Rose, that sounds like fun! I'd love to see pictures of your costume when it's done.

There was an attraction in central Florida called Cypress Gardens that had young ladies who strolled around the gardens in Civil War style ball gowns. When I was a kid my dream was to grow up to be a Cypress Gardens girl. :) That didn't happen, but I did get to wear a hoop skirt in my sister in law's wedding.

Donna

Rose, if you are as adept at Scottish costumes as you are with Jane Austen, you'll be great. Please do post a picture of you in the finished product.

I like the idea of that little girl still living inside you. I used to pretend to be a sophisticated private secretary. I did become a secretary, but it was not very glamorous, nor was I sophisticated.

Carolyn, you may have looked sophisticated to some little girl who saw you in passing. You'll never know. We influence people all unknowing, all the time.

If I finish the costume in time, I will post a photo.

Rosefolly, I can't get Outlander which isn't a Free to Air show here but I love dress ups too, so checked Google to find out what the costumes would look like.

I found a very interesting article on the Frock Flicks website about tartans which had many pix of the show and a lot of praise for the designers and their authenticity.

Good that you have 18th Century shoes, getting the right look for footwear is the hardest to copy, I have found.

Oh, yes, pictures please! I've not read the books or seen the series, but the photos I have seen of the actors in costume have been wonderful. I would love to see what you create.

Rosefolly, I think I might have heard of Outlander but never read it nor is it available on TV over here.

Have you got to make kilts and other items of full 'Highland Dress' (not that it would have been worn in those days but who's checking) Don't forget that your kilt must come no further than mid-knee so that when you kneel in the kirk it wont brush on the ground.

Checked out the book(s) on Amazon and found this long comment below which made me laugh out loud . . . several times.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From an Amazon Reviewer.

Let me start by making one thing perfectly clear - if the TV series is
anything like the books, do yourself a favour: book a root canal, paint
the wall and watch it dry; anything but waste your time on this tripe.

I shall try to summarise the main issues. Be aware - spoilers abound.

1.
I'm only 44% into the first book on kindle and already I can feel my
life getting longer because it feels like I've been reading the blasted
thing forever! But there is one thing I've learned - only nurses or
otherwise medically trained people are vulnerable to timeslips. It must
be some strange kind of occupational hazard of the medical profession,
falling through timeslips into mediaeval Scotland; it only seems to
happen to them. Gives them a handy way of worming their way into some
people's good books, of course - and leaves them blatantly wide open for
the utterly predictable charges of witchcraft.

2. The heroine is
annoying. It's hard to imagine anyone more in need of a slap. She
spends a few chapters in 1946 trying to rekindle her marriage after 6
years of war blah blah blah... Insomnia cure..... THEN she is
mysteriously transported back 200 years to 1743. For some reason, this
is not the nice, neat 200 years she keep referring to as being the usual
time slip in these matters. Within six weeks, she's married to the
Highlander every female near and about (or possibly aboot) is swooning
over - and he's younger than her, and a virgin to boot - supposedly
against her will, but damn me she's a game bird and improvises
wonderfully in the face of such a terrible fate.

3. The hero -
the strapping 6 foot something 23 year old red haired brawny Adonis - is
called Jamie. Of course he is. All Highland heroes are called Jamie.
It's in the rules. If Scotland gain Independence, I fully expect it to
be in the Constitution.

4. Leave her alone for 5 minutes and
someone will try to rape her. It doesn't matter who - Scots Highlander
or Redcoat, they're all hiding behind every blade of heather just
waiting for the opportunity of exposing one heaving bosom or the other
and grabbing her creamy white thighs.... Give it enough time, I fully
expect the Aberdeen Angus to try to rape her. In fact, when the Loch
Ness Monster makes an appearance (I kid you not. I wish I did, but I'm
serious) I thought he would be next to jump on board ...Zzzzzzz....

And don't get me started on the Gaelic.

