Many fashion prints of the Regency period are labeled “Morning Dress.” This does not designate a specific type of dress. The “morning” label designates nothing more than the time of day the ensemble was worn.

Figure 1 – March 1812

There are basically two types of morning dress: those worn indoors and those worn outdoors. A handful of fashion prints in my collection are specifically labeled “Indoor Morning Dress,” while a great many are labeled “Morning Walking Dress,” ie an outdoor ensemble.

Indoor morning dresses are almost always white, relatively simple, and a bit more loose-fitting than other dresses. They would be worn in the privacy of one’s home, while having breakfast or writing letters, or other such domestic activities.  Most prints of indoor morning dress show women seated and doing something, such as drinking tea, reading a book, drawing, writing, or sewing.

Figure 2 – August 1813

They also almost always show the figure wearing a cap.  We often think of caps being donned by elderly spinsters or dowagers, but married ladies of any age typically wore caps at home. We must remember, too, that ladies of the Regency period did not wash their hair as often as we do, and caps may have been used to cover up hair that was no longer clean and shiny. The caps are most often white, made of muslin or satin, and trimmed with lace and ribbon. They were not necessarily removed when the lady left the house; she would place her bonnet atop her cap, so that its lace trim would show through.

Indoor morning dresses also might be worn with a bandeau confining the hair, as in Figure 1, though it would typically be a simple band of fabric tied with a bow, and not the fancier stiffened and ornamented bandeau worn with evening wear. In any case, it is the rare British fashion print that shows an indoor morning costume without some sort of head covering.

Because indoor morning dresses were typically worn in the privacy of one’s home, they did not need to be in the height of fashion, especially for the ordinary, middle-class woman. Morning wear was likely the most common type of family hand-me-down. The fashion prints showing the latest styles would help the home seamstress update an older morning dress in the current styles. More affluent ladies would indulge in new frocks to wear around the house, following the styles presented in the magazines. And no doubt the most fashionable modistes encouraged clients to order new morning dresses each season. For ordinary women with more modest budgets, evening dress and warm, sturdy outer wear would take precedence over new indoor morning wear.

Figure 3 – October 1815

The style of morning dress followed the trends seen in other types of more formal wear. Hems were longer in the first years of the new century and hemlines were simple and unadorned. Going forward in the Regency years, hem lengths got shorter and hemlines became more elaborately adorned with flounces and other fancy trimmings. Waistlines sat lower in the first decade of the century, and rose to their highest levels around 1816-1819. Many indoor morning dresses are long-sleeved, and the sleeves become much fuller starting about 1816.

Most morning dresses have high necklines, or lower necklines filled in with a fichu, scarf, lace, or chemisette. This is especially true of outdoor dresses. An occasional print of an indoor morning dress will show a slightly lower neckline, as in Figure 1, but even this neckline is filled in with lace, for a more modest daytime costume. For the most part, very low necklines, where a bit a cleavage was on display, was left to evening wear.

Figure 4 – January 1802

While many prints of indoor morning dress show comfortable-looking garments that might never have left the house, some indoor morning dresses could have served as outdoor dresses by the simple addition of an outer garment (for example, a spencer, pelisse, or mantle) and a bonnet. The print from 1818 shown in another article on this site (click here to see it) shows a lady wearing indoor morning dress with a large bonnet and shawl sitting beside her, ready to don for going outdoors.

An outdoor morning ensemble, most often labeled “Morning Walking Dress” in the fashion prints, would have been worn for informal walks, visits to shops or libraries, or to church services, as shown in Figure 5. They are distinguished from those more elegant outdoor ensembles worn during the fashionable promenade hour, around 5:00pm, when those who wished to see and be seen walked or drove through Hyde Park and other park venues. Like the more formal “Promenade Dress,” the “Morning Walking Dress” would always include some sort of outer garment, a hat, gloves, and sometimes a parasol.

Figure 5 – October 1810

The dresses underneath a pelisse or spencer continued to be primarily white. Sprigged and printed muslins were certainly available and worn, especially for day wear, but are seldom seen in fashion prints.  This could, however, simply be a matter of the difficulty of hand-painting a printed fabric. (Remember, each of these fashion prints was hand-colored. Though I have a handful of prints with beautifully painted plaid or stripped dresses, I have seen very few that show fabrics with sprigged or other small printed patterns.)

As with the indoor morning dresses, the hem lengths become shorter and hemlines more decorated as the period progresses.

During the first few years of the new century, we see outdoor morning dresses with short sleeves and long over-the-elbow gloves, as in the lady on the left in Figure 4. Short sleeves disappear for day wear around 1805, though they continue to be seen in French prints throughout the period.

Figure 6 – August 1818

The outer garments, especially the spencer and the pelisse, show the same evolution of style as in other garments. Cuts are more simple and tailored in the early years, with little or no ornamentation, evolving into more elaborate styles dripping in decoration. Sleeves become fuller in the later years, eg 1815 onward, and shoulders become more emphasized with epaulettes and padding.

Bonnets also evolve over the period, from short brims to huge, wide pokes, from small crowns at the back of the head to heavily ornamented crowns of soaring heights, as in Figure 6.

I have seen many suggestions that indoor morning dresses were what one wore to receive callers. It must be remembered, however, that formal calls were typically made in the afternoon, not in the morning. A lady at home to visitors would have dressed slightly more formally, perhaps in a fancier afternoon frock. The ladies paying calls, though, might well have worn one of their best outdoor morning dresses.

For more information on fashion prints, see these sources:

• Alison Adburgham, Women in Print: Writing Women and Women’s Magazine from the Restoration to the Accession of Victoria, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1972.
• Irene Dancyger, A World of Women: An Illustrated History of Women’s Magazines 1700-1970, Gill and Macmillan, 1978.
• Jody Gayle, Fashions in the Era of Jane Austen, Publications of the Past, 2012.
• Madeleine Ginsburg, An Introduction to Fashion Illustration, Victoria & Albert Museum, 1980.
• Vyvyan Holland, Hand Coloured Fashion Plates 1770-1899, Batsford, 1955.
• Doris Langley Moore, Fashion Through Fashion Plates 1771-1970, Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1971.
• Sacheverell Sitwell and Doris Langley Moore, Gallery of Fashion 1790-1822, Batsford, 1949.
• Cynthia L. White, Women’s Magazines 1693-1968, Michael Joseph, 1970.

]]> https://candicehern.com/regencyworld/morning-dress-overview/feed/ 2 https://candicehern.com/regencyworld/walking-dresses-overview/ https://candicehern.com/regencyworld/walking-dresses-overview/#respond Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:46:12 +0000 http://candicehern.com/?post_type=regencyworld&p=898 Walking Dresses were worn on outdoor occasions when one wanted to see and be seen. They are often referred to as Promenade Dresses, a very literal definition of their purpose.

Figure 1 – January 1804

The fashionable Regency woman was seen walking in the parks or in the shopping districts during the London Season (spring and early summer); at the popular seaside resorts in August and September; and in the countryside at their own estates or at house parties during the fall and winter months.

