Quantcast
Channel: Cathy Hay's Livejournal
Viewing all 144 articles
Browse latest View live

Home, part 1: Fairfax

$
0
0
Last night was one of those occasions when you start chatting with a friend and end up talking into the night.

I can be pretty guarded, so it always comes as a surprise when I find myself taken unawares, rattling on with no concern about whether I'm interesting or not.

Tim and I talked about a lot of things, but more than anything, it stunned me to realise how unused I am to going into detail about what my currently crazy itinerant life is really like. Each different friend or group of friends get to see snapshots, but no-one, however close to me, gets to see it all, and I don't ever explain successfully how it really feels to be here, and then there, and then somewhere else, and belonging everywhere and nowhere all at the same time.

So I thought I might attempt to change that.

With the disclaimer that I am throwing out of the window any fear of "tl;dr" from you, dear reader, I present the following: my crazy life, the complete picture, part 1.


Home, part 2: Sausalito

$
0
0
Last time I told you about where this story began, but there are a couple of prequels. Here's one of them. I also reveal why things have not been quite right with me for the last few months, and why it's so important now for me to try to create my own sense of HOME wherever I happen to be...

[I recommend clicking the "CC" icon and turning on the captions, since there's some background noise and I'm quiet.]



The story so far:
Home, part 1: Fairfax

Home, part 3: Alameda

$
0
0
If any of my UK friends are looking for a good idea for a catering business, I've got a corker for you, because there's one thing I love to do in America that just doesn't seem to be a Thing in Britain.



There are no breakfast restaurants in England!

 photo IMG_3805_zpsf6bfcf25.jpg

The story so far:
Home, part 1: Fairfax
Home, part 2: Sausalito


I'm mightily flattered at how many people seem to be watching these videos. Thank you so much for being there for me, all of you.

History Unstitched to close down

$
0
0


History Unstitched is not working out.

When it was launched at New Year, the site quickly attracted a solid core number of members, but that number has not changed significantly. We are not seeing excitement, we are not seeing word of mouth, we are not seeing growth; HU continues to be carried, financially speaking, by the other two sites.

Furthermore - and most importantly - we have some wonderful writers who have produced some extraordinary work at History Unstitched, but we are having a surprising amount of difficulty attracting *enough* great writers to make it an outstanding resource that is sustainable in the long term.

And we really, really want to create outstanding educational resources that are sustainable in the long term.

This is unfortunate, but it's not a disaster. We still have two very successful websites in Your Wardrobe Unlock'd and Foundations Revealed, and we have more ideas up our sleeves too (I will soon begin blogging about the huge wealth of information you gave us in our big reader survey last month, and how the sites will adjust and develop as a result).

Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, if you're not doing some things that aren't working, you're not taking enough risks. So I'm proud of what we've done, and I'm ready to move on.


What does all this mean for History Unstitched members?

Here's what's going to happen over the next six months.

The last new article will appear on the site on September 28th. Anyone who wants access to the existing resources on the site can now buy a lower-priced subscription to what's about to become a static website. Those who have been paying members for most of the time HU has been around (effectively, the people who paid for the site to happen), will get this access free.

After that six months, when the writers of the articles officially have permission to re-publish them anyway, we will re-evaluate what to do next. We want to give the members space to think about what they'd like us to do, or space to revive the site if there is a sudden groundswell of support. It's really up to you.

Although we're always available for your customer service queries, it'll be hard for us to keep up promptly if all of you email us for help at once. So here's how to fix your HU membership for the next six months yourself:

  1. Obviously you need to cease paying us for History Unstitched. Payments will not cease automatically. Paypal is not that smart. You'll need to cancel your subscription and re-subscribe, if you wish, to any other sites of which you'd still like to be a member. For example, if you're a subscriber to all three sites, you'll need to cancel in Paypal and re-subscribe to Foundations and Wardrobe only. Instructions on how to do this can be found on the FAQ page, question 8.

  2. All those who have been paying members of HU for more than half the time it's been running (ie four monthly payments or more) have been subscribed to HU automatically for the next six months, free of charge. If you are one of the 114 members who qualify for this, your Member Page will have "History Unstitched Free Membership" under "Active Subscriptions". If it doesn't, and you think it should, email us at info at harmanhay dot com. You will still need to cancel the old membership in order to cease being charged - instructions on the FAQ page, question 10.

  3. Regular subscriptions to History Unstitched have now ceased to be available.Subscriptions to the static, no-longer-updated site have now gone on sale at $3.97 per month (although you'll still get to enjoy the last few new articles as they go live, with our compliments).

Feel free to discuss these changes and ask questions in the comments below.

