Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
In 1859, Osborn & Vincent of New York listed itself as the owners of the extension skirt
patent. Their most popular skirts in 1859 were the “Imperial Skirt” and their new “Champion
Belle.” The latter extension skirt was described as “exceedingly light and graceful,” as well
as “extremely flexible and convenient in carriages, cars, and stages.” In an advertisement,
Osborn & Vincent listed the many manufacturers and dealers of the extension skirt using
their patent:
Douglas & Sherwood, W.S. & C.H. Thomson, J.
Wilcox & Co., Wallace & Sons, Arms Brothers,
J.P. Moran & Co., C. L. Harding, S. H. Doughty,
Chas. A. Postley, R. France, Theodore Schmidt,
Ernest L. Schmidt, H. S. Hewson, Chas. P. Colt,
John Holmes, J. & W. Beck, H. G. McKenna,
Frost & Co., G. M. Jacobs & Co., Jos. B. Wesley,
Moritz Cohen, Emanuel Mandel, Stein & Stern,
David Henius, Fisher & Herman, Union Skirt
Company.
Godey’s Lady’s Book and Magazine in 1859
provided a picture of “The Woven Extension
Skirt” saying that it was impossible to rip or tear
the tapes “as they were wove in the
springs.” Also in 1859, J. Holmes & Co. stated
that in spite of its lightness and compactness, an
extension skirt’s primary concern was “easy
adjustability into smaller space for the parlor or
expansion into ample dimension for the
promenade.” J. Holmes & Co. introduced their
new patent extension skirt with a system of clasps
and slides; this skirt had a watch spring bustle
wrought into the skirt, forming a uniform bishop
shape throwing the fullness at the back, and
hanging gracefully straight in the front.
The crinoline reached its maximum dimensions by 1860 but then gradually began to
change. An 1860 ladies’ magazine referred to the crinoline as “bird cagey
contrivances.”
The crinoline reached its maximum dimensions by
1860 but then gradually began to change. An 1860
ladies’ magazine referred to the crinoline as “bird
cagey contrivances” and stated, “The pyramidal
crinoline, diminished in size but in demi-train, is in
favor.” In 1862, the English Woman's Domestic
Magazine recommended the W.S. Thomson crinoline
to “those ladies who prefer the open petticoats, or
cages.” Over 2,000 workers were employed in
Thomson’s London location, producing 4,000
crinoline cages a day. According to the magazine,
Thomson’s crinolines possessed two advantages over
other manufactured skirts: “the binding on which the
steels are threaded cannot break in consequence of it
being so broad; and the eyelet-holes do not wear away
the tape so quickly as do the metal claws usually used
to secure the steels in their places.” Furthermore, the back of the jupon of the Thomson
crinoline was threaded in the shape of a gore, to suit the fashionable train skirts. The upper
half of the back part of the crinoline was made with a small inside one which passed half way
round; but being smaller than the outside, threw the skirt off behind in a demi-train.
By them middle of the 1860s, the dome-like shape of a women’s skirt decreased with the
volume disappearing in the front and gathering at the back. In 1865, A.T. Stewart advertised
a “Bon-Ton Skirt,” a wire flexible spring skirt that kept the front of the skirt “fitting closely
to the form.” By 1867, Godey’s Lady’s Book and Magazinedecided that “ladies enjoyed
more advantages respecting dress – close and flowing sleeves, short and long skirts, tight-
fitting, case like dresses, others with plaits at the back . . . waists fitting corset-like over the
hips, hoops clinging to the figure, and the positive extreme bustles!” The pannier fullness at
the back was made to curve gracefully with the front of the skirt perfectly straight, fitting
smoothly over the figure.
THOMSON'S CRINOLINE,
Late 1860s
Label reads: Prize Medal Skirt. By Her Majesty's Royal Patent Registered Trade Mark 20 the
royal coat of arms and a crown printed on the herringbone woven tape waistband, vertical
herringbone woven tapes 1 inch; 2.5 cm wide, fastened to the hoops with brass eyelets, the
front two crossing, nineteen cotton covered steel adjustable hoops, height 32 inches; 82 cm;
diameter approximately 2 feet; 60 cm. Available for purchase from Meg Andrews at
www.meg-andrews.com.
In 1868, a Boston Massachusetts’ store advertised latest styles of “wire skirts.” Prices of the
hoop skirts varied according to the number of springs, which ranged from 18 to 50 springs.
In 1868, Harper’s Bazaar spoke of the new “Winged Lace” skirt in which the upper part of
the under-skirt was laced together, then came a few hoops, and below there was the open
winged front. This style prevented the feet from becoming entangled in the skirt. The skirt
measured 85 inches in circumference; could be put in the tub and washed thoroughly; with a
retail price of $3.00. Lastly in 1868, Arthur’s Home Magazine reported, “The fickle goddess
appears to have decreed as follows . . . there shall be abundance of crinoline, or bustle, or
panier, or tournure (for the bunch at the back goes by a variety of names), just below the
waist, but that there should be little on none at the lower half of the skirt.”