What is the best corset?

[Lady Rebecca]

I have decided I need to make a corset to go with the new noble garb I plan to make. However, after about an hour of surfing the web, I can't figure out what to base it on. I know I want to do front and back lacing, I know I want tabs, I know I don't want fully boned (just very boned) and I would like to try to make it reversible, but that's all I've figured out.

So which is your favorite - the strapless type from the custom corset pattern generator, one with straps and the boning laid out like the Dorothea bodies, or one with the narrow looking back like the effigy corset? Or do you have a special one you like?



And just fyi, I can't afford to pay for one of those expensive patterns, though I do already own the Simplicity undergarments one from last year.

[Kate XXXXXX]

The nice thing about the corset pattern generator is that it can be used for ALL those styles with a bit of tweaking.  I suggest you start with the basic strapless, tabless corset and make an experimental version to get the fit right, and then add the features you want.

[gem]

Well, I'm biased toward the Simplicity one (2621), probably because it's the only corset I've ever actually managed to *make.*  I've tried multiple others over the years and never got farther than the mockup stage on any of them, until that one. I would think it would be fairly easy to adapt to lacing in the front, too (just omit the busk).

You might enjoy Baroness Doune's article(s) on her search for the perfect corset. Lots of good info there.

[isabelladangelo]

http://realmofvenus.renaissanceitaly.net/workbox/extwomclo3.htm

Eleanora of Toledo stays are an extant pair from about 1560.   They are very lightly boned but made out of stiff material to give the shape.   I'd suggest against the hooks and eyes that are in the extant one and go with lacing.  I did make one with hooks and eyes and if you gain or lose the slightest bit of weight, it makes it a PAIN to get them on again. 

[Master James]

M'lady prefers a tabbed corset with straps.  The tabs prevent it from digging into her hips and helps support the weight of the nobles gown.  Also she sews a hook and eye on the front of the corset at her waistline that she hooks the underskirt to to keep it from sliding down throughout the day.  The straps help also to take the weight of the gown and of course the underskirt.  She has been VERY happy with it since making it and frankly she says she prefers wearing to to bras most days.

[Lady Kathleen of Olmsted]

I use the Mantua Pair of Bodies corset pattern as well as the easy Elizabethan Corset pattern from Alter Years.

The latest one from SIMLICITY looks as though it will make easily enough.

[Cilean]

Hi,

So have you read Karen's information?
http://www.karen.htmlcreators.com/perfectcorset.html

I really like Mantua Makers Pattern, we had several workshops on this specific pattern and it was an easy one for new to Elizabethan and people who do this as a living.  We had a blast making it.
http://www.mantua-maker.com/catalog.html

I have loved Margo Anderson in fact I will be making one during Costume College
http://www.margospatterns.com/Products/ElizUndpn.html

Semptress has some awesome advice on how to fit your body and the Pair of Bodies (Corset)
http://www.margospatterns.com/Products/ElizUndpn.html


I hope these helps

Cilean

[Lady Rebecca]

Thanks for all the resources, everyone!

So this might be a weird question, but what really is the difference between an Elizabethan corset like the effigy, and stays from the 1700s? I've made/still am finishing fully boned 17-18th cent stays based on the JP Ryan pattern. Is that something that would still give the right look under Tudor noble garb?

[gem]

We had this discussion/debate a few years ago, and people came down hard on one side or the other (yes, they're similar enough/ no, they're not).  My *personal* opinion is that they are similar enough in silhouette to be somewhat interchangeable, depending on your period and region, but others disagree and YMMV. The critical issues are a flat front and a non-compressed waist (vs the curvy silhouette of the 19th c).

The differences... a 16th c. corset will be straighter up and down (look at the link Isabella posted); an 18th c. corset is a little more angled at the waist. Eighteenth century corsets are designed to give very nice lift to the bustline (instead of compressing it), and they're cut really high and narrow in back, to draw the shoulders up and back to create the gorgeous topline that was the period ideal.  You can really see it in this portrait of Mme Pompadour: how her posture is *fantastic,* and her shoulders are pulled up and back. 18th C. corsets angle in a little at the waist to help make the waist *visually* smaller (if not actually compressing the waist measurement), because the 18th C. was also crazy about wide hips. And the thinner your waist is in proportion, the wider your hips will appear to be.

Here is a picture of me in my half-boned/strapless 18th C. stays, and here's me wearing my 18th c. ensemble with my Renaissance corset. Lara Corsets has a gallery of different period corsets, so you can better get a sense of how they differ.

