|
|
|
|
|
| Hunniset's original embroidery | My digitized version of that embroidery | The original embroidery in the painting | My digitized version of the painting embroidery |
 |
 |
 |
 |
In an earlier version of this page the following information has not
been included (mainly because I forgot to mention the invention date of half-way affordable digital
embroidery machines for the public, which I should have and which was around the beginning of the
1990s), but Suzi Clarke pointed out that the following information should be added:
There were no computerized embroidery machines available in the early 1970's, and Mrs. Thorold
stitched every one of the 600 motifs individually, without the aid of computers. If that kind of
technology had been available, it would have probably been used on the costumes.
I personally would like to add that a Cornely machine works a bit different from a computerized
embroidery machine and indeed the operator of such a machine has to do a "bit" more than just
programming the stitching, threading the machine, putting the fabric onto a special embroidery hoop
and watch the work being done, occasionally rethreading the machine and moving the hoop to a
different place, as it's the case on modern embroidery machines.
Instead the operator of the Cornely machine has to guide the embroidery machine along the path of
the embroidery in each and every motif, which is a lot more work to do.
Nevertheless, if I would get the chance to buy a Cornely machine at an affordable price, I'd take it
without much thinking because the embroidery achieved by this machine is a "bit" different from what
a modern, computerized embroidery machine can achieve. The result looks more 'handmade', which it in
fact is.
The glued-on half pearls are 1cm each, some of them came off the gown,
as you can see in the first picture above. The pearls are different on bodice and skirt, which is
why I will get back to them later.
The couched cording has been carried out by hand, with a metallic cord that, when frayed, is quite
rough to the touch - a tiny frayed end on which we tested this can be seen in this:
picture.
There was a funny moment during the overskirt examination when Suzi exclaimed (and I think those
were the exact words):
"Hunnisett, you dirty cheat!"
This was when she saw that Jean Hunnisett obviously had machined straight lines in the places where
she would later do the hand couched cording. This can be seen in some of the pictures, but here's
one where it is very well visible:
After thinking about this for some time, I think that it might well be possible that this either was
done by Jean Hunnisett before the gown was embroidered (to indicate exact placements for the leaf
motifs) or maybe even was done by the embroiderer, Phyllis Thorold.
The cording is just 2mm wide. The three 'stripes' between, over and under the repeating motifs are
embroidered (together with the leaves, as it seems, as the embroidery is carried out in the same
metallic thread); the later added cording goes over, not under them.
Overskirt
The overskirt was made from three panels of fabric. The hem
circumference is 323 centimeters, the front has turned over edges of one inch, which can be felt
under the black cotton lining.
Suzi told me that originally it wasn't planned to border the bottom end of the skirt with straight
lines of soutache cording, but the embroidery shrank the velvet so that the skirt was too short in
the end, and this is why this was done.
The ouches with which the center front edges are decorated are not metal
buttons, but were made like this:
A square of velvet, three layers, folded to 1.2 x 1.2 cm, was sewn or glued as a base to the velvet.
Over this a cross of stamped, metallic, sticky foil has been laid, the size approximately 2x2cm
(square) with the crosses' edges turning inwards for 3mm. The edges of the cross have been bent down
over the edges of the velvet square beneath. Last not least, a 1x1cm square acrylic cabochon stone,
amethyst colored all over the gown, has been glued to the center.
I hope this can be seen in the four following pictures, which each show different 'ouches'. On some
of them, the sides of the metal 'cross' have come loose, showing the velvet square beneath.
The skirt is cartridge pleated to a black twill waistband:
It has been altered at the front, where the fabric is laid over the twill waistband - according to
Suzi, this might have been done to shorten it for a different production. It's a rather crude
alteration, though; some of the cording and embroidery came loose during this process:
Bodice
Once I temporarily got over the sheer respect I had for the gown, the
bodice - in shape - didn't look too spectacular.
However, the sheer genius of the construction of this bodice - already discussed in Janet Arnold's
"Patterns of Fashion" - can only be understood if the bodice is opened at the front and spread out
with the sleeves facing upwards:
Yes, that's all one piece of fabric. The motives that are angled at the front do so because it is
cut on the bias. This cut would still allow for moderate stretch because of this bias cut front.