Acknowledgements

Finally, I'd like to heartily thank everyone who's been involved in the History Unstitched project:
  • Marion McNealy, who has worked so hard to set up the site, find writers, and arrange and edit the articles each week;
  • Our highly gifted, hardworking writers, without whom it cannot exist;
  • Liz Licata, who formats and uploads articles every week;
  • Noelle Paduan, who is the webmonkey who makes the small details work;
  • Polly Aron, who is our customer service wrangler and my long-suffering assistant;
  • ...and of course, the 307 members out there who have at least given it a try, and thereby paid for the site to keep running as long as it has done.
My abundant gratitude goes out to you all!

A final look at Haiti, and the beginning of the Peacock Dress

$
0
0
Random Acts have made a great wrap-up video about the Jacmel Children's Center, now that it's all over. Here it is in all its glory. The opening titles state that the project raised a total of $400,000 to build this thing: you, gentle readers, came up with six per cent of that; you raised $25,000 total on behalf of myself and Demi.

What a team. :) I'm so proud.



And what of the other half of this deal?

Well, still no reply from Germany/India; I'll be hooking up with Ninya Mikhaila when I get back to England to check out another possible source for the embroidery for the Peacock Dress. Meanwhile, I have the fabric for the underwear, and a Pinterest board of exactly what I'm planning to begin with. The plan is to make the outfit from the skin out, in the same order as the goals for which we raised the money.

I have a couple of overdue projects to finish when I get back to England, and then it's full steam ahead with the Peacock Dress.

Home, part 4: San Jose

$
0
0
A few thoughts as the sun sets on this trip.

The view that you can see at the beginning of this video, as I say, is a surprisingly accurate reflection of my childhood dreams of what California looks like. And it brings to mind another memory.

I've told you how my dreams of this part of the world go back to my teenage years - well, I was lying.

I grew up in a little English village, replete with old, old houses (ok, a few old houses) and thatched roofs (ok, a few thatched roofs). My best friend lived across the street, and there came a time when she and her family went away to live in the mythical land of California for two years.

When they returned, they brought notepaper with little drawings of Knotts Berry Farm and Mount Shasta and other supposedly notable locations, and in their kitchen there was a big tray with a cable car on it.

They were tanned. Their smiles seemed wider than before. They seemed open and relaxed and friendlier than before. And my six year old self looked at them, all quizzical, and thought the six year old equivalent of... what are you on, and can I have some?



The story so far:
Home, part 1: Fairfax
Home, part 2: Sausalito
Home, part 3: Alameda

[1908 dinner dress] The complete look

$
0
0


All photos © 2013 Jeremy Tavan. Many thanks to both Jeremy and Laurie for their help and support with this shoot!













Home, part 5: Trans Atlantic

$
0
0
Here you go - five thousand miles in four minutes. I talk a lot more once I sit down at Demi's house, but it got long, so this is just the journey, and the blathering will come next time. It's kind of appropriate how quiet it is, because when you're travelling alone you do tend to be mostly rather quiet, looking out of windows for a long time.

So here you get to see San Francisco from the air briefly, and a bit of Nottingham in the rain. Come back to England with me!

[I recommend clicking through to YouTube or going full screen - the captions are rather small this time, and some get cut off when shown in a small size.]



The story so far:
Home, part 1: Fairfax
Home, part 2: Sausalito
Home, part 3: Alameda
Home, part 4: San Jose

Home, part 6: Demi's house, with bonus kitteh

$
0
0
So this is the rest of what I filmed when I arrived at Demi's house in Hucknall on Friday, within five minutes of getting through the door.

Two caveats: firstly, apologies to my British friends. I am in love with California, and in this film, especially towards the end, I find myself talking to the American friends I've just left behind.

Secondly, this is longer than usual, but you get added kitteh, which should ease the time commitment.




The story so far:
Home, part 1: Fairfax
Home, part 2: Sausalito
Home, part 3: Alameda
Home, part 4: San Jose
Home, part 5: Trans Atlantic

Home, part 7: Bath

$
0
0


This isn't so much a commentary on Home - this week you get a break from my navel gazing as I take you to Bath and show you a little store where you can buy original 18th century silk; original 16th century lace; antique tapestry, crewel work, and quilts; Victorian and vintage silk ribbons; real Regency metallic trim.... do enjoy all twenty droolworthy minutes of this at your leisure. :)

I particularly love the way you can hear Constance giggling in the background at how blasé Joanna Proops is about some of her incredible stock... the old, old laces are waved away with "Oh, there's masses of stuff under there..." and as I focus in on the incredible work on an Edwardian wedding dress, she comments that actually, the dog's been sitting on it....



Every time I go in, I try to buy something to help ensure that Antique Textiles of Bath will still be there when I return. If you root through the baskets of lace near the door, you can pick up a bit of something for less than $10. This is what I bought this trip, which was just over $50: Edwardian lace, just under 2½yds of it. I think it'll make lovely engageantes (cuffs) for an 18th century gown - even though the edge is straight, when it's gathered up it won't be as noticeable.