Where was I? Oh yes - 5

5.
Despite being a magnet for ever priapic male in a 50 mile radius, she
still keeps getting it into her head (when she remembers that she
supposed to be married to the increasingly dull sounding Frank) to try
to get back to the stone circle to get back to her first (or second,
chronologically) husband, Frank. Who is the direct descendant of the
main Redcoat dubiously described as a possible homosexual who, we
subsequently learn, can only get it up if they're screaming.

The Redcoat, that is. Not her 1946 husband.

In
fact, he's the slightly less obvious homosexual character than the
other one - the Duke - who even rejoices (if possible) in an effeminate
voice. Oh joy. Because that's not tiresomely stereotypical at all.
And neither one appear to be able to get willing companions, having to
force their attentions on staunchly heterosexual youths, preferably
underage. It could be insulting - it should be insulting to the
intelligence if nothing else - but it could insult if it weren't written
quite so badly as to be bordering on pantomime.

6. After
rescuing her - yet again - from - yet another - attempted rape, her 1740
something husband decides he has to impose some discipline as she keeps
risking the lives of everyone around her, and announces she going to
get her backside paddled for not staying put where she was safe and for
wandering off again into yet another gang of gangbangers. Not
unreasonably, he points out that justice must not only be done but must
be seen to be done. However, she just kicks and screams like a spoiled
brat and generally refuses to accept that maybe - just maybe - she
really should stop doing what she keeps doing.

It's at this point
that you consider that 1946 husband Frank has probably packed his bags
and is clapping his hands at having disposed of the original high
maintenance pain in the neck.

Of course, she can't stay angry
with him for long - his name is Jamie after all, so obviously he's the
hero. But she still insists on forcing an apology out of him before
grudgingly accepting that maybe - just maybe - when he tells her to stay
there because it's safe that - maybe - she should just stay there cus
it's safe!

Jamie then somewhat sullies his heroic status by
pointing out to her that she can't say no to him, then proceeds to prove
the point quite violently, despite her refusal and despite her telling
him he's hurting her. But that's okay because it turns out she enjoys
it really... Which is quite simply the most terrifying scene I've ever
read. Stephen King pales into nursery-rhyme insignificance compared to
the sheer horror that is badly written rape mistaken for rough sex.

But that's okay because she heals really really quickly. Even after a flogging.

And
despite pining something awful for her beloved Frank for nigh on six
years during the War and never so much as giving another man a second
look, give her six weeks of Jamie and she probably wouldn't recognise
her other husband in a line-up.

As for describing certain
intimate areas as slippery as some kind of seaweed - well, that's a mood
spoiler if ever there was one.

Poor old Ken is conspicuous by
his absence until about 30% in, then all of a sudden, he's everywhere.
Everywhere you look people are kenning that they ken what they ken, ye
ken?

Oh, and she really likes showing off all her research. Info
dumps abound. Shame her research is pretty uninspired surface-only
stuff. It makes Braveheart start to look like historical re-enactment.
I can't believe there's more than one of these books; I can't believe
one got published, never mind a whole series.

Save yourselves.
It's too late for me, I'll never get these wasted hours back. Don't look
back; don't hesitate; don't blink (oh wait, that's something else).
Either way, just don't.

Vee - Thanks for sharing that comment - very clever and so funny! I've never read any Outlander books. I have though been both aware and wary of them.

I read the first 3 books, and I did find the sexual content disturbing; not that it was there at all, but the abuse in which it took form. These days most romantic novels with sexy covers actually are quite spicy. Earlier on it was a lot of coy euphemism (the Kathleen Woodiwiss days) but today it is pretty graphic. I rarely read these books. They actually bore me and I tend to skip over those scenes thinking, are they at it again? On the whole I find the plots and character development weak, though I understand that they have improved noticeably over the years. Romantic fiction writers have an organization with regular writing workshops, so many of these writers have training. I have a friend who is active in this area, which is how I know all this, and why I pick up one of these books now and again.

