| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Bookworm |
Posted - February 16 2009 : 06:29:31 AM
Or, to use the less elegant term popular today, a hottie. Yes, according to this article, Martha Washington was not always the plump, plain, frumpy -- but RICH -- woman we see in portraits, but rather was, when she married George, a lovely, charming, SLENDER (and rich) woman with such fashion flair that she celebrated her wedding in sequin-studded purple silk shoes!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/02/ST2009020201419.html?sid=ST2009020201419&s_pos=list
In other words, not a woman George married only for her money. And it's also suggested that Martha married George not because he was her only suitor or the suitor with the highest social standing, but, in part at least, because he was a hunk. Some on this board would understand!
|
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 11:09:30 PM
Not the wife. Any sewing in this family has always been done by me. I learned on a manual Singer with the pedal-type foot board. I never quite adjusted to the electric ones. But anything as complex as breeches or a coat is beyond my abilities. My seamstress is Fran Sanders of Fort Downing Trading Co. She is good. I am currently hand-sewing a gilet, but it is not that difficult to do. No lining, no sleeves, no pockets, just 12 button holes. I may not even cover the buttons with fabric. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 7:02:35 PM
You are very correct, Fitz. [WW grumbles behind her fan, because she hates to have to admit it.]
The long, stiff nap of the velvet tends to make the fabric "walk" as you are stitching it on the machine. In other words, the pressure of the pressure foot against the feed dogs will make the top layer of velvet move ahead of the bottom layer, regardless of how well you pin it first. It is extremely frustrating.
I will bet your seamstress (wife?) was quite close to madness by the time she finished that project. Did she have much hair left?  |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 5:47:20 PM
My seamstress says the velvet slips. The sutler, 96 District Storehouse, told her to hang the velvet up for a week or so to let it stretch as much as it would. Then the backing needs to be something really solid, like a heavy cotton, that will hold it's shape. I wanted to use linen but was told not to. And the seamstress didn't want to make it, but I asked her so very nicely she couldn't refuse.  |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 2:40:06 PM
Well, Seamus... maybe we can talk about that some time. I think I would prefer to wait until after I have made my first regimental or frock coat. Sewing on velvet, you see, is a real challenge, and mistakes can be very ugly and expensive.
Yes. I shall consider that. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 2:04:55 PM
Hummm...... I have a wine-colored velvet suit with a gold silk veste. I don't get to wear it much. It is Rev War styled so not good for F&I. |
| Seamus |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 1:17:03 PM
Very much....There are your new shoes, should ye wish to provide me with such a fine dress.........interested?? They could figure into the costs, you know....... |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 1:10:33 PM
Regarding my earlier comment about the criticisms of Wollaston's portraits, here are some further examples of his work. I think you will be able to see the similarities between them all, particularly in the eyes. Compare these to the image Obi posted on the previous page.
Image Insert:
15.74KB
Mrs. William Allen, c. 1756
Image Insert:
37.69KB
Elizabeth Harrison Randolph, c.1756
Even the men tend to have the same eyes...
Image Insert:
35.6KB
Charles Willing
Hey, Seamus! How do you like his green velvet suit? Nice, eh?
|
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 1:00:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Seamus
Not even five dollars?
Good Heavens! At $5 per sewing job, it would take me 5 years to save up enough to buy $180 shoes! I may not even be re-enacting any more by then.
But who know? Maybe I can find a way..... |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 12:57:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Kay
Martha W's shoes are absolutely stunning! We carry Fugawee brand shoes at our shop. Mid 19th cen though-not 18th cen. They are good shoes though and Fugawee is one of the better period shoe manufacturers we have found to deal with. I know many living historians who swear by them so they would be a good investment!
I agree that Fugawees are excellent reproductions. I do have a pair of the plain black dress shoes -- the Anna style -- that I wear now with my fancy gown. They only cost me $90! They are the most expensive pair of shoes I have ever owned in my life!
quote:
As for the engraving of Martha in George Custis' book- if the engraving of her was made expressly for his book ca 1860- then the artist commissioned to create her likeness would have also used the figure of the "ideal" woman of the mid 19th cen.
No, John Wollaston was an 18th century American painter (1742-1775). He apparently painted Martha in person. His painting of her was engraved by someone else, for use in the 1860 book. |
| Seamus |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 12:55:46 PM
Not even five dollars? |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 12:51:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Seamus
A few more shirts, coats, etc., and you CAN get them, WW.......tuck some cash away and they shall be yours. Works for me on certain 'toys' I want/got.....
Pamper yourself...you deserve it! You only go around once. Besides, it will be something a certain Sjt., now a Leftenant, won't want when he sees them or buy out from under you FIRST!
Well, you see... the thing is that I use the money I make with my sewing to help pay for my expenses getting to and from events... gas, food, overnight lodging at times. Nothing really left over to put toward expensive shoes.
