Day 362: Mairi Shrug

Day 363: All the Angles Dress
Day 361: The Right to Bare Arms...er...Arm Dress

Today’s piece comes from a land down under!  And yes – You’d better run.  You’d better take cover!  :)

What the what?!?!

You haven’t even seen the best part yet!

because removing your bloomers to go to relieve yourself is such a hassle!

I pretty much died laughing when I opened Mairi’s package.  She certainly gave me quite a challenge!  :)

Alright…as I’m not into Victorian Cosplay, these unmentionables were going to require a complete overhaul!

First, I reached into my dye stash and pulled out this:

They call me Mellow Yellow!

Into a nice, hot bath of dye the bloomers went!

Things are looking brighter already! :)

After a rinse & dry, I realized that dyeing this in the machine had a negative consequence.  :/

I should have dyed these in the sink instead. :/

Thee good news was, not all of the lace was damaged, just the outer layer.  Not a terrible thing.  I went ahead and chopped it off from both legs.  I went ahead and snipped off those back ties while I was at it.

Snipping!

I took the waist band, doubled it over, and pinned it together inside-out.

Do you see where I’m going with this yet?

A quick bit of stitchery followed.

Whirrrrrr!!!!

Now those weirdo bloomers are a fun & funky shrug!  :)

Perfect for a sweltering SC day! :)
Super Light & Comfy!
You’d never guess what this used to be! ;)

Thanks so much for sending this crazy thing my way, Mairi!!!!  :)

Cheers!

3 (59.76%) 85 votes

30 thoughts on “Day 362: Mairi Shrug

  1. Those are actually more historically accurate than most! Real Victorian undergarments (when any were worn at all) were split, because the only way to go to the bathroom in outfits from the era was squatting. Even Queen Victoria herself wore “divided drawers”!
    .

  2. Hi,
    I’m loving all your posts, still trying to catch up as I just found you the other day. Part of me was saying no no no don’t hurt a piece of vintage clothing…..but now that you’ve given it a new life to live I’m ok LOL. Really cute idea!

  3. Very happy to see and exceedingly “different” revamp! ( also happy to know there is another rif trax/ mst3k Monos-is-the-bomb /re-fashioner out there! GO YOU )

  4. I hope to god those were a decent pair of reproductions you just destroyed and not a piece of extant material culture. Travesty.

  5. i’m in a bit of shock here. While your changes were indeed creative and interesting, you basically ruined a piece of history. And that makes me REALLY sad :(

    1. This is an interesting comment. If it makes any difference, these were really obviously NOT original victorian undergarments. If you saw them up close, you’d see the construction was done on modern machinery. :) I should have made that more clear.

  6. Looking at the *remains* of the whitework, these may very well have been original split drawers… as in, 140 years old. In great shape. Amazing embroidery that isn’t mechanically possible in our modern world. And… this result. I’m actually a bit sick to my stomach at the ruination of a gorgeous example of antique clothing.

  7. interesting that you can take about anything & make it new.
    but sad to see Vintage victorian unmentionables taken apart & basically destroyed..sorry cant say i enjoyed this one.

  8. Its not like anyone was gunna wear them somewhere. Even if they were real. i’
    m sure it was just a costume piece …and all of you may not know if they were real. i think she did an excellent job.

    1. do You know of ‘costume’ split drawers?? seriously.??? not to mention the lace. Just because something is old does NOT mean its junk..VINTAGE pieces are studied . .=== besides the idea of using someones drawers as a shrug just gives me the creeps.

      1. Well yes actually. When making a period Film for example. Wardrobe stylist Replicate to the smallest detail when making period film “costumes”…. and no one is asking u to wear em. Also no one said they were Junk. its actually a great find. Shows that the most creative minds can use something as simple as this and create something pretty awesome.

  9. 1) Hysterical! 2)Yes, it sure does look like machine stiched reproduction. ~~3) I wonder why even wear undies if your nether regions aren’t covered. I think, (I didn’t watch) but when Oprah & Gayle went back to the pilgram times historically they did not wear any undies at all. Maybe only rich people had the fancy crotchless bloomers. I gotta check it out.

  10. If you have ever worn corset & hoops – split drawers are VERY sensible & comfortable. and you ARE covered, just able to use the loo more easily. had NOTHING to do with wealth or lack of.
    and yes i have worn hoops & corset as do a LOT of other women who study how such pieces are made & as for ?machine” made. you do realize that there were sewing machines 150yrs ago, dont you/?

    1. Good point marvelrae. I have to learn more. But I do have a machine that’s over hundred years old, it doesn’t sew that smooth & even of stitches plus the lace definitely did not look handmade. They did not have machines back then that could do that. Anyway, I’m not trying to start a debate. I think it is all interesting, fun and I will learn more. I’m also grateful I don’t have to wear clothing like that. It had to be very uncomfortable.

      1. Actually, they *did* have machines that made whitework like that… in the 1850s and going forward; they’re not in production any more, which is a loss. Lay quality 19th century machined whitework side by side with handmade whitework from the same era, and one of the only ways you can tell which is which is to examine the back; handwork tends to jump motif to motif wherever the sewist chose to jump, while machined work jumps in the same spot on each motif, over and over. The technology was flat-out amazing.

        A 19th century lock stitch machine *did* sew just as smoothly as a modern lock stitch machine. Lay good examples of each side by side, and you cannot tell any difference. We’ve not been able to improve on that initial stitch formation or mechanisms, in over a century and a half!

        Given the destructive effect of the washing machine on the whitework (140 year old fabric just doesn’t tolerate agitation and abrasion well) and the designs themselves from the closeup, this was, sadly, not a repro piece… that quality and the motif style is just not present in modern textiles (since the 1960s, anyhow–we’ve gone very much downhill.)

        The historic styles aren’t uncomfortable; they were practical for their time. They’re just different from modern, is all. There’s some pretty funky modern underwear that doesn’t strike all audiences as comfie and useful, too. :)

        The gut reaction of panic and horror seeing this sort of destruction must seem a little odd to those who don’t have a fascination with historic styles. Probably someone in the future will have a similar reaction to the refashioning of puffed sleeve, shoulder pad 1980s monstrosities… but I doubt it. :)

          1. That is reassuring; thanks for that update. With that update, I’ll reserve my gut-clenching for whomever used antique whitework on a modern sewing project… or else, I want to track them down and find out where they found modern whitework of that quality and motif! :)

      2. actually Terri – i think you would be pleasantly surprised. i find them comfortable & in modern life i wouldnt be caught dead in a dress! but the lovely things we get to wear are surprisingly sensible (there is a reason for each layer) and comfortable. for a ‘large’ lady like myself the corset is supportive of the ‘girls’ and acts as a back brace for my bad back & helps carry the weight of the skirts.. it can be fun..

  11. Lol! Totally brilliant!!! As said sender of unmentionable undergarment I can assure you these are not antiques!! Love the yellow and the end result! Couldn’t possibly imagine what you were going to do with them!!! The lady who passed them on gave them to me to cut up but they were begging to be posted so thanks for the laugh! The rest of you… take a chill pill… ;-)))

  12. Funny, right before I read this, I was buying bread from a man in Brussels. He was 6’4″ and full of muscles.

  13. Pingback: ford trucks

Leave a Reply