As they publicly promenaded with other fashionable people, they wanted to look their best, showing off the latest styles, the newest colors, the trendiest accessories. And they used the fashion prints in ladies’ magazines, as seen here, to keep abreast of changing fashions. In fact, the magazines often made note of changes from the previous month, so the truly fashionable had to pay close attention.

Because they were meant to be worn outdoors, the full costume of the Walking Dress always included a head covering of some kind, an outer garment or wrap, and gloves.

Figure 2

Depending on the season, various outer garments were integral to the walking costume. The short spencer jacket, coming only to the waist of the dress, just below the bosom, can be seen in Figures 1, 2 and 7. As waistlines rise, so does the spencer. (By the way, the spencer jacket is named after the 2nd Earl Spencer who is said to have singed the tails of his coat when standing too close to a fire. He cut the tails off, and started a new fashion of short coats for men. Regency ladies, with their high waists, took the short coat idea to its extreme.) The longer pelisse can be seen in Figures 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8.  Only Figure 4 shows a three-quarter length pelisse. As most of the prints in my collection show full-length pelisses, one must assume that it was the more popular length. An artfully draped shawl is shown in Figures 5.

Fabrics for outwear are dependent on the season. Velvets and wools are prevalent for colder months. Sarsnet and kerseymere are prevalent for warmer months.

Figure 3 – March 1810

Although the dress beneath a full-length pelisse or long cloak cannot be seen in the print, the dress is usually described in the magazine, as many modistes would have made the dress and pelisse as a set. The dresses are almost always white. After about 1812, more color and pattern is seen in the dresses, as in the striped sarsnet shown in Figure 5.

In the early years of the century, through about 1803, the skirts are still quite long, covering the tops of the feet, and often including a demi-train. The earlier prints in my collection, many of them French, show that, in general, the hem lengths shorten and trains disappear for walking dresses by about 1805. Figure 1, an English print from 1804, shows the new shorter length hemline. By 1810, the silhouette for all types of dresses becomes slightly more narrow as the fullness of the skirt, once gathered all the way around the waist, is drawn to the center back, producing a full back and flatter front.

Figure 4 – November 1812

During the years 1813-1815, the hemlines are a bit shorter, as seen in Figures 5 and 6, allowing a good view of half-boots or sandals laced up the ankle. Embellished hemlines become more prominent starting around 1814, and by 1816 the deep, ornate flounces seen in evening dress and morning dress appear in walking costumes not only in the dress but in the full-length pelisse as well. The gradual transition from Classic styles to Gothic styles was seen in all elements of women’s fashions.

Skirts become slightly more conical after 1815, hinting at the bell-shaped skirt to come later in the 1820s. Bodices are extremely high in this period, even in outerwear. (Figure 7)

1816-1818 is a period of fashionable excess. Dresses and outerwear are decorated as never before. No amount of embellishment is too much. Cord, ribbons, tassels, lace, ruffles, bows, artificial flowers, embroidery — everything in abundance. The simple, classical lines of a decade earlier have all but disappeared beneath the weight of ornamentation.

Figure 5 – November 1814

The increased popularity of embellished detail is clearly demonstrated as hem decorations – lace, ribbons, cording, embroidery, and flounces (a deep gathered or pleated frill) – crawl higher up the skirt and become more elaborate and fussy. Ornamentation of spencers and pelisses continues the Gothic trend with more braid, buttons, trimming, frogs, embroidery, appliqué, fur, etc. The tailoring also became more complicated, with epaulettes, half-sleeves, pelerines, and other complex constructions. (Figures 6,7, and 8)

The sleeves of spencers and pelisses are fuller and longer in this later period. Compare the tight sleeve of Figure 3 from 1810 to the looser sleeve of Figure 8 from 1818. The sleeves in Figure 6, 7,and 8 all fall below the wrist to almost completely cover the hand. The cuffs of sleeves are embellished with braiding, embroidery, and other trim, and the shoulder is given more emphasis  with added trim of cord and lace, even when there is no epaulette. Gothic ornamentation is in full bloom.

Figure 6 – January 1815

Throughout most of this period, England was at war with France, and a quasi-military style often crept into women’s fashion. In Figure 1 from 1804, the figure on the left is said to be wearing a “Military Spencer.” Note the lacings across the chest, in imitation of regimental tape lacings, and the silver epaulettes on the shoulders. Her companion wears a pelisse with a similar military look. The pelisse in Figure 3 has a strong military flavor, more for its stark, almost masculine cut than for any specific military trimming. The helmet-shaped bonnet in Figure 4 also has a military flavor. The general use of epaulettes and frogging throughout the period also suggests a military influence.

Spencer jackets and pelisses often buttoned high on the neck, so that the dresses and chemisettes underneath sometimes had high standing collars to display above the outerwear. Ruffles, lace, and vandyking abound in the bits of collar allowed to show. Ruffs were popular throughout the period — some modest and some huge — and can be seen in Figures 1, 2, 5, and 7.

Figure 7 – November 1817

Bonnets, caps, and veils were worn to cover the head, and were often the means of the most dashing or frivolous fashion statement. Note the large plumes on the bonnets in Figures 1,3,4, and 5. Or the use of laurel leaves in Figure 4. (Though none of these prints happen to show bonnets with artificial flowers, they were a very popular embellishment, especially after about 1812.)   In the accompanying magazine texts, hats and bonnets sometimes get more detailed descriptions than the dress, indicating the importance of head gear.

Bonnet crowns rose to new heights in 1814-15 and that height continued to some degree, arriving finally at the enormous poke bonnet in Figure 8 from 1818. Not only is the poke huge and the crown high, but it is topped with two large plumes and an elaborate ribbon bow. For the most part, however, height was not everything. The concern seems to have been for showy decoration more than anything else, some of it quite ridiculous to a modern eye. I have a print that shows a bonnet adorned with ears of Indian corn on the bonnet, and another with a full cornucopia of fruit.

Figure 8 – February 1818

The walking costume also lent itself to a wonderful assortment of accessories. Only Figure 2 shows a parasol, but that was a very common accessory in prints of walking dresses. Huge fur muffs were also popular. Figure 1 shows a brown bear muff, Figure 3 an Angola muff, Figure 4 a silver bear muff, Figure 6 a “Britannia pearl fur” muff, and Figure 7 a swansdown muff. Prints of walking dresses also show a reticule now and then. Note the metal-framed black reticule in Figure 8.

Gloves for day wear were a bit more interesting than the ubiquitous long white kid gloves worn with evening wear. There is more color in daytime gloves.  Figure 2 shows lemon-colored short gloves on one figure and lilac-colored long gloves on the other. Figures 1 and 3 show York tan gloves, the most prevalent shade of kid for day wear. Figures 5 and 8 show Limerick gloves, which were much sought after for their extremely thin skin. Sometimes called chicken skin gloves, Limericks were actually made of tanned skin from unborn calves. (Yes, I know … eww.)

Though jewelry was more plentiful and grand for evening wear (for example, gemstones would seldom be worn during the day), there were nevertheless various items appropriate for day wear. The standing woman in Figure 2 is wearing gold hoop earrings, as is the woman in Figure 3. Hoop earrings were popular throughout the Regency period. Though there is not much jewelry shown in this selection of prints, other prints of walking dresses show quizzing glasses on long gold chains, or watch fobs attached with a chain at the waist.