It's a heck of a climb up that hill, but it's oh, so worth it. Unmissable, next time you're in the city.

The story so far:
Home, part 1: Fairfax
Home, part 2: Sausalito
Home, part 3: Alameda
Home, part 4: San Jose
Home, part 5: Trans Atlantic
Home, part 6: Demi's house, with bonus kitteh

Home, part 8: London St Pancras International Station

$
0
0


Lots of you have been to London and seen the sights, but you may not have seen my favourite.

London St Pancras International Railway Station is a wonderfully ostentatious example of Victorian gothic architecture. It was built in 1873 not only as a railway terminus, but also as a grand hotel.

Unfortunately, while the station continued to be a major feature on the London transport map throughout its history, the hotel has been derelict since the 1920s... but in 2012 it was restored, re-opened, I'm happy to say, and lives again, and I love the place - while I haven't slept there, I often pass through, and I adore the style and the buzz of the place.


Sir John Betjeman called this Gothic treasure “too beautiful and too romantic to survive” in a world of tower blocks and concrete. Its survival against the odds will cause wonder; the building itself will take your breath away.

After years of devoted restoration, the St Pancras Renaissance Hotel is being hailed as London’s most romantic building. Its glorious Gothic Revival metalwork, gold leaf ceilings, hand-stencilled wall designs and a jaw-dropping grand staircase are as dazzling as the day Queen Victoria opened the hotel in 1873.


- from the hotel website

There's a photo gallery of the stunning interiors on the hotel website, and for candid daylight pictures of the exterior, do a little Google image search.

Look familiar? You've seen St Pancras many times in movies and TV. Here's where you're most likely to have seen it, and before its restoration, you'll have seen a little of the remaining interiors in the debut video of a certain then-unknown British girl band. You have seen it recently too... when Edith went to London to see Gregson in the first new episode of Downton Abbey.

Let me show you around in the dark, as best I can...





The story so far:
Home, part 1: Fairfax
Home, part 2: Sausalito
Home, part 3: Alameda
Home, part 4: San Jose
Home, part 5: Trans Atlantic
Home, part 6: Demi's house, with bonus kitteh
Home, part 7: Antique Textiles, Bath

Look, Mum!

$
0
0
I have a BlogTM. And now that I do, I see exactly why you all said to me that I still need an LJ too.

I have been on Livejournal for ten years, and I'm used to the old girl, and I can come on here and post about what I'm having for dinner without thinking twice. (In fact, I've been knocking around here so long that I rate in the top 50 journals).

But by God, I edited Fisher Price My First Real Blog Post to death. I was actually nervous about it, which is ridiculous considering that the same eyes are looking at that as look at this. (Well, apart from the three thousand people on our reader database who just got an email about it, that is. Gulp.)





You'll have to read the post to know what made me think to add Fred and Ginger. :)

Shoot for the moon, Land among the stars: Home Edition

$
0
0


Go on, admit it. You've done it too. The affordable property pages aren't half as fun as the ones with residences on the market for over a million. I love to look, and keep my eye on a few favourites, and as a result I might be about to move into my dream house. Yes, really. (Well, technically.)

So a couple of years ago, among all the bad taste footballer's mansions with plastic statuary and Olympic swimming pools, I found the perfect place for me.

It's only a few miles from Demi's house. It's a huge Victorian Gothic country house out in Sherwood Forest, next to a lake. And you know how I love the woods.

It was designed by one of the most influential architects of the period, and has impressive literary connections - Lord Byron is not the only famous writer from around here. A local lad's very famous early 20th century novel was set in the grounds of what I'm going to call Belvoir House.

I wish I could be more specific. The photos, the property listing, the history of the place are all right here online, but telling you much at all will be a neon sign potentially giving the Internet my soon-to-be home address, so I'm afraid I'll have to fictionalise it as best I can. The image above is a drawing by local Victorian architect Watson Fothergill of a building in a similar style. (Anyone who knows me well - I will totally email you the details.)

Belvoir (pronounced Beaver) is a local name from a different part of the East Midlands of England, but it will do nicely here.

oOo


So the curious thing that I noticed about Belvoir House is that it went on the market for about a million and a half, a good couple of years ago - and despite its being drop dead gorgeous, it's still for sale now. The price has dropped and dropped to £800,000. Why?

Well, when I first found it I might have accidentally called the estate agent to try to arrange a viewing. They saw straight through me and didn't return my calls, but before it got to that stage, the agent revealed the problem.

As you might imagine, the house has a number of outbuildings tucked in its shadow - the original stables, coach house and so on. And when the present owners bought the house, they declined to buy the outbuildings. The outbuildings were converted into residences. And let's face it, anyone who wants to spend £1.5 million on a country house in the woods does not want neighbours.

