~fashion~~~

Any research done in relation to the period of Les Misérables, whether for fanfiction or fanart purposes or otherwise.
User avatar
YoungStudentMarius
Posts: 8157
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:43 am
Location: In the library

Re: ~fashion~~~

Postby YoungStudentMarius » Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:34 pm

Yeah, I'd say from up close, my guess is that is would be possible, but you know, they were meant to be interspersed between the real hair and all, so that the actual strands would probably kind of cover much of the thread ones up. But yeah, I think Gervais is right, especially because you've got, you know, such crazy styles that form and shape of the hair probably wouldn't have been as big a deal as nowadays.

Gervais wrote:What I want to know is how often people got them just a shade or two off. :lol:

Yes. :lol: I think there was that one note that said the hair cap had been repaired with the wrong color thread, but yes, I want to see it the entirely wrong color as well. It had to have happened.
Our chimeras are the things which most resemble us. Each of us dreams of the unknown and the impossible in accordance with his nature.

User avatar
Gervais
Posts: 5975
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Smelling your soul within your handkerchief

Re: ~fashion~~~

Postby Gervais » Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:58 pm

Yeah, I saw the note. Those threads would be covered, I think, but imagine having to explain them if they somehow were more obvious. "Don't you know, you don't grow gray anymore! You just change!" :lol:

Ooh, this looks interesting: http://books.google.com/books?id=-ds1AQ ... ir&f=false
It's claiming that all of those false hair pieces were causing hair loss. I wonder if that's true at all...Though, apparently modern hair extensions can. So okay, then.
Image

"The peas, Woyzeck. The PEAS."

User avatar
Aurelia Combeferre
Posts: 8847
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:57 am
Location: somewhere with the abased
Contact:

Re: ~fashion~~~

Postby Aurelia Combeferre » Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:33 pm

Oh all the evil plot bunnies this is spawning, guys. But who'd repair these things?
"...all aptitudes having equal opportunity; politically, all votes having equal weight; religiously, all consciences having equal rights."

User avatar
MmeBahorel
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:12 am
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: ~fashion~~~

Postby MmeBahorel » Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:24 am

It's just like hair pieces today - you go back to the wigmaker for repairs or new pieces.

Also, it's a constant in novels of the period (Dickens and Thackeray in particular) that women frequently would use false fronts under a cap to hide their grey hair; men had to turn to hair dye, the most frequent of which was silver of nitrate, which turned your hair black (except in bright sunlight, when it would go irridescent, like the feathers of a pigeon's breast).

This is still a period where married women and mature unmarried women (over the age of 25 perhaps, definitely over the age of 30) were still expected to cover their heads at all times. Working class women frequently wore similar styles of soft caps outdoors, unable to afford bonnets (a sunbonnet is really a soft cap with a wide brim and a skirt to cover your neck). Young working class women may or may not wear their caps indoors, too - sweated labour was done in the home, so there was no one to see, and the grisette in Mysteries of Paris says straight out she doesn't wear a cap at home so that her caps will have less wear and will last longer. Even for evening dress, there were evening caps, though these are likely to show more of the hair.

But for the most part, only the front of the hair was generally seen, and thus one could more easily get away with just a false front. If one had significant hair loss, such as alopecia, one would probably prefer a full wig to fill out and shape the cap and give more options for evening. If one is just trying to pretend that there are no grey hairs, a front will do the job.

The crazy hairstyling of the 30s is less amenable to certain interventions than a few decades later, but also keep in mind some basic tricks. Curls add volume and texture, there are ways to make those coils with less hair than you think just by dividing the hair into multiple parts and wrapping them separately, and particularly earlier and later, the puffed appearance is due to hair rats: literal pads made either of stuffing or of your own hair that you cleaned out of your brush. These haven't gone away: H&M has hair pads available online right now, and the 1990s introduced a plastic version called the "Bump-it". And that's before getting into additional hair pieces used for true fashion purposes rather than for cover up purposes, generally for the sculptural evening styles.
What kind of literature and what kind of life is the same question. - Tom Stoppard

User avatar
Aurelia Combeferre
Posts: 8847
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:57 am
Location: somewhere with the abased
Contact:

Re: ~fashion~~~

Postby Aurelia Combeferre » Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:29 am

Thanks for this!