For more information on fashion prints, see these sources:

• Alison Adburgham, Women in Print: Writing Women and Women’s Magazine from the Restoration to the Accession of Victoria, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1972.
• Irene Dancyger, A World of Women: An Illustrated History of Women’s Magazines 1700-1970, Gill and Macmillan, 1978.
• Jody Gayle, Fashions in the Era of Jane Austen, Publications of the Past, 2012.
• Madeleine Ginsburg, An Introduction to Fashion Illustration, Victoria & Albert Museum, 1980.
• Vyvyan Holland, Hand Coloured Fashion Plates 1770-1899, Batsford, 1955.
• Doris Langley Moore, Fashion Through Fashion Plates 1771-1970, Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1971.
• Sacheverell Sitwell and Doris Langley Moore, Gallery of Fashion 1790-1822, Batsford, 1949.
• Cynthia L. White, Women’s Magazines 1693-1968, Michael Joseph, 1970.

Figure 1 – July 1799

They were tailored by men in the manner of men’s dress: a fitted jacket worn over a long skirt, often worn with a masculine hat. Samuel Pepys, ever helpful with observations of his time, wrote in 1666 of seeing the Queen’s ladies of honor “dressed in their riding garbs, with coats and doublets and deep skirts, just for all the world like men, and buttoned their doublets up to the breast, with periwigs and with hats; so that, only for a long petticoat dragging under the men’s coats, nobody could take them for women in any point whatever — which was an odd sight, and a sight which did not please me.”

Though the style and cut of riding habits changed with time and fashion, they continued to be tailored in a masculine style throughout the 17th and 18th centuries and into the early 19th century. In La Belle Assemblée in 1815, we read that: “Habits have, ever since they were first brought into fashion, been considered as decidedly calculated to give even the most delicate female a masculine appearance, and the wits of our grandmothers’ days were unmercifully severe on the waistcoat, cravat, and man’s hat which were then the indispensible appendages to a habit.”

Figure 2 – March 1804

Even after female dressmakers took on the task of designing and making women’s clothing around 1700 (male tailors had up until then made both male and female clothing), the riding habit continued to be made by men. It was not until the second decade of the 19th century that female dress-makers usurped this final bastion of the male tailor and began designing riding habits for ladies.

Included in this collection are a selection of fashion prints showing riding habits from 1799 through 1817. Be sure to click on the images to see larger versions and to read the original magazine text for all the English examples.

The riding habit of the Regency period generally consisted of a close-fitting jacket worn over a habit shirt, with a trained skirt. Sometimes the skirt and a bodice were joined in a single garment. (The bodice would have been made of plain cotton or muslin, as it was simply made to hold up the skirt, and was otherwise an  undergarment.)  Other times the skirt was a separate garment with a fitted waistband and straps over the shoulders, like suspenders.

Figure 3 – April 1807

Pocket slits in the skirts were not uncommon, as old-fashioned pockets were often worn under the habit (as riding made carrying a reticule difficult). In Figures 3 and 7 you can see the pocket holes which have been decorated to match the rest of the habit.

The habit skirt had a train that ensured the legs were completely (and modestly) covered when riding side saddle. There was usually a loop or tie of some kind inside the skirt to hold up the long train while walking. Skirts were made full, gathered or pleated in the back, typically with a small bustle beneath. The silhouette did not change during the first two decades of the 19th century, as did other garments, due to the required fullness of the skirt.

The habit jacket was basically a version of the spencer jacket. I suspect many were sometimes worn separately as spencers without the full habit. There is typically a short pleated peplum in the back, which is the Regency remnant of the tails in a man’s jacket, or in the female habits of the previous century, which closely copied male tailoring. You can see the peplum in Figures 1, 2 and 5. As Figure 1 is from 1799, the peplum is still somewhat long, especially as compared to the very short peplum in Figure 5 from 1815.

Figure 4 – June 1812

The habits of the first years of the 19th century still retained a tailored, masculine style, often adopting a military look, incorporating piping, braid, epaulettes, and frogging, in imitation of Hussar and other regimental uniforms. Ornamentation increased over the years, just as it did for other types of women’s fashion. This is clearly seen in the change from the plain cuffs on jackets (Figures 1, 2 and 3) to the embroidered cuffs of Figure 4, to the elaborate cuffs of the fabulous Glengary Habit in Figure 7.

The jacket and skirt were made of sturdy fabrics, most often some sort of wool, and, judging from the examples in fashion prints, were almost always either blue or green. No longer do we see the bright red habits of the previous century. A few French prints show gray or light brown habits, but I have never seen those colors in English prints, though the magazine description of the blue habit in Figure 3 says that “olive or puce are equally esteemed.”

Figure 5 – October 1815

Under the jacket, the habit shirt was generally made of muslin or cambric. They often followed the style of men’s shirts, with high standing collars, as in Figure 4, and a ruffled front. The shirt was tied beneath the bosom. Long sleeves might have lace cuffs to show beneath the jacket sleeves, though more often than not, the jacket cuff sat very low on the hand obscuring any shirt sleeves. The shirt might also be sleeveless. That style was sometimes called a chemisette and was worn to “fill in” the bodice of a day dress.

A cravat was sometimes tied around the high collar, as seen in Figures 6 and 7. The shirt became more frilly and feminine in the second decade of the 19th century, and ruffed collars were common, as seen in Figure 7. Figure 6 shows a combination of ruff and standing collar, with a blue cravat.

Hats also paid homage to male costume, as in the simple top hat shown in Figure 6 or the jockey bonnet in Figure 3, but often the hat was a very feminine counterpoint to the masculine tailoring of the habit. Hats worn with riding habits were not the typical capote or poke-style bonnet worn with other dresses. The hats shown in Figures 1, 4, 5, and 7 would not have been worn with any other sort of outfit, but were specially designed to be worn with the habit.

Figure 6 – June 1816

Note that in each of the fashion prints shown, the lady carries a riding crop, which was a required accessory. When riding side saddle, a lady needed the crop in her right hand to cue her horse, as she did not have a leg to do that on the right, as both legs were held on the left side of the saddle. In prints, the crop helped to easily identify a costume as a riding habit, since similar styles were used for carriage and traveling costumes. As a matter of fact, riding habits sometimes doubled as traveling costumes, as the sturdy fabric held up well over the dusty roads. The magazine commentary accompanying Figure 5 says the habit can be “happily adapted for travelling.” It is possible that a different skirt, without the long train, would be substituted for a long carriage ride.

Prints from the first decade of the century almost never mention the designer of the habit. But throughout the 1810s, more designers are specifically named. Figure 4 from 1812 cites “Mr. S. Clark of Golden Square.” But in most cases, a female dress-maker is mentioned, such as the ubiquitous Mrs. Bell. It is likely that as riding habits became more feminine and more elaborately ornamented that the male tailor no longer seemed the appropriate designer. Since female dress-makers had been tailoring short, close-fitting spencer jackets and pelisses for some years, it must not have been that great a leap to create a riding habit.