Fast forward two years, and not only are the owners now clearly getting desperate to sell, but they've even put it up for rent. When Demi's girlfriend and kids came up to stay last weekend, and I began to get that time-to-move-on feeling, I found it there on the rental pages and began to try to figure out how to get my mitts on the £2750 per month that I'd need to live in it.

And after I sighed and went to the homes I *can* afford, guess what I found. For the first time in years, one of those outbuildings had come up for rent within the last week.

Did I go to view that? My dears, I was on that phone at the ass-crack of dawn the following morning. :)

You can imagine the driveway up to Belvoir House. You turn off the main road and drive up half a mile of woodland, giggling manically, before you find the house - and behind it, the stables, and "my" cottage.




I could hardly get out of the car before I saw my first deer.




Here's a photo taken from the woods - you can see a bit of Belvoir House at the far left, my place in the middle, and the rest of the coach house and stable on the right.

I first went to see the place for an official viewing on Tuesday, but stayed so long having tea with a neighbour that I ended up back there just about every day this week. I can't stay away. I love it. And the neighbour seems to want me there.

It just so happens that my neighbour recently got into a little bit of re-enactment and has got involved with a sewing group who insist on authentic, hand sewn costume, but won't give her the help she needs as a relatively new sewer.

And then I showed up. She thinks it's meant to be. :)




Later in the week, this neighbour helped me blag my way into "Big House" for that viewing I wanted two years ago - this photo (above) was taken from one of the (much) higher floors. My place is at the bottom of the picture, and that's the edge of "my" garden on the right.




And here are the woods at the end of the garden. My cottage has a wood burning stove, and according to the neighbour, an ancient law gives us the right to bring home as much fallen firewood as we can carry.

Why have I not snapped it up yet? Broadband. No frickin' cable broadband (I have an online business, remember), and the cellphone signal is weak. I have ordered some kit on a sale-or-return basis that should boost it, and I'm taking it over there on Monday to test it.

Also on Monday, I'll be meeting with the handyman who is going to decorate the entire place before it's let again. If I pay for the paint, I can pick the colours. So I'll be over here on Pinterest looking at interior design...

Oh - and the punchline? My cottage isn't actually a stable or a tack room or any of that. Curiously, it has two windows that overlook the gardens of Belvoir House, and one that overlooks its private courtyard, and a locked door onto it. It is part of the house, and a bricked up doorway gives it away... on the other side of that doorway is the dining room.

My cottage is the original kitchen.

So technically, in about three weeks I might be moving into my dream home.

It's like I said, kids: shoot for the moon, and you'll land among the stars. :D

Broadband test results at Belvoir House

$
0
0


16MB is what I'm used to at Demi's house via the underground fibreoptic link.
10MB is what I got using the new equipment at Demi's house.

1-3MB is what the ADSL link is reputed to offer at Belvoir House. I decided I'd be ok with 5MB.
The actual speed I got when I tested it over there this afternoon was.....

11.2MB!

*bounce* *bounce* I am SO moving in. It's happening, people. I'm signed up and the keys will be mine on Friday, November 1st. Dreams do come true.

PS, the photo is the picture of the driveway that I denied you last time. I was so excited, I backed the car into a tree as I left today. :D

[Oak Leaf Lodge] Week One

$
0
0


I've been in the woods a week, and it still feels not quite real. I never received the phone call saying that it's all a big mistake and I need to take all my crap back to Demi's. I think the awesome police have forgotten about me - or maybe it's just the crappy cellphone signal and they can't get through. :D

I've got so many things to tell you about, mostly composed of hugely awesome interludes and magical moments interspersed with the inevitable crazy-making teething issues of moving house (which are magnified by moving on my own, meaning I'm doing everything!) So I will let you have both, composed from my list of one-word notes.

Match - I have a range cooker here, which is intensely cool and very fitting; one day I will have to do Christmas lunch here. It's part gas and part electric, and since the gas ignition switch packed up in the first few days, I've been lighting it with a match. That somehow makes it even better. More olde worlde, if you will.

Cleaning - Jesus H Christ, this place is filthy. The smell of wet rottweiler hits you as you walk through the door. I thought that the basic initial jobs of getting the bathroom and kitchen clean would be simple, but no. Bathroom is done, but the kitchen is only clean from ceiling to worktop on one side. Fifteen scourers and counting, and dishes and saucepans everywhere because the cupboards aren't yet ready for new residents.

Pheasants - Three of them, as I cleaned my teeth the other morning, minding their own business in the garden of Belvoir House (which my bathroom window overlooks). Magic!

Moon - Half moon, hazy though leaded windows, as I ran a bath last night. A magical movie moment.

