unlike museum pieces.
This suit is from the Spring-Summer 1915 catalog. I didn’t love the original hat that was put with it, so I picked out a hat I liked more from the millerinry section of the catalog. Of course, my modern eye is very different from that of a person from 1915 and who knows if this hat would really have gone with this suit. I chose the hat partly because I wanted to practice drawing feathers in Procreate and I chose the suit in part to allow me to try working with a double line brush that helped me do the complicated braided trim that decorates this garment.
So, this was certainly a “Rachel tries out some new Procreate things” creation. I am pretty happy with how it came out.
I confess I’ve got other things from this catalog in progress, so you might get really sick of the 1915 Spring Summer Perry Dame & Co catalog by the time this month is out!
Do you like 1915? Or is that a fashion era that doesn’t do it for you? Let me know in a comment. I’m super curious.
My husband was shocked to learn that Vogue was around in 1913. The suit is made from wool and trimmed in Russian chipmunk fur. I think chipmunks are very cute, so that took a sort of dark turn when I realized why the fur was striped. The skirt has a slight “hobble” so it is a bit tighter around the ankles. Hobble skirts were very trendy in the early 1910s and very controversial.
One of the best things about researching clothing from the 1910s is that there is a ton to look at. It was hard to pick one suit to draw! I discovered this amazing fashion magazine directory that someone else put together and it’s so good! I wish I’d found it years ago.
A few of my favorites from this era are Vogue, Ladies Home Journal, Good Housekeeping, Half-Century Magazine, McCalls (which began as Queen of Fashion and became Rosie), and commercial catalogs like Sears. Buried within the fashion commentary (which I am totally into) there is some really interesting insight into how women navigated entering the workforce, growing feminist and suffrage movements, and a variety of other social issues.
Each magazine is a little different. Vogue is very fashion focused, most of the others are also interested in “domestic life” which is early 20th century speak for social issues. Half-Century Magazine, which was a women’s magazine specially written by and for black women, is full of calls to action for readers to support various black businesses and enterprises. Good Housekeeping is aimed at a less wealthy audience and has a lot to say about budgets. Ladies’ Home Journal, one of the most widely circulated magazines in its height, mixes condemnations of “radical fashion” with sometimes surprising willingness to mention radical topics like divorce.
I could go on and on, but this isn’t a write up on women’s magazines of the 20th century, so I’ll spare you all.
I’m going to keep this brief, since I wrote a lot of this up in the newsletter already (subscribe here) and I just don’t know if I want to repeat myself (or if anyone wants to read me repeating myself).
One of the weird/interesting things about creating the newsletter has been grappling with the transient/permanent nature of it. I’ve always thought of this blog as both an archive of my work and as a place where if I make a typo and notice three months later (which has 100% happened), I can fix it. However, the newsletters don’t work that way. Once they are sent, they are done.
And while there is an archive, they don’t feel as permanent as a series of blog posts.
Since the whole newsletter thing is an experiment to begin with, I am still trying to grapple with how I feel about all that.
Anyway, let’s talk paper dolls. So, her underwear is a generic set of short stays over a shift with stockings a shoes. My goal here wasn’t to reproduce anything specific, but to get to the basic idea of “generic underwear of this era” rather than getting into specifics. Her hair is a combination of portraits like this one and this one. I wanted a hairstyle that could easily be covered in bonnets or hats, which I knew I was going to be drawing with nearly every dress.
To start with the morning dress is from this November 1813 plate from La Belle Assemblee which, despite a very French sounding name, was published in London and aimed at the fashionable set. People thought all things French were more sophisitcated than all things English. Interestingly, a lot of places will credit La Belle Assemblee fashioj plates to France on the name alone. While many of the plates in the magazine are copies of French fashion plates, the publication was definitely English.
The morning walking dress is really just a gown with a pelisse over it. The pelisse and bonnet were inspired by this September 1813 plate from La Belle Assemblee, again. A pelisse was a coat that was cut the same style as the dress. They came in all different styles like this one or this one. Some were made from very lightweight fabrics, but others were warm and designed as coats. Sometimes it’s hard to tell from an illustration if you’re looking at a pelisse or a gown or something in between.
The first gown on the second page (working left to right, top to bottom) is a ballgown. Ballgowns were the most formal gowns women wore with the exception of court dress and court dress has never been a big interest of mine. Court dress was governed by all sort of rules and regulations- a realm I have never wanted to dive into. The ball gown is based on this one from the Museum at FIT. The turban is from this 1815 fashion plate. Turbans were super popular in the 1810s.