Oh, my... the visual I got of our Dear Lt. Hack mincing along in brocaded high heels! Would that I could see it! |
| Seamus |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 11:50:05 AM
Kay--
Website? |
| Kay |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 10:53:08 AM
Martha W's shoes are absolutely stunning! We carry Fugawee brand shoes at our shop. Mid 19th cen though-not 18th cen. They are good shoes though and Fugawee is one of the better period shoe manufacturers we have found to deal with. I know many living historians who swear by them so they would be a good investment!
As for the engraving of Martha in George Custis' book- if the engraving of her was made expressly for his book ca 1860- then the artist commissioned to create her likeness would have also used the figure of the "ideal" woman of the mid 19th cen. This "ideal" included fairly short height,small hands and feet,sloping shoulders,slightly plump, and a round "moon" face(although a "moon" face doesn't sound to romantic does it). The artist conveyed his 1860s idea of beauty when making Martha's portrait just like the modern artist conveyed today's idea of beauty when painting Martha's new image(skinny and bony is in!)
Kay
|
| Seamus |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 09:41:18 AM
A few more shirts, coats, etc., and you CAN get them, WW.......tuck some cash away and they shall be yours. Works for me on certain 'toys' I want/got.....
Pamper yourself...you deserve it! You only go around once. Besides, it will be something a certain Sjt., now a Leftenant, won't want when he sees them or buy out from under you FIRST! |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - February 20 2009 : 07:16:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by di-mc
Time for a woman's point of view - great shoes!!!!!
Aren't they?? I want a pair to wear with my "evening dress" gown! There actually is a company who has begun making a replica ladies' dress shoe that comes pretty close to being spot-on. Go here: Fugawee and scroll down to the bottom of the page until you find the Brocade Shoes. The one I covet, for the style and not necessarily the fabric, is the Louise. But...... that is just a bit too rich for my blood, for shoes that will be worn once each year. I shall have to be content with just drooling over them. |
| Obediah |
Posted - February 19 2009 : 11:08:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wilderness Woman
.....[WW rolls her eye Heavenward at the way Geezers can act like horney 17-year old boys at the mere sight of a woman's bare.... forearms.]
There may be snow on the roof but there's fire in the furnace!  |
| di-mc |
Posted - February 19 2009 : 8:51:50 PM
Time for a woman's point of view - great shoes!!!!! |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - February 19 2009 : 8:22:34 PM
Yeah Seamus, - that's exactly what I was thinking too, great hands. ... :) |
| Seamus |
Posted - February 19 2009 : 6:01:49 PM
Don't forget those
'........hands, neck and throat........perfectly smooth, and that makes her look "pleasingly plump,".......so spaketh ye WW.
Hey, I'm pleased. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - February 19 2009 : 4:35:42 PM
I think we would rather you use your overly active imagination on that question, Seamus, than have MG answer it.
[WW rolls her eye Heavenward at the way Geezers can act like horney 17-year old boys at the mere sight of a woman's bare.... forearms.] |
| Seamus |
Posted - February 19 2009 : 4:14:08 PM
.............aaaaaaannnnnddddddddd................???????? |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - February 19 2009 : 3:34:51 PM
Now if I were a bit younger, ... |
| Seamus |
Posted - February 19 2009 : 1:28:27 PM
Stop it, WW....your description of the Wollaston is like,well.....an 18th c. "Stimulus Program"........
I like '........hands, neck and throat........perfectly smooth, and that makes her look "pleasingly plump." Oh, yeeeaaahhhhhhh! ...and those 'doe eyes.........', my-o-my! Wollaston did OK......IMNSHO. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - February 19 2009 : 1:13:50 PM
I wouldn't rely too heavily upon John Wollaston's portrait of Martha. He is criticized for making all of his subjects look somewhat alike... same type of eye shape.
However, now you have something to compare the modern portrait to. Notice how the modern portrait shows her sharp collarbones and the bones in her hands? That makes her look overly thin. Notice how in the Wollaston portrait there are no such details? Her hands, neck and throat are perfectly smooth, and that makes her look "pleasingly plump." That was the style of painting in the 18th century. Artists didn't usually paint all of that boney detail in. That is the reason some have criticized that modern portrait of Martha. Some feel the artist should have done it more in the style of an 18th century artist.
We will probably never know what happened to the buckles, Obi. Buckles easily get separated from the shoes, because they are removable. I don't know where the shoes were before they were returned to Mt. Vernon. |
| Obediah |
Posted - February 19 2009 : 11:59:41 AM
I just found a "portrait" of "Widow Custis" from "Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington by his Adopted Son George Washington Parke Custis," New York, 1860. But wait, that's not all! Here also is another historical woman's garment bearing her name!
  |
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
