Talk:1795–1820 in Western fashion

Great stuff[edit]

This is great!

Not sure what do do about that huge white space - I tried moving the image link but that didn't help. I guess as we add more text the problem will resolve itself.

I need to get my act together and do meanswear for this period... - PKM 18:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding men's fashion[edit]

I put in a general intro and a placeholder for men's fashion, but I won't get it added tonight. Have some great images and there's good text at dandy which I will borrow, tweak, and link.

I played around with trying to kill the white space above Directoire, but it means moving the stays image to the Gallery, or left-aligning it, or writing a lot more text above Directoire. - PKM 02:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dreaded "gap" only shows up in certain Wikipedia skins, not in all. The Schimmelpenninck is OK, but the particular scan is kind of dim, so that the fashion-relevant features don't really jump out at you as much as they could... Churchh 02:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded different scan of the Schimmelpenninck, see what you think... Churchh 03:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thank you! Will check out the Commons images as well, and want to use this for riding dress - great detail on the leather fall-front riding breeches. Image:Seriziat.jpg - PKM 03:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really needs more male-fashion pics for sure; came expecting to find more, 90% of the page's illustrations are female.Skookum1 (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Beau[edit]

Thanks for adding the portrait of the Beau; I was having trouble finding a good source. It's perfect (and essential). - PKM 17:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery styles[edit]

I think we should pick one gallery style and stick to it, at least within each article. There are two styles here (and a third one in 1890s in fashion if I recall).

Do we want to continue with the captions under each picture, or numbering the pictures and all the captions below?

I will pose this same question in the History of Western fashion so we can get more opinions. - PKM 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was cobbling together the Empire/Regency section when fatigued, and didn't really have the patience to do the work to put it in the format you prefer (just getting everything together was tedious enough, without having to worry about all that niggly little technical stuff). Re-format them as you wish... Churchh 07:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another overview pic[edit]

Here's another picture kind of like the Schimmelpenninck; not sure if one would be considered better than the other. Churchh 03:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great picture, thinking about a swap. Also like your comments on Cultural memory - good stuff. Regency styles again looked ugly in the 1930s-40s - the version of Pride and Prejudice with Greer Garson was reset to the 1830s when the wide shoulders and defined waists more nearly reflected contemporary ideas of fashion. - PKM 20:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already have something on that at Pride and Prejudice (1940 film) . Churchh 10:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The newest subsections[edit]

Most women didn't wear drawers, but a few did, as you can see in "Passer Payez". Also, it seems relatively clear that most women in England wore at least one petticoat and some form of stays (no matter how relatively minimal) most of the time -- it's important not to take a few bold ca. 1799 upper-class Parisiennes as the norm for all non-lower-class women of the time. Churchh 15:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme pic[edit]

"Point de Convention" by Boilly, ca. 1803

through the picture you can tell hes trying to prupose but she keeps running away

Illustration needed[edit]

I want to discuss how, though it was attempted to make the dress look narrow in front, the skirts were generally gathered together in back to allow ease of stride (i.e. completely avoiding "hobbling"). But I need a picture to illustrate this; I already have two -- http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/1810drss.jpg and http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pattern.gif -- but neither would be considered "free use" for the purposes of Wikipedia... Churchh 15:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could always discuss and footnote a reference to your site. :-) But let me see if I can find an image. - PKM 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No luck so far, but I found two great men's images while on the hunt. Will keep looking. - PKM 03:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a detail in image Image:1812-neoclassical-Young-Ladies-at-Home.png but that isn't so useful because the overall image is very obviously highly stylized. Churchh 12:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about some of the pics here? http://hal.ucr.edu/~cathy/heid/ND3-1795.html, or the walking dresses here? http://hal.ucr.edu/~cathy/heid/ND9-1797.html - PKM 22:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for looking -- back when the web was newer, I used to surf the web semi-randomly from site to site to site looking for strikingly interesting-looking Regency-related pics, but I don't know that I really have the patience for it anymore. Image http://hal.ucr.edu/~cathy/images/i-heid/nh44.jpeg is somewhat relevant, but it hides the important part where the gathering meeets the elevated waistline in back, and it's still from the transition period when skirts were somewhat full all around. It's good for the fashions of 1795, but maybe not as good as a clear illustration for gathered fullness in the back. (On the other page, the skirts are blown in the wind, or look rather stiff, and not a lot of detail is really visible.)