Meter - Previous tenant was not good at paying his gas bill on time. I have a top-up-as-you-go pre-payment system, fitted by the gas company after bad experiences with him. I am spending £7 [$10] a day to heat this place, twice what we were paying in Hucknall. They are coming round in a week and a half to change the meter, since I suspect I'm a subject of daylight robbery. Changing it costs £60 [$100], paid in advance. The timer on the boiler does not work, meaning that I have to creep downstairs in the freezing cold at 6am to adjust the thermostat. Must get it fixed before I return to CA, so that I can keep this place moderately warm and well looked after while I'm gone.

Cold - Is it the lack of ambient heat from other buildings? I don't know, but I think I just moved to Canada.

Snow - The drive down to the main road is half a mile of private driveway, meaning that no-one ploughs it in the winter. Three inches of snow and we'll be officially snowed in. AWESOME!!

Fire - On December 2nd, I've got to make sure I don't need to go out or get in between 8.30am and 11am because the local fire brigade need to do a practice exercise. There are no fire hydrants up here, so once every two or three years they practice running a hose up from the lake to Belvoir House to make sure they can put out a fire for us. Also kind of awesome.

Owls - Must look up owl calls online. With my window ajar at night, I'm sure I've heard at least three different varieties. At least, I think that screeching noise was an owl...

Directions - Gradually getting used to the detailed essay and Powerpoint presentation required to get visitors here successfully. I have one postcode for mail, and another for driver satellite navigation systems. A sat nav can locate the house with the postcode, but can't find a digitised road to us, so visitors tend to get sent up various local country roads in an attempt to get the driver into the middle of what the sat nav thinks is a remote field. We have to give a different postcode in order to get people to the bottom of the right road to find the driveway. It's still kind of awesome.

Seth - Watching my nephew look unconvinced about venturing out of the garden into the woods, then seeing him run off after Daddy once Daddy has deemed it safe and a great place to play with a torch [flashlight] at dusk.

Rail - One rail is up in the small back room which the letting agent optimistically termed the "office". I am not about to work in a cupboard, but it makes a fantastically huge closet. The important costumes are hung; the rest is laid on the couch for now, until I figure out the DIY challenge of a three yard rail on the other side of the room.

Sleeps six - What will be my bedroom will sleep two; two more if there's a sofa bed available with which to replace the cutting table in the workroom when necessary; two more on the sofa in front of the fire in the living room. I suspect the last will be the room that people fight over.

Stove - *sigh* Speaking of which, the fabulous woodstove. Landlord seems reluctant to consent to the safety check on which I insist before using it. They assure me that the last tenant had the chimney cleaned and maintained in July 2013 by a certain local sweep, and they consider this the end of the story. However, said sweep claims not to have been here in over a year. In any case, isn't maintenance of the chimney and heating the landlord's responsibility? Ian the chimney sweep (now an accredited member of the Guild of Master Chimney Sweeps, no less, who can officially issue a safety certificate) can make it out here in four weeks' time, but will only do so on the instruction of the landlord. Until then, heating is all about the gas.

Dolly - I still haven't told you the ghost story, have I? Yeah. I have one already.

Money - It's a worry - my expenses just doubled, and they're unpredictable in this first month or two, but I will make it work. I'm sure the Americans in particular are wondering how much something like this costs here; it would be a fortune in California, I'm sure. And since I also worry that people are looking at my dream place saying, "So THAT'S where my membership fees are going", I'll just come out and tell you - I'm paying £700 [$1100] per month in rent, which is very reasonable round here.

The awesome is huge and the headaches are many, but one little thing at a time, it is getting done. My huge to-do list is overwhelming, and particularly so when it's all rattling around in my head and there's no-one with whom to share responsibility, but its impact is much lessened by the employment of a corresponding "ta-da" list of things accomplished each day. It feels like swimming through treacle trying to make this truly, truly comfortable and settled (and I'm still a little scared to walk around without lights on at night), but it will keep getting better, a little each day. When it is at least clean and unpacked, I'll make a house tour video, but in the meantime I must remember to rest sometimes - and with that, I will now employ my main secret weapon in this project, the one thing that has worked beautifully since I arrived, without fail - the huge, wonderful clawfoot bathtub!

[Peacock Dress] Renewal

$
0
0


This post also appears on my shiny Wordpress blog.

The reason that the Peacock Dress was always a joke, and the reason I pledged to go ahead and do it anyway if you sent me to Haiti, was because it was obviously a maddeningly complex project. It teased me from inside the glass case: "Betcha can't make me." It has lived up to its reputation: we are now approaching the three year mark since I first pledged to do this.

At first, I wanted all the glory myself, but after a year of embroidery, I had to admit defeat and try Plan B.

Plan B - drafting in help from all of you - was also far too complex to be likely to succeed, and so we went to Plan C, and as soon as the decision was made to go to India for the embroidery, it seemed to fall into place. Of course we should do it the same way as Mary Curzon and M. Worth arranged it.

