More Regency ramblings
Regency fashion (broadly 1795-1820) really shook up some things. One of those ways is the blurring of and increase of garment categories.
Previously, there were various types of gowns, and various types of outerwear, to be worn over regular dress. A particular type of gown (blanking on the name here) might reveal the front of the stays but it was still a gown, not underclothing. Or a particular type of gown/ensemble might take the place of outerwear (i.e. Brunswick, riding habit), but it was not literally outerwear. And by the 1860s, garments had once again stabilized: Gown or outerwear, no middle ground. The wrapper conveniently fills a hole, but it's the middle ground between underclothing and gown, and its construction clearly shows what it is.
IMHO, Regency costumers have an overly-simplistic view of Regency fashion. Mostly from movies, we expect gowns, spencers, and pelisses. There's a ton of variation, which is great! But the more I look, the more weird stuff shows up. Sleeveless things worn over other things, "bodices," "tunics," long drapey over-things that aren't coats and certainly not warm, gowns or indeterminate garments with bodice and/or sleeves of different material(s), short dresses with long petticoats (or are they skirts?), things that are skirts? petticoats? with standalone bodices, etc. And that's not even touching the headwear!
I have material that's perfect to re-create a particular garment that has the form of outerwear, but is made out of dress material with dress-style finishes. I know the rules guidelines for dresses, and the guidelines for pelisses, and I know I can re-create this pelisse-dress to look okay in either style. But before I go filling in the blanks myself, I need to do some analysis of the examples I've found.
In very broad categories, here are the garments (and a portrait) that made me wonder.
Cottons that look like Pelisses
Okay, these are not really problematic. They are are cut and trimmed like pelisses, with capes and cording and lots of buttons. Fashion plates describe cotton pelisses, and there are other extants that are sheer, short, cutaway, or in some other way clearly indicative that they are outerwear. The only mildly curious point about these three is that they are neither heavy enough for warmth, nor sheer, short, or cutaway enough to show off the dress underneath. Not much of a problem - it's a style to itself!
Mysterious Wrap-Front Garments That Are Not Typical Dresses
I found only three examples with this extreme side-wrap skirt, and they're all very similar to each other. They are not like pelisses! The only technical similarity is that there's a full-length from opening. But it's a wrap front skirt, which I find extremely curious for the period. There are other gowns with wrap front bodices, but with apron front skirts.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and try some logic. (Dangerous, because my logic is modern, although supplemented by my knowledge of history and experience in making and wearing historical dress.)
Points:
A. Wrap front skirts are notoriously prone to fly open in the wind.
B. Standards of decency at the time would not have looked kindly upon a dress design that did so.
C. These two extants show no sign of being hooked or sewn together.
D. They have a modest "day dress" look. The gown of the Russian artist in the portrait, although more elaborate, is styled for an at-home scene.
In conclusion, I theorize that these are indeed morning dresses. They can be easily put on alone, and do not require chemisettes. They are probably not intended for wear outside of the house. They could be worn under a pelisse, but the collars are not the best for either hiding under or displaying over the pelisse neckline.
Incidentally, the high-res photo of the V&A peignoir (middle) shows heavy wear. There is a lot of skillful darning in various places all over the bodice front, in particular. Again, typical for a "morning" dress, which can be worn day in and day out and laundered repeatedly.
Fully Front-Opening Garments that Lack the Elaborate Trim Typical of Many Pelisses, and And Perfectly Suitable as Dresses
Now for the biggest discussion! This is the largest category, so let me whittle it down.
This crossbarred muslin is unusual for the front opening. In many ways, it looks just like the morning dresses in fashion plates, including al lthe ruffles and collars. Some pelisses show most of these features, too, especially in the later 1810s. But my gut feeling says it's a dress and not a pelisse.
This one is impossible to tell without a front view. Pelisse or day dress? That crisp collar and lapels look like pelisse styling, and it's opaque; but the sash at the back is a bit more informal.
In the silk category, these are clearly gowns; the only pelisse similarity is the full front opening. In fact, with the larger Peter-Pan-esque collar, they look the immediate ancestors of the 1820s pelisse dress. The loose bodice construction gives them an informal feel, however, and they strike me as being mostly at-home gowns. (Not to mention the wrap-skirt issue when out of doors!) And for what it's worth, I'm starting to doubt that the one at the left has a front skirt opening. The museum link would not work.
A couple more dress-like items are these two. One is cotton; the GCV&M one is unidentified, but it looks like silk or wool. (Extant wool gowns are pretty rare in this period, at least from when I looked several years ago.) Point is, they're very plain, very dress-like, but with obvious center front to hem openings. So again, despite the openings... I'm leaning to dresses. Made by straightforward seamstresses for ladies who cared very little for fashionable but trickier to make hidden openings. Interestingly, the cotton print is American, and GCV&M is a New York museum. So this may be a regional variation.
And finally, there are the ones that *might* go either way.
This striped silk is horribly displayed in the color photo, but the black and white shows its fit. I really want a closer look at those sleeves and the self-fabric trim design at the high collar. Quite a fashionable garment! But open all the way down???
Front (same gown):
These two are fascinating. Heavily textured self trim, not in the military lines most typical of a pelisse, yet emphasizing the center front opening. Curious design choice for a dress, if that's what these are. Also the front ties. Not typical for any dress, except for cottons with bib or apron fronts, and those are usually in the back.
Hmm... Is it possible these are straight-front pelisses, like Jane Austen's? At least the one on the left, which has fold lines that seem to cross the tie.
And finally, the cotton Kyoto example. Really a puzzler! In design, it's a severely-cut pelisse with a high military collar and neat belt. Untrimmed, but the bright stripe makes trim unnecessary. And yet, printed or woven colored cottons without a white base are uncommon extants, and even more uncommon in a pelisse style. Is it a true wrap skirt? The description says "the front-opening skirt has a fly closure." Does that mean it's only partially open? It would then be practical for outdoor wear. The neckline strikes me as impractical for morning wear, and really does need a ruffed chemisette to fill it in and out.
For my silk, I'm leaning the most toward the Met green silk stripe. The cotton is great, but it's got a crisp, smooth look. My silk will not do crisp.
Yet... what about that front opening? I want a dress, not something I have to wear over another dress. Is a fake opening okay, like might be going on with the KCI one? Or should I just make another petticoat and put some lace on it, so it looks intentional? I'm at the point where if you tell me what to do, I'll do it!