1770-1775 Robe à la française, consisting of an overcoat and skirt
silk
(Centraal Museum, Utrecht)
533 notes
·
View notes
robe à la française
c. early 1770s to early 1780s
brocaded silk trimmed with silk braid
The John Bright Collection
631 notes
·
View notes
Woman reading a letter by Pierre-Alexandre Wille, 1775.
134 notes
·
View notes
Robe à la française ca. 1765-75
From the Museum of Vancouver
512 notes
·
View notes
High res photo alert! I just want to hug whoever takes these photos at the Museum of New Zealand, because OMG. The detail!
I think I'm in my red/pink/blush gown era, because this is another one that I just had to share.
This robe à l'anglaise retroussée dates from the 1770s-1780s, and is English. It's made of silk damask, one of my favorites, in this gorgeous burgundy and cream silk floral pattern. Unlike the French sack back gowns of this time, this one laces up tight on the other side, hence it's à l'anglaise.
Retroussée refers to the skirt length, which would have been pulled up.
This silhouette made a big comeback in the 1840s and the 1880s. And you can see why! It's pretty classic.
Robe à l'anglaise retroussée, 1770-1780, England, maker unknown. Gift of Mrs B Vye, 1951. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Te Papa (PC000071)
495 notes
·
View notes
Okay, so this is interesting. I’ve found a court suit dated to 1770 at the Mint Museum that looks a lot like the outfit worn by Carlo Buonaparte, Napoleon’s father, in this painting.
I don’t think it’s the same, though. But it is fascinating to see the similarities. The painting of Carlo Buonaparte is dated sometime between 1766-1779.
148 notes
·
View notes
ab. 1775 Ensemble with matching shoes (American)
green Spitalfields damask, attributed to Anna Maria Garthwaite about 1743-1745
(Metropolitan Museum of Art)
931 notes
·
View notes
Grace Elliot Dalrymple by Gainsborough, 1778.
35 notes
·
View notes
Found an old American Girl catalogue earlier & the clothes & accessories & furniture all make me yearn something fierce
It all used to be so much better.
I feel bad for kids today, because AG used to actually be worth their price points- the historical dolls' furniture was once INSANELY nice, okay? -and not have Disney-faced dolls who seem to wear obvious makeup despite the characters being 9 years old, and not be hyperfocused on their modern line to the exclusion of their original mission (namely, teaching girls about history and thus making them feel empowered in the present).
Also, are they allergic to historical characters from before 1920 now or something? They don't even have a Revolutionary War doll anymore. That whole line is about American history, and yet one of the most seminal moments in said history is completely glossed over. It doesn't have to be Felicity, but...they should at least have SOMETHING for that era, right?
There are so many characters now that I feel deserved to be released during a better period of the company's production- Rebecca, Melody, Claudie, and Nanea come to mind. But no, they came about in the pinkified, plastic-everything, shoddily-researched nightmare that is AG nowadays.
1904? 1904?! IN WHAT FREAKING WORLD DOES ANY OF THIS LOOK "1904?"
HER ORIGINAL "MEET" DRESS HAD THE FASHIONABLE DROPPED WAIST OF CHILDREN'S CLOTHING IN THE EDWARDIAN ERA, AND A DARK, SMALL PRINT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THOUGHT CONVENIENT FOR A CHILD'S DAYWEAR IN CASE THEY SPILLED SOMETHING ON IT OR OTHERWISE GOT IT STAINED. BUT WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THAT? GIRL IN OLDE TIMEY SKIRT ERA = PINK!!!
HEY KIDS HERE'S YOUR HISTORY EDUCATION! WE MODERNIZED ITS VISUALS FOR YOUR COMFORT, BECAUSE WHO CARES UNLESS IT FITS INTO OUR CURRENT NOTIONS OF AESTHETIC APPEAL, RIGHT? HAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
...anyway, congrats on finding those old catalogues
155 notes
·
View notes