Talk:1750–1775 in Western fashion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Fashion (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
B checklist
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Everyday life.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


Thanks for doing this one; I really want to tackle men's clothes in this period. Now I just have to get my notes together. - PKM 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Men's fashion[edit]

Barest beginning of men's fashion. More soon, including the Quaker influence in America (Ben Franklin's clothes and hairstyle).

We need to talk more about powder and patches!! And wigs. - PKM 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a March 10th 1795 caricature "Leaving Off Powder, or A Frugal Family Saving the Guinea" about the transition away from powdering in England -- you can see it at ; I'll upload it, if you want. Churchh 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is your site? Doh! = PKM 03:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just the "JaneInfo" section... Churchh 06:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Pouter-pigeon look"[edit]

The 1906 book at says that the hey-day of the "pouter-pigeon look" was the mid-1780s, not the early 1790's, so now I don't know which is correct. It might be nice to have picture of it, also... Churchh 03:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have spent way too much time looking at period portraits lately. I'd call it a couple of years either side of 1790. This is certainly it. The engraving is 1790, after a portait by George Morland. Lots of Morland engravings at this site with the pouter-pigeon look, with dates 1788-1790. Romney's Miss Constable of 1787 looks like the precursor of the style. Jane Ashelford (The Art of Dress) isn't specific, but she describes the starched muslin kerchief (buffon) that gave the look after events of 1785 and before events of 1789.
Interestingly, she mentions flat shoes (for walking) as opposed to high heels (suitable only for those who could ride in carriages) as one of the reactions to the French Revolution. - PKM
OK, you've eased my mind...  ;) All I had to do was change an image caption. Churchh 04:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bought a used copy of this book [1] yesterday - it shows some pouter-pigeon looks up to 1793 but not later, including a large version of this portrait[2] which (unusually) shows the poufed fichu and the neckline beneath. Will work on getting us a better image of this. - PKM 02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ouch -- she's kind of trying to have it both ways (follow some incipient neo-classical trends at the same time that she's also following certain lingering non-classicizing fashion trends), and the overall result doesn't strike me as too aesthetic... :) I think I saaw the Ribeiro book a few years back, but I don't remember it all that clearly -- I was quickly ransacking the library for anything scannable which matched my particular interests at the time. Churchh 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Headdresses and shoes image[edit]


As a semi-lark, I uploaded Image:2nd-half-18thc-headdresses-shoes.gif from the project; you might find it useful... Churchh 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha! I am always reluctant to use "redrawings" as authoritative, given the Victorians' penchant for simply ignoring codpieces etc. These are fun. - PKM 02:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I found a color version of the Ducreux, but it's lower res. Not sure which is better to use. Linked them in any case. ` PKM 03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure it makes too much difference -- neither looks too great at 120px tall... Churchh 04:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The Pleasures of the Married State"

Family pic[edit]

Here's another cute pic (unfortunately not too precisely dated). Churchh 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Great Blanking[edit]

I am still stumbling across missing bits that were not replaced after someone came through and blanked random sections of the History of Fashion series and other clothing articles. Pleasee watch for these and help me put them back. - PKM 17:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Breeches etc.[edit]

I am reverting out this unsourced, mis-informed, and un-encyclopedic material:

Breeches that were stiff, close fitting and rather uncomfortable were worn during this period. They usually had a string that was tied tightly and stiffly, then tucked under the breeches so they weren't visible. They wore up-to-butt stockings that were always silk-white and skin-tight. Vain people tended to purchase stockings for their children that had strings at the butt, so they could tie it stiffly and uncomfortably. This forced the child to stand up straight because of the pain at the legs everytime they didn't stand up straight. Unfortunately, this cause pain everytime they sat down, so the children of rich parents, especially royal families, had to endure pain starting at the age of 4 or 5, when they had to start wearing breeches and stockings, until they got used to it, which could take months. This practice didn't stop until breeches and stockings went out of fashion. They fit right above the butt VERY stiffly, making them difficult to take off. As a result, people generally wore the same pair of stockings for 3-5 years, until they were stained, etc. To wash their legs, they soaked their legs in a tub of water, so the water soaked through the stockings. Then they sat by the fire until their legs dried.Because the stockings were skin-tight and stiff, it was difficult to run or even walk. Therefore, rich people rode horses most of the time, and usually had an assistant to help them on and off horses, and walk into buildings. Additionally, children were often whipped on the legs as much as 15 times a day per leg, and the stockings couldn't rip because it was made of a special type of silk, so children's stocking often remained blood red until the end of the day, when the stockings were washed in the tub, and the blood was washed away.

