"Stunning Civil War Regency Gown!!!"

Huh?
At least, I hope, dear Reader, you are asking yourself that question.
The title of today's post is a sample of some of the ludicrously wrong listings on eBay and other places. It's not eBay or the other places' fault: it's the vendors' fault, and clearly they have no clue about the history of women's fashion.
I don't know that much. My friend Bonnie at  www.vintagenouveau.com knows a lot more. But I've been learning and it seems that a lot of my work at The Oldest House has led me towards a greater knowledge of it.
We are fortunate at the House to have a few authentic pieces: two antique silk shawls - one is mine, the other is the House's. They probably date from roughly 1900 but certainly could go a couple of decades before that and are in quite lovely condition. Mine has gorgeous embroidery and tassels on it too! We have an authentic Prairie Bonnet from 1840 in a blue and white check. I would so love to have an appropriate dress to pair this with but so far...no authentic prairie dresses.
We have an 1880 lingerie dress, also mine, in white muslin cotton in very good shape. I have even worn it (when I was a bit thinner at the waist). We have a black Civil War top that goes over a skirt with beautiful braid and detailing. It may be a mourning piece, so common then. And again, I'd love to find a skirt to go with it.
And the prize of our collection is a plaid wedding dress from 1851, with a parasol in matching fabric. This is a dandy and though I don't have a hat or anything to go with it, it's got the parasol, and with the proper hoop skirt underneath, it is gorgeous.
So--we need a few more things to fill in. We also have a couple of tops that may or may not be original: one is a man's tailcoat which I picked up at a thrift shop and have worn myself. It's probably early 1900's. The other are two 'Spencer' jackets. I don't think either is from the 1795-1820 period when these were in fashion, but they look quite good, particularly the velvet one with the lace trim. So they'll stay. But I'd love to find a dress to go with them.
We have various gloves, fans and hand bags, none older than 1900 from what I can tell.
And aside from the bonnet, we have no original hats or mob cap type caps.

I've sent out an email to my friends and family who I think **might** have such things in their attics or basements, asking them to rummage through and let me know what they've got. Maybe I'll end up with some things that way, that can add to the Oldest House collection.

Additionally, I've been looking on eBay--and now we come to the headline of this post.
Really!
When I search for 'antique' or 'vintage' I am well aware that the two are different, with one representing older items than the other. Aside from the fact that seeing prom dresses like the one I wore listed as 'vintage' is a bit depressing (LOL!) there is the fact that many listers use these two terms together. AARGH. Well, which is it: antique or vintage?

The most common definition of 'antique' is more than 100 years old. Of 'vintage,' it's more than 50 years old. Of course, 'vintage' originated, as you might guess from the word, in the wine trade and generally should be mentioned with a year, whether you're referring to wine, a dress, or a hat. And many knowledgeable responsible vendors on eBay and other places do that: i.e., 'vintage 1890 hat.'

These are also not the people who will say something is 'Victorian-Regency,' which I discovered today while looking for an Empire/Regency dress to go with those Spencers I mentioned above. Again, AARGH. The Victorian period is 1837-1901. Those were the years Victoria reigned the UK and those are the years we call 'Victorian.' In clothing, you can stretch the end of the period by a few years because let's face it, just because the Monarch dies, doesn't mean the styles she inspired will go out of fashion. But the Edwardian Era came in in 1901 with the reign of Edward VII, and it ends, strictly speaking, in 1914. However, again, with fashion and some other things, a period can be extended for a very influential Monarch or person. So we commonly accept that the 'Edwardian' period in fashion started about 1880 and went through until the start of WW I, in 1914.This coincides with Edward's tenure as Prince of Wales; also, by 1880, Victoria was a very elderly woman, and perhaps no longer the fashion diva she had once been.

OK. So obviously 'Victorian' can mean just about anything in fashion, from dresses that aren't all that different from the high Colonial and Federalist styles with the wide skirts, panniers, and elbow length or longer sleeves,  to the tightly waisted, full round skirted short sleeved Civil War beauties we think of when we think of 'Gone with the Wind,' to the slimmer skirted long sleeved high necked dresses with bustles that started in the 1870's and went straight through with a slight detour into a Classical Greek phase, to 1914.
But a single piece of clothing cannot be both 'Victorian' and 'Regency.' Regency refers to the period from 1795 to 1820, and it is so named for George IV's formal Regency after the demise of George III who was King of England in Revolutionary days. Confusingly enough, 'Regency' is also known as 'Empire' because of the rise of the French Empire under Napoleon. It was his wife, Josephine, who popularized the 'new look' of the 'empire waist' (didn't you always wonder why it was called that?). Again this was an hommage to the Classical Greek and Roman styles as envisioned by people living in 1795-1820; it wasn't authentic, because back in ancient Greece and Rome, women, like men, wore togas. They are more like Saris than anything else I can think of and as a proud graduate of Girls' Latin School in Boston, I can tell you I owned a toga, hand made by my mother from an authentic pattern.

So Regency/Empire - think Jane Austen: those low necked or high necked short cap sleeved or long with a cap sleeved slim dresses that didn't need anything underneath beyond ones chemise, or 'shimmy' as Scarlett O'Hara calls it. (Blame my friend Carroll for the fact that I even know that). And by the way, the rarely used term 'Georgian' is really quite meaningless when applied to fashion, since it defines more an architectural style than a clothing style. This is due to the fact that, strictly speaking, Georgian refers to the reigns of the Kings George in Britain. This lasted from 1714-1830: more than a century! It includes the Regency/Empire period but also includes the Colonial period and post-Colonial or Federalist period which differed. The Georgian period was preceded by the Stuart period or the Elizabethan period and now we are back in the Renaissance and High Middle Ages. (Don't get me started, that's my favorite period in fashion, although my scholarship is in the early Middle Ages, where people basically wore sacks and long pieces of cloth in dull colors. Yech!)
After Georgian we have Victorian, and on from there.