Figure 7 – September 1817

However, male tailors still offered their services to ladies who wanted habits, as evidenced in various advertisements in the ladies’ magazines of the day. Mr. G. Fox advertised in an 1817 issue of La Belle Assemblée: “Those Ladies who are very nice in their Dress are acquainted, that he employs particular workmen, who have for years constantly made up nothing but Woolen Pelisses and Habits, and therefore do form them into the most becoming and fashionable shapes, and much superior to any dress-maker.”

Sounds to me like a disgruntled man who did not appreciate women doing what had long been considered a man’s job.

For more information on fashion prints, see these sources:

• Alison Adburgham, Women in Print: Writing Women and Women’s Magazine from the Restoration to the Accession of Victoria, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1972.
• Irene Dancyger, A World of Women: An Illustrated History of Women’s Magazines 1700-1970, Gill and Macmillan, 1978.
• Jody Gayle, Fashions in the Era of Jane Austen, Publications of the Past, 2012.
• Madeleine Ginsburg, An Introduction to Fashion Illustration, Victoria & Albert Museum, 1980.
• Vyvyan Holland, Hand Coloured Fashion Plates 1770-1899, Batsford, 1955.
• Doris Langley Moore, Fashion Through Fashion Plates 1771-1970, Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1971.
• Sacheverell Sitwell and Doris Langley Moore, Gallery of Fashion 1790-1822, Batsford, 1949.
• Cynthia L. White, Women’s Magazines 1693-1968, Michael Joseph, 1970.

For more information on riding habits, see these sources:

• Jane Ashelford, The Art of Dress: Clothes and Society 1500-1914, NAtional Trust, 1996.
• R. L. Shep, Federalist and Regency Costume: 1790-1819, Shep publications, 1998.
• Norah Waugh, The Cut of Women’s Clothes 1600-1930, Theatre Arts Books, 1968.

Save

Figure 1 – “Half Dress”
December 1803

I have found no definitions for these terms in the ladies’ magazines of the period, but they are used so often that one can only assume that the terms were well understood by the magazines’ readers, so that no explanation was required. My general definitions are based on a study of the prints using these labels. Still, the designations can be confusing.

FULL DRESS was the most formal, and included attire worn in the late evening to very formal events. (For more information on Full Dress, see the Full Dress Overview on this website.)

UNDRESS was the least formal, having nothing to do with being actually undressed, but with being dressed very casually or informally, ie the sorts of clothing one would wear at home, walking outdoors, shopping, etc.

Figure 3 – “Evening Half Dress” September 1814

HALF DRESS fell somewhere in between. Half Dress follows the less formal morning dress and afternoon walking dress into the late afternoon and early evening, and sometimes later in the evening if the occasion was not strictly formal. Prints labeled “Afternoon Dress” would be recognized as Half Dress. Dinner dresses and Opera dresses also were typically considered Half Dress, as neither dinner parties nor the theatre were deemed formal occasions.

Sometimes a Promenade Dress is labeled as “Promenade Half Dress.” which one can assume referred to an ensemble worn in the late afternoon, generally after 5:00pm, when the fashionable haute ton made a show of walking through Hyde Park. The ensemble would be more dressy than a morning walking dress, with perhaps richer fabrics and trimmings, but not as fancy as an evening dress.

So, as you can see, Half Dress is sort of a catch-all middle area of fashion.

Figure 3 – “Half Full Dress”
February 1813

And just to confuse us further, there is also HALF FULL DRESS. It appears as though Half Full Dress is simply Half Dress with a bit of fancy accessorizing. One might, for example, attend the opera in Half Dress, then add expensive jewelry, hair ornaments, silk shawls, etc to attend a late evening party. So, not quite the full-blown elegance and richness of Full Dress, but fancy enough for a night on the Town. Half Full Dress is more or less the equivalent of “semi-formal.”

For men, Half Dress would be the equivalent of a suit and tie, Half Full Dress would be a tuxedo, and Full Dress would be the equivalent of white tie.

The prints continue to confound with the occasional “Promenade Half Full Dress” that looks like an ordinary walking dress, or an “Evening Half Dress” that looks like a formal ball dress. It is necessary to study the descriptions of fabric and trimmings to make sense of the terms. But frankly, there are times when the labels make no sense at all.

For the most part, however, we can safely assume that Half Dress is something between Undress and Full Dress.

For more information on fashion prints, see these sources:

• Alison Adburgham, Women in Print: Writing Women and Women’s Magazine from the Restoration to the Accession of Victoria, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1972.
• Irene Dancyger, A World of Women: An Illustrated History of Women’s Magazines 1700-1970, Gill and Macmillan, 1978.
• Jody Gayle, Fashions in the Era of Jane Austen, Publications of the Past, 2012.
• Madeleine Ginsburg, An Introduction to Fashion Illustration, Victoria & Albert Museum, 1980.
• Vyvyan Holland, Hand Coloured Fashion Plates 1770-1899, Batsford, 1955.
• Doris Langley Moore, Fashion Through Fashion Plates 1771-1970, Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1971.
• Sacheverell Sitwell and Doris Langley Moore, Gallery of Fashion 1790-1822, Batsford, 1949.
• Cynthia L. White, Women’s Magazines 1693-1968, Michael Joseph, 1970.

Full Dress, Half Dress, and Half Full Dress are terms seen frequently in fashion prints of the Regency period. I have found no definitions of those terms in any of the ladies’ magazines of the period, so one must assume they were common terms understood by the magazine’s readers, and needed no explanation.

Figure 1 – March 1801

Definitions of the terms, however, are fairly easy to interpret, based on the prints using those labels.

Full dress would have been the most formal of all evening wear, for both men and women. Full dress was worn only for very formal occasions, such as a ball or a formal reception or party. For women, prints labeled “Evening Dress” or “Ball Dress” would fall under the umbrella of Full Dress. There were also many prints with the specific label “Full Dress.”

There does not seem to be much distinction between these three labels. In the later part of the period, when hemlines fluctuated, the longer hemlines seem more often associated with an “evening dress,” which may indicate that the shorter lengths were for dancing, making it less likely for the woman to trip over her skirts. But for the most part, Full Dress, Ball Dress, and Evening Dress styles seem to be interchangeable.

Figure 2 – February 1805

You can see by a quick look at the prints that the overall style of the dress remains similar throughout the period: a slender vertical silhouette with a high waistline.

There are changes, of course, from year to year, and even, if you believe the ladies’ magazines of the period, from month to month.

Overall, there is a gradual shift from a simple classical style to a more Gothic, heavily ornamented style. Only a few years after the last of the prints shown here, the era of the vertical silhouette is over, with skirts widening and sleeves ballooning to enormous proportions.

Figure 3 – May 1809

White remains the favorite color for dresses throughout the period, and is almost universal in the early years, 1800 – 1805, when the classical ideal was still dominant. Other colors seen in the prints are typically pastel shades, often seen in slips or underdresses beneath sheer fabrics. Brighter, bolder colors were often used in accessories and trimmings.  Only the occasional bold color was used for the body of the dress.