Interesting enough, the cream cotton lining of this bodice is cut in three pieces:
of which the two front pieces are reinforced from the inside with Rigilene, as you can probably see
as the Rigilene is puckering against the cotton fabric.
By the way, opening the bodice... there is a velcro-equipped fake
chemise banding under the opening.
Also, there is a modesty panel under the left front side. Suzi noted that the hooks and eyes with
which the bodice is closing all point in one direction instead of alternating. This was done because
of this modesty panel.
The slashes with white fabric puffing out of them are also fake - those
are bias-cut strips of some chiffon fabric (too thick for silk chiffon; so I assume it's polyester).
Yes, strips, not turned tunnels (as Hunnisett herself suggests in her book) or slashes in the fabric
with other fabric puffing out from them (as it would historically have been). You can clearly see
this in the following second picture, where I have turned the fraying edges of one of the strips to
the outside.
The sleeves are equipped with downwards turnable cuffs, of which the
black velvet side is facing inwards when turned up. Suzi suggested that this might have been done
because of the the ruffs Glenda Jackson wore in the movie; with the ruffs, the cuffs would be turned
upwards, and in case the gown was ever worn without the ruffs, they could be turned downwards,
revealing the velvet side and lenghtening the sleeve.
As I have already said, the pearls are different on overskirt and
bodice. While the overskirt has glued on half pearls, the pearls on the bodice are full pearls,
stitched on. You can see this very well in the following picture. Nevertheless, all the pearls -
overskirt and bodice - seem to have come from the same manufacturer, as they all have the same color
and luster. If you have ever bought artificial pearls and tried to find the exactly same color
elsewhere, you will know how impossible this is if you are not lucky enough to find some that have
been produced by the same manufacturer, or sometimes even from the same batch.
This picture also shows the sleeve head (left side of picture), cartridge pleated to the shoulder
strap. It's a bit difficult to see, but if you look carefully, you can see some black stitching
running over the cartridge pleats.
Along the tabs at the waistline there's a row of pearls, it's puckering
up as soon as the bodice is laid out flat, but smoothes when it's worn.
The inside hem of that bodice has been neatly hand stitched.
Along the neckline, a black twill tape has been sewn to the mini-tabs. This is, as Suzi suggested,
to prevent the wearer from being scratched by possibly coming lose cording, which is hard to the
touch (see description of cording above) and would therefore have scratched the wearer along the
neckline. At least one of the cordings did come lose, so that thought is not farfetched.
Farthingale
This is a standard farthingale by Jean Hunnisett; the pattern is given
in her book. Surprising is that the bottom casing doesn't have a hoop, and never seemed to have one,
as it is sewn close.
To me, in person, it seemed a bit small for the Phoenix gown, considering that it looks like this:
when worn. Back at home it dawned me that my assumption that the farthingale could have belonged to
anything else than this gown is probably wrong for the following reason:
I had in mind just what you see above - Glenda Jackson as Queen Elizabeth I. while *sitting* - when
I thought this, which is no surprise - she's sitting most of the time while wearing this gown, which
makes her skirt look much wider.
However, I do have one screenshot of her standing with the gown:
and this picture should make it clear that it's indeed the correct farthingale used with this skirt.
Petticoat
The petticoat held a surprise for me. When I first saw it, the first
thing I could say was "Oh - a Rococo jupe!", because that's what it, in fact, looks like.
The measurements of the pleating can probably be estimated from this picture:
The portion under the pleats has been reinforced with something that I would call 'stiff crinoline
fabric' (and other people would perhaps call it horsehair or stiff linen). It's been sewn to the
bottom of the petticoat with zigzagged lines.
It seems, though, as if the petticoat didn't originally belong with this gown. It doesn't have the
"Glenda Jackson" tag in it, as bodice and overskirt do. Instead, it is inscribed "Lady Rochford":
And from this picture you can probably guess the rather tiny waist circumference...:
That's it, you're through. I *could* have examined the forepart, but
this was really, really just a triangular piece of cream-yellow decorator fabric, so I didn't.
I hope you had fun following me through the examination (well, if you just had a tiny portion of the
fun *I* had when doing it, then I would bet you had a blast!). If you should feel that I have
forgotten something or would like to comment on my examination, feel free to drop me an email - the
address is given at the bottom of each page in this web.
| ||||