[Master James]

The real question here is how historically correct do you want to be?  If you just want to be "close enough" then your 18th century corset will work as Gem has said.  If however you want to be as historically correct as possible, then you'll need a tudor corset or "paire of bodies" as it was called.  If you are not on cast, only the garb nazis will know the difference.     Good luck!

[operafantomet]

We had this discussion/debate a few years ago, and people came down hard on one side or the other (yes, they're similar enough/ no, they're not).  My *personal* opinion is that they are similar enough in silhouette to be somewhat interchangeable, depending on your period and region, but others disagree and YMMV. The critical issues are a flat front and a non-compressed waist (vs the curvy silhouette of the 19th c).

The differences... a 16th c. corset will be straighter up and down (look at the link Isabella posted); an 18th c. corset is a little more angled at the waist. Eighteenth century corsets are designed to give very nice lift to the bustline (instead of compressing it), and they're cut really high and narrow in back, to draw the shoulders up and back to create the gorgeous topline that was the period ideal.  You can really see it in this portrait of Mme Pompadour: how her posture is *fantastic,* and her shoulders are pulled up and back. 18th C. corsets angle in a little at the waist to help make the waist *visually* smaller (if not actually compressing the waist measurement), because the 18th C. was also crazy about wide hips. And the thinner your waist is in proportion, the wider your hips will appear to be.

Here is a picture of me in my half-boned/strapless 18th C. stays, and here's me wearing my 18th c. ensemble with my Renaissance corset. Lara Corsets has a gallery of different period corsets, so you can better get a sense of how they differ.

I very much agree with you. But I wonder, would it not be a solution to not lace an 18th century corset as tight in certain areas to achieve the cone shape 16th century ladies wanted? As I don't wear corsets for my garbs, I have no idea if this would work, it just popped into my head.

As for the Eleonora di Toledo ones, even the authors of "Moda a Firenze" seems unsure of whether the front closed velvet bodice actually was a corset (or in a period term: stays) or not. Reason is that Florentine dresses of the era was usually stiffened in the actual bodice, so supporting undergarbs was less necessary. Seeing how Eleonora was rheumatic and was on travel in Pisa in mid winter when she died, she might have worn such garbs to stay warm. On the other hand, it might have been further stiffened with cardboard originally, as this would have disintegrated quickly in the grave, so it's hard to say. I've discussed the subject further here:
http://aneafiles.webs.com/renaissancegallery/stays.html

[gem]

If however you want to be as historically correct as possible, then you'll need a tudor corset or "paire of bodies" as it was called.

One of the problems is that we don't actually know very much about corsets before the 17th C. There are only two extant examples--the "effigy bodies" of Eliz. I and a German corset from 1598--and that's *it.* Period descriptions and images are likewise challenging to interpret exactly, so most of the corsetry for the Renaissance period is based on conjecture and educated experimentation. It's very difficult to extrapolate for an entire era based on two very rare examples--rather like a researcher 100s of years from now finding one of these, and deciding that it represents *all* female undergarments of the twenty-first century. So we make claims about "a 16th c. corset does X, Y, and Z," when in fact we don't really know that much about what really went on under those gowns.

[isabelladangelo]

We do only have a few few extant pair of bodies but that doesn't mean there is nothing written about them in period.  Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd shows a lot of lists for a pair of bodices (I remember one out of leather specifically) and there are several other books that call on period sources the explain how to stiffen a pair of bodies.  

I'm one of the ones against interchanging the two (a pair of bodies versus stays) and I have worn both to different functions.  My "ugly" stays is very different in shape and in the amount of boning.   The tabs are one continuous piece with the upper part of the stays and are part of the same boning channel.   It's only because I left the seams "open" when I bound each piece that they flare out when they are on.  The 16th c stays, each tab is cut out separately and then attached to the bodice.  It's also stiffened on it's own too.   The two make a very big difference in the waist line.   I don't have a picture of me wearing the ugly stays but http://the dress dummy is here.   The panniers are blocking the view of the tabs and the dress dummy, at the time, was more long waisted that me so her hips didn't flare the tabs out.  But compare that to http://the 16th c ones I'm wearing here

Also, I think it's the effigy pair of bodies that have a little bit of a jutting out line to accommodate the breasts?  So the front isn't perfectly straight in front but curves a bit.  (unlike with the 18th c stays) I know the woman's double does that and you see it a LOT in period patterns of the time.   This would also make the fit very different.

EDIT:  Found a good picture of the ugly stays so you can see what I mean about the tabs: half of the ugly stays before they got laced up  They are a very different shape than the 16th c stays!