The first connection in India turned out to be less than enthusiastic enough to provide a good service, even in pursuit of a sample, and so we went to Plan C(ii). And by this time, the momentum had faltered.

In 2014, I want to see this thing done. I have been apprehensive about saying that, because of course we don't yet know what the cost will be, but Barry has always advised me to plan for success, and not failure. So here it is: progress renewed.

First things first
The first priority is the small feathers I promised to make for the biggest donors. Not all of them have been made and delivered, I'm embarrassed to say; that is about to change. The next one is pictured above.

Goldwork embroidery
As for India, there have been regular emails back and forth as we have attempted to communicate fully about exactly what I need and exactly how to do it. An initial sample was not even accurate enough that the company showed it to me; they knew it wasn't right, and asked me to send more pictures. I sent them a sample feather and an envelope of materials, and now they have a better idea. Having done some of the embroidery myself in that first false start has been a hugely useful exercise, now that I have to explain it to others.

The latest sticking point is that apparently at least two elements of the design cannot be found in India (huh??), and so we are casting around for a place that will not want to charge us to produce a minimum order of 25kg of goldwork materials. I can't believe that I might end up having Benton & Johnson (who provided the stuff I was using) send their stuff to India for me. We soldier on - and meanwhile, to the rest of the outfit:

Silk flowers
The hem of the Peacock Dress is circled in white silk roses. I have a source for these that is quite exciting - but first, I don't think I have told you the whole story about the roses, so this subject will wait for another day.

Underwear
I am still slightly unsure of the exact underwear layers, but I'm a mathematician and actually I'm just frustrated that someone didn't write down the exact, only, one, single, correct answer to that question sometime in early January 1903. :D But obviously the general rule was not necessarily slavishly followed by everyone. I will finish reading The Cult of Chiffon (the famous manifesto on women's underwear of 1902) just to make sure there isn't some kind of definitive guide written down, but for the moment the layers, as I understand them, are as follows:

Combinations
Petticoat
Corset (embroidered)
Camisole (ie corset cover)
Bust bodice (I have emailed the V&A for an appointment to see this)
Hip padding
Silk petticoat (underskirt)

I have learnt since the Oak Leaf Dress that the Edwardian silhouette involved gratuitous padding; I'm going to need it. howlgirl has recommended a book, which I now have, that will instruct me on the finer points of construction since I have some fairly fancy ideas about making underwear that's more than just an afterthought. I am delighted to have found some impossibly soft, sheer cotton and cotton/silk muslin in the LA Garment District last summer, and though I'd love to buy antique lace from Lacis, I don't think I'll get the combinations of matching lace that will be convincing, so I've found a supplier of new, almost-100% cotton Mechlin lace in a variety of widths and matching patterns that are right for the period.

Jewellery
I have re-emailed the incredible Andrew Prince for a quote on the Curzon Jewels that he knew immediately when I showed him Lady Curzon's Peacock Dress portrait; he never replied before, so I'm not sure whether he realised I was dead serious. We will see.

Beaded shoes
*sigh*. If only there was a historical shoe maker who was planning to release a 1900-1905 beaded evening shoe later in the year.

And that's the state of play. I hope you're still along for the bumpy ride!

[Peacock Dress] New sample, and pink feathers

$
0
0
The new sample from India


Photos of the sample have arrived from Indian Embroiderer mkII, and it's near-as-dammit perfect! I love that not only do the two photos above represent a very, very good approximation of the Peacock Dress itself, but that they also look like pictures I could have taken of my own version of the embroidery. When the email arrived, I screamed maniacally at a stormy, lightning filled sky, "MWAHAHAHAHA!! I HAVE SUCCESSFULLY CLONED MYSELF!!! IT LIIIIIVES!!!" And of course it looks like both the original dress and my embroidery because I provided pictures of both for reference, as well as an actual sample of my embroidery that I sent to India in the mail. (The difference, of course, is that they will have done this in about ten minutes flat, whereas I would have taken days.)

The next step is materials; Sweta is having trouble tracking down just the right bits and pieces, and doesn't yet know where to find beetle wings. Ebay is your friend, I shall tell her....

Pink feathers

Meanwhile, there is also progress on solving the mystery of the pink feathers. If you recall, the original dress features just a few feathers, randomly distributed over the skirt, that look reddish from a distance, and pink up close. What is the cause? It's not all that easy to see in a photo, but what's different here, in the feather in the center of this image?



When you look a lot more closely, it appears as though the passing thread (the white thread with a metal strip wrapped loosely around it in a stripy-looking effect) is the culprit - it's this that's pink.