Regency/Empire and Victorian are distinctly, vastly different styles. Unless you know this, you may be seriously confused and/or misled by the descriptions on eBay. Do you homework, of course: google 'history of women's fashion' and you'll find hundreds of helpful sites. Caveat emptor! But also, shame on those vendors who know so little, and don't care enough to learn, about what they are selling.

On the other hand, some times an informed buyer, which I like to think I am to some degree at least, can read a description, look at an item, and think, 'well, that's not Victorian, but it's exactly what I want, so if they don't know it's Empire/Regency, too bad.' I say, good for you. It does pay to search by period, but be sure to search periods before and after the one you're really interested in, as some items may be improperly listed.

So back to our 'Stunning Civil War Regency Gown.' It looked, from the photo, to be early Victorian, pre-Civil War, probably about 1836-1840. Maybe we oughtn't quibble over 16 years, but in fact the dresses looked very different in the Regency and in the Civil War era, and if the seller was trying to appeal to a wider audience, in my opinion, it didn't work. Listing the item that way just made it look like the vendor didn't know what s/he was talking about.

If you want to know more about women's fashion, do google it, and be sure to check out my friend Bonnie's site: she's doing some wonderful work out in California, and I miss her; she sure gets a hoot out of how involved I've become in vintage clothes.

And if you're passing through or near by northeast Pennsylvania, do stop at The Oldest House for a tour and to see our period clothing collection. You can email me at DLC18thcentury@gmail.com to request a tour, or to be sure we are open. Generally, we're there 1-4 Friday, Saturday and Sunday but not always, and tours can be arranged by appointment.

Founders' Day in Tunkhannock

Hello all!
Founders' Day in Tunkhannock was a big success, despite the heat (it's always hot on Founders' Day) and we had quite good traffic into the Wyoming County Historical Society. I sold 13 of my books (I gave one away, more about that later) and as I'd only brought 20 I thought that was quite good!
My good friend (and she is a VERY good friend) Carroll came with me to the signing, and even dressed up in 1781 garb. Actually, I think she rather enjoyed that part!

That's Carroll, in garb. Doesn't she look fabulous???

Anyway, as always, it was a real delight for me to meet people who are interested in history, and especially local history, whether they've read my book, A RIVER IN TIME, or not. It's a major thrill to meet 'fans' who have read the book, or come specifically to meet me, and there were several of those who stopped by during Founders' Day.

Carroll and I had a great conversation with Bob, who had read about the book and had come to meet me; he bought the book and later emailed me to let me know how much he enjoyed it--and especially liked a little twist I tossed in. Since RIT isn't really a 'guy's book,' it is more aimed at women and teenagers, I was delighted to get Bob's feedback.

The highlight of my day, which really was so great all in all from the graciousness of the folks at the Wyoming County Historical Society to the variety of people stopping by, to my friend's staunch support, was meeting yet another in my very fortunate series of Oldest House descendants.

I was honored to meet the greatx5 grandson of Samuel Sturdevant, Sr.--and he had come specifically to meet ME! He even waited while I finished up chatting to another fan!

Turns out he is back in the Sturdevant homestead, that was built in the early 1800's I believe, and we had a wonderful talk about the House, and about his ancestors and I was just so tickled to meet him! He did intend to buy a copy of RIT but I gave him one, because, after all, his ancestor was in a very real way the sinē qua non for the book, so how could I charge him for a copy?

Sean is the fourth direct descendant of House owners I have met, and I hope to see him again soon, since he now lives quite close to where my own home is located. The other descendants were, of course, Louise Smith Palm, the 5x granddaughter of Dr. William Hooker Smith, another gentleman who was also descended from Dr. Smith but through a different branch from Louise's, and two grandchildren of the Gordon Morrisons. These last were, with their brother, the last children to live in the hHouse, as part of the last family to use the House as a private home. They left in 1972 but visited two summers ago and I was the lucky one to give them a tour!

It's such a privilege to be able to 'touch history' in this way, as well as by preserving the House and developing new displays, and delving into its history.

With summer half gone, it's nearly time to think about NEXT year's displays...and I have been. I think I'll use the winter to acquire some vintage clothing and a couple more dress forms, and populate the House--at least the upper level--with them. I was so impressed by the way the Sonnenberg Mansion did their displays that I thought I might try that with our little slice of Americana.

Well, enjoy A RIVER IN TIME! Remember, these warm, sultry days are just like the one when Izzy went off looking for shade and a breeze and ended up back in 1795! (So be careful what tree you stand under).

Oh yes, one more thing; well, two. I've been re-reading RIT and am considering issuing a second edition with some textual emendations. There will be a small ( I think at this point) amount of added content, and one correction to the only 'typo' in the book. Probably will do that in October, the book's one year anniversary.

Additionally, someone asked me why I used an oak tree for Izzy's adventure when there isn't one in real life at The Oldest House. Well, the answer is two fold: one, I really did want to separate fact from fiction, so using a type of tree that doesn't exist at the House seemed like a good choice. And the second reason goes back to my work as a mediaevalist. In Anglo Saxon times, the oak tree was sacred, and the space at its base (or along its trunk if you don't mind a bit of poetic extrapolation) was a particularly special spot. The crepuscular hours between night and dawn, or between day and night, were when magical things were wait to occur in this spot.

Of course, Izzy wouldn't be wandering around outside the House in modern day at that time of night or at the crack of dawn, so I did omit that detail. But other than that, that's why I chose an oak tree.

Thank you

Deborah