The actual story of the first novel Outlander actually is quite an exciting adventure/romance. I liked Claire personally and was able to identify with her, though occasionally she did annoy me. I don't know Scottish history well enough for any errors fact to get in the way of my enjoyment of the story. I believe the author did a respectable amount of research, probably a great deal more than the average costume drama writer, but she's not a historian and no doubt there were points she did not get right. Eventually I got bored with the books as the series continued. When Claire decides to go back again, does she have someone make her a reasonably accurate period costume? No. She buys a Gunne Sax or Laura Ashley or some such dress. With a zipper. I was incredulous. Later she nurses some men with typhoid fever. She's safe, she reasons, because she had an immunization during the war. Well, I had a typhoid shot when making a 3rd world trip once upon a time, and you need regular boosters to keep up the immunity. Were these major errors? No, but they caught my attention and interrupted the flow of the plot.

I'd have liked the books a lot better if the author had shortened and tightened the series and toned down the fascination with rape. But that's just me. These books are wildly popular and no doubt she hit the mark perfectly for most readers.

Series #1 on television is an entirely satisfying experience, so far at least. I must admit I have not yet gotten to the most violent part which comes near the end. Not sure how they'll handle that. The clothes, the scenery, the acting, all absolutely excellent. Be willing to suspend belief and you'll have a rollicking good time. If you are looking for documentary history, this is not the place. Well, really, how could it be?

One quibble - Clair has entirely too extensive a wardrobe. Except for the very rich - and Highlanders tended not to be very rich - most people in the 18th century had only 2 or 3, or at the very most 4 changes of clothing. It was a case of one to wear, one to wash, and one for best. Claire has more changes of clothes than I do. Although it is true I do tend to spend my money on books, plants, and travel rather than fashion. And alas, it does show.

Rosefolly

I've read them all. Not only rape, but pirates and Indian attacks abound. It's all great fun. At one time on the Fodor's travel forum, Jamie was voted as most wanted travel companion on a trip.

I am enjoying this discussion even though I know very little about the subject.

I read the plot line on Google after the show was brought to my attention by a friend who has the pay to view service that shows it and I thought it wasn't my type of viewing anyway!

Sadly not many shows on TV at the moment are of interest to me. The Australian Broadcasting network have dug into their basement, dusted off and are playing almost non-stop QI dating back from ten years ago!

The same goes for commercial networks with Border Controls that are so old that smugglers and other miscreants must have served their time in prison years ago!

We hope to have some favourite shows back next week. I am fed up with old movies and re-runs...

Ann, the series is now being shown on SBS - I don't know if they have catch up.

I am a long time Outlander fan. Vee's post is interesting, but some of it is, I think, unfair. I'm pretty sure not all Highland characters are called Jamie. If a book isn't your cup of tea, that's fine, but it doesn't mean it's no good. There are plenty of well-thought-of books that I didn't like.

They have made a good job of the TV series, and the costumes are wonderful. The actress playing Claire is very good, but Sam Hueghan as Jamie is brilliant.

It is a good series Ann, but there are challenges along the way.

Kath, I think as many men are called Jamie in the Highlands as are called Bruce in Australia :-)

Ann look out for a couple of BBC TV Christmas progs that are likely to come your way.

Witness for the Prosecution from the short story by Agatha Christie shown here in 2 episodes.

To Walk Invisible about the three Brontë sisters and their troubled brother Branwell. Mostly made on location in their home town/village of Howarth and in York (which had to stand in for London).

I thought it was excellent although there were complaints about the sound quality. Maybe if it is shown in the US they might use sub-titles which would also help with the Yorkshire accents.

And the sisters had very few changes of costume just a 'best' bonnet for Sundays. Branwell looked as though he had spent many days wearing the same clothes and sleeping in a ditch . .. which he probably had.

Thanks, Vee. I saw the movie of "Witness..." with Marlene Dietrich which was very good. Sometimes script writers change A.C. stories, so this might have a different ending like some of the "Marple" episodes.

I try to keep up with the UK shows I enjoy and had to borrow a DVD of "Death in Paradise" series five which hasn't been shown here yet although six is being made. We are so behind sometimes but US shows are streamed very soon after the US transmission with lots of fanfare by the TV channel that has bought it!

Authenticity is to be applauded but can only be carried so far, like those unnatural gleaming teeth that are so wrong for the era! My mother complained that the actors in a story about a prison camp weren't thin enough! And don't get me on the subject of bonnets and the non-wearing of!