- PKM 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1750s to 1770s[edit]

I'm getting a lot of image overlap in this gallery. The rest of them appear fine, perhaps if someone else is experiencing that they know how to fix it. Specifically Ms Winthrop and Marc nattier 03 are over top of marie antoinette with decadent hair.--Crossmr (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the old hairstyle images was redudant with the new one of Marie Antoinette, so I cut that and moved the images around. Should look better now. - PKM (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splitting the article discussion[edit]

I think splitting this article would be a great way of improving it and making it more accurate. Fashion in the 1780s foward is so different from that of the 1750s that having it all in one article makes it a bit confusing. I propose splitting into 1750-1780 and 1780-1795. Anyone with me? Marsattack (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YES! We would like to make this change too.Arauser (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's a great idea too. However I'd suggest 1750-1775 and 1775-1795 myself, but I see how round numbers are easier. (although this does end with 1795). I say 1775 because that is roughly when the polonaises/draping of skirts really began to take hold and clothing really began to evolve. Mabalu (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea. - PKM (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I propose to split the article into 1750-1775 and 1775-1795, likely this weekend if that works for everyone. - PKM (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article was originally written before the current standards for adding citations using <ref></ref> tags were in place, but it's good practice to include proper citations with any new content you add so it won't be challenged (and it would be great to add citiations to existing content if you have them). - PKM (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What does "illegible mask of impurity" mean? If you are directly quoting from your source, you must put the quote in quotation marks or in a blockquote if it's extensive. - PKM (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splitting the article COMPLETE[edit]

The split into 1750-1775 and 1775-1795 is complete per discussion above. I'm still cleaning up and adding images where needed. Please see if I missed anything.

I have put "macaroni" in 1775-1795 since it fits with self-expression discussions there. Let me know if anyone diagrees. Changed my mind, "macaroni" goes in this article. - 21:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

For future reference the CC-BY-SA requires attribution for article splits, which I have now provided in the form of the {{copied}} template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Court dress[edit]

Jean-Marc Nattier 003.jpg

I've only seen royalty wearing this style of dress with these sleeves. It looks very old-fashioned for this period, and it appears to be back-laced, so I'd guess it's some stultified court fashion. Does anyone know what it's called or have any information on this style? - PKM (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is, in fact, Court dress. That's one of the clearest pictures of it I've seen. The style is a holdover from the late 1660s and predates the mantua. The bodice itself is fully boned, and even the little sleeves are stiffened. It is worn over a full-sleeved smock/chemise with lots of ruffles. Norah Waugh (The Cut of Women's Clothes 1600-1930) has some good description/explanation in the 1680-1720 and 1720-1770 chapters. Katewren (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Denner - Queen Charlotte, 1761.jpg
Excellent, thank you! I thought I saw the ghost of a 1660s style in there. This pic of Queen Charlotte is also good. Both images are in the article now. We just need to add couple of lines about this style of Court dress to the text and cite Waugh (which I don't have) (need to fix that shortly). - PKM (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can do that (add about Court dress) today or tomorrow. Waugh really is a great resource, btw. Katewren (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! There are several more examples of this style of court dress in Commons, including one on a toddler and one at full length. (And I ordered a copy of Waugh today.) - PKM (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The captions in the Children's Fashion gallery seem to be out of kilter SovalValtos (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, SovalValtos! I've fixed that - there was a duplicate caption for one of the paintings which was throwing the last two off kilter. Mabalu (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]