The most prevalent fabrics for evening dresses are satin, crepe (always spelled crape), and sarsnet. These would be used for the main body of the dress, or for a slip or underdress. Layered dresses were prevalent throughout the period, likely due to the sheerness of many of the fabrics. Various delicate, diaphanous fabrics were used for overdresses, including fine India muslin, lace, gossamer net, imperial crepe, tulle, and figured or spotted gauze. For example, Figure 3 shows a crepe dress over a white satin slip; Figure 5 shows a white crape petticoat over a white satin slip; Figure 6 shows a lace dress over a white satin slip; and Figure 7 shows a white lace dress over a blush-colored satin slip.

A formal evening dress might include a train throughout the period, though is it more prevalent in the earlier years when skirts were longer in general. (See Figures 1 and 2.)  Skirts stay rather long until after about 1806-1807 when hemlines appear to just skim the floor. (See Figure 3.) By 1815, hems have risen to show hints of ankle. (See Figures 5 and 7.) Some rather dashing ensembles show more than a bit of ankle and seem quite short to modern eyes. In the last few years of the period, hemlines move slightly up or down, but always some inches above the floor.

Figure 4 – May 1813

Necklines are typically very low for evening dresses throughout the period.  Bosoms were much on display in the evening.

Waistline heights fluctuate randomly, as prints the same year will often show very high and very low waists (although all waistlines are well above the natural waistline) The waistline for evening dress gets generally quite high after about 1814, reaching its highest levels around 1817. (See Figure 7.) With the low necklines, an 1817 bodice can sometimes appear miniscule, at least in the prints. After that time, waistlines in general begin to fall, though evening dress continues for a while to show relatively high waists.

Long sleeves are more prominent in the very early years, ie through 1801-5, where they are generally quite tight and molded to the arms, but show up occasionally throughout the period in fuller variations. Short sleeves end just above the elbow in 1800 through about 1805. (See Figures 1 and 2), and get progressively shorter. Short puffed sleeves begin to be prominent for evening dresses around 1806 (a few years earlier in France), and continue throughout the period.

The skirts from 1800-1806 are still somewhat full, hanging from the body in loose draperies the in the classical style of ancient Greece and Rome, with most of the fullness gathered in the back. (See Figures 1 and 2.) During the next ten years, skirts remain rather narrow, almost tubular, without any fullness. Around 1815, the silhouette begins to take on a definite A-line or bell-shape, with the increasing width of the bottom of the skirt. (See Figures 5, 6 and 7.)

Figure 5 – April 1815

The decoration at the hem of evening dresses, if any, stays rather simple through the first decade of the century. From 1800 through 1803, the form is very classical and pure, with little or no embellishment. From about 1804, lace and ribbon trim at the hemline begin to be more popular, and by around 1811 is prevalent in almost every print. By 1814, the hemline becomes enhanced with a true flounce, ie a row of applied trim of lace, ribbons, braiding, piping, French knots, beading, etc. By 1815, with more post-war influence from the French who had been adorning hems for many years, the flounce becomes deeper, with more elaborate Gothic decoration, including deep swags and festoons, and continues to dominate the skirt from 1816 and beyond. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the overly fussy flounces of those years.

Gloves were always worn with evening dress. Most of the prints in my collection show white gloves for evening. The rare print will show a pale pink or yellow pair. With short sleeves, the gloves are always long, ie just over the elbow. They are worn looser than modern gloves. Figures 3 and 4 clearly show how loose the top of the glove was. In most prints the gloves often appear to be falling down the arm, bunched up below the elbow. The description of the print shown in Figure 4 says: “White gloves of French kid, falling below the elbow.”

Figure 6 – June 1816

Clearly the gloves shown in all the prints are above-elbow length, but are seldom actually worn above the elbow, but are instead allowed to loosely fall down the arm. French prints show a much tighter long glove, often held up with ties or ribbons.

All sorts of jewelry was worn with evening dress. Things to note are that bracelets are almost always shown in pairs, and very often worn on the upper arm, above the glove line. (See Figure 3)  Bracelets worn on the wrist were worn over the glove. Necklaces of all sorts were worn, with long, heavy chains being popular in the earliest years, 1800 through about 1804. Layers of varying lengths of necklaces becomes popular after about 1813.  (See Figure 4.) Earrings of all types are worn, with hoop earrings very popular throughout the period.

Figure 7 – May 1817

Shawls were often shown with evening wear. (See Figures 3, 4,  and 6.) Considering the thin fabrics of the dresses, a woman would need something to keep warm! Shawls are often from Kashmir, typically very large, and frequently woven in a paisley pattern. Often a white or pale pastel dress is shown with a bold-colored shawl. In warmer months, shawls of silk, gauze, fine India muslin, or other lighter-weight fabrics are seen in the prints. The size of the shawl is largest at the beginning of the period, 1800 – 1803, and again after 1816, where they look to be as large as 6-8 feet long. During the middle years, they vary in more moderate sizes.

Shoes for evening were always a form of slipper. The prints show ladies with such unnaturally tiny feet that the shoe is not much defined. An exception is Figure 3, where the tiny shoes are shown with blue stripes. The magazine text for the print in Figure 6 describes the shoes as “white satin slippers richly embroidered in coloured silks,” and yet we cannot see the shoes at all. Even so, they are almost always described. The prevalent materials are satin and kid.

For more information on fashion prints, see these sources:

• Alison Adburgham, Women in Print: Writing Women and Women’s Magazine from the Restoration to the Accession of Victoria, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1972.
• Irene Dancyger, A World of Women: An Illustrated History of Women’s Magazines 1700-1970, Gill and Macmillan, 1978.
• Jody Gayle, Fashions in the Era of Jane Austen, Publications of the Past, 2012.
• Madeleine Ginsburg, An Introduction to Fashion Illustration, Victoria & Albert Museum, 1980.
• Vyvyan Holland, Hand Coloured Fashion Plates 1770-1899, Batsford, 1955.
• Doris Langley Moore, Fashion Through Fashion Plates 1771-1970, Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1971.
• Sacheverell Sitwell and Doris Langley Moore, Gallery of Fashion 1790-1822, Batsford, 1949.
• Cynthia L. White, Women’s Magazines 1693-1968, Michael Joseph, 1970.

Figure 1 – February 1804

Rules of Court Dress were rigid and dictated by the current monarch or his Queen. During the Regency, those rules produced a type of female garment that appears perfectly ridiculous to modern eyes, but which was taken quite seriously by those who wore them and by the designers who made them.

The rules of Court directed that ladies should wear skirts with hoops and trains, and that white ostrich feathers be worn in the hair, attached to lappets which hung below the shoulders. These rules had been in place long before George III took the throne. In his predecessor’s day the skirts were enhanced with panniers that stood out very wide on either side, but leaving the front and back flat. The intent of such odd-looking dresses was to display a broad swath of beautifully embroidered fabric, some of which had pictorial or floral scenes that used the entire front of the skirt as a canvas. Side panniers had been replaced by normal round hoops by the time George III came to the throne in 1760. In the last decade of the 18th century, the fashion for wide skirts began to evolve into the slim, vertical line associated with Regency dress. Queen Charlotte, however, held firm on the rules of Court Dress, and ladies were forced to adapt those rules to the current style, which produced a very odd-looking garment with the high-waist under the bosom and a full hoped skirt.

Figure 2 – March 1806

Who wore these silly (to my eye) concoctions?