I know they kill camera angles but ...

Ann I feel the same about 'inappropriate' clothing. Often in period dramas esp Victorian era, men are shown in shirt-sleeve order (as the military/police describe it) when I think then they were generally well-covered in shirts, waistcoats, top coats, cravats etc. and no-one went outside hatless until the 30's-40's. Even labourers working in the fields or digging holes in the road were fully clad . . . unlike Poldark. I think sunshine, along with night-time fresh air was considered dangerous. And not only are teeth so shiny but so is hair and many actresses look as though they have just played in a shampoo commercial.

There are actually people in the reenactment community who quibble bitterly about the accuracy of the costumes. They think they are not accurate enough. I can see this in the case of the second season where the costume designer took great artistic license. However in the first season I find them to be wonderfully accurate, far more than is customary for a television series, except of course for the quantity, as mentioned previously. And also, just plain wonderful. Which is why I am making a costume to go to an Outlander costume event in the late spring.

Vee, I hadn't thought about hair. Did you have any particular annoyance in mind? I would have thought that long shiny tresses would be authentic as women used to wash their hair in bygone days using herbs and vinegar for the rinse then brushing it a lot, or getting the maid to do that!

I did get niggled about one wig which looked far too complicated for the woman to do herself. I forget which series it was but she didn't have a maid, I am certain, otherwise I would have accepted it.

Ann, re the 'long shiny tresses' I agree they might have looked like that when washed but I'm sure the frequent washing of hair is quite a modern thing, in much the same way as bath/shower taking is. My Grandfather, who lived with us, only had a bath on a Sunday night, although we had constant hot water and I can remember when small the torture of hair washing, soap in the eyes etc so I'm sure it didn't happen all that often. When locked up in boarding school we younger children had our hair washed by a slightly sadistic nun who massaged our scalps with great vigour and used malt vinegar as a rinse . . . so we smelt like the local fish-and-chip shop.

Vee, do you remember the "Friday night is Amami night" advert?

I think that the weekly bath was ingrained because of the toil involved. My grandparents moved into a house that wasn't that old but had no bathroom so a tin bath was put into the main room and hot water from pans and kettles used to fill it. Although this was very comfortable having a bath before a fire in winter with towels being warmed on a clothes horse, it was rather a bother, especially emptying it with a dipper and bucket!

I opted for the public baths for ninepence a time which included a bath woman to run the bath and clean up and a towel when I lodged with them.

When I was a little girl weekly baths were common, though in some families people took them daily. Many houses had only one bathroom, so four or five people (or more, in a larger family) taking tub baths daily would have put quite a strain on a key resource. But that doesn't mean that people were dirty. They were not. Every night before bed, you filled the sink with warm soapy water and washed thoroughly. Add in brushing your teeth and you tied up the facilities maybe 10 minutes.

Hair washing was done weekly in those days and that also was often done at the sink. I have read that the more frequently you wash your hair, the more you stimulate the oil glands of the scalp to produce oil. There are women who complain that they have to wash their hair twice a day. Well, maybe they do. Or it could be all the hair products. Who knows?

By the time I was a teenager we lived in a house with a bath and a half. That was the point that we switched over to daily baths or showers and soon after that, daily shampoos.

Vee, those shampoos sound simply dreadful! How did that experience influence your attitude toward hair care? Do you still grimly endure it just to get it over with, or do you now and then revel in the luxury of professional shampoo and scalp massage for the sheer pleasure of it to make up for early deprivation?

We still have only one bathroom here, converted from a bedroom. It is just not practical to have another one added, plus we are on an ageing local water supply fed from springs which start on the ridge of hills above our village. This is very unusual these days and means we have 'untreated water' so it tastes fine but is inclined to go slightly green if let in a glass over night! It also means our water pressure is very low as everyone using this 'system' has far more appliances . . .dish washers, washing machines etc . . . a far cry from the days when each cottage/house was supplied with just a cold tap. I should add that we do have three flushing loos!

