Tuesday, September 20, 2011

J.P. Ryan 18th Century Strapless Stays

I found myself in nearly immediate need of a new set of 18th century stays. I furiously started cutting and sewing last night, after supper, and this afternoon finished these pink linen stays that I hope will suffice for our outing this weekend.

Since I was crunched for time, I whipped them up in the same manner of construction I use when making 1860's corsets. There are three layers; an outer layer of pink cotton (cut down from a skirt from Goodwill), an inner layer of white cotton sateen and a lining of canvas ticking. I ought to have used the canvas ticking for the inner layer, but oh well. The binding is of bias cut white cotton sateen. They are boned with zip ties.

These are made exactly to the J.P. Ryan pattern, with no changes whatsoever to the pattern pieces. I did make a mock up last night and pinned it together in the back. The length seemed fine, but it was a little big (I like a big gap in the back) but I figured that with 3 layers of fabric and boning in the final version, it would be a little smaller than the mock up anyway.

The finished version seems to fit. . .okay. . .but it is really not flattering in the least. It makes my waist bigger and my bust smaller. Is this really the look that I am going for? The pattern did say that this was a working garment, made for flexibility of movement and that the waist measure when wearing the stays will probably be larger than the waist measure without the stays. But it doesn't give at tidy trim waist and support the bosom in a high rounded shape like I am used to. In fact it seems to smush the bosom together for a monoboob effect. I am so used to gussets or shaped seams creating "cups" for the bust this is very strange to me and I don't know if I am doing something wrong, or if this is just the way it is supposed to be. Any 18th century experts have any advice or opinions?

On to draping the dress. . .hmmm. . .thinking about it now that I see these photos, I wonder if making a few more eyelets towards the bottom of the stays will help draw the waist in more, and make my bust feel more supported, since the stays would be pushing up off the hips more so then they are doing now?



  1. The stays look fabulous. :)

    Are you not going to be at Danville? :( 12 of us are going to be going and were staying all night at hotel so we'll be able to go to the church service. We're so excited, but half the fun was going to be seeing you. I do hope you'll there. :)


  2. It makes my waist bigger and my bust smaller.

    Man, me too. It's so frustrating. I can't tell if that's what's supposed to happen or if I've done it all wrong!

  3. I'm no expert, but I think you need to pull the stays down a bit. They do seem a tad short on you, which is consistent with the last decades of the 18th century. The style of your stays suggests the mid-18th century more than the 1780's, though. The fashionable purpose of stays was to give the wearer a "cone" silhouette. Therefore, your waist should appear to be slightly smaller than your torso, though your breasts should be compressed. If you make another pair, you may consider adding a bit of length to the pattern. The tabs are supposed to flair off of the hips to take advantage of the natural width a woman would have there. (A more upper class impression would include padded "kidneys" worn at the hips or panniers or pocket hoops to fully emphasize the hips.) I think for the upcoming event, try to add another eyelet as you suggested, and pull the stays down until the tabs are flared off of your hips. Tighten the waist just slightly (unless it's uncomfortable to do so) and you'll be good to go. Also, they are lovely. You did a wonderful job!

  4. It's not you, it's the pattern. I've seen this pattern (or the original one it is based on from Costume Close-up) made up many times, and it has never looked very flattering. It usually creates a straight up and down silhouette with little to no waist definition. Your stays actually have a more defined waist than others made from the same pattern! I think it's because yours aren't fully boned.

    Anyway, the Choll is right, stays are not meant to reduce the waist so much like later Victorian corsets, but to create a cone shape. Personally, I prefer different patterns, from the 1770s or 80s, half-boned and most importantly with straps.

    You did a good job on these, though, and I wouldn't worry.

  5. Its not the length as much as needing to fluff in the front - it needs to be a high mono-boob, and the third panel over(first tab) should be at a steeper angle to help pull the front in. You might try adding straps of (ribbon for now) to help hold them in place and then tighten the waist lacing a bit. Good job on them -in the problem is in the pattern!

  6. My corsettière is a professional lady, and she makes a panel for the back to wear under the lacing to keep it from digging into the skin. That might help a little, with the feel when worn.

    Stays are not as much intended to shrink, as they are intended for support, and although paintings suggest an extreme conical shape among noblewomen, most of us working class ladies would never have been able to pull off not breathing while conducting chores. (Museum collections in Europe also suggest very much, that the artist often flattered the lady's figure, and the cut of the outer garment's panels was abused to create the illusion of a smaller, conical torso.

    An extra pair of eyelets may be a quick fix that will save the day, but I might also consider going in and redoing the back between the underarm "seam" and the back at some point. It is ultimately the direction of the boning that determines your shape, and based on the photos, it seems as if the side/back piece's boning extends a little too far onto the backside (the diagonal boning starting 4th and 5th from the CB).

    The important thing with stays is to create the correct silhouette, and this garment pulls it off, so you've done an excellent job here.


Thank you for your lovely thoughts!