What I really want to do is use the left half of http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/1810drss.jpg (which I think I have an even higher-resolution version of somewhere), but that's a photo taken for the Kyoto Costume Institute, and almost certainly copyrighted... Churchh 04:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend: write the piece and footnote a link to the originals at the Kyoto Costume Institute. Nothing like pictures of actual surviving clothing. (Speaking of which I have found a quicktime 360 degree revolving view of a 1720s mantua which I am certainly going to link to!) - PKM 16:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually scanned it in from a book (the page number is visible at lower left!), and have no idea if the Kyoto Costume Institute has anything online (I'll look into that). Churchh 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They apparently have a different photo of the same garment (how helpful, I'm not really sure) at http://www.kci.or.jp/cgi-bin/collection.cgi?lang=e&path=1800/01-005899aa , but you can't view it without downloading the "Viewpoint player", and I don't feel like downloading the "Viewpoint player" (whatever that may be), and I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to put in a link in a Wikipedia article whose functionality depends on users downloading the "Viewpoint player". Churchh 20:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feh. No, you're right; I don't thing we should link to anything that requires users to download an executable. - PKM 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found at last[edit]

Ha, stumbled across one while looking for something else entirely: Image:1815 English and French.jpg. Adding. - PKM 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walking Dress[edit]

Stumbled across Image:1817-walking-dress-La-Belle-Assemblee.jpg in the commons - User:Churchh, you uploaded this! I like it a lot, so I added it. (Any reason why not?) - PKM 03:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a lot of things back in Feb. and didn't get around to establishing the 1800-1820 galleries until April (partly because of the PNG thumbnail crisis), so the final selection may have been a little erratic -- that's partly why I linked to the Commons 1810 fashion category. Churchh 04:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I could never exactly figure out whether the green thing she's wearing is a pelisse. Churchh 05:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, possibly even a "pelisse al la hussar". Maye we should say "walking costume"? -PKM 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caricatures[edit]

A few of the caricatures now in the article satirize male and female styles equally; not sure what to do about that. Churchh 19:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Break them out into a level-2 head "Caricaturing fashion" after "Men's fashion" (or after "Children's" when we have it) with a bit of introductory text on the social context? - PKM 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be the thing to do, but I guess we haven't reached that point yet so far. Churchh 05:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing[edit]

I miss the following in this excellent article in an excellent series: "merveilleuses" and "incroyables", the arrival of the "fashion plate"; decolleté; mobcaps, turbans and headdresses;. --Wetman 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good calls, all; will put those on the mental to-do list. There's an undercurrent of Orientalism in fashion that needs to be fleshed out in several periods around this one. - PKM 21:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back when I was scanning a lot of stuff from library books, I saw a fair amount of caricatures of "merveilleuses" and "incroyables", but I had a great deal of difficulty (more than for most other caricatures) in trying to determine the degree of relationship between these caricatures and the actual realities of the time. Because of this, and because what is depicted in those caricatures was not typical of what was worn by most people of the time, and did not present a distillation of the main stylistic features of the time (as some quite exaggerated caricatures still sometimes do), I left most of the depictions of "merveilleuses" and "incroyables" unscanned. Churchh 12:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The main "orientalist" fashion feature that was worn by a significant number of ordinary people was the turban (worn by women only). Churchh 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloves[edit]

"Gloves were worn inside as well as outside the house." Portraits do not support this statement. --Wetman 04:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"For most of the century, ladies always wore gloves outside (so did gentlemen). In addition, they wore them for he most part indoors as well (always at balls, for instance). coming down to breakfast (though they were removed for the first meal), ladies wore glove too, and in the schoolrooms in the sixties and seventies proper little girls wore them doing their lessons." p. 215, Pool. -- 16:44, 3 September 2006 Vjsanborn