The dress with the spencer is basically a walking costume. The Spencer was a jacket version of the pelisse. Both were cut to follow the lines of the dress. Spencers come in all different styles. A few that inspired this one include this 1815 yellow silk version and this March 1812 version from Ladies’ Magazine.
The Ladies’ Magazine was published in London starting in August of 1770. If I am remembering my fashion history correctly, it was the first magazine to publish a fashion plate, though the idea was quickly copied by French and German publications. My understanding is that Ladies’ Magazine was less expensive than some of the other fashion magazines of the era and the quality of the fashion plates shows this difference. Still, it’s a pretty amazing document. I have digressed a lot from our paper doll, so let’s finish up with the dinner dress.
And that’s it! More, I am certain, than you wanted to know about Regency fashion and inspiration for this regency paper doll set. Tomorrow, I’ll share Vivian’s steampunk traveling suit for my Patrons.
I mentioned in my last 1950s printable paper doll about how important I thought it was to have some 1950s fashions for these paper dolls that include pants and Ruby is getting two pairs of them. She has what was known as a “playsuit”- basically, a romper. There’s something very infantilizing about the terms “playsuit” and “romper”, though I’m not sure I have the energy to really dive into how infantilizing the 1950s was towards women. I mean women couldn’t get mortgages on their own until the 1970s, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
I digress.
The point is that women wore pants in the 1950s and I wanted to illustrate some of those styles for this paper doll.
As November wraps up, we are stumbling into December which is always a hit and miss month for me. I have an idea that I hope I’ll get finished. Then January will come which may be a month off, I’m still debating, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get there. Hope everyone has been having a lovely end of Fall and beginning of winter (though given that it was -27 here yesterday, I think winter is already here in Alaska.)
So, today’s 1920s printable paper doll was something I drew, because I was a little tired and the great thing about historical paper dolls from time periods I know pretty well is that they aren’t a ton of work. Especially because resources like Good House Keeping can be found online in their complete run. It makes this fun!
Some of you may recall from my Goals of 2022 was more historical paper dolls and more Dolls Du Jour, so I am super psyched that I got to kill two birds with one stone. Metaphorically speaking, I do not condone bird stoning.
This is my 10th historical paper doll for 2022! I reached my goal and it’s only August. It’s only my 6th DDJ paper doll, I still need four more to reach my goal. I like goals.
I digress.
So, today’s 1920s printable paper doll has two gowns designed to fit in with the theme of a 1920s wardrobe. The dress on the left is a blue and cream day dress and the dress on the right is a coral colored evening dress. It’s not really a super formal evening dress- more like something for an evening garden party. You know, if you have a lifestyle where evening garden parties are your thing.
The blue dress was based on this McCall 5120 sewing pattern from 1927. I assume this is a day dress, but I don’t know for certain. It seems to be more casual daywear. That’s a guess based on other dresses I’ve seen. Her clutch was based on this one, but I modified it to match the dress better.
The coral colored evening gown is from 1924 and was first published in Good House Keeping from June 1924. The dress is described as a light weight option for summer parties. I am always playing around with how to show transparency in linework. The purse comes from a French design and I made the color match the dress.
The paper dolls underwear was inspired by this combination from the Met Museum. You can see similar styles here and here. These teddies or combinations seem to have been pretty popular given the number that have survived.
Sometimes people ask me if my paper dolls are historically accurate and I wince a little. Not because I can’t tell you my sources (I clearly can, I just did), but because the entire idea of historical accuracy is sort of impossible. We simply don’t know enough about the past and we never will. So much about the clothing a person choses to wear has to do with unwritten rules that people conform to in society.
I have no idea how an actual woman from the 1920s would feel about these dresses and I never will. That’s impossible. As a result, I have no idea how accurate anything I draw really is. All I can do is tell you where I found my sources and what decisions I made.
And I hope you enjoy these little expeditions into historical clothing as much as I do.
So, when I do historical clothing sets, I’ve learned drawing two takes about the same amount of time as drawing one. Of course, the downside is that I always worry if I make a mistake then I’m likely to repeat it. I’m not 100% sure about the waist lines on these, but that’s okay.
The paper doll is wearing a shift with a gathered neckline which seems to be the style in Italy. It’s a lot more fitted than these would have been for layering reasons. There’s some debate from my research in what women wore under these gowns. There’s not a lot of evidence for stays, but there’s no way to get the smooth line shown on the bust in these portraits without some sort of support either built into the bodice or underneath the bodice. If you look closely at side of the pink gown, you’ll see there’s a fold between where the armpit meets the shoulder and that suggests there is something under the bodice; however, I have not been able to find any evidence on what that undergarment might have looked like.
