It looks like a Halloween costume for an 18th century character. A hundred years before 1890. I know this because I once made one for a friend of mine, except the underskirt was royal blue and black taffeta, and the overskirt was shiny black vinyl. It was much better made than this one, too. It had a separate under and overskirt and fit my friend like a glove. This one came out of a plastic package at a pop up Halloween store. Feh.
Cathy Adams
7 years ago
Not the right decade for this dress. And did any woman have nails like that in 1895?
Short answer: no, probably not. Apparently in the 19th c:
“Fingernail maintenance was originally thought of as a medical and hygienic industry. Short, round nails were easily kept clean and symbolized a wealthy life of leisure.” (http://mashable.com/2016/01/14/fingernail-history)
Apologies for slight derail but I always think this sort of thing is interesting.
Lydia D
7 years ago
Shame. Aside from the slight difficult readability of the word “hearts,” it would’ve been a fine cover for a different time period.
Naaman Brown
7 years ago
Faceless models in clothing ads, maybe.
Faceless characters on book covers, no.
Why dey do dat? Why?
It looks like a Halloween costume for an 18th century character. A hundred years before 1890. I know this because I once made one for a friend of mine, except the underskirt was royal blue and black taffeta, and the overskirt was shiny black vinyl. It was much better made than this one, too. It had a separate under and overskirt and fit my friend like a glove. This one came out of a plastic package at a pop up Halloween store. Feh.
Not the right decade for this dress. And did any woman have nails like that in 1895?
Short answer: no, probably not. Apparently in the 19th c:
“Fingernail maintenance was originally thought of as a medical and hygienic industry. Short, round nails were easily kept clean and symbolized a wealthy life of leisure.” (http://mashable.com/2016/01/14/fingernail-history)
Apologies for slight derail but I always think this sort of thing is interesting.
Shame. Aside from the slight difficult readability of the word “hearts,” it would’ve been a fine cover for a different time period.
Faceless models in clothing ads, maybe.
Faceless characters on book covers, no.
Why dey do dat? Why?