Wives and daughters of peers, members of parliament, or the landed gentry were allowed to be formally presented at Court on only three specific occasions: as a young woman making her debut in Society (she was later to be called a debutante), upon her marriage, and on the occasion of her husband having an honor conferred upon him.

For daughters, the presentation at court marked them as suitable bridal candidates in the marriage market. For wives, it marked them as respectable members of the upper classes of Society and sometimes opened doors for them that had formerly been closed. The woman being presented was always sponsored by another woman who had already been presented. This was usually her mother or mother-in-law or another female relation. If she had no relative to present her, there were certain high-ranking ladies who would do so for a fee.

Figure 3 – February 1808

The presentations took place at St. James’s Palace at events called Drawing Rooms, where the monarch and/or his Queen received those attending Court. Presentation Drawing Rooms were held two or three times a week during the Season. Based on letters and diaries of the time, it was so stressful an experience that it was regarded more as a duty than a pleasure. The young woman to be presented stood sometimes for hours (one never sat in the presence of the Queen) waiting for her name to be announced by the Lord Chamberlain. She then walked to where the Queen sat and made a deep curtsy — which had been practiced and practiced while wearing the hooped skirt. A few pleasantries were exchanged, the young woman answering any question the Queen put to her, but no more. When the Queen indicated she was dismissed, the young woman made one more deep curtsey, and then had to walk backwards out of the royal presence (one never turned one’s back on the Queen) all the while dealing with the obstacle of her train so as not to trip over it. Stressful indeed!

Figure 4 – September 1816

Other formal occasions requiring Court Dress were the Drawing Rooms held to commemorate the Queen’s birthday (January) and the King’s birthday (June). These were invitation-only events involving only the highest-ranking members of Society. Unlike the young women being presented at court for the first time, whose dresses were primarily white or pale pastel shades, the ladies of the nobility were allowed more freedom of color in their court costumes. Many of the magazines of the period listed all the important women who attended the Drawing Rooms and described what they wore. For example, in January 1809, the Lady’s Magazine reported that the Countess of Carlisle wore: “A most superb dress of ruby velvet and white satin; the draperies in every part trimmed with a rich imperial gold border, and a profusion of splendid gold tassels, rope, &c.; robe trimmed with point lace. Head-dress, ruby turban, jewels, and feathers.” Figure 2 shows a dress worn by the Marchioness of Townshend at the Queen’s Drawing Room in 1806, and Figure 6 shows what Lady Worsley Holmes wore to the King’s Drawing Room in 1820.

Figure 5 – April 1817

The Queen’s unyielding insistence that women attend court in unfashionable hoops continued even after the King no longer appeared in public, and Drawing Rooms were hosted by the Prince Regent. The ever astute Mrs. Bell (the shameless self-promoter who designed most of the dresses illustrated in La Belle Assemblée) at last came to the rescue with a more flexible hoop in 1817 (see Figure 5 – click on the image to read more about the new hoop), but it must still have been something of an aggravation to deal with such an unwieldy and heavy costume while standing, never sitting, at court. Such out-of-date dress had long been discarded at the French court, where no hoops were worn, but where long trains, white plumes, and court lappets echoed the English court style. (See Figure 4.) After the Bourbons reclaimed the French throne upon Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815, fashion magazines in England began to include prints of French court dress.  It is tempting to believe they did so to encourage the Prince Regent to adopt a more current style of court dress by showing the more fashionably attired ladies of the French court. These prints, including the one from  La Belle Assemblée in Figure 4, were often exact copies of fashion prints that had previously appeared in the popular French publication, Le Journal des Dames et Des Modes.

Figure 6 – July 1820

The Prince, however, did not relax the rules until he came to the throne as George IV in 1820. Finally, ladies could abandon their hoops. (Ironically, they came back into fashion within another 15 years.) The rules regarding white plumes in the hair still held fast (and did so well into the 20th century), and in looking at the fashion prints of the early 1820s, it appears that the extravagance of skirt that was given up with the hoop was transferred to the head. Plumes became ridiculously large and numerous. Figure 6, which shows one of the first non-hooped Court Dresses from 1820, also exemplifies the new extravagance for plumes. Fortunately, ostrich feathers weigh very little, else the lady would surely have been unable to lift her head.

If it is any consolation to the ladies, the rules of gentlemen’s court dress were much more strict, and became even more so during Victoria’s reign.

For more information on court dress, see these sources:

• Nigel Arch and Joanna Marschner, Court Dress Collection, Kensington Palace, 1984.
• Sharon Laudermilk and Teresa L. Hamlin, The Regency Companion, Garland Publishing, Inc., 1989.
• Philip Mansel, Dressed to Rule, Yale University Press, 2005.
• Kay Standiland, In Royal Fashion, Museum of London, 1997.

 For more information on fashion prints, see these sources:

• Alison Adburgham, Women in Print: Writing Women and Women’s Magazine from the Restoration to the Accession of Victoria, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1972.
• Irene Dancyger, A World of Women: An Illustrated History of Women’s Magazines 1700-1970, Gill and Macmillan, 1978.
• Jody Gayle, Fashions in the Era of Jane Austen, Publications of the Past, 2012.
• Madeleine Ginsburg, An Introduction to Fashion Illustration, Victoria & Albert Museum, 1980.
• Vyvyan Holland, Hand Coloured Fashion Plates 1770-1899, Batsford, 1955.
• Doris Langley Moore, Fashion Through Fashion Plates 1771-1970, Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1971.
• Sacheverell Sitwell and Doris Langley Moore, Gallery of Fashion 1790-1822, Batsford, 1949.
• Cynthia L. White, Women’s Magazines 1693-1968, Michael Joseph, 1970.

Figure 1 – Ivory fan of identically pierced sticks, cut in a delicate lacy pattern. Sticks threaded with ivory silk ribbon, and held together by an ivory rivet. c.1790-1810

The most common folding fans consist of sticks of identical length held together at the bottom with a rivet, with a curved leaf of paper, silk, lace or other material glued to the sticks and pleated.

The second most common type of folding fan is the brisé fan, consisting only of decorative sticks with no pleated leaf. (The term brisé — “broken” in French — has been used for this type of fan only since the early 20th century.)

Figure 2 – Detail of “Evening Dress,” Ackermann’s Repository of Arts, July 1813

The sticks of a brisé fan are typically carved or pierced, and held together by a ribbon which is either glued to each stick or threaded through pierced openings at the top of the sticks. The sticks are most often identically carved or pierced, creating a uniform ground or repeating pattern that can give the illusion of filigree or lace.

This collection features brisé fans, primarily English, from the early 19th century. All are rather small, with sticks between 6″ and 7″ long.

The earliest brisé fans came from China and Japan, and were exported to Europe in large quantities from the 17th century on.

Figure 3: Horn fan of identically pierced sticks, cut in a delicate lacy pattern. Sticks threaded with pink silk ribbon, and held together by an steel rivet. c.1790-1810.

European brisé fans, made in imitation of the delicate Chinese wooden and ivory fans but distinctly Western in style, were composed of thinly-sliced sticks of bone, horn, tortoiseshell, mother-of-pearl, or ivory that were often elaborately carved, gilded, and painted.