If by "Pool" you mean What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew by Daniel Pool, then you should know that that book hopelessly conflates and confuses the Victorian and Regency periods, and it really doesn't have too good a reputation over on the Pemberley Regency period discussion board. The prescriptions that mid-Victorian etiquette or "conduct" writers laid down about how they thought people theoretically should behave can have remarkably little relevance to how people actually behaved in real life 50 years earlier in the Regency, so it's best not to use Pool as your only source... Churchh 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary portraits are usually a dependable guide. --Wetman 21:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1795[edit]

Also have this image to illustrate the style of 1795, but I'm not sure I want to bump anything out of the existing Directoire gallery to make room for it... Churchh 02:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's lovely. Could we make it a second image under Hairstyles and headgear and comment on her bonnet in the caption? - PKM 07:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am making that edit. - PKM 19:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with this sentence I found[edit]

Many women of this remarded upon how being fully dressed meant the bosom and shoulders were bare and yet being under-dressed might your neckline went right up to your chin almost.

This sentence makes no sense. I would fix it, except I have no idea what the author is trying to say. I am reluctant to delete it as I don't quite know the rules in this situation.

Vsanborn 21:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)vsanborn[reply]

I know hat they are trying to say, will fix. - PKM 03:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey, thanks for fixing it, i'm the "author" of that sentense. I was trying to point out the difference in ball gowns and nightclothes. I was in a hurry and made a few mistakes. SORRY :)

Image copyright problem with Image:Natalie Barney and Renee Vivien.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Natalie Barney and Renee Vivien.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding citations[edit]

I've begun methodically adding inline citations for this article. Any help is greatly appreciated. - PKM (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text copied to 1800–1809[edit]

Hi, folks! A while back, I copied some text from this article over to 1800-1809. This isn't a field that I have expertise in, so further editing of the work in context from other editors here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- RobLa (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title[edit]

Seems to me that it should be "1795-1820 in European fashion," since that's what it's about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueCuzco (talk • contribs) 03:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.cheltenhammuseum.org.uk/search/fans_info_sheet.pdf
- In 1795–1820 in fashion on 2011-05-25 01:59:37, 404 Not Found
- In 1795–1820 in fashion on 2011-06-01 22:04:30, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://dept.kent.edu/museum/costume/bonc/3timesearch/tsnineteenth/1800-1829/1800-1829.html
- In 1795–1820 in fashion on 2011-05-25 01:59:37, 404 Not Found
- In 1795–1820 in fashion on 2011-06-01 22:04:43, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

https://stylefashion.info/
- In 1795–1820 in fashion on 2011-05-25 01:59:39, 404 Not Found
- In 1795–1820 in fashion on 2011-06-01 22:04:54, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

https://stylefashion.info/
- In 1795–1820 in fashion on 2011-05-25 01:59:39, 404 Not Found
- In 1795–1820 in fashion on 2011-06-01 22:05:04, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Marie Antoinette section?[edit]

As it is now the discussion of Marie Antoinette and her contributions to fashion are discussed on this page, wouldn't it be more appropriate to place this section in the pre-revolution page fashion 1775-1795? Margotconte (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely. -PKM (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

seconded. Katewren (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on editing the discussion (or current lack there of) of Marie Antoinette and her contributions to the evolution of fashion to the 1775-1795 page shortly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrpasquino (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Hamilton picture[edit]

I have added some information about Emma Hamilton's attitudes and her influence on neoclassical style and would like to insert a picture. I am a new Wikipedia editor and I don't really know how to go about doing that. Any advice? Or would anyone be willing to insert the picture? Here is the link to the page: http://www.zimbio.com/member/msplace/articles/GqYx4brrg8r/Emma+Home+Lady+Hamilton+Attitudes it is the second to last picture. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrpasquino (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Directoire (1795–1799)[edit]

I have edited the Directoire section to add some citations about the evolution of Neoclassical style and to include Lady Emma Hamilton's influence on this evolution as well as a little bit of information about her attitudes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrpasquino (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit needed[edit]

"Starting from 1780s and early 1790s, women’s silhouette became slimmer and the (??) crept up. After 1795, waistlines rose dramatically and the skirt circumference was further reduced. Few years later, England and France started to show the focus of high waist style and this led to the creation of Empire style." The passage seems to been added about a year ago, on a quick look. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Goya alba2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]