It all started with this 1809 painting of Mrs Harrison Gray Otis. She is pretty, the dress is pretty - but it was the bracelet high up on her arm that transfixed me. What was going on? I am a mid-nineteenth century girl, and I can't remember having seen any example of this before. But it is really cool, no? So was Mrs Otis just a bit odd, or was this really a trend?
Then I started looking for further documentation. I found lots of portraits of girls with gold bands about their arms, high and at about the level of the edge of the sleeve. But most of these, I am convinced, are actually just bands of trim on the sleeve. See if you don't agree. These were dead ends for solving my mystery. In fact, I started to worry that even Mrs Otis was just wearing sleeve trim and super-sheer sleeves. After all, there are a lot of renaissance paintings where I know the woman is wearing a super-sheer chemise but I can only really tell because the very edge is slightly visible)
On the other hand, I found a couple of portraits with what might be trim, or what could really genuinely be bracelets, at that same high point but this time over sleeves instead of below them on bare arms. I can't be truly sure on these, but I feel like they are jewelry, not trim.
It wasn't until I found this fashion plate (
look here) that I really solved the mystery. The text for the plate says "A turban a la Greque, of pale yellow and silver, the hair in small ringlets round the face; diamond earings, and armlets, either with or without necklace. Sack dress of pale yellow, trimmed with silver, white satin shoes, and white kid gloves."
Eureka! Armlets! Not bracelets, but armlets. A little further research, now that I had the name, and I am convinced that armlets were definitely a thing in the early nineteenth century. I like that the text says armlets, plural. I don't have evidence that these should be worn in pairs, and the women in the portraits are dis-obligingly in profile where we can only see one arm, but since I am used to bracelet pairs later in the century I am very comfortable with this idea. Anyway, I'm going to have to trot out a pair of cool armlets for our next regency ball (I think I have just the right pair of too-large-and-too-round-for-my-wrists bracelets in mind, even).
That's me, admiring the Prince of Wales! Too cool! This weekend we went to the Museum of Fine arts to look at the new Art of the Americas wing. I got to see lots of pretty paintings, and even a fabulous dress. I also got a chance to debut the new dress I made last week. It is inspired by Princess Charlotte's Russian jumper, though not by any means a direct copy. Mostly I was inspired to make a light blue, silk-like jumper with gold scalloped trim around the arm and neck holes and in two stripes down the front. Hers was made in two pieces, mine is just one. Hers has some kind of buttons decoratively down the middle, mine does not. Her back is very curiously shaped, but I did not bother with that sort of thing. I feel like it looks really wrinkly in these pictures, which is too bad, but it was still nice. Wow, I sound too negative, but don't mean to be - let's try again. This dress is really cool and pretty and sparkly and I feel like a princess!
For comparison, here is Princess Charlotte:
I also added a "spencer" for traveling (it was cold and snowy!). Actually, this is a great example of cheating by wearing a modern garment with the right lines for the period. Actually, I had to pin up the weird tail of the jacket in the back, but I think it looks pretty good, and was otherwise pretty similar in idea to a real regency spencer.
I should have gotten more group shots, but I failed. Mostly, I have pictures of me with my little sister, because she was also wearing a regency dress and we are super cute. Here are a couple other pictures too, of my mother (she did 1860s with a white cotton with red sprigs dress), and Katy Bishop (who wore a fabulous pink 1880s dress).