Later, there’s this Venetian Woman with Moveable Skirt from the 1560s and there might be a set of stays there or it might be an artistic choice to continue the bodice after the skirt is lifted. It’s tough to know. I tend to think it’s likely stays, because the work is erotic art and there’s nothing erotic about a bodice (or is there?). When I do a Venetian set (and I plan to do that someday) I’ll use that as my base design I suspect. However, we’re not working on Venetian clothing today. Today, we are in Florence.
Both of these dresses are again based on portraits. Both sitters are probably from Florence, based on professional folk’s assessments of the paintings. Lucrezia Panciatichi, for example, was the wife of Bartolomeo Panciatichi, a Florentine humanist and politician. The other sitter there’s some debate over, but her clothing does look like that which was worn in Florence according to folks who know more about this than I do which isn’t I grant you a high standard at this point.
Portrait of a Lady in Green by Bronzino?, c. 1528-1532Lucrezia Panciatichi by Angelo Bronzino, 1540
Despite the few small changes I might make to these in the future (and my annoyance that I couldn’t seem to track down a full length portrait to get skirt shapes right), I’m super proud that I did these despite feeling like I don’t “know enough” to do them well.
I will say that I want to do something later in the 1500s from Venice, as I mentioned, because the Venetians had these wild shoes called chopines which were platform shoes so high that women needed help walking in them. They’re so strange and I want to draw them, but I need to do more research on the clothing that would have gone with them. More research!
So, if you want to get to vote in my next paper doll content poll, join us on Patreon.
I have a pretty bad tendency to get super tangled up in myself. For the last few years, my Patrons have been requesting two historical time periods in every poll- the 1980s and Italian Renaissance. In my whole costume book collection, I only own one book on Italian Renaissance clothing and it’s a translation of a 1590s text, so not the most useful when trying to do overview research.
What became abundantly clear to me as I did my digging into the topic was that styles in Italy were not standardized across the entire country, as we know it today. At the time, Italy was a collection of city-states (it remained this way until it unified around the 1870s), so every area had its own fashion which makes things super confusing.
Plus, since most of these are taken from portraits of the period and the identify of the sitters isn’t always known, it’s nigh impossible to be certain where the paintings were painted. Is that lady wearing Naples fashions or those from Rome? Who knows?
Anyway, I got myself all wrapped up in my worry about not being “right” that I avoided drawing anything claiming to be Italian Renaissance for two years. Finally, I realized I was being ridiculous. So, I looked through all the paintings I had collected on my Pinterest Board devoted to Italy. I read what I could find and then I set to work. Here’s what I know- These dresses are based on those in two portraits.
Portrait of a Lady by Pier Francesco Foschi, 1530-1535?La Bella by Titian, c. 1536
The dress on the left is based on Portrait of a Lady by Pier Francesco Foschi. Dress on the right is based on La Bella by Titian. Both painting date from the 1530s.
Pier Francesco Foschi (1502–1567) was an Italian painter active in Florence. It’s possible the lady in this painting is also from Florence. There are other examples of this dress style here and here. Since those are also unidentified, it’s impossible to know exactly where this combination was being worn. The fur trimmed sleeves, black trimmed bodices, raised waists, long gridles, and high collared camisoles seem to be the common elements.
Meanwhile, on the right, Titian was a Venetian painter whose work is well regarded. The person in this painting is unknown, so the area this style of dress was worn is also unknown. Titian worked all over Italy, which adds to the confusion. The low neckline seems to be somewhat unusual for this period, as most dresses I saw had something filling in that space. In my rendition, I think I made the waist too high, but that’s neither here nor there.
A few things I noticed generally, unlike Tudor dress which is super stiff, the sleeves and skirts of these gowns fall more softly. I wasn’t able to find any full length portraits of these dresses, so I am guessing they fell to the floor without knowing for sure.
There’s some debate if these dresses were worn over some sort of stays. I have no idea, but I do know the flattened bust of these dresses wouldn’t have been possible without either some sort of support in the bodice of the dresses or underneath them. It does seem like wide open necked shifts were often worn and are referenced in several books I have.
Anyway, shoes were snagged from a few different places like here and my favorite- Stepping Through Time by Olaf Goubitz. Of course, from Stepping Through Time focuses on Netherlands and this is Italian, so… mileage may vary.
All in all, while there’s things I would change for next time, I’m okay with that. I have one more Italian renaissance foray to share and I just got a few books on order about the period from the library so… there may yet be more of this to come. I’m sure after I’ve done more research, I’ll approach it differently, but I didn’t want my own need to “be sure” get too much in the way of finishing some new paper dolls.
And if you’d like to get to vote on future polls about “what I should draw next” join us on Patreon.