Rosefolly, I have never had a scalp massage and am really just a shampoo at home a quick dry and go girl. I also balk at spending huge amounts of money having fancy hair do's. I have practically lost consciousness when my DD tells me how much she pays for a simple trim.

I still remember how glad I was when my daughter got old enough to wash her own hair. She used to complain mightily at my ministrations, although I considered myself to be a perfectly wonderful mommy and always used Johnson's No Tears baby shampoo. She was probably eight-ish when she decided she could do it herself.

When I was a child, my mother had to warn the next door neighbours when it was time for my hair wash as I screamed the place down! I still hate water in my eyes.

As a teenager I used to be a hair model at a training school which taught hairdressers the latest styles and in later years I do the same thing at hair salons for the apprentices.

This is a lovely treat, a full service free of charge with coffee and a chocolate as though I were a paying customer! At nearly eighty I still have thick naturally curly hair (thanks to my mother's genes) which is a good requirement for a senior model.

If I can't get a modelling appointment, I get a fast dry trim for $A10 at a local unisex clip shop, this is a good place to go at this price. I wash after it at home.

I would normally pay $A22 minimum for a dry trim at a normal salon and $A35 for a senior discount wash, style trim, head massage and blow wave at a suburban salon, lots more in the city.

A reference to hair washing -- I remember reading a novel written in the early 1900's in which it was mentioned that hair was washed every two weeks. It was described as a thing that was not new and startling, so possibly it had been a custom for a while. Not sure. I had a vague impression that once a month was customary in older times, but I don't know where I got that impression.

I don't know how I missed this entire thread. Chiming in to describe how it was the year I lived in Paris with an elderly French couple: we were only allowed one actual tub bath per week and it had to be on the weekend. However, in each bedroom was a sink with running cold water. We were expected to make do with that for daily routine cleansing. I had the sort of hair that had to be washed daily, so I ended up going to hair salons in Paris just for a shampoo quite often. Luckily, some had student rates, so were not that costly. I might add that there was no heat in my Paris bedroom and very little in the entire home. So I ended up eating more just to stay warm....

I've never seen Outlander....

In the summer of 1971, I and two other American students rented a shared room in the apartment of a French widow in Paris. Like Woodnymph, we were each limited to one bath per week. We got around that by standing guard for one another as we took very quick baths while our landlady was out shopping.

Very clever, kathy! :-)

I always wondered if her water bill gave us away.

When I was a child my mother used to lay me on my back along the kitchen counter with my head hanging down into the sink to wash my hair. This was her method of keeping the soap out of my eyes which to be fair worked but was jolly hard on the neck muscles. Then she let the neighbour teenage hairdressing apprentice practice on me. I flatly refused after a perm resulted in me being referred to as "You- Phyllis Diller over there". I was only 5 but I was well aware of who Phyllis Diller was.

When I was in my early 40s I started dyeing my hair ginger (I love ginger hair! :-) ) to cover the grey/ash blonde. Because my hair is long and I'm not confident about getting it right, I go to my local hairdresser; it's not terribly expensive (and I don't really have any expensive habits :-) ) and the head massage is soooo worth it!

For the past year my hair has been purple, royal blue and turquoise mostly, so the hairdresser does that as well.

Colleen - Hair-color photos, please!

The best shampoo I ever had included a long head massage given by a young Polish hairdresser in Edinburgh. I fantasize about it on bad hair days.

It's been years since I have had a scalp massage. One of these days I'm going to have to have one again.

I go to schools and shops as a client for trainee masseuses and hairdressers.

I get head, face and body massages done, sometimes free of charge or for a nominal sum to cover laundry and products. The trainees are well into their courses and are supervised so it is a lovely experience!

I can also get facials and massages at the Seniorcentres and in my retirement village. These are about half the price of a normal treatment.

There is nothing like a bit of pampering to reward oneself!

It's amazing how many complete strangers will stop and say, I love your hair!

Colleen, your hair is beautiful! I've never dyed my hair, but as I get greyer, I'm starting to think, why not?

Thank you! I tell people, I'm old enough now, my Mom can't tell me "no" :-D

I originally did it because I'd seen it online and really liked it, then there was a fundraiser for cancer research here where you could either shave off your hair or dye it and I decided to go for it. That was about a year ago now and I liked it so much I keep it up. Certainly makes me easy to pick out in a crowd :-)

Great colors, Colleen!