Sometimes plain, undecorated ivory sticks imported from China were completely painted in the style of a leaf fan. The East India Company imported large numbers of plain and carved brisé fans in ivory and tortoiseshell well into the 19th century, though later 19th century fans are much larger than these Regency examples.

Figure 4: Green horn fan of identically pierced sticks, alternately reversed to create a swag pattern. Hand painted with swags of flowers on both front and back. c1810-1820.

The brisé fan was popular in the 17th and early 18th centuries, but was never as widespread as the folding fan with a painted and pleated leaf. However, in the late 18th and early 19th century smaller fans had come into vogue, perhaps due to the narrower, high-waisted dresses that could no longer accommodate voluminous pockets beneath, where one could tuck a large fan. The smaller fan, often called “opera” size, could have easily slipped into a reticule. Whatever the reason, smaller fans saw an increase in popularity during the extended Regency period. There are several beautiful brisé fans from this period in the Royal collection, including examples with the Prince of Wales and other members of the royal family depicted on painted sections of pierced ivory sticks. This one shows the Duke of York.

Figure 5: Horn fan dyed in a faux tortoiseshell style. Identically pierced sticks, alternately reversed to create a swag pattern. Hand-painted with flowers on both front and back. c1800-1820.

Fans of this period, following the democratic ideals of the American and French revolutions, were also made more available to the general populace through cheaper materials – bone and horn instead of the more expensive ivory and tortoiseshell, and printed rather than painted leaves on folding fans. One of the reasons for the rise in popularity of the brisé fan during this period was that they were less labor-intensive, using identical sticks of a single pattern, created with a tiny jeweler’s saw, with little or no decoration. But the fashionable ladies of the ton carried brisé fans as well; their simplicity echoed the general simplicity of the neoclassical style of dress.

In the June 1813 issue of of La Belle Assemblée, it is noted in the General Observations on Fashion and Dress that “Ivory fans, with painted borders of flowers, are very much in request.” We can assume that the style of decoration shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5 are what is referred to, though on ivory fans. Or perhaps something similar to the ivory fan shown here. Two months later, the same magazine notes that “plain, small ivory fans promise to supersede the beautiful painted ones mentioned in our last issue,” and by the November 1813 issue it is reported that “plain ivory fans are universal.” By “plain” I do not believe they are referring to uncarved ivory, but rather unpainted pierced or carved ivory, as shown in Figure 1. Ackermann’s Repository of Arts also frequently mentions “carved ivory fans” in the descriptions of its fashion plates of the period, as in the detail of a print from 1813 shown in Figure 2. I believe that all such references to “carved ivory fans” can be understood to mean a brisé fan. In the print in Figure 2, it is clearly a brisé fan.

As fashion became more elaborate and fussy in the 1830s and beyond, the small, simple brisé fan became less popular, though some very elaborate brisé fans with neo-Gothic style sticks were made in the 1830s and 1840s. (See this example in the Victoria and Albert Museum.) Brisé style fans continue to be made, and are most commonly seen today in faux-ivory plastic fans.

Figure 6: Horn fan. The body of each stick is cut in a stack of round floral patterns, and each roundel is painted with blue and white enamel. c1800-1810.

The brisé fans of the early 19th century have an unmistakably Regency style in the carving that sets them apart from fans imported from the Far East. The same elements seen in Regency furniture, architecture, glasswork, ironwork, etc can be seen in the carved designs of brisé fans: delicate motifs and restrained elements from classical Greece and Rome, bolder forms drawn from ancient Egypt and Asia, and the rigid geometric order of neoclassicism.

Sometimes the carving and/or piercing is so delicate that it is decoration enough. (See Figure 1.) Most often, though, there is some painting of the sticks, frequently with simple swags of flowers, or other repetitive floral devices. (See Figures 3, 4, and 5.) It is not uncommon to have both sides of the fan painted, often with different designs. The fans with simple swags of flowers, for example, might have different types or colors of flowers painted on each side.  Painting on brisé fans was more difficult than painting a fan leaf, even with simple painted designs of swags of flowers, and especially when there was a design on both sides of the sticks. The artist had to color each individual stick carefully so that the whole composition connected properly when the fan was opened.

All of the fans in this collection were purchased in England and are assumed to be English. Each are of a similar size, with sticks measuring 6 to 7 inches, the fully opened fan measuring approximately 12 inches. Figure 1 is made of ivory, the most popular material for fans of this period. Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 are made of horn, with Figure 5 being dyed to resemble tortoiseshell. See a mother-of-pearl example here.

For more information on brisé fans, see the following sources:

• Hélène Alexander, The Fan Museum, Fan Museum Trust, 2001.
• Hélène Alexander, Fans, Shire Publications, 1995.
• Nancy Armstrong, A Collector’s History of Fans, Clarkson N. Potter Publishers, 1974.
• Anna G. Bennett, Fans in Fashion, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 1981.
• Anna G. Bennett, Unfolding Beauty: The Art of the Fan, Thames & Hudson, 1988.
• Avril Hart and Emma Taylor, Fans, Victoria & Albert Publications, 1998.
• Alexander F. Tcherviakov, Fans, Parkstone Press, 1998.

“Guirlande faissant Tour et demi Robe de Mousseline.”

The model wears a garland of white flowers around her head, and another sprig tucked into the complicated braiding at the back of her hair.

The long-sleeved demi-trained muslin robe is dotted with tiny gold flowers that look embroidered and not printed. The robe is trimmed at the neckline and down the open front with gold ribbon. The robe is tied down the front with blue ribbons, and trimmed at the hem with the same. She wears a corset bodice of blue with vandyking at the waist and the edges of the sleeves, all trimmed in gold. All the gold bits of the robe and bodice are painted in bright gold metallic paint, impossible to see online but quite gorgeous in person.

Over one shoulder, she wears a bright red shawl, trimmed at the ends with a block of white dotted with red flowers, likely embroidered. Her jewelry includes bracelets of gold and silver, and drop earrings also of gold and silver. All of the jewelry is painted in bright metallic paint. The entire print sparkles with gold and silver.

My favorite element of this ensemble, though, is the gold cupid’s arrow with silver feathers that pierces the top of the robe’s neckline.

Figure 1: Bilston enamel case (3 1/2″ long) with brass fittings. Lead crystal glass bottle (2 3/4″ long) facet cut in honeycomb pattern with ground stopper. c. 1760.

Perfume producers flourished throughout Europe. The French court of Louis XV was known as la cour parfumée. London saw the rise of perfume shops such as those of Lillie and Perry and Bayley, many of them distinguished by signboards displaying civet cats, roses, and orange trees. Though still a luxury item, the rage for perfume became almost frantic, and it was often difficult for the producers to meet the demands, even with significantly expanded crops of perfume-making plants. Many new techniques and ingredients were developed during this period to satisfy the insatiable demand for perfume.

The rise of fashionable fragrance brought about new and equally fashionable ways to store it, display it, wear it, and use it. The finest porcelain factories produced bottles and flasks in every imaginable shape. Scent containers were also produced in glass, rock crystal, silver, gold, enamel, amber, ivory, alabaster, and many other materials.