Why does this level of detail interest me? Because I'm not producing a replica of this faded, tarnished beauty, but a replica of the dress that left the Worth workroom in late 1902. The pink caste seems to be evidence of something decayed, something that looked different when the dress was first produced, and I want to know what it was that the embroiderers intended so that I can reproduce it accurately.

Nowadays visitors do marvel at the Peacock Dress, gently lit in its glass case in the bowels of the Hall, but I want to tell them that they don't see it at all! What they are seeing is a pale, fragile, tired, heavily altered, elderly shadow of the dazzling dress that Mary Curzon wore on the night of January 6th, 1903 at the Coronation Ball in Delhi. I want to take them back in time.

Previously, I have had a goldwork expert at the British Museum tell me that he could not draw any definitive conclusions, but suspected that it might not be the right shade of pink to indicate copper content. But this week, I have had an email from a Senior Textile Conservator at the V&A:

...it is difficult to tell if the core thread is pink or if it is just the metal foil that is wrapped around it.

"It is possible that the metal has tarnished and the tarnish has a pink caste, I have seen that before and presume the effect is caused by the alloy used - and it maybe the tarnish has discoloured the core thread.

"It is very hard to say anything with certainty without being able to examine the piece. If it was possible to have the metal foil analysed that may provide an answer, as it could be that one particular batch of metal thread has a higher copper content.


Well, I would love to have a piece of the metal taken from the dress and analysed, but judging by the amount of time it took to convince the Hall staff to open the glass case and let me even look inside, I think it's highly unlikely they'll let me take anything away from it.

Since I have seen the dress in person, I would say that first of all I do believe that whatever is in that metal wrap is what has discoloured the thread. I looked very closely at the time and satisfied myself that it was indeed white thread discoloured to varying shades of pinkish hue in different areas, and not a pink thread. I think that shows in the photo, but of course the conservator wouldn't want to draw definitive conclusions on a photo alone.

So I would go with the alloy being the culprit. Secondly, those metal threads were made in a number of recipes; by this date various alloys were being tried out to reduce costs, and it was common for a gold or silver outer appearance to disguise a copper core. (Reference). It's perfectly possible that different batches might have been employed on different parts of the dress, given the sheer quantity of embroidery on this thing.

HOWEVER. Why would a different batch be used for specific feathers, dotted randomly around the dress? I can see one embroiderer working on a section with a different batch of passing thread, and the appearance there decaying slightly differently, leaving a patch like a large red wine stain, but this is a different batch being used for specific, individual, clearly defined feather motifs, beginning at the top of the feather and ending at the bottom. Surely this is deliberate.

And if it is deliberate, it further indicates that not only was the alloy different, but the appearance of the thread was different even then, and was used for effect. And therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to have concluded that some of the feathers may have been made with a copper passing thread - or some other metal that has decayed to pink. In the absence of any alternative suggestion from the British Museum guy, even though he thought it wasn't copper, and in the absence of any other option in goldwork supplies on the market today (short of green, blue, etc), I'm going to instruct the embroiderer to make every tenth feather or so with copper passing thread, and call that a reasonable final assumption.

Does my reasoning make sense to you, research boffins, or do you think this is too much of a leap?


This *is* my own embroidery from 2011.

[Peacock Dress] Quote for the embroidery received!

$
0
0


Earlier in the week, we reached a moment of truth that I’ve been anticipating ever since September 2012, when I realised that India was my best bet for realising my Peacock Dress dream.

The quote for the embroidery, by far the most expensive and complex part of the project, arrived in my inbox.

Facebook followers guessed that the project might take from three weeks to eight months, and cost anything from $1400 to $25,000. My own wild guess just about correlates with the average of all the Facebook guesses - I anticipated 3-6 months and $8000.

Ready for the real quote?

[Peacock Dress] A mystery solved?

$
0
0
Another embroidery sample arrived from India on Friday. As I compared it to the photos of the original dress in the museum, something began to dawn on me.

Isn't it funny how you can look at a thing for years and assume it was done one way, but when you put it away for a while and get it out again, a lightbulb goes on and the answer suddenly becomes clear...

The original Peacock dress

Remember how I was angsting about the seams when I first studied the dress? I couldn't convince the custodians of the dress to let me study it flat on a table, so I had to try to figure out the skirt pattern just by looking at the dress in the glass case (above).

The seams delineating each panel shouldn't be too difficult to see: the embroidery is dense, but I knew that the feather pattern would give it away. According to long-accepted tradition in embroidered costume, the pieces of the skirt would have been embroidered before assembly, so the edges of the feathers should run neatly along the seams.

So I looked and looked, but although there were plenty of feathers and plenty of edges and I had a good idea where they should be, I got very confused because I couldn't find any seams. They were deliciously, perfectly invisible, except for the darts around the waist and hips, around which the pattern has been distorted to fit, and the extraordinarily clumsy center back seam, where the feathers didn't even come together in line with each other (below)

Peacock Dress center back seam (c) Cathy Hay

The only evidence I could find of any other seam was this tantalising end-of-a-seam in the hem, which did not match up in any way with the embroidery into which it disappeared.