As requested, costume progress: the shift and bum pad (like a bustle) are done, and the trial stays (corset) are finished. Tomorrow I should finish the pockets, which were a separate piece underwear at that time, typically embroidered. I cheated by using a pre-embroidered linen with period correct motifs which I found on eBay. I'm running short of time. My other alternative was to make them plain, but they were typically embroidered even though no one saw them and I wanted them to be pretty. This weekend I plan to sew the under petticoat, and next week, the outer petticoat (skirt). After that I'll start the real stays, and then finally the linen jacket (top). To be completely historically accurate I really should make a linen cap, but I can see I'm going to run out of time before I get to it. Anyway there is a distinct shortage of caps on the television show. so I think I can get away with it. The costume guild's Outlander event is to be held in early May. So far I've kept to my resolution to make everything completely by hand (except for the embroidery on the pockets) but if I run out of time I may pull out one of my sewing machines to speed things up. I'd rather not, if I can get away with it. We'll see how it turns out.

I promised photos, so here are some of the underpinnings.

Linen shift, linen bum pad with wool stuffing, and practice stays which I made to try out the fit. I will need to make the real ones about half an inch longer in the torso. An inch might or might not have been better but I don't have time to do it twice, so I'm going with the half inch. BTW, unlike Victorian corsets, Georgian stays do not give you a smaller waist, just a more conical shape. And a bit of uplift.

One of two embroidered linen pockets, tied around the waist over the corset and shift with linen tape ("Lucy Locket lost her pocket . . . there was not a penny in it, but the ribbon round it") Pockets like this would be where modern re-enactors conceal their cell phones, credit cards, and car keys so as not to break the impression. It goes on under petticoats (AKA skirts) which will have slits in the side seams to allow access to the pockets, something like in-seam pockets of modern skirts.

Fascinating! How did you 'stiffen' the stays? Would they have used whale-bone at that time and possibly horsehair for the bum-pad?

I have to admit I don't even know in what period Outlander is set . . . except you say you have 18th century shoe buckles. Is that early middle or late?!

Outlander is set in the 1740's Scotland leading up to Culloden.

The practice stays are stiffened with plastic zip ties, not terribly rigid, but the real stays will be stiffened with reed. It comes in a big roll and you cut it to size to fit in the stitched channels. Whalebone, reed, cane, and wood (often ash) were all used in the 18th century. You can buy a modern artificial whalebone made out of a sturdy plastic, but it is expensive. I thought the reed would do just as well.

As for the bum-pad, I suppose they might have used horsehair, but there was a lot of wool around, and it is much softer and far less scratchy. I'll bet people used what was available and convenient. As for me, I used leftover wool quilt batting stacked in graduated layers, the way you might make shoulder pads for a tailored jacket.

I plan to finish the second pocket today and move on to the petticoats sometime this weekend. I am feeling the pressure to make faster progress.

Rosefolly, I am open-mouthed with admiration for your talents.

Well done you, for the hand-sewing efforts!

I must confess I used a sewing machine to re-create my Regency outfit, a high-waisted dress and spencer from charity shop Laura Ashley clothes.

In awe of your sewing skills :-)

Thanks, everyone.

I used to use a sewing machine for my costumes. I made my first hand-sewn costume about 3 years ago. and throughly enjoyed the experience. Some costumers use a machine for the seams that don't show, and reserve hand sewing for the parts that are visible. I would certainly do that if I ran out of time. However some historic costumes are constructed in such a way that it is actually easier to do them by hand.

Wow! that is both amazing and clever!

Wow, it's great, Rosefolly! I can't wait to see the whole outfit.

I am a "sewist" too. Now I mostly make quilts, and the same is true - quite a few quilt blocks are easier to piece by hand than machine.

Donna

Wow, Rosefolly, your costume looks fabulous! And hand-made ... I can't imagine.

Wow! That's amazing. My sewing skills are limited to buttons and hems, I am in awe :).