Figure 2: Tortoise shell case (2 1/4″ tall) with sterling fittings; interior lined in red silk. Molded glass bottle (1 1/2″ tall) with ground stopper. c. 1780

Bottles were made to be displayed on a dressing table, to be tucked in a pocket, suspended from a chatelaine, or encased for traveling. Large traveling chests known as nécessaires contained everything a lady or gentleman would need during a journey, and these chests always included perfume flasks. The 18th century saw the proliferation of pocket-sized nécessaires, called étuis, with miniature items, such as sewing kits, writing kits, and tiny toilettes that included scent vials. A perfume étui contains only bottles for perfume, and sometimes a tiny funnel for decanting.

Figure 3: Bilston enamel étuis, c1760-1780. Each approximately 2″ tall. Two holding tiny glass perfume bottles.

Perfume étuis were very tiny cases meant to fit in a pocket, or later in a reticule, but were also pretty enough for display on one’s dressing table. All the examples in this article are British.

Perfume étuis were generally hinged containers with one or more small bottles inside. Figure 1 shows a less typical tubular shape with a screw-on top. (I have two of these that are almost identical, bought 20 years and 4000 miles apart!)  Perfume étuis were produced in a greater variety of materials even than scent bottles, for materials not appropriate to hold perfume — for example, tortoise shell — could be used for the étui case, as in Figure 2.

Figure 4: Three perfume étuis, shown closed and open, each made of shagreen and lined in red velvet. c1790-1800. Left: 2″ tall with two lead crystal bottles with sterling collars and ground glass stoppers, and a mirror (cracked) inside lid. Center: 1 ¾” tall with two lead crystal bottles with gold collars and ground glass stoppers, Left: 1 ¾” tall with a single lead crystal bottle with a brass top over a ground glass stopper.

A very popular material for étuis was enamel. The most desirable enamel scent bottles and étuis were created in Bilston and Birmingham in England. (The Battersea enamel factory was only in operation from 1752 to 1755, and there is no evidence that any scent bottles or cases were made there.) The Bilston examples in this collection, Figures 1 and 3, were made at the height of enamel craftsmanship, just after advances had been made that allowed enamel to be applied to a large surface without cracking during firing. Typically a perfumer or jeweler would purchase the plain metal cases, then send them to enamellists for decoration. Though extremely popular, they were nevertheless quite fragile, and it is a rare treat to find one today with little or no cracking or chipping.

Figure 5: Two sterling étuis, both made in Birmingham by Joseph Taylor, the one on the left hallmarked 1802, the one on the right hallmarked 1798. Both are 1 ¾” tall, lined in red velvet, with glass bottles measuring approximately 1 ½” tall.

Another very popular material for étui cases was shagreen (Figure 4). The term comes from the Turkish saghri, meaning the croup of an animal. Shagreen is made from the skin of the shark, ray fish, or dog fish. It is ground flat so that the pearl-like papillae create a granulated pattern, and it is then dyed various colors, most often green. Shagreen was very fashionable during the 18th century and was often used for small portable cases, eg eyeglass cases or cosmetic cases. It found a resurgence of popularity in the early 20th century, with items such as cigarette cases.

Two of the étuis shown in Figure 4 include two bottles, so a lady could carry two favorite fragrances in one small case. There are even some that carry four bottles.

Sterling silver was another popular material for étuis, and was produced by the same silversmiths, primarily from Birmingham, who specialized in small items advertised as “toys.” These were not toys as we know them, but a variety of small baubles and ornaments, such as vinaigrettes, patch boxes, nutmeg graters, snuff boxes, chatelaines, and étuis. Figure 5 shows two with a very similar bright-cut decoration, both made by the same Birmingham silversmith.

These tiny étuis, encased in enamel or silver or shagreen or other materials, were small enough to be kept handy in a pocket or, later, a reticule. The case protected the liquid fragrance from spillage or breakage.

Learn more about perfume Étuis from these sources:

• Linda Brine and Nancy Whitaker, Scent Bottles Through the Ages, published by the authors, 1998.
• Genevieve Cummins and Nerylla Taunton, Chatelaines, Antique Collectors Club, 1996.
• Kate Foster, Scent Bottles, The Connoisseur, 1966.
• G. Barnard Hughes, Small Antique Silverware, Bramhall House, 1957.
• William Kaufman, Perfume, Dutton, 1974.
• Edmund Launert, Scent and Scent Bottles, Barrie & Jenkins, 1974.
• Madeleine Marsh, Perfume Bottles, Miller’s, 1999.
• Heiner Meininghaus, Five Centuries of Scent and Elegant Flacons, Arnoldsche, 1998.
• Alexandra Walker, Scent Bottles, Shire Publications, 1996.

“Morning Dresses.”

The narrower white muslin skirts without hoops began to be worn in the mid-1780s (famously seen in Vigée Le Brun’s portrait of Queen Marie Antoinette in 1783). But the higher waistline wasn’t widely accepted until around 1793. The skirts grow much narrower in the early years of the 19th century, as the Regency silhouette becomes the norm. Here, the skirts are gathered all around, with more fullness in the back.

The figure on the left is described as wearing “a plain night gown.” This does not refer to a garment worn to bed. At this time, “night gown” meant a comfortable dress, often of Indian muslin, worn around the house or for very informal occasions, rather like the Morning Dresses worn during the Regency. In fact, the text for this print is titled “Morning Dresses.”

All three ladies are shown wearing gold anchors around their necks. (And the anchors are painted in bright metallic gold paint.) I am not sure what the anchors represent, although it is possible they commemorate the Glorious First of June when the British fleet defeated the French fleet in the North Atlantic on June 1, 1794.

The print is described in the magazine as follows:

“FIG. XVI. Straw hat with carnation-coloured stripes, trimmed with rose-coloured ribands; a white gauze handkerchief with a lilac border, placed in the bow behind. The hair frizzed in light curls, and hanging down in ringlets behind. Lawn petticoat, with a narrow flounce. Plain night gown of chintz with long sleeves, the train bound with yellow riband. Plain lawn handkerchief. Rose-coloured sash. White lawn cloak, trimmed with lace. A gold anchor suspended by a gold chain round the neck. Yellow shoes and gloves.

“FIG. XVII. Plain white chip hat, trimmed with lilac ribands tied round the crown and forming at the left side an easy bow. One white and one lilac-coloured feather placed near the front on the left side. The hat tied under the chin with a lilac riband. The hair lightly frizzed. The chignon turned up plain, the end returned in ringlets. Round gown of lawn, with a narrow border embroidered in lilac. Long sleeves; a plaiting of lace round the neck. Plain handkerchief put within the gown: a high tucker, trimmed with a narrow edging. Lilac-coloured sash.  A gold anchor suspended by a blue riband over the shoulders. Light blue shoes. Grey gloves.

“FIG. XVIII. Straw-coloured gipsy hat, trimmed with light blue ribbands, forming a large bow in the front, tied under the chin with a white lawn handkerchief with an embroidered border; two white ostrich feathers placed on the right side. Round gown of muslin, flounced at the bottom. Short sleeves. Plain white handkerchief, over it a blue silk one with a striped border. Blue and yellow striped sash. A gold anchor suspended by a blue riband round the neck. Yellow shoes and gloves.”