Original Peacock Dress seam, (C) Cathy Hay

I wrote it off as a mystery. Either the ladies in the Worth workroom knew something that I don't know about invisible couture seams, and someone clumsily altered the back seam at the last minute (none of us have ever made a change or finished fitting the dress five minutes before the ball, have we, right?), or the whole thing was embroidered in one piece, which was impossible because the embroiderers would have needed freakishly long arms. Indian zardozi embroiderers traditionally work at long, narrow frames, and yes, normally you could embroider a large piece by rolling the parts not being worked on over rollers at the edges of the work, but you'd need to roll them very tight to keep the working area taut, and this gorgeous three dimensional goldwork would be crushed by doing that.

No, my embroidery would be done on long, narrow pieces corresponding both to zardosi tradition and to the the long, narrow pieces I'd found on a suitable Edwardian skirt pattern of 1902.

1902 skirt pattern from La Mode Illustree

I would have to painstakingly join the finished, embroidered pieces of the skirt by hand at the edges (because they mustn't be crushed under a sewing machine foot), and then I'd have to finish some of the embroidered feather veins and eyes over the top, to hide the seams as invisibly as Worth did. Labour intensive, but that's what embroidery is about, isn't it?

BUT... the feather pattern doesn't fit into the pieces of the skirt. If I try to draw correctly sized feathers to fit onto the skirt pieces, I end up with sections of wide feathers and sections of narrow feathers that make the skirt panels stand out distinctly from one another. The join in the skirt fabric that disppears invisibly into the work was machine sewn, and DIDN'T correpsond to the feathers. The feather pattern starts off beautifully at the front of the dress, and veers drunkenly off course as it travels in an unbroken progression towards the back, ultimately failing to meet properly at the centre back seam.

As I turned Sweta's sample over in my hands, it dawned on me what's happening here. This is about attitude - my attitude to my work, and their attitude towards theirs. To me, this is art. Painstaking months of art on my Holy Grail dress, priceless little stitches with lovely, delicate materials, to be minutely sewn by hand and really impress everyone with my insane handwork. It must be treasured, carefully stored, and must not be crushed during its creation.

To them, it's a job that'll take about three weeks. And actually, if you pad this sample embroidery reasonably well, I don't think this stuff will crush as you wind it around a fairly big roller at the edge of an embroidery frame.

I think I've been completely overthinking this.

Sure enough, the skirt pattern I've developed from the Edwardian pattern and my observations of the Peacock Dress has curiously straight seams (excuse the quick sketch).

Old skirt pattern (c) Cathy Hay

The skirt of the Oak Leaf dress, a gown made also by Worth in the same year for the same lady, laid curiously flat when the panels were joined... and the joins in the Peacock Dress skirt fabric don't correspond to the embroidery? Suddenly it's blindingly obvious.

Three or four widths of fabric were joined together in India by machine, and then embroidered as one.

I have asked Sweta what she thinks, and I have a funny feeling she's going to say "Of course it would be done in one piece, idiot, what did you think you were going to do?"

So if I'm right, no angst-filled weeks lie ahead in which I wrestle the feather pattern to fit into the skirt pieces, and there'll be no painstaking hand-joining of eleven narrow panels, except for a few darts and the back seam. It all becomes clear...

New skirt pattern (c) Cathy Hay

[1908 dinner dress] Last photos in England

$
0
0

© Cathy Hay


Here is the dress one more time, before it goes into the suitcase. The sleeves are in, and the oversleeves will now be gathered up into the cap shape of the original and trimmed with braid. There's also braid on one side of the skirt front opening.


© Cathy Hay


The last-but-one piece is on the bodice, wrapping from the rosette at the front under the left arm and across the back. The end of this piece, where it hooks down to the back of the right armscye and hides most of the workings of the back of the dress, is partway done.


© Cathy Hay


Here's the kit that I'm taking with me. Clockwise, the ruffles at the top left are for the cuffs. There are two reels of Kinkame silk thread (highly recommended), the rest of the braid (there is JUST enough), and extra crêpe de chine remnants, just in case. Four hundred or so beads will trim the dress last of all, assuming I have time, there's embroidery floss for the French knots around the hem, lace and ribbon for the finishing touches to the inside of the bodice, hooks and eyes, and the piping that'll form the rosette on the front of the dress, made but not yet coiled into shape.

I go to London tomorrow, and I'll be flying to San Francisco on Wednesday. The next photos will be from the uber-fabulous sewing room of the drop-dead talented Laurie Tavan, with whom I'll be staying for the crucial last week before Costume College. See you then!
Viewing all 144 articles
Browse latest View live