What were younger women (below 25) more likely to wear if they weren't always expected to wear caps?
"...all aptitudes having equal opportunity; politically, all votes having equal weight; religiously, all consciences having equal rights."

User avatar
MmeBahorel
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:12 am
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: ~fashion~~~

Postby MmeBahorel » Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:04 am

You can go bareheaded indoors. If you're outside, you must cover your head, even if you're just wandering around your own walled garden (but I also suspect Cosette wouldn't have had anyone bothered cared to tell her that since it was so isolated/private). But in the house, or at a ball, you need not cover your hair. At a ball, you'll generally be dressing up with combs, ribbons, flowers, etc. For during the day, hairstyles would be much simpler and may just involved a comb. Dressing for dinner would also involve redoing your hair, simpler than for a ball but dressier than during the day.

Public/private isn't quite the right distinction, nor is indoor/outdoor, really. In a private home, even during an "event", a young woman need not keep her hair covered. At a dance hall or a public ball, a young woman need not keep her hair covered. A young woman is unlikely to remove her bonnet when out shopping unless she is trying on bonnets or being fitted by her dressmaker, no matter how long she spends browsing at the draper's.
What kind of literature and what kind of life is the same question. - Tom Stoppard

User avatar
Aurelia Combeferre
Posts: 8847
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:57 am
Location: somewhere with the abased
Contact:

Re: ~fashion~~~

Postby Aurelia Combeferre » Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:06 am

Interesting. And what if she was going to a political place? I understand that in 1789 many women covered their hair even during assemblies, did that also hold true in the 1830s during similar/analogous occasions?
"...all aptitudes having equal opportunity; politically, all votes having equal weight; religiously, all consciences having equal rights."

User avatar
MmeBahorel
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:12 am
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: ~fashion~~~

Postby MmeBahorel » Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:59 am

It's sort of a formal/informal distinction based on day/evening.

Formal event, not at home, day: head covered. Informal event, not at home, day: head covered. Formal event, not at home, evening (ball, opera, dinner party): head uncovered. Informal event, not at home, evening (lecture): head covered.

Also, at home, during the day, you'd keep your head covered if you hadn't done your hair yet. So it can be kind of a distinction between morning, afternoon, and evening.

Basically, if you are attending a ball, the opera, or a dinner party, you'll have your hair really fancy and not need a cap. If you are leaving the house for any other reason, cover your head with a cap or bonnet. If you are leaving the house to make afternoon visits to friends, you can take your hat off at their place. Restaurants are weird and I think you'd keep your headgear on during the day (it's a place of business where you are making an informal visit) but not in the evening, as you'd be there for fancy reasons - pre or post theatre, etc.

(working classes at the theatre, however, anything goes. It's hot as hell up there, since heat rises, the ventilation in those upper balconies sucks, and everyone's just trying not to pass out. Men take off their coats, women remove caps and bonnets, and bourgeois who go slumming are frightened that everyone is in a state of undress. Because it's hot up there. So really, depending on your characters and situation, there's some leeway for obvious environmental factors, but that leeway is really only for the working classes, who are rather expected to revert to being animals in the minds of the bourgeoisie. The late 1820s is when women's fashion starts to suck again from the perspective of August: the wider silhouettes in skirts require more petticoats and the diaphanous muslins of the Directoire and Empire don't have enough body to hold the conical shape or the gigot sleeves of the 1830s. So you can wear pads to hold your sleeves into shape, allowing you to wear thinner fabric, but they you have a pad on your arm, so what was the point in the end? The 1850s development of the cage crinoline [hoop skirt] was a wonderful, wonderful thing.)
What kind of literature and what kind of life is the same question. - Tom Stoppard

User avatar
Aurelia Combeferre
Posts: 8847
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:57 am
Location: somewhere with the abased
Contact:

Re: ~fashion~~~

Postby Aurelia Combeferre » Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:26 am

Hmm interesting. Thanks for this!
"...all aptitudes having equal opportunity; politically, all votes having equal weight; religiously, all consciences having equal rights."

User avatar
singingstar1216
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:07 am

Re: ~fashion~~~

Postby singingstar1216 » Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:11 am

Eeeep! I love these!
Love is beautiful, but beauty is not love.


Return to “Nerdy Fannish Research”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests